|
Male freedom of choice? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
You believe, then, in holding people responsible for the choices of others? |
I believe you misunderstood me. Except for rape, both participants willingly play a role, so they both acted according to their own will and no responsibility is, at best, shared. No responsibility can be transferred in such scenario.
The fact that the woman decides not to have an abortion is just because neither of them should to transfer their responsibility to someone else: whoever decides to ignore the consequences (be the man or the woman) is invading the child's right to choose.
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
what's a someone? when does something becomes a someone? what determines when something becomes a someone? |
A someone is a body that, internally, contains structures similar to ours: A foetus is a "someone", given the fact that it contains cells similar to ours, for example.
If you want to expand this to other animals, given the fact that they do have cells, there's no problem either: it's better to err on the safe side. By doing this, the chances of not immorally taking someone's freedom is substantially lower. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I believe you misunderstood me. Except for rape, both participants willingly play a role, so they both acted according to their own will and no responsibility is, at best, shared. No responsibility can be transferred in such scenario.
The fact that the woman decides not to have an abortion is just because neither of them should to transfer their responsibility to someone else: whoever decides to ignore the consequences (be the man or the woman) is invading the child's right to choose. |
When do you think that a "child" begins to exist? At conception? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by mezzir
but the problem, and where it gets interesting, is the diference between what happens when the man and woman want different things
if the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, she gets an abortion. no child, and no debts etc
if the man doesn't want the child and the woman does, she has the child and they both have to pay, the woman directly and the man through child support
ugh and it gets reeeally complicated if the woman doesn't believe in abortion
but say she does...
if the man wants it and she doesn't, she can still get an abortion
the power's in her hands in this case. so granted she has to go through an abortion which i'd imagine isn't all fun and games, but gets off without a hitch for the most part
if the woman wants it and the man doesn't, she has the damn baby and the guy's stuck paying child support for the rest of his life.
it sucks either ways, and the negative factors for each decision are inherently different, which makes this all very difficult to evaluate |
That's why I'm taking an egalitarian stance on this - this pro-choice movement towards abortion ends up being sexist, because women end up having different rights, compared to men. If a man decides to have an abortion, then there's what I'd call a corporeal fallacy (It's the woman's body), which is non-sense - it's the child's body, and the fact that it is inside her body does not mean it is hers.
If you forbid abortion, and find both parties responsible for the act, I can't see how this could be sexist and/or unfair to one particular side. Both were there during the time of conception, right? |
|
|
| jdat |
think of sex as a joint business venture.
You invest without knowing if you will profit.
In the case that the business goes down ( pregnancy leading to the birth ) neither party can pull out and say I want my money back from the initial investement |
|
|
| Lira |
I like jdat's analogy: simple and truthful :)
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
When do you think that a "child" begins to exist? At conception? |
Unless there's a major event during pre-natal development, are there any other particular stages where you can pinpoint the beginning of a new life? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I believe you misunderstood me. Except for rape, both participants willingly play a role, so they both acted according to their own will and no responsibility is, at best, shared. No responsibility can be transferred in such scenario.
The fact that the woman decides not to have an abortion is just because neither of them should to transfer their responsibility to someone else: whoever decides to ignore the consequences (be the man or the woman) is invading the child's right to choose.
A someone is a body that, internally, contains structures similar to ours: A foetus is a "someone", given the fact that it contains cells similar to ours, for example.
If you want to expand this to other animals, given the fact that they do have cells, there's no problem either: it's better to err on the safe side. By doing this, the chances of not immorally taking someone's freedom is substantially lower. |
are seperate semen and ovum someones?
is a zygote a someone?
is an embryo a someone? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by jdat
In the case that the business goes down ( pregnancy leading to the birth ) neither party can pull out and say I want my money back from the initial investement |
And in the current situation, once the pregnancy occurs, the woman may opt out of the "business arrangement" and the man may not. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
are seperate semen and ovum someones? |
Is the sperm, or the ovum, as haploid cells, independently and structurally similar to us and/or able to spontaneously become that way?
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
is a zygote a someone?
is an embryo a someone? |
Both are made up by diploid cells, like ours, aren't they? Don't they spontaneously become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similar to us? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
A severed finger is also made up of diploid cells like our own.
That is hardly an adequate criterion by itself. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
A severed finger is also made up of diploid cells like our own.
That is hardly an adequate criterion by itself. |
A severed finger (I take it you cut it off) is hardly an independent (and similar) being. Although it's got cells, there's no cellular activity whatsoever, after a brief period of time. Therefore the diploid cells in a severed finger aren't similar to ours, for they show no activity. Ploidy can't be ignored, nor can activity (otherwise you'd come to the bizarre conclusion that dead animals are, somehow, just like living animals). |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
A severed finger (I take it you cut it off) is hardly an independent (and similar) being. Although it's got cells, there's no cellular activity whatsoever, after a brief period of time. |
And in the case of an embryo, there would be no cellular activity after a brief period if it were not for the woman's support.
| quote: | | Therefore the diploid cells in a severed finger aren't similar to ours, for they show no activity. |
Sure they do, until all oxygenated blood is completely stripped of oxygen. Why not hook the finger up to a machine and keep it alive?
If we are speaking of nervous activity, which is really the only relevant thing here, then early embryos have just as little as severed fingers do. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Is the sperm, or the ovum, as haploid cells, independently and structurally similar to us and/or able to spontaneously become that way?
Both are made up by diploid cells, like ours, aren't they? Don't they spontaneously become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similar to us? |
what MrJiveBoJingles said :p
oh, and btw, what's so spontaneous about it? if the mother dies, the embryo will not continue developing, will it? if the mother doesn't adjust her diet to the fact she is pregnent will the embryo continue developing as well as an embryo of a mother who does change her diet? if the mother doesn't stop smoking/drinking/etc due to her pregnancy will the embryo continue developing as well as an embryo of a mother who does stop doing those things?
edit: boo, this post became redundant by the time it was actually posted :( |
|
|
|
|
