U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2009, 08:27 PM
 
2,546 posts, read 5,769,706 times
Reputation: 1976

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I beg to differ with you there. There is something that's 100%. It's called not having sex!
Well yeah that of course! Not many people stay abstinent forever though!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2009, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,362,738 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn07 View Post
Well yeah that of course! Not many people stay abstinent forever though!
Of course I understand that. I'm simply saying that if you are THAT against having a child, then you don't have sex. IF you are adamantly against parenting a child but are willing to go through pregnancy and childbirth if the protection fails, then you can go ahead and have sex and give the child up for adoption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 08:53 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,822,876 times
Reputation: 3843
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
IIRC the brain begins developing at something like 6 weeks along with the spine.
That's called a "neural tube". A neural tube isn't a brain. And besides, none of this changes the fact that a fetus in the 2nd trimester cannot think or feel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
As to the bolded part of your post, you are VERY glad I don't know you and that you're not saying this to me in person.
*Shrug* Whatever. I wasn't using the word "parasite" in its rhetorical sense, but in a scientific, biological sense. An organism or entity that needs the organs of another is called a "parasite". The donor is the "host". These terms simply define the biological relationship between the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
There is a fundamental difference between INTENTIONALLY KILLING another human being and simply standing by and choosing to not donate an organ, etc. and let it die on its own. An abortion is an INTENTIONAL KILLING. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE MOTHER IS INCONVENIENCED!!!!!
You are splitting hairs on the issue of intentional killing (of something that I don't view as a human being, but that's where we'll just have to agree to disagree) and non-action. It's a very convenient distinction for your purposes, but it doesn't jive with your heartfelt arguments about the sanctity of fetal life. More likely, you just don't view adults as worth saving -- especially at the expense of your health. Your argument also depends heavily on trivializing the reasons that women have to abort, as well as the reasons for the timing. Dying or ending up in a wheelchair isn't just an "inconvenience", except to a stranger who doesn't care. You demonize women as creatures with no genuine interests, none but negligible medical problems, and no legitimate interest in their own bodily autonomy or even health, as people who don't really have a care in the world -- and you get worked up about fetuses being called "parasites"? Maybe that's why you like fetuses so much -- precisely because they aren't people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
If the fetus is not viable and the mother dies, to the best of my knowledge, the fetus will die very shortly after.
There are many cases in which the physician knows that the mother will die late in the pregnancy or in childbirth, when the fetus is viable. So in those cases, I presume you would force women to continue their pregnancies and condemn them to death. But, I suppose, you can console yourself with the delusion that it's not an "intentional killing of a human being".

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
An "insane law or policy"? Third trimester and partial birth abortions being illegal is far from "insane"? FAR.... The percent of people who believe that they should be legal is probably less than 10% I'd guess.
That's because those people are ignorant and haven't actually familiarized themselves with the statute and the underlying facts. Third trimester abortions and partial birth abortions are designed to save a woman from death or debilitating injury in a situation where her fetus is not viable. Therefore, a law that criminalizes these procedures AND makes no exception for saving a woman from death or debilitating injury in a situation where her fetus is not viable is clearly insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
You argue that abortion should be legal at a stage in the fetus' development where you admitted it CAN think. That negates anything else you said here.
I said a third trimester abortion should be legal if the woman's physician thinks it is appropriate. And I never "admitted" a third-trimester fetus can "think". Even if it COULD think, I see no reason to require women to die or become disabled in order to give birth to a child that will itself die within hours or days. That's a whole lot of suffering inflicted to satisfy someone else's warped sense of righteousness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Because me refusing to support his continued existence is not an ACTION that involves me INTENTIONALLY KILLING him.
Your refusal is intentional, and it has the result of bringing about the person's death. Hey, if it's saving lives above all else, why not require organ donations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,362,738 times
Reputation: 4521
A question you conveniently ignored...

This "parasitic" relationship you speak of....while it may end medically after birth, it doesn't effectively end after birth. Would you support a mother having the right to simply kill her child for X amount of time after birth because it is an inconvenience to her? What about fathers (at that point, a father LEGALLY has just as much say)? Surely you wouldn't support a MAN getting to make any choice involving HIS child?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 09:05 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,822,876 times
Reputation: 3843
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
This "parasitic" relationship you speak of....while it may end medically after birth, it doesn't effectively end after birth.
No, the biological parasitism is over at that point. If the mother abandons the child, or dies herself, this does not mean the child will die, or require medical intervention to survive. After birth, the child is viable, and the woman's organs are no longer required to keep it alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Would you support a mother having the right to simply kill her child for X amount of time after birth because it is an inconvenience to her?
No, for reasons stated above. I also would not support her having a right to kill her child even if it's about something other than "inconvenience" (here you are, again with the women and their "convenience").

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
What about fathers (at that point, a father LEGALLY has just as much say)? Surely you wouldn't support a MAN getting to make any choice involving HIS child?
After birth, the man has exactly the same choices as the woman with respect to his child. Abandonment laws are an exception, but it's a very small exception, and one I would support eliminating, provided it did not result in greater rates of infanticide. I know you are itching to cast me as a man-hater, but the reality is, only after birth does the man have a child -- or at least at viability. Before that, he has nothing. It's not "his" fetus, and it's not "his" uterus.

Last edited by Redisca; 03-21-2009 at 09:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,362,738 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
No, the biological parasitism is over at that point. If the mother abandons the child, or dies herself, this does not mean the child will die, or require medical intervention to survive. After birth, the child is viable, and the woman's organs are no longer required to keep it alive.
I didn't mean "parasitic" there in biological sense...notice I used the term "medical" explicitly and said that it "effectively" continues.

A newborn baby may not absolutely require its MOTHER to survive but it sure requires someone taking care of it to survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
After birth, the man has exactly the same choices as the woman with respect to his child.
Again...why not before?

And for the last time...what do you think of a third trimester abortion IF it is not medically necessary? If it really is simply that she doesn't want to follow through with it AND she's willing to pay for it AND the doctor is willing to perform it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,362,738 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Before that, he has nothing. It's not "his" fetus, and it's not "his" uterus.
Alright...then how was that fetus created without him?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,362,738 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I know you are itching to cast me as a man-hater
And when you are calling me a sexist for wanting to save children (some of whom are FEMALE themselves), of course it angers me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 09:37 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,822,876 times
Reputation: 3843
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I didn't mean "parasitic" there in biological sense...notice I used the term "medical" explicitly and said that it "effectively" continues.

A newborn baby may not absolutely require its MOTHER to survive but it sure requires someone taking care of it to survive.
I'm sorry, but I relied on that term, and you are not going to redefine it for me. I am using the word "parasitic" solely in a biological sense. In that sense, the parasitic relationship ends with birth. "Someone taking care" of the child does not equal having a fetus use your body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Again...why not before?
Because men aren't pregnant. Because it's not his body that's being used to support the pregnancy. I support men's rights to their bodily autonomy and women's rights to theirs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
And for the last time...what do you think of a third trimester abortion IF it is not medically necessary? If it really is simply that she doesn't want to follow through with it AND she's willing to pay for it, etc.?
If the moon were made of green cheese, then I would say sure, let's plant grapes on our rooftops. A state has a legitimate interest in regulating third-trimester abortions, so if it banned elective ones, that would be fine by me. The problem arises in how it defines "elective". Some of us "elect" to live. Others "elect" not to risk sepsis or toxic shock. You are talking about a hypothetical so exceedingly rare and so unlikely, it hardly justifies a statute that bans all third-trimester abortions, regardless of medical necessity. I also have a big problem with legislatures (overwhelmingly composed of non-doctors) defining what "medically necessary" is and forcing that definition on physicians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Alright...then how was that fetus created without him?
It wasn't -- but contributing sperm does not give the man any rights over another human being's body, nor does it change the fact that he isn't the one whose body is being parasitized by the fetus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
And when you are calling me a sexist for wanting to save children (some of whom are FEMALE themselves), of course it angers me.
I would imagine it does, and I am sure you honestly don't consider yourself sexist. But alas, reflexively making the interests of grown, sexually active females subordinate to that of fetuses (even female ones), linking a woman's right to her bodily integrity to her (sexual) conduct, and also reflexively dismissing all women's concerns, cares, etc. as "mere convenience", invariably operating from the assumption that women (or at least women who have sex and don't want to or can't be mothers) are flippant, irrational, slutty and unstable, that women, against all common sense or actual "convenience" like to carry a fetus to 7 months, get fat and bloated, then pay tens of thousands of dollars and undergo a hospitalization and major surgery to have it aborted, claiming that women should have their power to make decisions about their own bodies taken away or curtailed in the name of protecting them (from themselves, of course) -- all of that is quite sexist, I am sorry to say. The fact that you are trying to "save" female children does not change that fact. I was a medievalist in my other life and naturally, read loads of not only sexist but frankly misogynist stuff -- and the peculiar thing is, those authors were invariably enamored of prepubescent virgins.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 930,728 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I didn't mean "parasitic" there in biological sense...notice I used the term "medical" explicitly and said that it "effectively" continues.
Then there is no point in your statement. She specifically referred to the biological sense of the word. To connote something different is just playing semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
A newborn baby may not absolutely require its MOTHER to survive but it sure requires someone taking care of it to survive.
Exactly. That's the point.

When a fetus is in utero, it requires the Mother's body to attain nutrients, oxygen, and other biological functions. Without the mother (host) the fetus (parasite) would not be able to survive. However, when the fetus is born, it no longer requires the mother's body for food or air. It can obtain both from outside sources. The parasite-host relationship ends after birth because the fetus does not exclusively require nutrients and air from the mother's body to survive. It can get that from anyone who is willing to nurse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Again...why not before?
Because a woman's body is not the property of a man's (contraire to popular belief). The man does not have the rights to tell a woman to continue or discontinue a pregnancy. It is her body and her right to do with it as she see's fit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
And for the last time...what do you think of a third trimester abortion IF it is not medically necessary? If it really is simply that she doesn't want to follow through with it AND she's willing to pay for it AND the doctor is willing to perform it?
I think that it is a horrible thing to do and warrants action. But, isn't that straying from the point? We aren't talking about women who are trying to get third trimester abortions simply because they want to. If it is MEDICALLY NECESSARY (as in the mother can die, will cause extreme birth complications, etc., etc., etc,) or will warrant the death of the mother if the pregnancy continues, I'm all for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Alright...then how was that fetus created without him?
I think you know the answer to that question; it's not the point. The point of the matter is that once the embryo develops INSIDE THE WOMAN'S BODY, it is considered a parasite and the woman can do what she wants with it. A man has no right to lay claim to her body and cannot legally demand that she abort. It's not his body. Now, when men are able to biologically become pregnant, then they can do whatever they want with their fetus. Until that point in time, they have no right whatsoever to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
And when you are calling me a sexist for wanting to save children (some of whom are FEMALE themselves), of course it angers me.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Last edited by kb09; 03-21-2009 at 10:07 PM.. Reason: spelling!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top