the problem with abortion and stem cell research

[Demojen]

It's equal up until the point one's decision can effect the lives of both the living, and the living-to-be;

Just a slight adjustment.

The "living-to-be" have no rights and deserve no rights. They are not humans. They aren't even capable of making educated decisions. The moment you start giving the "living-to-be" rights, is the moment you start taking away rights from the living. The issue is muddled when it becomes a crime to harm a fetus because then miscarriage becomes criminal (along with dozens of other contributing factors to the death/harm of an unborn fetus).

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It's equal up until the point one's decision can effect the lives of both the living, and the living-to-be;

Just a slight adjustment.

The "living-to-be" have no rights and deserve no rights. They are not humans. They aren't even capable of making educated decisions. The moment you start giving the "living-to-be" rights, is the moment you start taking away rights from the living. The issue is muddled when it becomes a crime to harm a fetus because then miscarriage becomes criminal (along with dozens of other contributing factors to the death/harm of an unborn fetus).

I know.
It is to be factored in, however, when it comes to financial situations.
The same is to be factored in when someone else is gambling with your money - with the almost certainty that it will be a lose-lose situation for you both if neither of you have the financial support to go on if they lose it.

Either way, it's redundant. In the situation presented, the child is only considered a child at birth - but it becomes planning for financial and life-changing experiences as long as the decision is to have the child.

 

[Prolescum]

Still waiting to see if Hytegia will answer the question of whether after driving his imaginary lady friends to the pharmacy to make them take the morning after pill and sign a waiver acknowledging his abrogation of the responsibilities that may be the result of copulation, he is willing to commit to his reproductive rights being removed in exchange.

 

[Giliell]

It's equal up until the point one's decision can effect the lives of both the living, and the living-to-be;

Just a slight adjustment.

The "living-to-be" have no rights and deserve no rights. They are not humans. They aren't even capable of making educated decisions. The moment you start giving the "living-to-be" rights, is the moment you start taking away rights from the living. The issue is muddled when it becomes a crime to harm a fetus because then miscarriage becomes criminal (along with dozens of other contributing factors to the death/harm of an unborn fetus).

That's what the whole thing boils down to: A fetus has no rights. Therefore, they cannot be given or taken away. A child, a living human being has rights and those include financial support from both parents. And that cannot be given away by another person either.

The point with harming a fetus doesn't present a problem from this point of view: The fetus has no rights, the woman has. If somebody wants to harm/abort the fetus against her will they cannot do so without assaulting her.

 

[Demojen]

That's what the whole thing boils down to: A fetus has no rights. Therefore, they cannot be given or taken away. A child, a living human being has rights and those include financial support from both parents. And that cannot be given away by another person either.

No human has the right to financial support. Children lose those privileges all the time. As a child who has been in "the system" I know this all too well. People give those rights away all the time too. I don't know what system you believe works the way you've described, but its not in North America. I'd be interested to see it, if it did exist.

 

[Giliell]

No human has the right to financial support.

Wow, I'm not a human :shock: :lol:
In Germany there's a whole hirarchy. First there's my husband (and he has the right to financial support from me), then there's my parents, then there's the state and once they're old enough, my children. All to their individual economic ability.
Again USA =/= the world.
And you yourself disprove your claim, because obviously somebody fed you.
Yes, there are ways in which people can give away their children. And there are a hell lot of children whose parent cannot live up to their financial duties. It doesn't change the fact that there are usually regulations in place that make sure that if the parents have the money the child receives it.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Yes, there are ways in which people can give away their children. And there are a hell lot of children whose parent cannot live up to their financial duties. It doesn't change the fact that there are usually regulations in place that make sure that if the parents have the money the child receives it.

There's a reason "the System" is considered a negative statement, and why movies are made about kids who came from the System and made something with their lives.
>.>

Still waiting to see if Hytegia will answer the question of whether after driving his imaginary lady friends to the pharmacy to make them take the morning after pill and sign a waiver acknowledging his abrogation of the responsibilities that may be the result of copulation, he is willing to cut off his balls in exchange.

If there was a pill I could take every so often weeks to keep from having kids, I would take it.
Wait - they have those? For women? REALLY? NO WAY.
The option exists for one of the two consenting partners to do, at the minimum, half the job that may fail by wrapping it up. So far the only counter-logic to this is as if I'm asking a woman to get her tubes tied up.

 

[Prolescum]

Still waiting to see if Hytegia will answer the question of whether after driving his imaginary lady friends to the pharmacy to make them take the morning after pill and sign a waiver acknowledging his abrogation of the responsibilities that may be the result of copulation, he is willing to commit to his reproductive rights being removed in exchange.

If there was a pill I could take every so often weeks to keep from having kids, I would take it.
Wait - they have those? For women? REALLY? NO WAY.

And if she refuses?

What do you do if she refuses before you have sex?

What do you do if she refuses after having sex?

Are you willing to commit to the removal of your reproductive rights in exchange?

This has nothing to do with castration. I understand that it's difficult for you to justify your previous comments, but changing my words to deflect the tough questions by whimsy isn't going to fly.

The option exists for one of the two consenting partners to do, at the minimum, half the job that may fail by wrapping it up. So far the only counter-logic to this is as if I'm asking a woman to get her tubes tied up.

The equivalent of 'getting her tubes tied up' is a vasectomy.

If I understand this mangled parp correctly, your responsibility ends when you get an erection; is this correct?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

And if she refuses?

What do you do if she refuses before you have sex?

What do you do if she refuses after having sex?

Are you willing to commit to the removal of your reproductive rights in exchange?

This has nothing to do with castration. I understand that it's difficult for you to justify your previous comments, but changing my words to deflect the tough questions by whimsy isn't going to fly.

Ignoring valid points isn't either.
You're suggesting a long-term solution to a temporary whim - instead of simply a temporary solution to a temporary whim.
I changed the wording, because the ending effect would have been about the same in terms of spending and effectiveness.

The option exists for one of the two consenting partners to do, at the minimum, half the job that may fail by wrapping it up. So far the only counter-logic to this is as if I'm asking a woman to get her tubes tied up.

The equivalent of 'getting her tubes tied up' is a vasectomy.

If I understand this mangled parp correctly, your responsibility ends when you get an erection; is this correct?

No. My responsibility begins with whom I choose to sleep with (like any other person in consensual sex) and apparently becomes eternally-binding when the person I sleep with, through the lower-end of odds, obtains a child - and decides that she would rather keep it when neither of us are financially able to support it, nor adequately take care of it.
Makes perfect sense.

And you misread what I just said. It's NOT like I'm demanding anyone get a vasectomy, or getting tubes tied - simply a waiver of responsibility to determine what happens once the child is born. Both parties, in this case, holster responsibility as long as they can keep it. The mother is free to have an abortion at any time. The father is free to holster his opinion and walk away at any time.
If the father wants the child, it's still up to the mother's whim. She still retains the ability to abort the pregnancy at any time, regardless.
No one becomes netted into the situation unless by mutual agreement of responsibility for the soon-to-be child.

While we're changing the definition of sex to "eternally-binding contract" can we also change it to mean "rocky road ice cream?" That delicacy is good enough to be considered an orgy.

 

[Giliell]

And if she refuses?

What do you do if she refuses before you have sex?

What do you do if she refuses after having sex?

Are you willing to commit to the removal of your reproductive rights in exchange?

Why make things so complicated?
Put all the responsibility on her ( "well, she can take the pill, I would if I could" (fortunately, since the possibility is unlikely to arise, nobody will ever ask him to put up. Who cares how she feels about it? Who cares about the women who cannot take it, or those who simply don't like what the constant input of hormones does to them. Why give a fuck about the fact that a lot of women feel like chemically castrated becasue it reduces their sex drive to about zero? Her refusal to take it would be absolutely selfish)
Put all the blam on her (well, since SHE was responsible for contraception, SHE must have messed things up, easy, isn't it?)
Put all the risk on her (OK, she carries that anyway)
Then complain loudly about life being soooooooooooo unfair because while the biggest risk she takes with every time she has sex (unless one partner has taken permanent steps) is death, his biggest risk is losing money.

 

[Prolescum]

And if she refuses?

What do you do if she refuses before you have sex?

What do you do if she refuses after having sex?

Are you willing to commit to the removal of your reproductive rights in exchange?

This has nothing to do with castration. I understand that it's difficult for you to justify your previous comments, but changing my words to deflect the tough questions by whimsy isn't going to fly.

Ignoring valid points isn't either.
You're suggesting a long-term solution to a temporary whim - instead of simply a temporary solution to a temporary whim.

I'm not suggesting anything, mate. I am asking questions. Questions you have been avoiding throughout this thread.

I changed the wording, because the ending effect would have been about the same in terms of spending and effectiveness.

No, I think you changed it because you don't want to answer those questions, lest you look like a twat.

Having your balls cut off is not the same as wavering your reproductive rights however much you might want readers of this thread to think it.

The equivalent of 'getting her tubes tied up' is a vasectomy.

If I understand this mangled parp correctly, your responsibility ends when you get an erection; is this correct?

No. My responsibility begins with whom I choose to sleep with (like any other person in consensual sex) and apparently becomes eternally-binding when the person I sleep with, through the lower-end of odds, obtains a child - and decides that she would rather keep it when neither of us are financially able to support it, nor adequately take care of it.

Listen, whether she wants the child or not is irrelevant to my questions.

I asked you three questions in response to your earlier statements that:

The morning-after pill did wonders for my female companions, mainly because I made sure they took it...

It's why I make any one of them take the morning-after [pill]

I do [make them take the morning after pill] regardless of pill's success or condom's integrity.
I consider it to be like insurance and an investment combined.

And yes. I sit there, and watch them take it.
I'm not driving their nose into the ground - I just sit down and explain that I would really REALLY like to just be sure about this not occurring, and they have complied with my wishes.

there should be some sort of form the woman signs to say "Hey - hey. I don't need to force other people to pay for my decisions to not have an abortion, not use contraception properly (or at all)" and then be done with it.

If you cannot shoulder the responsibility that may come with fucking, don't do it. Consensual sex doesn't magically become eternally-binding just because you think it makes the argument ridiculous, you put your willy in there, you shoulder the responsibility regardless of the consequences.

And you misread what I just said. It's NOT like I'm demanding anyone get a vasectomy, or getting tubes tied - simply a waiver of responsibility to determine what happens once the child is born.

And what if she refuses to sign it? What do you do then?

I noted your limp attempt to answer to this previously, and I lolled at you for quite a time. It also prompted the question Are you willing to commit to the removal of your reproductive rights in exchange? which you still haven't answered.

Whenever you're ready.

If the father wants the child, it's still up to the mother's whim. She still retains the ability to abort the pregnancy at any time, regardless.

It's growing inside her, not you. You made the choice when you decided to shag.

No one becomes netted into the situation unless by mutual agreement of responsibility for the soon-to-be child.

It doesn't work that way. As soon as you put your pee-pee inside her na-na, you take the responsibility commensurate with the risk. If you don't want a child that much, don't fuck. Or get a vasectomy, you know, take responsibility yourself...

While we're changing the definition of sex to "eternally-binding contract" can we also change it to mean "rocky road ice cream?" That delicacy is good enough to be considered an orgy.

I know repetition of other people's jokes is de rigeur at the arse-end of the internet, however, half-arsed cover versions are rarely looked upon kindly.

 

[Demojen]

No human has the right to financial support.

Wow, I'm not a human :shock: :lol:
In Germany there's a whole hirarchy. First there's my husband (and he has the right to financial support from me), then there's my parents, then there's the state and once they're old enough, my children. All to their individual economic ability.
Again USA =/= the world.
And you yourself disprove your claim, because obviously somebody fed you.
Yes, there are ways in which people can give away their children. And there are a hell lot of children whose parent cannot live up to their financial duties. It doesn't change the fact that there are usually regulations in place that make sure that if the parents have the money the child receives it.

I don't believe I was being cold, or that I called you inhuman. I was raised in a culture where financial support is given not because it is an obligation under law, but because people care about developing generations enough to have designed the infrastructure for a system to ensure at the very least the younger generation can one day contribute to society instead of being a burden to it. You're certainly free to feel entitled to financial support. I am entitled to disagree.

I do not disprove my claim. I appreciate what I was given that allowed me to grow, even flourish. I don't feel entitled to it and I discourage anyone feeling entitled to the things my ancestors died to make it possible we could have.

Your "entitlement" to welfare is not a right. It is a privilege provided by social security and regulations that exist in your country.

Not every country on the planet has social security.
Germany =/= the world.

You are correct that there are regulations in place to protect the welfare of a child born into most unions. None of those regulations protect a fetus, however. A child born from a donation of sperm is not entitled to support from the sperm donation. This is especially true in contracts evidenced by the existence of sperm banks.

 

[IBSpify]

A child born from a donation of sperm is not entitled to support from the sperm donation. This is especially true in contracts evidenced by the existence of sperm banks.

This is not exactly true http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2883/can-a-sperm-donor-be-forced-to-pay-child-support

These cases do happen, and often times the rulings don't make a whole lot of sense, but thats the problem with determining parentage strictly by genetics.

I honestly have no complaints with abortion being solely the choice of the mother, though I would hope the women would discuss it with the potential father the choice is ultimately hers.

in regards to child support, I don't know too much about the system, but there are some extreme cases where the mother gets way more money then would be needed because the father happens to be financially well off, and as such the woman can get away with providing 0 financially, and often times using the child support for her own ends. I'm not saying this is the norm, just that I wish that there was a better system in place to make sure that the child support money was actually going towards the child.

 

[Demojen]

A child born from a donation of sperm is not entitled to support from the sperm donation. This is especially true in contracts evidenced by the existence of sperm banks.

This is not exactly true http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2883/can-a-sperm-donor-be-forced-to-pay-child-support

These cases do happen, and often times the rulings don't make a whole lot of sense, but thats the problem with determining parentage strictly by genetics.

I honestly have no complaints with abortion being solely the choice of the mother, though I would hope the women would discuss it with the potential father the choice is ultimately hers.

in regards to child support, I don't know too much about the system, but there are some extreme cases where the mother gets way more money then would be needed because the father happens to be financially well off, and as such the woman can get away with providing 0 financially, and often times using the child support for her own ends. I'm not saying this is the norm, just that I wish that there was a better system in place to make sure that the child support money was actually going towards the child.

I don't consider case law from a country that holds a twelve year old boy who was raped, liable for child support, a very good argument in favor of legislating support from sperm donars.

My issue is as I've illustrated already, where there is an agreed upon contract prior to intercourse, there is no reasonable justification that a donar should be held liable for support of a child that was born as a result of ex post facto rape.

Courts are not looking out for children when they try and order a sperm donar to pay child support. They are looking out for a system that is failing to mitigate losses as a result of exploitation from baby farmers who only have kids to live off of welfare. The consequence of the actions of courts punishing sperm donars only serves to make sperm donation even more difficult for families that do want children and can provide for them.

By the very same logic used in this case law, doctors should be required to pay child support for providing the means for a woman to have a child through supporting the birthing process. How is that logic not fucked up?

It gives rights to a fetus that a fetus doesn't have unless it is human. A fetus is not human until it is born. A fetus born does not have rights applied retroactively and if they can justify applying laws retroactively, then the government owes me over $20,000 (and hundreds of thousands of Canadians).

 

[Giliell]

Your "entitlement" to welfare is not a right. It is a privilege provided by social security and regulations that exist in your country.

Tell me, what right do you have that is not something given to you by the country you live in?
I "don't feel free in my entitlement to welfare", it is a right I have under the constitution of the country I'm a citizen of. And because I live in a globalized world and the European Union, that construct grants me some rights, too and if my country doesn't provide them I can sue. All that was never possible for most of human history and still isn't possible for a large part of humanity.

You say that "no human has a right to..." based on what? What rights do they have and why?

You argue universalities and then try to support them with examples from specific countries. You say "no human has the right to financial support", so if I can give you the example of 80 million people who enjoy that right at the moment because of social security, you must find a different route.
Either you have to argue that the word "right" has a different meaning or that no human should have that right, but claiming that currently no human HAS that right is simply wrong.

You are correct that there are regulations in place to protect the welfare of a child born into most unions. None of those regulations protect a fetus, however. A child born from a donation of sperm is not entitled to support from the sperm donation. This is especially true in contracts evidenced by the existence of sperm banks.

Which again may be true for your country and isn't for mine, where you cannot sign off that right to child-support even if you want a child from a donor. The biological father is automatically granted rights and responsibilities.
Which is something I disagree with.

 

[Demojen]

Either you have to argue that the word "right" has a different meaning or that no human should have that right, but claiming that currently no human HAS that right is simply wrong.

I used to believe human rights were paramount, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could hold water in society. Now it feels as though it was only a dream. That even the prospects of rights (against the overwhelming tide of oppression present in this world) are snuffed out by interests groups throughout the European Union.

In Countries where these "rights" are supposed to mean more then the value of what they add to a piece of paper, I watch people with the power and authority to, violating them each and every day. Governments creating laws designed to circumvent them in ways that society increasingly allows in exchange for the promise of security.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

...and a whole world of corruption unwilling or afraid to wreck their comfort zone to protect their Liberty.

People forget what it cost to get to where we are. It's comforting to claim rights because a piece of paper entitles them to you, but there are no rights you claim that can not be stripped easier than ever bestowed, and what semblance of them people used to agree were worth dieing for; that may have existed superficially, we've given up to a corporate oligarchy that spreads across the entire planet.

Rights are an idea that we struggle every day with to preserve and progress in a society that increasingly cares more about interest groups that couldn't care less about individual rights.

I do have my ideals. I believe it is important for people to struggle for high ideals, but I've given up on rights and entitlement a long time ago. They aren't worth the ink they are penned with in a society that has forgotten every thing our ancestors fought and died for and it pisses me off that it has come to this.

So yeah. Maybe we view rights differently. I don't see as how they exist when the only people fighting for them seem to be the victims.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It's growing inside her, not you. You made the choice when you decided to shag.

I'm not sure how you completely understand how this process works. A quick flip through any of the trillions of porn sites online should confirm that it does, indeed, require 2 to tango and produce more.
Counter argument:

She made the choice when she decided to shag.

Except now, she has the choice of ending it, or continuing on and pulling someone in with a final decision.

Or get a vasectomy, you know, take responsibility yourself...

I am about as eager to get a vasectomy as your average woman would be to get her tubes tied at my age.
There is your answer.

I know repetition of other people's jokes is de rigeur at the arse-end of the internet, however, half-arsed cover versions are rarely looked upon kindly.

I would like to think of it as the best representation for an act that people tend to do, but not think of when they're being irrational about certain standpoints.
I applaud you for introducing me to this method. It's simple, and to the point.

 

[Giliell]

@Demojen
As much as I agree with your opinion on how the rights of people are circumnavigated, it is totally off the point we're arguing about.

So I'm asking you to clarify your position on this specific point:
If you say "no human has the right to financial support", what do you mean?
Do you mean that this right is not granted in any society? (Which I think I have disproved)
Do you mean that this right doesn't exist in the Universal Declaration of HUman Rights and is therefore not a human right?
Do you think that this shouldn't be a right that should be fought for?

But if you're referencing the Declaration of Human Rights, here's the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which clearly states:

Article 26

1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.

2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

Look like there is an international recognition of that right. Not to mention that a lot of the rest of that document deals with the responsibilities of the parents.

Just throwing in a sentence as an absolute isn't making a good argument.

 

[Prolescum]

some vacuous bollocks that ignores the questions put forth. Again

Seeing as you won't respond to me with any degree of intellectual honesty, allow me express my feelings precisely.

I must say Hytegia, never did I expect to be as disappointed in a human being I've never met as I am right now.
You have lost my respect. Not that you care, I suppose, you're a big boy now.

For what it's worth, that is the weakest response I've ever had on this board, and it has followed some very pathetic posts. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself, but I suspect the wall of cunt that sits between you and the rest of the world is already compensating.

I sincerely hope my assumptions about your virginal status are correct and if not, any woman dumb enough to fall for your half-inched charm quickly sees that you're little more than a vessel for trite bullshit.

That is all.

 

[Andiferous]

Demojen, as you and I share similar environment, I expect we understand on some level. If this is about the child and its' welfare, I would feel equally disgusted by the Canadian governmet for its' fanilure (along with Harper, who happens to be both my PM and MP at the moment - a bit embarrassing).

I expect otherwise, though, at least here.