Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:09 pm
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
simple schoolboy wrote:
Quote:
there are no other obligatory repercussions for him
Thats not necessarily the case. What about obligatory child support should the woman choose to carry the child to term?
that has no relation to if a woman decides to abort a pregnancy, friend.
And think for a moment if you will about the lengths to which a woman has to go in order to have 'obligatory child support' from the father of a child - court, genetic testing, often shame and humiliation about her sex life or sexual history... can you come up with a similar set of circumstances and outcomes for men? I can't.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:17 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
malice wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Quote:
there are no other obligatory repercussions for him
Thats not necessarily the case. What about obligatory child support should the woman choose to carry the child to term?
that has no relation to if a woman decides to abort a pregnancy, friend.
And think for a moment if you will about the lengths to which a woman has to go in order to have 'obligatory child support' from the father of a child - court, genetic testing, often shame and humiliation about her sex life or sexual history... can you come up with a similar set of circumstances and outcomes for men? I can't.
does their friends making fun of them for "bangin' a fatty" count?
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:24 pm
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
EllisEamos wrote:
malice wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Quote:
there are no other obligatory repercussions for him
Thats not necessarily the case. What about obligatory child support should the woman choose to carry the child to term?
that has no relation to if a woman decides to abort a pregnancy, friend.
And think for a moment if you will about the lengths to which a woman has to go in order to have 'obligatory child support' from the father of a child - court, genetic testing, often shame and humiliation about her sex life or sexual history... can you come up with a similar set of circumstances and outcomes for men? I can't.
does their friends making fun of them for "bangin' a fatty" count?
well, if you're bangin' a fatty, you pretty much deserve whatever you get, pal.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:06 pm
Unthought Known
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
malice wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Quote:
there are no other obligatory repercussions for him
Thats not necessarily the case. What about obligatory child support should the woman choose to carry the child to term?
that has no relation to if a woman decides to abort a pregnancy, friend.
And think for a moment if you will about the lengths to which a woman has to go in order to have 'obligatory child support' from the father of a child - court, genetic testing, often shame and humiliation about her sex life or sexual history... can you come up with a similar set of circumstances and outcomes for men? I can't.
Its not equivalent by any means, but repercussions are rather likely for the man. 18 years of coerced payments, while not carrying the same weight as rearing a child single handedly, is certainly an imposition. Its probably the best sort of scheme society can work out if both individuals don't have a shared stake in child rearing, but the man's part isn't necessarily complete after that minute of pleasure.
The 'certain amount of brain function' line is arbitrary and destined to change as technology and medical science advance.
no its not. when a brain stem stops working (or has yet to develop) we're not talking about a human or a person w/ certain inalienable rights. making up cute, wanna-be, rebuttals about algebra is fun and all, but not something to be taken seriously.
The brain stem is developed pretty early on (around 8 weeks though not all fetuses develop at the same rate), my guess is that not every woman knows they are pregnant at that point. The earliest I can find a documented instance of the ability to measure of brain-stem activity is 20 weeks, well into the second trimester. I guess what I am saying how would you know when the fetus has reached that threshold and at what level is that threshold to be set at? Some studies have shown that even after birth an infants behavior is almost entirely driven by the brain stem. I guess my point is that it shouldn't matter. We should just accept that it is killing, but its the mothers business until it's out the womb so we as a society need to let her make the choice about what to do. As for the OP, I don't care about logical flaws, once it's born, it's got rights.
Now, IIRC in the story the point of the algebra thing is not "algebra" in the typical sense, but the ability to comprehend the use of a variable to represent something that it is not. This is an ability that (as far as we know) is unique to humans and the idea was that so long as child was unable to do something that was uniquely human, it was not one, and thus could be aborted, otherwise it was no different than putting down a well trained dog. The author's idea was to mock society's attempt at making some type of determination about life and death states, basically the discussion we are having now, as a vehicle for opposing abortion. Parts of the story was significantly anti-feminist though, implying that abortion was really for the convenience of the modern woman's materialistic life style and that she shouldn't be burned with a child if she doesn't want to deal with one (and that choice would be available up to about age seven in case she takes a little longer making up her mind about it and wants to take the child for test drive). In the story the father attempts to protect the child as the mother attempts to kill it, trying to take on the burden of raising the child on his own, thus unburdening the mother, but out of concern that that may cause the mother to feel guilt, the father's wishes are discarded and the child is picked up by the abortion van. Eerily similar to the scenario Malice is describing above (screw daddy, it's mommy that matters), which I why figured the story would get under her skin. And yes, this was written after PKD had his mental breakdown and it shows it.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:37 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
broken iris wrote:
I guess what I am saying how would you know when the fetus has reached that threshold and at what level is that threshold to be set at? Some studies have shown that even after birth an infants behavior is almost entirely driven by the brain stem.
EllisEamos wrote:
when a brain stem stops working (or has yet to develop) we're not talking about a human or a person w/ certain inalienable rights.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm
The Maleficent
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
so all you get from what I wrote is that I hold the opinion of screw daddy, it's mommy that matters?
Thanks for boiling that down to its empirical form because that really is the thrust of every argument i try to make about this type of discussion and I'll be sure to use that phrase from now on when asked for an opinion on what I should and should not be legally 'allowed' to do or not do. It's so much easier for me to just type screw daddy, it's mommy that matters, instead of trying to put forth a rational argument for why society holds this debate - oh and uh:
when a brain stem stops working (or has yet to develop) we're not talking about a human or a person w/ certain inalienable rights.
The point of that was that we don't fully understand the role of the brain-stem yet and we cannot yet measure it's activity in a given fetus (prior to at least 20 weeks), so it may not be as useful in the abortion debate as it is in the euthanasia / terminally ill or injured debate.
malice wrote:
so all you get from what I wrote is that I hold the opinion of screw daddy, it's mommy that matters?
Thanks for boiling that down to its empirical form because that really is the thrust of every argument i try to make about this type of discussion and I'll be sure to use that phrase from now on when asked for an opinion on what I should and should not be legally 'allowed' to do or not do. It's so much easier for me to just type screw daddy, it's mommy that matters, instead of trying to put forth a rational argument for why society holds this debate - oh and uh:
and also
Your argument, as I interpreted it, is that since the woman carries the physical, psychological, and social burden of pregnancy and child birth, the termination decision should be solely with her and not with anyone else. I do apologize if that is incorrect. It's an opinion I can agree with, but I do think it boils down to the discarding of the father's desires in favor of the mother because she suffers (more) from the choice. So yes, it's basically screw daddy.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:06 am
Yeah Yeah Yeah
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm Posts: 3875
broken iris wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
when a brain stem stops working (or has yet to develop) we're not talking about a human or a person w/ certain inalienable rights.
The point of that was that we don't fully understand the role of the brain-stem yet and we cannot yet measure it's activity in a given fetus (prior to at least 20 weeks), so it may not be as useful in the abortion debate as it is in the euthanasia / terminally ill or injured debate.
,
malice wrote:
so all you get from what I wrote is that I hold the opinion of screw daddy, it's mommy that matters?
Toanks for boiling that down to its empiriical form because that r eally is the thrust of every argument i try to make about this type of discussion and I'll be sure to use that phrase from now on when asked for an opinion on what I should and should not be legally 'allowed' to do or not do. It's so much easier for me to just type screw daddy, it's mommy that matters, instead of trying to put forth a rational argument for why society holds this debate - oh and uh:
and also
Your argument, as I interpreted it, is that since the woman carries the physical, psychological, and social burden of pregnancy and child birth, the termination decision should be solely with her and not with anyone else. I do apologize if that is incorrect. It's an opinion I can agree with, but I do think it boils down to the discarding of the father's desires in favor of the mother because she suffers (more) from the choice. So yes, it's basically screw daddy.
Because this is the world we live in, I tell my kid and his friends if they would feel bad at getting a girl pregnant who then had an abortuion that they damn well better not get a girl pregnant. Because society doesn't give a fuck about them as men and preganancy. So accept that fact and treat every girl as too stupid to take one pill oncre a day and is lieing about being on birth control and wrap it and cap it every time.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:01 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
tyler wrote:
So accept that fact and treat every girl as too stupid to take one pill oncre a day and is lieing about being on birth control and wrap it and cap it every time.
and even then, these contraceptives are only 85-98% effective. so just don't have sex at all kids.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:08 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
Pretty much agree with Malice in this thread team. I've had one or two instances in my own life where I gladly shelled out the money for a plan B pill, not only for my own piece of mind, but because it's not my life that would really be drastically affected. Women shoulder a burden that we can't really understand.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:21 pm
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:40 am Posts: 2114 Location: Coventry
Why is it that every forum this story goes on, the thread gets derailed into a thread about abortion?
_________________ "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them" -Karl Popper
Pretty much agree with Malice in this thread team. I've had one or two instances in my own life where I gladly shelled out the money for a plan B pill, not only for my own piece of mind, but because it's not my life that would really be drastically affected. Women shoulder a burden that we can't really understand.
I'd like to hear her opinion on the logic/thought process in the original post, but I fear that since we fell into that same old pattern, she's quit this thread.
Post subject: Re: Med Ethicists: Killing babies no different from abortion
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:44 pm
Supersonic
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am Posts: 10694
The best part about this is that I've been suggesting this to abortion supporters for years. It wouldn't shock me if this was common place in twenty to twenty-five years. It wouldn't shock me if failing European nations with universal healthcare start implementing policies based on "social costs" of poor people as well.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum