Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:00 am UTC

Ryom wrote:You called me uncaring (lacking empathy), but I would consider this post to be most uncaring. It's your child. It's selfish to take its life away just because you want to have a particular flavor of sex. Adults have to make adult choices, and not all of them are the easy or fun choice. You're within your rights to make that choice, but I think you should have to bear responsibility with your partner for the results.
Considering that the majority of animals we slaughter and butcher for meat are far more developed neurologically then the average aborted fetus - would you also consider the same moral implications to take effect whenever you eat at the local Burgerking? Or do you consider human cells, however underdeveloped in comparison to other creatures, to be stuffed full of magical 'Morality-Dusttm' which somehow makes their destruction much more abominable than the destruction of organisms far more sophisticated and far more capable of responding to pain?

Just sayin'; I'm all about respecting life, but keep this shit in perspective.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:01 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:01 am UTC

If the man chooses to not let the woman abort, he should bear direct legal responsibility for the well being of the child and mother. No skipping off without going to jail until he wises up. And keep in mind I've already stated that aborting should be the woman's call if there are clear health risks to her.

And to the animals thing: I admit it, I'm a human supremacist.
Last edited by Ryom on Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:09 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:01 am UTC

Ryom wrote:You called me uncaring (lacking empathy), but I would consider this post to be most uncaring. It's your child. It's selfish to take its life away just because you want to have a particular flavor of sex. Adults have to make adult choices, and not all of them are the easy or fun choice. You're within your rights to make that choice, but I think you should have to bear responsibility with your partner for the results.

999 times out of 1000 or better there will be no consequences. But when that 1 time rolls around, man up and face it if you chose to roll the dice. Is vaginal sex worth it? That's for you to decide.


'take its life away'

...what life? It's a clump of cells.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Heavenlytoaster
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Heavenlytoaster » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:03 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:...what life? It's a clump of cells.


Like you, or me, or... anything that is alive?

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:05 am UTC

A clump of cells which left alone will, in the great majority of cases, turn into a healthy child. Your child.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby SummerGlauFan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:06 am UTC

Le sigh

Well, I tried to inject reason here. I'm going to go to bed now. Unless I get drawn back into the internet.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:08 am UTC

Ryom wrote:Talking to me Bubbles? I morally oppose abortion but I wouldn't legislate it away. It's the choice of BOTH PARENTS. They'll have to live with killing their child.

...but as continuously brought up earlier, giving birth to the child is still entirely the responsibility of the woman - it seems as though you are attempting to foist your personal values of what a relationship should look like upon everyone. Not everyone is interested in strung out relationships where any instance of sex is preceded by a lengthly discussion of abortion ethics, ultimately if abortion itself isn't controlled by the state I do not see how this should be; both are matters of personal conscience playing into how you conduct your personal life. Considering how much of a burden you are placing upon women in this circumstance, I don't see why it should be so difficult for you to know of the stance your partner takes on abortion before risking pregnancy.

@SummerGlauFan - I think for the context of the discussion, medical issues aren't that important. Any such bill restricting abortions in this way can account for medical issues; the more interesting debate here lies in the general ethics of father-informed abortion.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:09 am UTC

Ryom wrote:And keep in mind I've already stated that aborting should be the woman's call if there are clear health risks to her.
Er. There is no such thing as a pregnancy that doesn't have a clear health risk.

Do you really want to create a gradient, here? "It's only your call if there's this much of a chance you'll die..."
Ryom wrote:And to the animals thing: I admit it, I'm a human supremacist.
Well, okay. But just keep that in mind when you're discussing reverence to life - your reverence is chiefly centered on human life. Which, as far as I can see, is an arbitrary distinction. Having a problem with killing a clump of cells because it's got human DNA but simultaneously having no problem with killing a fully grown, fully functioning animal - one capable of social and emotional interaction several degrees above a newborn infant - strikes me as bit of a contradiction.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Xeio » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Ryom wrote:A clump of cells which left alone will, in the great majority of cases, turn into a healthy child. Your child.
Not without acting as a parasite for about 9 months to the mother. (A bit less, if you immediately remove it when it becomes viable to survive on its own.)

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:18 am UTC

Heavenlytoaster wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:...what life? It's a clump of cells.


Like you, or me, or... anything that is alive?


No! Because it's not conscious and can't live on its own. Why would we grant it autonomy?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:18 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:...giving birth to the child is still entirely the responsibility of the woman - it seems as though you are attempting to foist your personal values of what a relationship should look like upon everyone. Not everyone is interested in strung out relationships where any instance of sex is preceded by a lengthly discussion of abortion ethics...


This kind of thinking should be taught in school during sex ed. Very little discussion needed, if they both agree to have vaginal intercourse, they'll know the risks and consequences.

The women does bear the physical responsibilities of pregnancy, but she also has complete say so of where a man can and cannot enter. My sympathies are limited when both partners act rashly and then find out their differences of opinion come baby time.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:20 am UTC

Xeio wrote:
Ryom wrote:A clump of cells which left alone will, in the great majority of cases, turn into a healthy child. Your child.
Not without acting as a parasite for about 9 months to the mother. (A bit less, if you immediately remove it when it becomes viable to survive on its own.)
And since when do we attach moral value to the destruction of what might be, anyway? This sort of thinking always struck me as troublesome - is it morally abhorrent for me to destroy sperm before they reach the egg? I don't see any particular distinction between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg next to a sperm; the moment of conception isn't some sort of 'magical moment' that makes everything different. If killing sperm before they reach the egg is morally neutral, why is killing the egg once the sperm have reached it morally reprehensible? It's a completely arbitrary distinction. Magical thinking. You might as well call vasectomies the equivalent of a genocide.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:21 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:21 am UTC

The sperm hasn't fertilized the hand towel and started gestation.

edit: changed 'tissue' to 'hand towel' to clarify, i.e. kleenex vs human tissue (egg)
Last edited by Ryom on Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:33 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:23 am UTC

Ryom wrote:The sperm hasn't fertilized the tissue and created a baby in 9 months.
It will, given the chance. By interrupting the process, you've killed the potential baby - by killing the sperm before it reaches its destination, you've murdered potential. What's the distinction? The act of fertilization itself? Why is that the 'special moment', the 'magical gateway' where morality suddenly becomes absolute?

Heavenlytoaster
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Heavenlytoaster » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:25 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Ryom wrote:The sperm hasn't fertilized the tissue and created a baby in 9 months.
It will, given the chance. By interrupting the process, you've killed the potential baby - by killing the sperm before it reaches its destination, you've murdered potential. What's the distinction? The act of fertilization itself? Why is that the 'special moment', the 'magical gateway' where morality suddenly becomes absolute?


One could argue that is when the genetic code is complete.

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Heavenlytoaster wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:...what life? It's a clump of cells.


Like you, or me, or... anything that is alive?


No! Because it's not conscious and can't live on its own. Why would we grant it autonomy?


I'm just saying that "its a clump of cells" in and of itself isn't really a legitimate reason, as that can be said of anything.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby SummerGlauFan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:25 am UTC

I am avoiding sleep, so I will post this instead.
Bubbles McCoy wrote:
@SummerGlauFan - I think for the context of the discussion, medical issues aren't that important. Any such bill restricting abortions in this way can account for medical issues; the more interesting debate here lies in the general ethics of father-informed abortion.


Well, the medical concerns are only a part of it. I also mentioned cases where the woman would be better off without any further dealings with the father. You also have to consider the invasion of privacy going on here, up to investigating every guy she has had sex with at x period of time if she was unsure of who the father was.

In short, I am saying this would open a whole new, huge can of worms. Fortunately, it almost certainly will not pass.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:27 am UTC

Heavenlytoaster wrote:I'm just saying that "its a clump of cells" in and of itself isn't really a legitimate reason, as that can be said of anything.

You're technically correct. (Which is the best KIND of correct!)

But in my statement that "it's a clump of cells" there is an implied clarification that that is ALL it bloody is.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:29 am UTC

Ryom wrote:This kind of thinking should be taught in school during sex ed. Very little discussion needed, if they both agree to have vaginal intercourse, they'll know the risks and consequences.

The women does bear the physical responsibilities of pregnancy, but she also has complete say so of where a man can and cannot enter. My sympathies are limited when both partners act rashly and then find out their differences of opinion come baby time.

There still seems to be siginificant values dissonance going on here; should abortion be dictated by individuals why shouldn't the terms on which one can occur be to? I guess what this seems to come down to is that you expect a certain ruleset to be assumed when engaging in sex, but many people have no interest in abiding by your rules when it comes down to it. Given that these "consequences" are already varying between peoples' moral outlooks, why should the government enforce a single set of expectations simply because it is yours?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:32 am UTC

Heavenlytoaster wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Ryom wrote:The sperm hasn't fertilized the tissue and created a baby in 9 months.
It will, given the chance. By interrupting the process, you've killed the potential baby - by killing the sperm before it reaches its destination, you've murdered potential. What's the distinction? The act of fertilization itself? Why is that the 'special moment', the 'magical gateway' where morality suddenly becomes absolute?


One could argue that is when the genetic code is complete.
So it's cells that have complete genetic code that defines something as human enough to make it reprehensible to kill? The sanctity of human life is determined by the existence of human DNA in an organism capable of growing into another human? Because, right off the top of my head, that makes stem cell research - along with any research involving the regeneration of human cells - very, very problematic. Like, potentially millions of mini-abortions. Or could we make a special exception for these situations?

Heavenlytoaster
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Heavenlytoaster » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:33 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Heavenlytoaster wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Ryom wrote:The sperm hasn't fertilized the tissue and created a baby in 9 months.
It will, given the chance. By interrupting the process, you've killed the potential baby - by killing the sperm before it reaches its destination, you've murdered potential. What's the distinction? The act of fertilization itself? Why is that the 'special moment', the 'magical gateway' where morality suddenly becomes absolute?


One could argue that is when the genetic code is complete.
So it's cells that have complete genetic code that defines something as human enough to make it reprehensible to kill? The sanctity of human life is determined by the existence of human DNA in an organism capable of growing into another human? Because, right off the top of my head, that makes stem cell research - along with any research involving the regeneration of human cells - very, very problematic. Like, potentially millions of mini-abortions. Or could we make a special exception for these situations?


Not really making a claim either way, but it does seem slightly less arbitrary than picking some stage of development.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby SummerGlauFan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:33 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Heavenlytoaster wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Ryom wrote:The sperm hasn't fertilized the tissue and created a baby in 9 months.
It will, given the chance. By interrupting the process, you've killed the potential baby - by killing the sperm before it reaches its destination, you've murdered potential. What's the distinction? The act of fertilization itself? Why is that the 'special moment', the 'magical gateway' where morality suddenly becomes absolute?


One could argue that is when the genetic code is complete.
So it's cells that have complete genetic code that defines something as human enough to make it reprehensible to kill? The sanctity of human life is determined by the existence of human DNA in an organism capable of growing into another human? Because, right off the top of my head, that makes stem cell research - along with any research involving the regeneration of human cells - very, very problematic. Like, potentially millions of mini-abortions. Or could we make a special exception for these situations?


Not to mention, sex with condoms, surgery, scratching an itch, donating blood, etc.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:35 am UTC

Heavenlytoaster wrote:Not really making a claim either way, but it does seem slightly less arbitrary than picking some stage of development.

How about the stage where you take it out and it doesn't right away?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Telchar » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:36 am UTC

Xeio wrote:You know, this somewhat confuses me sometimes. What if the father doesn't want the child? I'd agree, he shouldn't have any right to force the mother to get an abortion, but why should he be forced to support the child? Situations such as marriage (where the law already basically defines two people as a couple) make this simpler, but what if it was an accidental pregnancy with two unmarried people, or those not in a committed relationship?


Can somone answer that? I had the same question reading the initial thread and now that Aetius isn't talking anymore it's getting boring.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:39 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Ryom wrote:The sperm hasn't fertilized the tissue and created a baby in 9 months.
It will, given the chance...


Coulda, shoulda, woulda. IT DIDN'T.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:40 am UTC

Look Ryom, here's what you're saying:

There should be risks of sex that aren't fixable (even though they could be) which would lower sex and abortions.

You're either slightly sex phobic or you're pro life. Just admit which it is and stop dictating other people's morals.
Or maybe you think there should be less abortion or less unwanted babies. If either is your goal you really should be in favor of comprehensive sex education.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:41 am UTC

Ryom wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Ryom wrote:The sperm hasn't fertilized the tissue and created a baby in 9 months.
It will, given the chance...


Coulda, shoulda, woulda. IT DIDN'T.

Which is exactly what one can say of an abortion.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:42 am UTC

Heavenlytoaster wrote:Not really making a claim either way, but it does seem slightly less arbitrary than picking some stage of development.
I think that it's regrettably convenient; moralists would claim that morality should not be dictated by pragmatic concerns, of course ("You can't say it's not human life just so we can do experiments on it!"), but really, they're the ones who have to do the heavy lifting here ("Exactly why are we valuing potential things rather than things themselves? Do you find it morally repugnant to destroy a seed because you imagine it might one day grow into a plant that would later go on to feed a family?").
Ryom wrote:Coulda, shoulda, woulda. IT DIDN'T.
Right. Because you aborted it with a condom, or she aborted it with spermicide. That's the point; there's little to no functional difference between aborting something by killing the sperm before it fertilizes the egg and aborting something by killing the fertilized egg. They're essentially the same; but one is classified as morally neutral and one is classified as morally repugnant. Why?

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:46 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:...why should the government enforce a single set of expectations simply because it is yours?

Because there is a life (or two, or three or...) on the line. A life that should be the responsibility of both parents until it is legally adult. I've outlined the terms by which the parents could end that life, even though I oppose it.


The Great Hippo wrote:Right. Because you aborted it with a condom, or she aborted it with spermicide. That's the point; there's little to no functional difference between aborting something by killing the sperm before it fertilizes the egg and aborting something by killing the fertilized egg. They're essentially the same; but one is classified as morally neutral and one is classified as morally repugnant. Why?

Be careful where you tread hippo. If you want to play that game then: Murder is worse than rape, therefore every man should rape everyone women he can find capable of conception rather than let semen go to waste.

Sounds stupid doesn't it? Sperm is not aborted, as it's not anything other than protein. Hydrogen turns into people too eventually, but I support fusion research.
Last edited by Ryom on Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:51 am UTC, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:47 am UTC

A life that literally doesn't have autonomy, isn't exactly life. Also answer my previous post.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:51 am UTC

Ryom wrote:Because there is a life (or two, or three or...) on the line. A life that should be the responsibility of both parents until it is legally adult.
Here's a thought: Am I morally responsible for cancer? Even if the cancer is non-threatening? Because, hey, cancer has human DNA, so it really should qualify.
Ryom wrote:Be careful where you tread hippo. If you want to play that game then: Murder is worse than rape, therefore every man should rape everyone women he can find capable of conception rather than let semen go to waste. Sounds stupid doesn't it?
Although I would not phrase it at all like you did, that's what your position amounts to when taken to its logical end. If you can't make a distinction between destroying sperm and destroying fertilized eggs (and I'm guessing you can't), then masturbation is murder. Sucks, doesn't it?

Edit: ...your distinction is that sperm is a protein? Okay, first off, you're wrong; sperm are cells. Fully functioning, fully living cells. Second off: Seriously? That's the distinction? If something's made up of proteins, it doesn't 'count'?
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:58 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:58 am UTC

Ryom wrote:Because there is a life (or two, or three or...) on the line. A life that should be the responsibility of both parents until it is legally adult. I've outlined the terms by which the parents could end that life, even though I oppose it.

But again, you have already admitted that abortion should not be fully controlled by the government; if you're already allowing for personal morality to dicate the terms of whether or not an abortion is okay than why would you have government take the role of personal morality in the context of informing partners?

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:59 am UTC

I'm glad you edited your post to include that list bit.

Semen left on its own decomposes. Unfertilized eggs decompose. Fertilized eggs left on their own turn into babies. A clear and simple distinction if there ever was one.

Heavenlytoaster
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Heavenlytoaster » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:01 am UTC

Ryom wrote:I'm glad you edited your post to include that list bit.

Semen left on its own decomposes. Unfertilized eggs decompose. Fertilized eggs left on their own turn into babies. A clear and simple distinction if there ever was one.


Left on their own fertilized eggs die and decompose, inside a person getting nutrients != left on their own.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:01 am UTC

If by on their own you mean leeching off another human being, I suppose you're correct. I'd like you to answer my earlier question.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:02 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
Ryom wrote:Because there is a life (or two, or three or...) on the line. A life that should be the responsibility of both parents until it is legally adult. I've outlined the terms by which the parents could end that life, even though I oppose it.

But again, you have already admitted that abortion should not be fully controlled by the government; if you're already allowing for personal morality to dicate the terms of whether or not an abortion is okay than why would you have government take the role of personal morality in the context of informing partners?

The government should educate children via public schools with sex ed. They should make informed decisions as adults. If they chose to involve a 3rd party in their life, then they need an impartial judicator to see that the 3rd party is represented without bias.



Intercept wrote:If by on their own you mean leeching off another human being, I suppose you're correct. I'd like you to answer my earlier question.

This thread is moving fast, which question?

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:04 am UTC

Intercept wrote:Look Ryom, here's what you're saying:

There should be risks of sex that aren't fixable (even though they could be) which would lower sex and abortions.

You're either slightly sex phobic or you're pro life. Just admit which it is and stop dictating other people's morals.
Or maybe you think there should be less abortion or less unwanted babies. If either is your goal you really should be in favor of comprehensive sex education.


That question.

And again, this third person lacks both autonomy and feeling.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:05 am UTC

Ryom wrote:Semen left on its own decomposes. Unfertilized eggs decompose. Fertilized eggs left on their own turn into babies. A clear and simple distinction if there ever was one.
Uh? No, fertilized eggs left on their own decompose and die. They require a uterus wall to attach to, and can be aborted. Semen left on their own decompose and die; they require an egg to fertilize, and can be aborted. Unfertilized eggs left on their own decompose and die; they require a sperm to be fertilized by, and can be aborted.

If you're trying to set up some "You have to take an action to stop a fertilized egg from growing" distinction here, you're not going to get far. Stopping sperm from fertilizing an egg is as much of an action as removing a fertilized egg. There's no distinction there.

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Ryom » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:11 am UTC

I'm morally opposed to abortion, without forcing my morals on others. I believe that both parents should have a say in abortion because they need to take personal responsibility for their actions. The mother has total say in whether the baby even has a chance to get conceived yet she gets to end its life without any regard for the father? The mother has perfect birth control available to her and enforced by law. Poor choices paid with the life of your firstborn is not responsibility.

Sex is great, comprehensive sex ed should be a priority. Personal responsibility should be paramount. You're creating life, own up to it.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:14 am UTC

Ryom wrote:I'm morally opposed to abortion, without forcing my morals on others. I believe that both parents should have a say in abortion because they need to take personal responsibility for their actions. The mother has total say in whether the baby even has a chance to get conceived yet she gets to end its life without any regard for the father? The mother has perfect birth control available to her and enforced by law. Poor choices paid with the life of your firstborn is not responsibility.

Sex is great, comprehensive sex ed should be a priority. Personal responsibility should be paramount. You're creating life, own up to it.
Magical thinking.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:15 am UTC

It's not life. Not life with rights at the very least.

So you're opposed to abortion. They don't have equal responsibility though. Before pregnancy? Yes. During pregnancy? No. After pregnancy? No. So you're wrong. Autonomy of conscious being>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>over egg.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests