quote:Dagonee, whether or not my reading of that view is conducive to discussion, that IS my reading of that view.
Then you're reading is flat out wrong.
It conflates the idea of "duty" with the idea of "punishment." When one takes a voluntary action, one bears the responsbibility for that action. Generally, there's no need to talk about such responsibility when someone accepts the responsibility.
Bearing the responsibility for an action doesn't mean taking the worst possible consequences. But it does mean that limits of morality don't change simply because the consequence is unpleasant to the person who took the action.
Worse than the confusion over duty and punishment, your reading equates the prevention of someone killing another human being with punishment.
quote:Dagonee, that approach sounds exactly like an attempt to cast the pregnancy as a punishment and guilt the mother into a course of action.
See the discussion of responsibility v. punishment above.
quote:Furthermore, it advances what I consider an extremely dangerous point of view: that a fetus is the mother's responsibility because she had sex. A fetus isn't a mother's responsibility because she had sex, its her responsibility because its her fetus!
It doesn't advance that view at all. It's a simpple acknowledgment of biological reality.
A fetus is the parents' responsibility because he's their offspring. This responsibility attaches at the moment of conception.
However, sex leads to conception. If one wants to reduce ones chance of having such responsibility, the single best way to do so is to not have sex.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And do you want to tell me that we as a society don't look down on unwed mothers? That ALONE equates to the concept of pregnancy as punishment.
It does not equate to the concept of pregnancy as punishment. To the extent it happens, it equates to the concept of disapproval of particular actions which the pregnancy is the evidence of.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That you are capable of such complex distinctions does not mean that using statements with significant connotations for many is not an application of such connotations.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That you are capable of such complex distinctions does not mean that using statements with significant connotations for many is not an application of such connotations.
"Duty" v. "punishment" is not a complex distinction. They are two different concepts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, that's not the only distinction you're making; you're distinguishing very specific meanings in your words, for instance. Second, it extremely clearly is a complex distinction for a lot of people -- its not even the first level of moral consideration in common classifications.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, that's not the only distinction you're making; you're distinguishing very specific meanings in your words, for instance.
Then you'll need to be more specific as to what "such" refered to.
quote:Second, it extremely clearly is a complex distinction for a lot of people -- its not even the first level of moral consideration in common classifications.
The ideas are being conflated because of the views of the person doing the conflating. It is NOT the people saying, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to deal with a pregnancy" who are advocating pregnancy as punishment.
It's the person who is saying that that statement equals punishment who is conflating the idea of punishment and pregnancy.
It's actually a fairly intellectually dishonest thing to be doing, because it slyly inserts premises into the mouths of the people making the statement.
It's one thing to advocate the idea that being forced to bear a child to term is punishment. That can be supported and refuted by various arguments. It's another to say that those who wish to do so intend it as punishment. And when pH makes the statements she has been making, she's doing the latter.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not arguing pH's position, I'm arguing my position, which is what I always do.
I would think "such" is obvious: the distinctions you are making in the post responded to. For instance, the exact meaning of your statement, the notion of voluntary actions leading to responsibility for the consequences (a notion I reject in the general sense, btw, I think that even the responsibility involved for immediate effects of those actions is the least part of the responsibilities entwined in those effects), that you're "simply" acknowledging biological reality, all these things are distinctions.
Furthermore, you're completely missing one group that in many cases may view such statements as implying punishment: the ones being told such statements.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is NOT the people saying, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to deal with a pregnancy" who are advocating pregnancy as punishment.
Well, not on this thread. But that's certainly where I've heard it the most.
Edit: I think it's a counterproductive and stupid argument. But I have heard it from people as both an anti-abortion argument and an ant-birth control argument.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not arguing pH's position, I'm arguing my position, which is what I always do.
What position, exactly, are you arguing? You've stated that others can't draw such complex distinctions as I do. OK. What does that mean for my arguments (assuming I granted that such distinctions were complex, which I don't for a minute do).
quote:I would think "such" is obvious: the distinctions you are making in the post responded to. For instance, the exact meaning of your statement, the notion of voluntary actions leading to responsibility for the consequences ... that you're "simply" acknowledging biological reality, all these things are distinctions.
First, you specifically referred to distinctions - as in the differences between two entities being expressed. "The exact meaning" isn't something I would "obvious[ly]" refer to as a "distinction," nor is the notion of voluntary actions leading to responsibility for the results. Certainly "simply" acknowledging the biological reality that sex sometimes results in pregnancy isn't something I would immediately view as a distinction.
Second, how are any of these things complex?
quote:Furthermore, you're completely missing one group that in many cases may view such statements as implying punishment: the ones being told such statements.
I'm not missing them. I'm telling them that they are wrong. Their own views on pregnancy, coupled with those statements, imply punishment. Not the statements themselves. I expressly addressed this in my last post.
quote:a notion I reject in the general sense, btw, I think that even the responsibility involved for immediate effects of those actions is the least part of the responsibilities entwined in those effects
Hmm. I wonder where I said that there weren't other responsibilities attached to effects...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is NOT the people saying, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to deal with a pregnancy" who are advocating pregnancy as punishment.
Well, not on this thread. But that's certainly where I've heard it the most.
Edit: I think it's a counterproductive and stupid argument. But I have heard it from people as both an anti-abortion argument and an ant-birth control argument.
It's not a reason to make either illegal. But it is a response to the arguments in favor of legalized abortion based on the consequences of pregnancy to the mother.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, your reasoning is correct, given your axioms. One of your axioms is that a zygote and a blastocyst are human beings. That's not an axiom that's generally accepted, nor is it supportable scientifically. Morally, most people don't even have the moral feeling that a cell or a small clump of cells is a human person. As an intellectual exercise, I suggest you go through your reasoning again with that axiom reversed. Take as your axiom instead that a clump of cells is specifically not a person, but it's a cell clump like hair or fingernails or scabs. Then what do you come up with?
I'm not asking you to believe that. I'm asking you to think it through as an intellectual exercise and see what happens.
I really appreciate your legal knowledge and your clear thinking on lots of subjects here at hatrack. I think you add a lot to most discussions that you take part in, and I enjoy reading your analysis of things. I think abortion is a subject that our society is not likely to settle for a while, but I do think real dialogue is worthwhile. That starts with the understanding on both sides that moral, intelligent, sincere, and well-intentioned people can hold the opposing view.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alcon, I think you keep neglecting the fact that the biological circumstances for the man and the women ARE different. Look, men and women have equal control over their OWN bodies. Women can have or not have whatever medical procedures she wants on her body and men have the same option with their bodies. Personally, I believe that the child's rights supercede the women's so I am pro-life but I absolutely don't support a man having any say in what I do with my body.
Yeah, but as you stated, the biological, and for that matter medical differences are vastly different for men and women. Men can get a vesectomy, which is not really reversable, and is not guaranteed to be reversible, whereas a woman can get an abortion and the extreme majority majority of them are still able to have children again.
For families that have decided they for sure don't want to have any more children, a vasectomy is by far the safest and most effective way to prevent any further conception, but it's not something the casual male is going to have done as a method of birth control, especially not if he is young.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There is a surgery that can be attempted to reverse the procedure, but families are told specifically going into the process that they should expect to never have children again.
From Webmd:
quote: A vasectomy is a permanent method of birth control. Only consider this method when you are sure that you do not want to have a child in the future.
quote:If you are considering a vasectomy, be absolutely certain that you will never want to father a child..... Surgery to reconnect the vas deferens (vasectomy reversal) is available. However, the reversal procedure is difficult, can be expensive, may not be covered by insurance, and may not always work.
It shouldn't be thought of as something that can be easily undone, or as a quick fix for men.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Depending on the changes following the vasectomy, the time that has passed since the vasectomy and the experience of the surgeon, about 40 percent to 75% percent of all men can expect to father a child again, but not immediately. The success rate is significantly higher in couples who have had children together already.
So yeah. Not spectacular odds, but...it's not absolutely impossible, either.
quote:Alcon, I think you keep neglecting the fact that the biological circumstances for the man and the women ARE different. Look, men and women have equal control over their OWN bodies. Women can have or not have whatever medical procedures she wants on her body and men have the same option with their bodies. Personally, I believe that the child's rights supercede the women's so I am pro-life but I absolutely don't support a man having any say in what I do with my body.
Yeah, but as you stated, the biological, and for that matter medical differences are vastly different for men and women. Men can get a vesectomy, which is not really reversable, and is not guaranteed to be reversible, whereas a woman can get an abortion and the extreme majority majority of them are still able to have children again.
For families that have decided they for sure don't want to have any more children, a vasectomy is by far the safest and most effective way to prevent any further conception, but it's not something the casual male is going to have done as a method of birth control, especially not if he is young.
I don't think that you can compare an abortion with a vasectomy. The equivilant (sp?) operation on a woman is having her tubes tied. This operation is also not revearsable, much more invasive than a vasectomy and can cause problems down the line because women can still get pregnant and end up with a tubal pregnancy afterwards, something that is extremely dangerous.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I point out the above is that both vasectomy and tubal ligation are means to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is meant to terminate pregnancy after it has begun.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I suppose in addition to her I was also addressing the point in the article, I think in the feminist family thread, (which I now realize doesn't mesh, but whatever) that said men can get sterilized, so they really have nothing to complain about with unwanted pregnancies. But that's hardly fair.
Regardless of the consequences, when it comes down to it women can use abortion as a method of birth control. Biologically, the only surgery that can be performed on a man to stop pregnancy is a vasectomy, and it shouldn't be considered reversable. But you're right andi, the analagous operation is tubal ligation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, most of the menfolk take it all personal-like when anyone suggests that they do something about their swimmers, anyway.
If a couple really doesn't ever want children, I think a vasectomy is preferable to having the woman's tubes tied. It's definitely less dangerous. But a lot of men seem to take it as a personal affront.
posted
I can understand the idea that consequences equal punishment, if only because consequences can be negative and punishment always is.
Having said that, the distinction that I draw is external. Punishment is a negative situation that some external agent forces upon you. Consequences aren't enforced by or imposed by any agent, and aren't always negative. There are other differences, but to me this is the most important.
So, in the end, I think anyone who says pregnancy is a "punishment" for having sex isn't thinking straight. I also think that anyone labeling an opposing viewpoint as such is lobbing a grenade as an excuse not to actually think about the viewpoint presented.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, think about the cost of carrying a fetus to term. Not actually caring for the CHILD because I know then everyone will say, "Then she should give it up for adoption."
Think about the emotional, social, and financial costs of carrying a fetus to term.
And yes, there ARE social costs. There are PLENTY of people (and don't think a lot of you guys aren't in this category) who look at a pregnant woman differently when they realize that she doesn't have a wedding ring. There are plenty of FAMILIES (mine included) that aren't strictly opposed to premarital sex but that view an out-of-wedlock pregnancy as absolutely shameful.
As long as these situations exist on a large scale, I will continue to equate "consequences" with "punishment" so far as it pertains to pregnancy and premarital sex.
posted
I must say, I've never seen such a jaded view of pregnancy. I'm honestly surprised I didn't see the word "parasite" or a diatribe against religion show up. I'm betting there's a lot of painful backstory behind that negativity, not that I have any desire to know it. I do resent the vitrol that you seem to have for anyone with a "Puritan" sense of morality. I don't have to agree with anyone's decisions.
There are costs and difficulties with owning a pet, too - but I doubt most people would advocate putting it down if it became a nuisance. Find it a new home as soon as possible, sure. Of course I know my analogy is rudimentary - it's obvious that a pet isn't physically invasive like a child is. Still, it saddens me that a dog or a rabbit would be given a better chance to live than an unwanted, but undeniably human, pregnancy. I must again agree with Dag - an attitude like this makes discussing this issue with you difficult, if not impossible.
***
As a prolifer, I find this entire RvW for Men thing frustrating. Just because one side is allowed to completely abandon responsibiliy doesn't mean the other side should be. Too bad the political side of me disagrees with that idea. I do find it highly disturbing that the "he did it, he should be responsible" idea only applies to men. It seems to me that rights should be coupled with responsibilities.
Dag, I must say that your arguments express my point better than I could do myself. Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, your reasoning is correct, given your axioms. One of your axioms is that a zygote and a blastocyst are human beings. That's not an axiom that's generally accepted, nor is it supportable scientifically. Morally, most people don't even have the moral feeling that a cell or a small clump of cells is a human person. As an intellectual exercise, I suggest you go through your reasoning again with that axiom reversed. Take as your axiom instead that a clump of cells is specifically not a person, but it's a cell clump like hair or fingernails or scabs. Then what do you come up with?
I'm not asking you to believe that. I'm asking you to think it through as an intellectual exercise and see what happens.
I can safely say I've thought it through from both perspectives more than most people on the planet, and likely more than at least half the people on Hatrack.
However, that's not really relevant to the particular point being discussed. pH said, "But. I don't think that, 'Well, if people don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex' is a very defensible view, unless you want to bring up the 'pregnancy as punishment' angle."
She has said this view isn't defensible from any angle other than the "pregnancy as punishment" angle. Whereas I think I've clearly demonstrated that it's also defensible from the "people have a duty not to kill their children" angle.
Whether pH buys the underlying axiom or not doesn't matter. It's clear that there is an underlying axiom other than "pregnancy is punishment for sex" that supports the statement she took issue with.
That's pretty much all I've been trying to get at.
quote:I do think real dialogue is worthwhile. That starts with the understanding on both sides that moral, intelligent, sincere, and well-intentioned people can hold the opposing view.
I agree. Which is why I've taken exception to a restatement of views which demonstrates such a lack of understanding.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: It looks like another way to force the "right" morality on other people.
Every existing or proposed law is an attempt to force the 'right' morality on other people.
That's not SUPPOSED to be the purpose of law.
And quite honestly, I find discussing this subject with you guys just as frustrating and pointless as you find discussing it with me.
AND I don't have a jaded view about pregnancy. I have a jaded view about society's judgments concerning sex and unwed mothers. There is a huge, huge difference.
posted
pH, you've been very free telling other people what they think in this thread. It's rather rude and unproductive.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have utterly failed to address my points with regard to your claim that such a position is indefensible by any other axiom than "pregnancy is punishment."
This is the only point of yours I've addressed, other than a brief foray into pronouns. I've addressed it extensively. You've declined to respond directly to it.
As to you telling people what they think, witness:
quote:There are PLENTY of people (and don't think a lot of you guys aren't in this category) who look at a pregnant woman differently when they realize that she doesn't have a wedding ring.
Further,
quote:All right. Clearly, I just don't understand the issue. That MUST be it. [Roll Eyes]
You can roll your eyes all you like. First, I didn't say you didn't understand the issue. I said that your description of others' views demonstrates a lack of understanding of those views.
Second, you still haven't acknowledged that starting from an entirely different axiom than "pregnancy is punishment" leads to the same statement that you decry.
quote:Not really. What I said to start with was, "This is how what you're saying sounds to me."
In addition, this isn't what you said. You said, essentially, "I don't see a way to defend X without believing Y." Since I can defend X without believing Y, and I've demonstrated such, it's clear that you didn't understand others' views when you made that statement.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Society itself is built on some kind of common moral framework. What is a law but a "thou shalt/shalt not?" Ought = moral judgement.
quote: AND I don't have a jaded view about pregnancy. I have a jaded view about society's judgments concerning sex and unwed mothers. There is a huge, huge difference.
What, that some of us think premarital sex is morally wrong? And who is this society you mention? Honestly, people can mope and moan till the cows come home about how backward and close-minded we are, but that won't change my moral structure one inch.
Having said that... casting stones is the worst sin I can come up with, so I'm completely with you on that part. Thinking premarital sex is wrong, Check. Acting on it by treating people differently, big no-no. Most vocal Christians forget how Jesus acted towards that woman at the well.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm saying that I don't think you can. Period. I don't see it happening.
In addition, there ARE plenty of people who think less of pregnant women without wedding rings. And I do believe that some of these people are present on Hatrack. That's not telling people what they think in the least. That's like saying, "Hey, there are people who think that rabbits make good housepets. In fact, I'm sure there are people who think rabbits are good housepets on this forum!"
quote:And I'm saying that I don't think you can. Period. I don't see it happening.
You don't think I can defend the statement you decry without relying on the foundation of pregnancy as punishment?
Are you even going to bother acknowledging that I did defend that statement based on an entirely different foundation?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In addition, there ARE plenty of people who think less of pregnant women without wedding rings. And I do believe that some of these people are present on Hatrack.
You didn't say some guys. You said "a lot of you guys," emphasis added.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"people have a duty not to kill their children" presupposes, once again, that they have children. That's not something accepted by everyone. A pregnancy isn't universally understood to be a child. You do understand that?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"people have a duty not to kill their children" presupposes, once again, that they have children. That's not something accepted by everyone. A pregnancy isn't universally understood to be a child. You do understand that?
Yes Tatiania. You are entirely missing my point here. I'm not mounting a general attack on abortion.
I am merely saying that a particular conclusion can be defended based on axioms other than the ones pH thinks they require.
Once again:
1.) pH said that a particular sentence could only be defended by equating pregnancy with punishment.
2.) I demonstrated that the particular sentence in question could. in fact, be defended by equating abortion with killing a child.
3.) The demonstration described in 2.) is a counterexample to pH's claim of exclusion described in 1.)
4.) Therefore pH's claim in 1.) is wrong.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that all attempts at a conversation other than he said she said have broken down, I'm going to another thread.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To make elective abortion gender-neutral, there'd have to be a period after birth in which the father is allowed to kill the infancy.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I see what you are saying, Dagonee. I think the thing that confused me was the absolutist terms you used. Anyone who does happen to equate abortion with killing a child can indeed defend that sentence. What sidetracked me is that you didn't seem to notice or acknowlege in your argument that not everyone does. It makes one's argument much clearer and stronger when one acknowledges the other side, and doesn't seem not to even see it, I guess. I think I need to learn that myself.
I'm not arguing with anyone anymore. I'm just discussing our various approaches to thought about these questions which seem to divide us so much, and of which we have so many different views, and upon which we display such different values.
I feel as though I can see everyone's view on the abortion issue. I'm interested in the differences in our perspectives that give rise to these differences in our focus.
One big difference I see is the focus on natural consequences of choices, versus focusing on punishment.
I think young people (those who were raised by loving parents) tend to think more in terms of punishment than natural consequences, simply because parents have shielded them from most of the natural consequences of their actions, and instead have meted out punishment. Children tend to see morality in terms of punishment, and getting caught.
It's only after many years of life, after experiencing the natural consequences for our mistakes, that most of us shift our moral understanding more toward seeing that bad things, even really horrible heartbreaking things, happen a lot in life, and there's a large degree to which our choices can affect or prevent them. That's when true responsibility begins, I think. Some get it earlier than others, and some never do. It's not about whether what we do is morally defensible or not, but rather, it's about the fact that we had a choice, and we chose, and about whether it turned out well or badly, and could we have known in advance what might have happened, and could we have chosen in such a way that the world would be a better place now.
Sister Celestine, Sister Emily and Sister Jeanne Marie, when I was growing up, were all about the punishment of a wrathful God for infractions of his (seemingly arbitrary) rules (as carried out by His servants, the Priests and Nuns of His Church.) I never felt any moral connection to any of that. They struck me as being unkind and unhappy people. There was a sadistic, cruel streak that ran through their teachings. The ones I loved, Father Allen and Father Pilato, the joyful and loving ones, both ended up leaving the church eventually.
I remember that joke about the kid who was so bad at math, and after he was sent to Catholic school began to get As in math and his parents asked him what was different now and he replied that he saw what happened to that guy they nailed to the plus sign. Jokes like this about Catholicism are funny mainly because they resonate with this sadistic streak that people feel runs in the church. I remember lessons in parochial school about a little boy who let himself be badly beaten by a gang rather than allow the sacramental hosts to be defiled. Lessons about the grisly martyrdom of various saints. I can clearly understand why people interpret the teachings of the Catholic Church in terms of a focus on punishment.
It seems clear to me that you are more about people taking responsibility for the natural consequences of their choices. I wonder if we experienced very different manifestations of the Catholic church as we were growing up.
Changing focus to another difference in our views, I wish I could understand why so many people seem to believe a blastocyst is a child. That seems really counterintuitive to me. It seems like a mistake, an error, and one that most people wouldn't naturally make. So how did it get so engrained into so many people's heads? I'm obviously not seeing something here. Is it just because there's no real easily determined dividing line during development when a baby comes into being? Is it because fertilization provides the only spot at which there is any sort of conceptual difference between a baby and some reproductive cells? At one point we have some cells of two people's bodies, then at some later point we undeniably have a baby, but there isn't an easily discernible moment at which one became the other? Because of that, you pick a random point that seems at least to have some discontinuity? But it's a point that's well before the point at which most people would see anything they would recognize as a baby?
I guess I understand that it's difficult to decide the moment when a baby comes into existence, but what I can't understand is why pick conception as that moment?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, for me it's pretty simple. I have no idea when the spirit attaches to the body. It's obviously not something science can tell us, and as far as I can tell the Bible is silent on the matter. So, I take the most conservative view possible. Better safe than sorry when it comes to human lives.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I understand that it's difficult to decide the moment when a baby comes into existence, but what I can't understand is why pick conception as that moment?
I think I can answer this one, and I think that it's tied to Jesus' conception.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Changing focus to another difference in our views, I wish I could understand why so many people seem to believe a blastocyst is a child. That seems really counterintuitive to me. It seems like a mistake, an error, and one that most people wouldn't naturally make. So how did it get so engrained into so many people's heads? I'm obviously not seeing something here. Is it just because there's no real easily determined dividing line during development when a baby comes into being? Is it because fertilization provides the only spot at which there is any sort of conceptual difference between a baby and some reproductive cells? At one point we have some cells of two people's bodies, then at some later point we undeniably have a baby, but there isn't an easily discernible moment at which one became the other? Because of that, you pick a random point that seems at least to have some discontinuity?
I can't speak to why other people might pick that point, but I do so because it simply a matter of biological fact. Prior to fertilization, you have some gametes floating around; after fertilization, you have a living human organism.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do so because it simply a matter of biological fact. Prior to fertilization, you have some gametes floating around; after fertilization, you have a living human organism.
Yeah, I don't know about this. After fertilization, you have a zygote floating around, I don't know if that's much or less a human than the egg and swimmers.
Then again, in the US, you aren't fully human until you are 21 anyway.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: To make elective abortion gender-neutral, there'd have to be a period after birth in which the father is allowed to kill the infancy.
That still wouldn't be gender-neutral, because the mother is still going through the pregnancy and birth.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: To make elective abortion gender-neutral, there'd have to be a period after birth in which the father is allowed to kill the infancy.
That still wouldn't be gender-neutral, because the mother is still going through the pregnancy and birth.
The abortion would be gender-neutral. Of course the birth wouldn't be.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
