My Kidney Challenge II

[Kylie]

I said you were being inconsistent within your own framework, because you were claiming relative morality, then outlining moral principles that apply to all persons. That was inconsistent because you can't actually hold to both.

You fail to realise that a subjective viewpoint can be held by most if not all people and still be subjective. The viewpoint, "I should have the final say about what happens with my body" sure seems to me to be one such viewpoint.

Within my framework, my view was consistent. God is the one who imposes morality in my framework. He is the one who has the right to dictate to me, even overruling bodily autonomy in my framework. People do not.

And yet it seems that God imposes different moralities on different people. Some sects of Christianity view divorce as always wrong, others allow it. This is not what we would see if there was a God laying down morality. But it is exactly what we would see if there were different people deciding that their own personal morality was given to them by God.

The article I posted, from 2020, specifically addressed the arguments you present above from 2005 with new research. Those who read it will find this to be the case. Due to copyright regulations I cannot quote it here.

You mean the bit about the patients who were missing that part of the brain but still reacted as though in pain? I looked at the paper on that, the patient was 55 years old. Their brain was fully developed, hardly the same thing as a brain that was still being formed.

So would you oppose abortions after 30 weeks based on your source?

Depends.

Pretty much any abortion that takes place at that point is done because continuing the pregnancy presents a risk to the life of the mother. I can't see any reason to force a woman to continue a pregnancy if it means it is likely to result in the death of both her and the child.

If a woman is going to have an abortion because she decides she does not want to continue the pregnancy for whatever reason, she's hardly likely to wait that long. So while I'd say that you could argue that an abortion simply because the mother doesn't wish to continue the pregnancy at that point is wrong (not saying I'd buy that argument, just saying that a case could be made), that situation pretty much never happens.

I would, but not on the basis that they have complete autonomy or self-determination, but that it is cruelty.

How is it cruelty if they have no bodily autonomy? How can you recognise that I have the right to treat the dogs any way I wish since they lack bodily autonomy, and yet cry foul that I am treating them they way I wish?

However, I wouldn't have a problem with you eating an animal, for instance, even if the animal may not prefer it.

So you care less for the pain of an animal with a fully functioning brain that can experience pain than an embryo that lacks such a brain?

Seems to me you don't care about the pain at all, merely the species.

Of course it is not if morality has any meaning. IF there is uncertainty then you would need to avoid the possibility of violating moral lines by being more cautious.

So when you were a kid and went outside to play, and your mum told you to be back by nightfall, you were back at 3pm? Just to be cautious?

Given that you haven't defined personhood yet, it cannot be anything but vaguely defined, which is why I asked what you meant by it.

Actually, you provided the definition in post 253: "...at what point does one become a "person" to you?" Clearly, the definition is "when I consider it to be a person." The only vague thing here is when that occurs, and I have explained why.

 

[Kylie]

tall73 said: ↑

Irresponsible sex is rejecting the results of your own choices and then exterminating the life that came from those choices.

If a fertile man and a fertile woman are having sex there is the possibility of life. And by engaging in sex, with protection or not, they are accepting that possibility.

I noted earlier the example of a man being responsible for child support. Now you note that all persons have bodily autonomy.

So should the man have to give a portion of his labor for 18 years if he doesn't want to? The law usually says yes. Because he made his choice when he had sex.

Other than cases of rape, the woman also made her choice when engaging in sex.

Can you please put quote tags around those other parts of earlier posts that you are quoting?

Well, it is 2022, so you may need to revise that statement if you wish to avoid being labeled a TERF.

I fully support trans people, but I'm avoiding that discussion here because I don't want to derail the thread into a discussion about trans rights. I'm already involved in a thread about trans people, I'd be happy to discuss that topic there.

However, the question still remains: Should men have to pay child support?

I think so.

And don't try to tell me that it's the same thing, that the man is having to use his body just like a woman. Because it's not.

A man can get out of paying child support if the woman has the child. But the woman can't get out of her part if the man has to do his. A woman doesn't get paid child support if she has an abortion. And the mother goes through a helluvalot more than the man does.

 

[tall73]

You fail to realise that a subjective viewpoint can be held by most if not all people and still be subjective. The viewpoint, "I should have the final say about what happens with my body" sure seems to me to be one such viewpoint.

If it is only held by most then you cannot apply it as a moral principle that applies to all. So again, you need to choose. Are there moral principles which apply to all, or not? You indicated previously that persons have the right to bodily autonomy. But some may not think that.

This is even more evident in one of your other moral principle that you cannot impose your morality on others. I noted a class of people who reject that, Theonomists. They believe that morality is imposed on them, AND is to be imposed on others as well. That is not compatible with everyone making their own moral system. And so when @Hammster indicated that you were imposing your moral principle on him, he was correct.

If he can make up his own morality, you can't dictate what is in that, or the limits thereof without imposing your own morality. In his system imposing morality is endorsed, In your personal system it is not.

And yet it seems that God imposes different moralities on different people. Some sects of Christianity view divorce as always wrong, others allow it. This is not what we would see if there was a God laying down morality. But it is exactly what we would see if there were different people deciding that their own personal morality was given to them by God.

Different interpretations of absolutes does not make a system of non-absolutes. It just makes different interpretations. They are not holding to your view that they can just make up their own morality, even if there is diversity of views on the absolutes.

You mean the bit about the patients who were missing that part of the brain but still reacted as though in pain? I looked at the paper on that, the patient was 55 years old. Their brain was fully developed, hardly the same thing as a brain that was still being formed.

Those reading the study can evaluate. But in fact it spoke about multiple studies, some, as in the above, showing that the cortex was not as critical as was before thought, but also showing that development occurring prior to full cortex connections may also be capable of registering the sensation of pain, etc.

Depends.

Pretty much any abortion that takes place at that point is done because continuing the pregnancy presents a risk to the life of the mother. I can't see any reason to force a woman to continue a pregnancy if it means it is likely to result in the death of both her and the child.

If a woman is going to have an abortion because she decides she does not want to continue the pregnancy for whatever reason, she's hardly likely to wait that long. So while I'd say that you could argue that an abortion simply because the mother doesn't wish to continue the pregnancy at that point is wrong (not saying I'd buy that argument, just saying that a case could be made), that situation pretty much never happens.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190
This study looks at reasons for third trimester abortions, and notes that one reason is that the person was not aware they were pregnant prior to then. For instance, in one case the person was 26 weeks along before being informed she was pregnant, and then had to seek out an abortion following that.

This article discusses cryptic pregnancy:

Cryptic pregnancy: What to know

Women with a cryptic pregnancy are unaware that they are pregnant. They may only realize they are pregnant during the last few weeks of pregnancy or when they give birth.

Women with nonpsychotic denial have no history of mental illness and their sense of reality is intact.

Women with cryptic pregnancies may not experience any typical pregnancy symptoms or only vague ones.

So in the case that a woman finds out she is pregnant late in the third trimester, would you support abortion because the pregnancy is not desired?

How is it cruelty if they have no bodily autonomy? How can you recognise that I have the right to treat the dogs any way I wish since they lack bodily autonomy, and yet cry foul that I am treating them they way I wish?

A child may not have full bodily autonomy either, as their parent makes decisions for their health, etc. in some circumstances. That does not mean inflicting pain on them without cause is moral.

So you care less for the pain of an animal with a fully functioning brain that can experience pain than an embryo that lacks such a brain?

Yes.

Because a person and an animal are different morally in my framework. Man, male and female, are made in God's image, and animals are not.

You place more value on a dead body with its organs than you do on a fertilzed egg. And the dead body does not have a brain that can feel pain either.

A fertilized human egg is human, and is valuable. It may or may not survive until birth if left to itself, but actively killing a human is not recognizing the bodily autonomy that you claim almost all people have (and even if you think it is not yet a person will then most likely have). And it is not recognizing the responsibility to this life that you have because you chose to take an action that brought it into being (just as a man is required to take responsibility through child support).

Seems to me you don't care about the pain at all, merely the species.

I do not consider animals and people as the same morally. That does not mean I think we should abuse or torture animals or that they don't feel pain.

Pain is sometimes inflicted, even on humans, for a purpose, in medical procedures, etc. But inflicting needless pain is cruel.

Eating animals is in fact a valid purpose in my moral framework. But pain inflicted just because you can is immoral.

So when you were a kid and went outside to play, and your mum told you to be back by nightfall, you were back at 3pm? Just to be cautious?

No, because unlike your earlier answer I usually knew what my mom meant.

You made a quite nebulous statement, and then after I requested clarification provided some.

Actually, you provided the definition in post 253: "...at what point does one become a "person" to you?" Clearly, the definition is "when I consider it to be a person." The only vague thing here is when that occurs, and I have explained why.

Me asking at what point someone becomes a person is not a definition of a person. It is a question about timing.

When you consider it to be a person is descriptive of when you think it happens. It doesn't answer what you mean by a person.

What is a person?

 

[tall73]

I fully support trans people, but I'm avoiding that discussion here because I don't want to derail the thread into a discussion about trans rights. I'm already involved in a thread about trans people, I'd be happy to discuss that topic there.

That is fine. I may discuss it at some point in the other thread.

I think so.

And don't try to tell me that it's the same thing, that the man is having to use his body just like a woman. Because it's not.

I didn't say they are the same thing in regards to degree of burden or risk.

But they are the same in that both already used their bodily autonomy to engage in an act that they know can lead to life. They made their decision. And now they have an obligation to the life they made.

A man can get out of paying child support if the woman has the child.

Can you elaborate?

But the woman can't get out of her part if the man has to do his.

Not following, please clarify.

And the mother goes through a helluvalot more than the man does.

If the woman realizes she has more risk, should she not include that in the risk assessment? Wasn't that the basis for your statement that women should just have sex with each other?

The moral obligation is something you agreed to on the part of the man. And that moral obligation stems from the choice to engage in sex.

The woman also contributed to the new life through engaging in sex. Barring rape, she took this action knowing the possibilities. So she has a responsibility to the new life as well.

Now you claim that persons should have bodily autonomy. They should not be forced to do what another person wants. Giving a portion of your labor for 18 years if you do not want to is not autonomy by your definition.

But the law, and apparently you, recognize that he already made his choice at the point he had sex, leading to the obligation.

So how can you deny that she made her choice at that same point? They both knew pregnancy was possible. They both took on the risk of that responsibility, even if the level of risk was higher for one than the other.

The mechanism of taking on the responsibility is not dependent on the risk level. They have responsibility because they engaged in an act that they knew could bring a life into being.

 

[tall73]

Can you please put quote tags around those other parts of earlier posts that you are quoting?

I tend to use the other method because it is easier to see longer exchanges at once, without having to expand the quote window. It still has the link back to the comments.

Is there a reason you prefer the other? You seemed to pick up on the notion of them being quotes, and others seem to have in my experience as well.

 

[Kylie]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190
This study looks at reasons for third trimester abortions, and notes that one reason is that the person was not aware they were pregnant prior to then. For instance, in one case the person was 26 weeks along before being informed she was pregnant, and then had to seek out an abortion following that.

This article discusses cryptic pregnancy:

Cryptic pregnancy: What to know

Women with a cryptic pregnancy are unaware that they are pregnant. They may only realize they are pregnant during the last few weeks of pregnancy or when they give birth.

Women with nonpsychotic denial have no history of mental illness and their sense of reality is intact.

Women with cryptic pregnancies may not experience any typical pregnancy symptoms or only vague ones.

So in the case that a woman finds out she is pregnant late in the third trimester, would you support abortion because the pregnancy is not desired?

In such a case, the woman in question can have birth induced and then put the baby up for adoption. From her point of view it would be little different.

A child may not have full bodily autonomy either, as their parent makes decisions for their health, etc. in some circumstances. That does not mean inflicting pain on them without cause is moral.

Considering that we generally aren't talking about children getting pregnant, that's not really relevant.

Yes.

Because a person and an animal are different morally in my framework. Man, male and female, are made in God's image, and animals are not.

Earlier you criticised me for pushing my morality onto others, and yet now you are pushing your religion onto me.

You place more value on a dead body with its organs than you do on a fertilzed egg. And the dead body does not have a brain that can feel pain either.

If a person left very specific instructions that they did not want to be an organ donor after death, but their organs could save someone's life, would you harvest their organs against their wishes?

A fertilized human egg is human, and is valuable. It may or may not survive until birth if left to itself, but actively killing a human is not recognizing the bodily autonomy that you claim almost all people have (and even if you think it is not yet a person will then most likely have). And it is not recognizing the responsibility to this life that you have because you chose to take an action that brought it into being (just as a man is required to take responsibility through child support).

If you were in a IVF clinic that was on fire and about to be destroyed, and you have the option of saving ten test tubes with fertilized eggs in them or one child, which would you choose to save?

Me asking at what point someone becomes a person is not a definition of a person. It is a question about timing.

When you consider it to be a person is descriptive of when you think it happens. It doesn't answer what you mean by a person.

You didn't ask me for my definition of a person. You asked me when I thought a fetus should be granted personhood. My answer - "When I consider it to be a person" - was perfectly valid.

What is a person?

That a whole nother question.

 

[Kylie]

I didn't say they are the same thing in regards to degree of burden or risk.

But they are the same in that both already used their bodily autonomy to engage in an act that they know can lead to life. They made their decision. And now they have an obligation to the life they made.

And if you pat a wild animal and get infected with intestinal worms, you have a responsibility to look after that. After all, you made the choice to pat the animal, despite knowing that it could lead to you getting infected.

Ah, but you will say it's different because you only apply your reasoning to Humans.

Can you elaborate?

I thought it was quite clear.

Not following, please clarify.

There is no way for a woman to get out of being pregnant that does not also get the man out of responsibility.

There are many ways for a man to get out of being responsible that still keeps the woman pregnant.

 

[Kylie]

I tend to use the other method because it is easier to see longer exchanges at once, without having to expand the quote window. It still has the link back to the comments.

Is there a reason you prefer the other? You seemed to pick up on the notion of them being quotes, and others seem to have in my experience as well.

Because I have to go and delete them when I quote your post.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190
This study looks at reasons for third trimester abortions, and notes that one reason is that the person was not aware they were pregnant prior to then. For instance, in one case the person was 26 weeks along before being informed she was pregnant, and then had to seek out an abortion following that.

This article discusses cryptic pregnancy:

Cryptic pregnancy: What to know

Women with a cryptic pregnancy are unaware that they are pregnant. They may only realize they are pregnant during the last few weeks of pregnancy or when they give birth.

Women with nonpsychotic denial have no history of mental illness and their sense of reality is intact.

Women with cryptic pregnancies may not experience any typical pregnancy symptoms or only vague ones.

So in the case that a woman finds out she is pregnant late in the third trimester, would you support abortion because the pregnancy is not desired?

In such a case, the woman in question can have birth induced and then put the baby up for adoption. From her point of view it would be little different.

Yes, but as noted in the source posted, some do not do that, but rather have an abortion. So would it be immoral to abort the child at that time?

tall73 said: ↑
A child may not have full bodily autonomy either, as their parent makes decisions for their health, etc. in some circumstances. That does not mean inflicting pain on them without cause is moral.

Considering that we generally aren't talking about children getting pregnant, that's not really relevant.

It was not mentioned because children are generally getting pregnant. I was indicating that pain is sometimes inflicted on humans, with a purpose. The distinction is that to inflict pain without a good reason is cruel, and immoral. But that is not because of a species distinction. Inflicting pain should only be with a good purpose.

Kylie said: ↑
So you care less for the pain of an animal with a fully functioning brain that can experience pain than an embryo that lacks such a brain?

tall73 said: ↑
Yes.

Because a person and an animal are different morally in my framework. Man, male and female, are made in God's image, and animals are not.

Earlier you criticised me for pushing my morality onto others, and yet now you are pushing your religion onto me.

I criticized you earlier for pushing your morality onto @Hammster WHILE stating that you held it as a moral principle that you cannot push your morality onto others.

And here I was answering your question about my view, and stating it is my framework. That is not at all pushing my religion onto you. It is explaining my perspective.

If a person left very specific instructions that they did not want to be an organ donor after death, but their organs could save someone's life, would you harvest their organs against their wishes?

No. Nor did I say so.

You took issue with me caring more about a developing baby than an animal with a developed brain.

I noted that you likewise cared more for the autonomy of an already dead human than a developing baby.

We have completely different frameworks, so that is not unexpected.

If you were in a IVF clinic that was on fire and about to be destroyed, and you have the option of saving ten test tubes with fertilized eggs in them or one child, which would you choose to save?

I don't go to IVF clinics. They should be outlawed as they create fertilized eggs to be destroyed or simply stored indefinitely.

You didn't ask me for my definition of a person. You asked me when I thought a fetus should be granted personhood. My answer - "When I consider it to be a person" - was perfectly valid.

I asked what makes a person.

You are the one arguing for a personhood distinction now instead of humans having bodily autonomy. So what makes a person?

But if that was poor phrasing, and it could be, then you have a new opportunity to define personhood.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
I didn't say they are the same thing in regards to degree of burden or risk.

But they are the same in that both already used their bodily autonomy to engage in an act that they know can lead to life. They made their decision. And now they have an obligation to the life they made.

And if you pat a wild animal and get infected with intestinal worms, you have a responsibility to look after that. After all, you made the choice to pat the animal, despite knowing that it could lead to you getting infected.

Ah, but you will say it's different because you only apply your reasoning to Humans.

I don't pat wild animals either. In fact, I don't pat domestic animals.

It is different because the sexual organs are designed for procreation, and to engage in sex as fertile people means you could form a life, which you then have a responsibility towards because you brought the life into being.

A parasite moving from one host to another does not bring it into being.

You acknowledged the man had a responsibility in having to pay child support. The law usually does as well.

I have seen no law saying you have to support a parasite that got there by animal contact, because the parasite is not something you brought about.

I thought it was quite clear.

I didn't. Men usually are not let out of child support. If you could explain cases where you indicate they were we could examine them.

There is no way for a woman to get out of being pregnant that does not also get the man out of responsibility.

And in states that allow abortion there is no way for the man to have a choice if she wants the child. Doesn't change the mechanism of responsibility. They brought about the child, and are responsible for it. And if the man can be held responsible from the sex act, so can the woman.

Moreover, responsibility for both means that men cannot pressure women to abort to get out of their responsibility, which has also happened.

There are many ways for a man to get out of being responsible that still keeps the woman pregnant.

You still have not elaborated. But if her being pregnant is so dire, she should certainly not engage in acts which can bring it about if it is not desired. And if he doesn't want to be on the hook for child support, he should not engage in such acts either.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, but as noted in the source posted, some do not do that, but rather have an abortion. So would it be immoral to abort the child at that time?

If that does happen, it would be an absolutely tiny minority of cases. And without knowing the person's situation, I couldn't say.

I criticized you earlier for pushing your morality onto @Hammster WHILE stating that you held it as a moral principle that you cannot push your morality onto others.

And here I was answering your question about my view, and stating it is my framework. That is not at all pushing my religion onto you. It is explaining my perspective.

You justified your position with your religious faith and, I assume, want me to accept it. You are also trying to convince me of the validity of your faith-based position, despite the fact I do not share your faith.

No. Nor did I say so.

And why wouldn't you?

I noted that you likewise cared more for the autonomy of an already dead human than a developing baby.

We have completely different frameworks, so that is not unexpected.

You just said that you, like me, would respect the bodily autonomy of a corpse, even if it means that other people will die.

I don't go to IVF clinics. They should be outlawed as they create fertilized eggs to be destroyed or simply stored indefinitely.

Stop avoiding the question.

I asked what makes a person.

No you didn't.

You asked, "at what point does one become a "person" to you?"

That is a very different question to "What makes a person?"

But if that was poor phrasing, and it could be, then you have a new opportunity to define personhood.

That is a very complex question that I don't have a ready answer for.

 

[Kylie]

I don't pat wild animals either. In fact, I don't pat domestic animals.

Again, you are avoiding the question.

It is different because the sexual organs are designed for procreation, and to engage in sex as fertile people means you could form a life, which you then have a responsibility towards because you brought the life into being.

Irrelevant. You are attempting to use special pleading based on what part of the body is used.

A parasite moving from one host to another does not bring it into being.

There are plenty of parasites that can only gestate inside a living host.

I didn't. Men usually are not let out of child support. If you could explain cases where you indicate they were we could examine them.

Men can lie about their income, particularly if they get paid under the table.

And in states that allow abortion there is no way for the man to have a choice if she wants the child. Doesn't change the mechanism of responsibility. They brought about the child, and are responsible for it. And if the man can be held responsible from the sex act, so can the woman.

I doubt you'll agree with this, but...Men Cause 100% of Unwanted Pregnancies (This also addresses the question of child support)

Moreover, responsibility for both means that men cannot pressure women to abort to get out of their responsibility, which has also happened.

That's looking at the problem the wrong way. It's like trying to stop drink drivers by banning driving.

You still have not elaborated. But if her being pregnant is so dire, she should certainly not engage in acts which can bring it about if it is not desired. And if he doesn't want to be on the hook for child support, he should not engage in such acts either.

Hence I said women could just stop having sex with men. But then women who have sex with women get blasted for being gay. So there's just no winning, is there?

 

[tall73]

If that does happen, it would be an absolutely tiny minority of cases. And without knowing the person's situation, I couldn't say.

What do you mean if? I just linked to the article that looked at case studies.

The child at that point is quite developed. So why would it be right to strip the child of bodily autonomy, and life?

You justified your position with your religious faith and, I assume, want me to accept it. You are also trying to convince me of the validity of your faith-based position, despite the fact I do not share your faith.

If you ask me about my view, I have to talk about my view, which is religious. I did not ask you to accept it.

I would certainly be fine if you did, but only if it was accompanied by actual faith, which you have not expressed.

And why wouldn't you?

Because I think that bodily autonomy is important, and have no issue with honoring the wishes of the person, even though deceased. I mentioned examples such as experimenting on people without consent, sterilization without consent, etc. because bodily autonomy is a legitimate principle.

But I also note that when someone uses their bodily autonomy to engage in sex that then creates a life, they already made their decision. They have a responsibility to that life, and should not remove the autonomy and life that they brought into being.

You just said that you, like me, would respect the bodily autonomy of a corpse, even if it means that other people will die.

Yes. See the earlier discussion on someone having no responsibility to provide organs to another in a situation they were not responsible for creating.

Stop avoiding the question.

No really, I didn't avoid the question. I noted that I don't go to IVF clinics. So I won't be making such decisions there. But I would shut down IVF clinics.

No you didn't.

You asked, "at what point does one become a "person" to you?"

That is a very different question to "What makes a person?"

I asked both. And I quoted where I asked it in the post you just replied to.

That is a very complex question that I don't have a ready answer for.

Which is why the switch from "humans" to "persons" was convenient.

 

[tall73]

Again, you are avoiding the question.

I didn't avoid it, I answered right after, even though I do not in fact pat animals.

Irrelevant. You are attempting to use special pleading based on what part of the body is used.

It is not irrelevant that you created a life. You even admitted the responsibility of the father earlier because he engaged in a sexual act which then resulted in pregnancy.

As to what part of the body, that is not special pleading either. Sex is designed to bring about procreation, though it may vary as to the rate that it does result in that.

Saying that engaging in an act that is designed to get you pregnant is the same as patting an animal and having a ringworm infect you is hardly parallel. And you didn't bring about the ringworm.

Men can lie about their income, particularly if they get paid under the table.

And do you think there is any recourse?

I doubt you'll agree with this, but...Men Cause 100% of Unwanted Pregnancies (This also addresses the question of child support)

Lol! Why would I agree with this completely ridiculous assertion? Judging by her arguments she doesn't agree with it herself, and this is parody.

This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.

But men are fertile 365 days a year.

So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here.

Let's see, both had sex together. Sounds like both are responsible. If anything the woman would know more about when she is fertile based on her cycle. And she would already know that he is fertile all the time. So why would she choose to have sex then?


“But what about birth control?” you might ask. “ If a woman can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy, right?”

I’ll simply point out that, as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

Birth control has a failure rate. If a fertile woman engages in sex with a fertile man they are both opening themselves up to the possibility of pregnancy. But it still takes both to engage in consensual sex, so this has nothing to do with men being 100 percent responsible for unwanted pregnancy.


Pregnancies happen when men have an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] irresponsibly.

Pretty sure there is more to the story than male [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] = woman pregnant. It usually involves sex with the woman. She should probably educate herself on this point so she is not confused as to what causes pregnancy, and stop consenting to that risk.

For the truly condom-averse, men also have a non-condom, always-ready birth control option built right in: the pull-out. It doesn’t protect against STDs, it’s an easy joke, and it’s far from perfect. However, it’s 96% effective if done correctly, and 78% effective in practice (because it’s often not done correctly).

Blaming the guy because you get pregnant when agreeing to sex with a method with a 22 percent failure rate--such logic!

Let’s move to the topic of responsibility. Often, men don’t know, don’t ask, and don’t think to ask if they’ve caused a pregnancy. There are often zero consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

Perhaps stop having sex with men who are not part of your life.

Only about 61 percent of required payments by men are actually made, and there are little to no repercussions for skipping out. In some states, failing to pay child support doesn’t even affect your credit.

Sounds like a legal structural problem, which doesn't change the moral requirement to pay which you noted. Nor does it show that men are responsible for all unwanted pregnancies.


If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply hold men accountable for their actions.

By completely denying any responsibility for your own actions!

But I would be fine with increased penalties for dads who don't pay child support. That doesn't change the reason that they are required to in the first place, because they helped bring a life about.


Vasectomies are very safe, highly reversible,

They are not always reversible, especially the longer they are in place.

If and when a man becomes a responsible adult

ie, stops looking for sex with this woman who takes no responsibility at all.


.....yup, didn't agree with that one bit, and am pretty sure she doesn't either.

That's looking at the problem the wrong way. It's like trying to stop drink drivers by banning driving.

Abortion and compelling abortion are both morally wrong, and both have a responsibility to the life they brought into being. Both should be stopped.

Hence I said women could just stop having sex with men.

Sure. Or they could just have sex with men who are in their life and open to bringing about life.

But then women who have sex with women get blasted for being gay. So there's just no winning, is there?

Are you proposing that sexual orientation is a choice?

 

[Kylie]

What do you mean if? I just linked to the article that looked at case studies.

Let's have a look at what the article actually says.

First, it says that only 1% of abortions take place at or after 21 weeks gestation (which is still long before the 29/30 week point at which the nervous system has developed sufficiently enough for the fetus to feel pain).

In the last year for which we have data (2019), there were 629,898. If 1% of those were after the 21 week point, that's about 630 third trimester abortions. SOURCE The majority of these are due to fetal defects that only show up in scans done at about the 20 week point (and the scans are only done then because the structures being scanned do not exist prior to that point).

So only a tiny fraction of the overall numbers of abortions are done late in pregnancy because the woman does not want a baby. And of these cases, the reason given, as your source states, is that the woman could not afford an abortion earlier. I should point out that this can be eliminated by making abortions more accessible, since that will mean that the pregnant women do not need to wait so long. (After all, you never answered my question from post 277: Would you oppose an abortion before 13 weeks (the point at which you suggested a fetus can feel pain)?

Additionally, two of the four cases described in your source were about women who found that the fetus had some defect that would not have let it survive outside the womb. Two of the women who had late term abortions because they did not want a pregnancy only did so because they simply did not have the opportunity to have an earlier stage abortion, since they never realised they were pregnant. Other women who had late term abortions unrelated to fetal defects were forced to have them because they were prevented from having earlier abortions due to policy preventing them from doing so, or because of social stigma that prevented them.

It seems to me that the issue of late term abortions that are not due to fetal defects can be solved by making earlier access to abortion easier to obtain, removing bureaucratic red tape that delays access to early abortions and removing the stigma of abortions.

The child at that point is quite developed. So why would it be right to strip the child of bodily autonomy, and life?

I don't have an answer to that, since I have not been in that position.

Because I think that bodily autonomy is important, and have no issue with honoring the wishes of the person, even though deceased. I mentioned examples such as experimenting on people without consent, sterilization without consent, etc. because bodily autonomy is a legitimate principle.

But I also note that when someone uses their bodily autonomy to engage in sex that then creates a life, they already made their decision. They have a responsibility to that life, and should not remove the autonomy and life that they brought into being.

You seem to be missing the fact that people take precautions to avoid becoming pregnant. Condoms, the pill, etc. Your argument seems to be little different to saying, "I know you took precautions to prevent yourself from getting injured in a car crash - you wore your seatbelt, you got a car with airbags, you drove carefully, but you still chose to drive and not you are injured, so it would be wrong of me to fix that injury. You knew the risks when you got into the car. If you really couldn't bear to face those consequences, you shouldn't have gotten into the car."

Yes. See the earlier discussion on someone having no responsibility to provide organs to another in a situation they were not responsible for creating.

And how would you feel if you were the patient waiting for the donor, only to be told the dead guy would rather that the organ that could save your life rot inside his decaying body?

No really, I didn't avoid the question. I noted that I don't go to IVF clinics. So I won't be making such decisions there. But I would shut down IVF clinics.

You seem unfamiliar with the concept of a hypothetical.

I asked both. And I quoted where I asked it in the post you just replied to.

And I answered it.

 

[Kylie]

As to what part of the body, that is not special pleading either. Sex is designed to bring about procreation, though it may vary as to the rate that it does result in that.

And people design ways of sex to avoid that.

Lol! Why would I agree with this completely ridiculous assertion? Judging by her arguments she doesn't agree with it herself, and this is parody.

This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.

But men are fertile 365 days a year.

So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here.

Let's see, both had sex together. Sounds like both are responsible. If anything the woman would know more about when she is fertile based on her cycle. And she would already know that he is fertile all the time. So why would she choose to have sex then?

The woman is not responsible for the man inseminating her.

“But what about birth control?” you might ask. “ If a woman can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy, right?”

I’ll simply point out that, as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

Birth control has a failure rate. If a fertile woman engages in sex with a fertile man they are both opening themselves up to the possibility of pregnancy. But it still takes both to engage in consensual sex, so this has nothing to do with men being 100 percent responsible for unwanted pregnancy.

Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to sperm meeting egg.

Pregnancies happen when men have an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] irresponsibly.

Pretty sure there is more to the story than male [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] = woman pregnant. It usually involves sex with the woman. She should probably educate herself on this point so she is not confused as to what causes pregnancy, and stop consenting to that risk.

Please, tell me how a woman can get pregnant if the man does NOT [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

For the truly condom-averse, men also have a non-condom, always-ready birth control option built right in: the pull-out. It doesn’t protect against STDs, it’s an easy joke, and it’s far from perfect. However, it’s 96% effective if done correctly, and 78% effective in practice (because it’s often not done correctly).

Blaming the guy because you get pregnant when agreeing to sex with a method with a 22 percent failure rate--such logic!

And you blame the woman when it's the man who can't pull out in time.

Let’s move to the topic of responsibility. Often, men don’t know, don’t ask, and don’t think to ask if they’ve caused a pregnancy. There are often zero consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

Perhaps stop having sex with men who are not part of your life.

Oh yes, because no unwanted pregnancy ever happened because a woman slept with a man who was a part of her life.

If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply hold men accountable for their actions.

By completely denying any responsibility for your own actions!

The woman's actions? What does a woman do that makes it inevitable that she gets pregnant?

I'm not going to go through the rest of your post, because it's the same old stuff that happens when we let religion decide what is right and wrong about sex.

 

[o_mlly]

Really?
There really is no point in trying to talk to you when you say things like this.

You must know that I stopped posting to you many posts ago. I post to the viewers of this thread whose minds remain open on the morality of elective abortions.

I hope I am wrong but I think your mind is closed. It appears you decided long ago that you wanted to kill the child with impunity and work backwards to dream up rationales that would give the patina of morality to such a vicious act. It also seems you would like to pollute the minds of Christians with your nonsensical and illogical arguments at this website. If that's true then tell us why (you've wrote that you believe morality is subjective) do you do that?

I note that as soon as the vacuousness of your proposed arguments are exposed, you do not reply but lurch to the ad hominem as you do above. Tell us, where is your evidence that the child you will to kill is not a human being. May the deer hunter shoot into the moving bush in ignorance of what just moved it? Exactly when in the development of the child is the child safe from those who would kill the child?

The reason you do not answer is because you cannot. If you draw any arbitrary line in the development of the child, regardless if it is a timeline or any other kind of line, short of being fully being born, then the internal incoherence of that argument is exposed If a timeline is proposed then what about the child who is 1 day or 1week later in its development? Is it OK to kill that child based on the accident of residence time in the womb? If it's an absence of some development feature then is it OK to kill "post born" human beings who exhibits the same lack of evidence of that particular feature?

The reason those who, like you who advocate for elective abortions, know that proposing anything short of allowing the vicious act up until the child is fully born would expose the irrationality of their argument. To avoid the logical criticism of their position, some abortion advocates even argue for partial birth abortions, i.e., crushing the child's skull as the child moves down the birth canal. May God have mercy on their souls.

 

[tall73]

Two of the women who had late term abortions because they did not want a pregnancy only did so because they simply did not have the opportunity to have an earlier stage abortion, since they never realised they were pregnant.

Yes, which is what you were asked about.

tall73 said: ↑
The child at that point is quite developed. So why would it be right to strip the child of bodily autonomy, and life?

I don't have an answer to that, since I have not been in that position.

So you apparently don't stand by your bodily autonomy argument. You even referenced how they could just have the baby at that point, but you are fine with killing it even though it is quite far along.

 

[tall73]

You seem to be missing the fact that people take precautions to avoid becoming pregnant. Condoms, the pill, etc.

I have not missed it at all. I have said consistently that all of those have failure rates. If you keep having sex with prevention methods with failure rates, it is not a surprise when you get pregnant.

Your argument seems to be little different to saying, "I know you took precautions to prevent yourself from getting injured in a car crash - you wore your seatbelt, you got a car with airbags, you drove carefully, but you still chose to drive and not you are injured, so it would be wrong of me to fix that injury. You knew the risks when you got into the car. If you really couldn't bear to face those consequences, you shouldn't have gotten into the car."

Of course it is different. A car crash doesn't create a new life.

You can get painkillers, medical assistance with pregnancy, etc. But you are responsible to the new life, just as the man is responsible, by your admission, and has to pay child support.

You have consistently tried to avoid responsibility for the part of the woman in binging about a new life. But you admitted it already in the case of the man. And that is even when contraceptives are used. He engaged in sex that could lead to reproduction, and he has a responsibility to that life.

It appears you don't want to admit agency on the woman's part, only on the man's part, but they are both engaging in the same act.

 

[Kylie]

You must know that I stopped posting to you many posts ago. I post to the viewers of this thread whose minds remain open on the morality of elective abortions.

Ah, you see, I have this crazy idea that if you quote a post of mine then you're actually talking to me.