Aborted fetus = Lucky bastard?

[bennylava]

I have another question for you. If a fertilized egg has a soul.....
what about chemical pregnancies? That is a blighted ovum, when the ovum is fertilized, it just don't take, there is something genetically wrong in that particular egg. It will start to divide and then even can implant in the uterine lining, but it is not genetically going to grow into a human and within weeks is expelled naturally by the body.
Still, it is a fertilized egg, it can implant and it does put out enough hormonal signals to create a positive pregnancy test.

Question is: does a fertilized egg such as this have a soul, for those of you who are prolife.

 

[Shogun]

oh you silly womenz...

Please do read my previous statements regarding this issue.. You might wanna think a few more minutes about these two threads before whipping out the charge of inconsistency.. hehehehe..


You may notice that each of those quotes specifically mentioned the zygote stage... which is what, I'm betting, was being debated then rather than the FETUS (remember, my ole heartbeat compromise?) being discussed now. THEN, I was making the exact same arguement about the earlier stage being affected.


tsk tsk tsk you silly womenz.

 

[Ravi]

oh you silly womenz...

Please do read my previous statements regarding this issue.. You might wanna think a few more minutes about these two threads before whipping out the charge of inconsistency.. hehehehe..


You may notice that each of those quotes specifically mentioned the zygote stage... which is what, I'm betting, was being debated then rather than the FETUS (remember, my ole heartbeat compromise?) being discussed now. THEN, I was making the exact same arguement about the earlier stage being affected.


tsk tsk tsk you silly womenz.

Let's stipulate that you weren't being inconsistent on that point, though I have my doubts.

Where you are being inconsistent is in your claim that sharing DNA makes the fetus or zygote or what have you not a part of the woman's body. If that is what you believe, then as soon as the egg is fertilized it shares DNA with the sperm donor and therefore is never part of the woman's body. Just like baby Shogun the kidney.

In reality you believe the woman never has a choice unless you give her permission.

I'd also like to see your evidence that there are no medical people that believe a fetus is part of a woman's body.

 

[Shogun]

i invite you to read that thread and find out for yourself.

Oh.. and Kidneys don't grow into autonomous human beings like a fetus will. That fetus, once a heartbeat develops, is not just "your" body.


and I'm not looking for permission outside of the fair input from the other contributor to the DNA of the fetus. You may label anything less than absolute female input as "control" if you want but you are purposefully ignoring the exact same opportunity that both parties have when choosing to have sex. You assume that this mutual decision to fuck is the only point at which a man should have input. I would argue that the DNA of the brand new human that has been allowed to develop a heartbeat says otherwise.

 

[The_Hammer]

Wow go away for two days and looks at what happens.

Ah, a non sequitor. Got it.

Okay. Because you obviously don't understand the defnition of what "alive" and "life" I'll let these go. It's not a non sequitor if only you don't understand it. Look up life and alive in a dictionary and try and find the scientific (ie secular) definition of life. Hopefully you won't talk out of turn next time someone says "alive". I'm not wrong just because you don't understand somethings definition.

I'm not even sure where Hammer is going with it. On the one hand he says the father should not, in reality, be allowed to abandon the child. But in some theoretical fantasyland he should be allowed to abandon the child.

Sometimes one argues a point that one can not directly contradict because doing so falls into the "belief" category and you can't argue a "belief". You can only prove them. For example, if I were to simply say "Abortions are wrong because a fetus is a person" someone might simply say "I don't believe fetus' are persons" or quite simply "Prove it." From a arguing perspective you first must agree on what the definition of person is. In our argument I have assumed that the "person" being referred to as that which includes personal identity, self-awareness, individuality, and a sense of self that persists through time. Unfortunately babies aren't even persons' in this context until about 8 months because they act entirely off of instinct and a definitive application of person can't be strapped to any human being till their late teens. But this is what I've got to work with so I use it.

Now that I have an agreed upon definition of person I have to argue that A) A fetus is one or B) something related to the argument (Abortions being acceptable) that makes the argument fail due to inconsistency or or fail since it causes the argument to contradict another already established argument (sometimes called a truth). That's what I'm doing when I'm arguing about fathers being able to abandon their children in an equal way as mothers. If a fetus is a person abortion is murder and is wrong. If a fetus isn't a person then responsiblity can't just be given to a non-person because then we'd should be responsible for other living, non-human. Personhood can't just magically pop up out of thin air, and even if it does develop when the act of conception occurs it isn't a person. Therefore when the contract of sex is "signed" by giving concent, the non-person status must carry over to the fathers decision since while it's not a person the mother has the opportunity to terminate her pregnacy he should thusly be able to reject the child as well.

 

[The_Hammer]

Oh you're so full of crap.

No he's not. Biological difference do not confern any value nor do they have any inherent value when you are making an moral argument regarding equality. Physical things can't because then you'd related them to utility and something could be "righ" or "better" simply because physically it functions more efficiently.

Nope. I believe everyone has the final say over their own body.

Then a man should have final say over whether or not the work he does over his own body goes to paying for the care of a child.

 

[Care4all]

i invite you to read that thread and find out for yourself.

Oh.. and Kidneys don't grow into autonomous human beings like a fetus will. That fetus, once a heartbeat develops, is not just "your" body.


and I'm not looking for permission outside of the fair input from the other contributor to the DNA of the fetus. You may label anything less than absolute female input as "control" if you want but you are purposefully ignoring the exact same opportunity that both parties have when choosing to have sex. You assume that this mutual decision to fuck is the only point at which a man should have input. I would argue that the DNA of the brand new human that has been allowed to develop a heartbeat says otherwise.

good morning shogun,

May I ask a few questions of ya?

What is a "fair input" of the other contributor of the DNA?

How do you see a "fair input" to be regulated or legislated?

I see ALOT of vivid problems and many unforseen to arise also...

How would the other contributor ever "know" if the female contributor never told them?

How would the female who has had multiple partners "know" who the other DNA contributor is?

How would you enforce this "fair input" if the one contributor, the female, does not want to go through with hosting the child for the 9 months and the other contributor, the male wants the female to take the health risks of pregnancy to bear his child?

If both the male and female are equal then who would win the arbitration?

What if the mother to be of this child knows that her family has a history of the mothers dying in childbirth or with a high risk of high blood pressure/hypertension with pregnancy, does she HAVE TO SHARE this personal family medical history with the public in a courtroom in order for her to choose not to bear this child if the guy wants it?

I think it is "all wonderful" that you think the "guy" should have a say in whether a woman should abort or not....but there is no feasible way for this to be done imo and you are just wasting your time on a point that will never have a completely "fair" resolution?

Care

 

[Shogun]

I think the placements of your quotations indicate a scorching case of the steinams. I hear there is a "creme" for that.


Out of the office till Monday. Go enjoy your weekend, people. shit. Go play with your kids.

 

[Ravi]

Then a man should have final say over whether or not the work he does over his own body goes to paying for the care of a child.

Why? A woman certainly does not have a say over caring for a living child in this manner either.

 

[Ravi]

Shogun can't admit that he's a control freak is my guess. It be interesting to see him pregnant and have the sperm donor be the one trying to force him to give birth.

 

[Care4all]

I think the placements of your quotations indicate a scorching case of the steinams. I hear there is a "creme" for that.


Out of the office till Monday. Go enjoy your weekend, people. shit. Go play with your kids.

No, not at all Shogun, just a realist...

And if you could see a route where the man can have some say, in whether he should support his child to be or NOT or whether the woman could be forced by the man to abort their future child if he says so, by all means, I am opened to hear such....

I just don't see it feasible...show me how I am wrong on this Shogun....debate the issue! I could just be playing devil's advocate for all you know about me?

care

 

[The_Hammer]

Why? A woman certainly does not have a say over caring for a living child in this manner either.

O yes she does. She has the opportunity while pregnant to abort her fetus. If she chooses not to take it, then she has to care for a child.

 

[Care4all]

No he's not. Biological difference do not confern any value nor do they have any inherent value when you are making an moral argument regarding equality. Physical things can't because then you'd related them to utility and something could be "righ" or "better" simply because physically it functions more efficiently.



Then a man should have final say over whether or not the work he does over his own body goes to paying for the care of a child.

He has plenty of say, when he decides to plant his seed in her.... FINAL ANSWER! imho!

What if abortion were not an option, what copout would you and those that feel the same way use then, to not support your own breathing flesh and blood?

 

[Shogun]

Shogun can't admit that he's a control freak is my guess. It be interesting to see him pregnant and have the sperm donor be the one trying to force him to give birth.

thats about as far from reality as it can get. Lemme guess, because I DARE to point out the inequality you profess is entirely a womans choice I must also beat my wife too, right? make her get her ass in the kitchen and make me some pie?





typical reaction from a woman who wants to enjoy equality as long as she doesn't have to give any quarter to a man seeking the same. I take it you never did have anything to offer that suggests that a fetus is entirely YOUR body? Hell, when the debate seems to be falling from your grasp just insinuate that I must hate women and cant get laid. Hell, Jillian should recognize that kind of silly irrelevant bullshit from our bouts regarding isreal. In fact, no wonder she was such a big fan of that kind of "logic" thus far in the thread.

 

[Shogun]

O yes she does. She has the opportunity while pregnant to abort her fetus. If she chooses not to take it, then she has to care for a child.

DINGDINGDINGDING we have a winner.

 

[Shogun]

He has plenty of say, when he decides to plant his seed in her.... FINAL ANSWER! imho!

What if abortion were not an option, what copout would you and those that feel the same way use then, to not support your own breathing flesh and blood?

NOT Final answer, according to the genetic makeup of the child that shares his DNA.


Again, you ignore that the same can be said when a woman unzips her own pants and makes the exact same decision to fuck. If you wanna be callous about the options of men then expect the same regarding the options of women. I realize this EQUALITY thing is hard to grasp for those used to crying "my body" since the 60s but it really is a fact that a fetus is not merely "your body" to kill as you please or keep as long as the court can force a man to pay child support. sorry. Hate to burst your vagina monologue bubble but if a drunk driver can be put away for manslaughter for killing a fetus then you have no logical claim to that fetus as your own body. Hence, the valid appeal to the paternal rights of men regarding THEIR shared child.

 

[The_Hammer]

He has plenty of say, when he decides to plant his seed in her.... FINAL ANSWER! imho!

As does she when she spreads her legs, or decides to get scraped.

And that gentlemen is why opinions are moot when arguing a point.

What if abortion were not an option, what copout would you and those that feel the same way use then, to not support your own breathing flesh and blood?

If abortion is not an option then neither parent has the option of abandonning their child. As soon as it's born and indeed before hand (because I doubt anyone wouldn't consider a fetus a person in that situation) both people are responsible for it.

 

[Ravi]

O yes she does. She has the opportunity while pregnant to abort her fetus. If she chooses not to take it, then she has to care for a child.

Yep. She has the choice to abort and he has the choice to not have sex. Sucks, I know, but you cannot force another person to bear a child.

Once the child is alive, both parents are responsible for it. Before it is born, one body is responsible for it.

 

[Taomon]

Yep. She has the choice to abort and he has the choice to not have sex. Sucks, I know, but you cannot force another person to bear a child.

Once the child is alive, both parents are responsible for it. Before it is born, one body is responsible for it.

And there it is in a nut-shell. Ravir, the entire argument rests on those few words.

 

[Ravi]

thats about as far from reality as it can get. Lemme guess, because I DARE to point out the inequality you profess is entirely a womans choice I must also beat my wife too, right? make her get her ass in the kitchen and make me some pie?





typical reaction from a woman who wants to enjoy equality as long as she doesn't have to give any quarter to a man seeking the same. I take it you never did have anything to offer that suggests that a fetus is entirely YOUR body? Hell, when the debate seems to be falling from your grasp just insinuate that I must hate women and cant get laid. Hell, Jillian should recognize that kind of silly irrelevant bullshit from our bouts regarding isreal. In fact, no wonder she was such a big fan of that kind of "logic" thus far in the thread.

I don't know if you beat your wife or not, it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand. I also don't know if you hate women. And I have no idea of your chances of getting laid.

I do know that no one will ever force you to give birth though, and I also know that you do not have the option of forcing someone else to, and all your whining about the unfairness of it all changes nothing.