Life At Conception

[Stoked]

this seems a little atypical for you.

so you would support forcing a woman to submit to a medical procedure (one that does not benefit her) against her wishes?

I know a couple of people I would like to submit to a medical procedure against their wishes. What procedure you ask? Steralization.

 

[babe]

I know a couple of people I would like to submit to a medical procedure against their wishes. What procedure you ask? Steralization.

and this seems a bit atypical for you, unless you're thinking of your teenager or your little brother. . . . . and laughing so hard you're crying. . . ..

 

[Stoked]

and this seems a bit atypical for you, unless you're thinking of your teenager or your little brother. . . . . and laughing so hard you're crying. . . ..

No, I do not want to force steralize people. Of course not. But Sweet Lord some people deserve it haha.

 

[moevillini]

I know a couple of people I would like to submit to a medical procedure against their wishes. What procedure you ask? Steralization.

well, I guess forcing someone to wear handcuffs wouldn't be a medical procedure anyhow, but it would sure make it difficult to type out a response on a keyboard

:wink:

 

[PearlWatson]

Yea maybe if there weren't so many viagra/steroid up little boys running around dipping their sticks there wouldn't be so many pregnancies. Seriously, your comment is putting all the blame on the women.

Religious beliefs should never be part of law in a democracy. I certainly think that men should have some say in whether they want their child. You can't expect the man to be financially responsible if he has no say. I am against partial-birth abortions but feel the government has no right to tell any one what to do with their bodies. Making laws prohibited some never works just look at prohibition, drugs etc. People will find a way around the law. Do we really want to start throw women into jail because they took the morning after pill? Our prisons are already filled up enough, so how about all the conservatives move on to some other issue that matters.

I hold the female most responsible, seeing as she has the most power in terms of whether the sex act occurs (don't bother bringing up rape), how well that child flourishes, and whether the child lives or dies. There has always been males willing to "dip their sticks" anywhere they are allowed, but we are now seeing since the sexual de-evolution is a increase in females who are willing to allow this without requiring a commitment. When the females/mothers in a society lose morals then our entire society is pretty much on a downward spiral.

For some reason I don't have any sympathy for a guy who screws around and has to pay for raising his seed.

 

[babe]

well. . . . . .

it's true that men have impaired brains on account of the effects of testosterone during early development. . . .. causing a lot of neural connections between the right and left brain to be cut, and losing a lot of power for processing multiple inputs and doing multiple tasks simultaneously.

Testosterone accounts for the temporary insanity just seeing a pretty girl is, for a man.

girls playing with guys is like guys playing with matches in summer-baked cheatgrass.

I say the guys deserve some sympathy, because they are what they are, and there are girls.

 

[Siro]

The woman finds herself attached to an embryo/fetus she has never met. You really don't see that?

Some people, with more patriarchal mindset, see the embryo/fetus as some sort of extension of the man who did the insemination (at least, morally), but I did not think you were among them.



In your scenario, is it a crime to refuse to flip over the violinist? Should it be?

The woman finds herself attached to a fetus she's never met? I thought pregnancy was a possible consequence of sex, and the natural way our species propagates. So yes, a woman finds that her actions have consequences. This is like killing the chef because his food is too good to resist and is making you fat. It is about as a different a situation as it gets from that silly violinist torture fantasy.

There are two relevant facts here:

1. An action undertaken by one person predictably led to the creation of another.
2. That new person now has the same rights as anyone else. The attachment to the mother's body is incidental. It is simply what the species ended up with. And until technology that provides an alternate path is developed, we must accept that a human must develop inside of another for the first 9 months of its existence.

As for your second point, there are several issues with your question. Prime among them is the fact that willingly letting someone die when it was within one's means to prevent it is indeed against the law and any reasonable understanding of morality. This isn't even controversial. Are you saying "I do what I want" should be our guiding principle for moral judgement? In that case this whole conversation is moot. Morality is whatever winning the argument calls for and that's that.

 

[One Brow]

this seems a little atypical for you.

so you would support forcing a woman to submit to a medical procedure (one that does not benefit her) against her wishes?

It's quite possible I have not sufficiently thought this through. Is there a large difference in risk between removing a 6-month fetus alive and aborting it? Either the birth or the abortion is a medical procedure, so it's not in the same category as forcing an additional medical procedure on the woman.

 

[One Brow]

I hold the female most responsible, seeing as she has the most power ... There has always been males willing to "dip their sticks"

One of the prime examples why patriarchy is actually dismissive and denigrating to men, as well as women.

 

[moevillini]

It's quite possible I have not sufficiently thought this through. Is there a large difference in risk between removing a 6-month fetus alive and aborting it? Either the birth or the abortion is a medical procedure, so it's not in the same category as forcing an additional medical procedure on the woman.

well there'd definitely be a grave risk to a 6 month fetus if labor was induced at so early a stage in its development


the bottom line on this as I see it is that there are difficult moral decisions to be made whatever one believes about when life becomes human and has "rights" - or whose rights are primary, the mother's or the fetus' - and I don't think you can have it both ways. At least not at present, who knows what the future may hold.

 

[One Brow]

The woman finds herself attached to a fetus she's never met? I thought pregnancy was a possible consequence of sex, and the natural way our species propagates. So yes, a woman finds that her actions have consequences.

That's a lovely thought salad, but there was no real connection between the response and the question. Yes, the woman finds herself attached to an embryo/fetus she has never met.

2. That new person now has the same rights as anyone else. The attachment to the mother's body is incidental. It is simply what the species ended up with. And until technology that provides an alternate path is developed, we must accept that a human must develop inside of another for the first 9 months of its existence.

You don't want to the give the fetus the *same* rights as anyone else, you want to give the fetus rights that no other human possess, and you justify that through an act of the woman where no wrong is performed, using the word "consequences" to hide the moral opprobrium you are attaching to it.

As for your second point, there are several issues with your question. Prime among them is the fact that willingly letting someone die when it was within one's means to prevent it is indeed against the law and any reasonable understanding of morality. This isn't even controversial.

Unless you have some sort of medical license, I don't think there is any law that requires you to flip over a person, even if you think they are drowning in their vomit. Morally required/expected is a different issue.

 

[One Brow]

well there'd definitely be a grave risk to a 6 month fetus if labor was induced at so early a stage in its development

I agree, but surely no greater risk than that involved in an abortion.

the bottom line on this as I see it is that there are difficult moral decisions to be made whatever one believes about when life becomes human and has "rights" - or whose rights are primary, the mother's or the fetus' - and I don't think you can have it both ways. At least not at present, who knows what the future may hold.

My position is that the fetus has no right to continue existing by use of the woman's body, but if the fetus can survive without such use, the woman doesn't have a right to actively terminate a potentially independent being.