A secular debate about abortion

[Warren Dew]

Any dispute that the organism involved is of human origin, and is therefore "human?" I mean it's not a turtle or a chicken zygote, is it?

So, it's indisputably human.

And it has achieved "the quality or state of having existence."

By that definition the cancer cell is a "human being", since it's human and also exists.

That's the wrong definition, though. The relevant definition of "being" for the purposes of the meaning of "human being" is "a living creature".

Sophistry and pettifoggery. A zygote is a different sort of cell entirely, as is a collection of normally functioning cells called a blastocyst, embryo or fetus. Any rational person can distinguish between a "living human being" and a "living cancer cell."

So now you're abandoning your attempt at a logical definition, and falling back on "intuitively obvious", eh?

The fact is, any person can also distinguish between a "living human being" and a zygote.

[lordpasternack]

Seth, I can surely guarantee that if you'd spent a fraction of the time reading the fucking thread as you do typing your anencephalic drivel, you might just learn something, and something that might preclude another fucking long-winded, obnoxious, inflammatory, uneducated post. But that would just be less fun, wouldn't it?

Here's something else I wrote:

I hold that what makes life worth respecting - worth wincing before we terminate it - is its consciousness, sentience, capacity to suffer - and the suffering it will bring to other sentient beings if it is terminated. I hold this standard for humans as well as many other animals. I hold that human beings are special as earthly life goes -but that that specialness emerges from stages of development that are on a par with "lesser" animals. I don't find anything special about the simple potential to give rise to an actual person (given the time, and unflagging commitment from a woman's uterus). I think life should be valued on its merits as they stand at that particular time.

...
 
I respect human beings by virtue of the actual qualities that make them human beings worthy of my respect - not for some quantumvibrational human energy that sets in at conception and grows in strength even before the nervous system is properly established. Or is it more just the quantum energetic human potentiality at the foetal stage? I get so confused between terms sometimes…

And by extension, I value other animal lives for what they are, too - which might well be more worthy of defending than a human foetus.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 81#p739381

You are also seriously lucky that you chose Rationalia as a venue for unloading your intellectual nappies. For all that we have a reputation as a bunch of rowdy, uncouth, unmannered louts - I think it's safe to say that we are being far, FAR, FAR more civilised, indulgent, and moderate with you than you honestly deserve. 

Long may you continue enjoying your loving relationship with your hand(s). 

[hadespussercats]

Women forced to be "gestational professionals," eh, Seth?

No, women voluntarily agreeing to become gestational professionals.

You should read A Handmaid's Tale. You'd love it-- a handbook for your proposed social order.

Haven't read the book, but I've seen the movie. Quite good, but having nothing whatever to do with what I propose, which does not require any woman to have sex with anyone, ever.

I don't see why women should be forced into nine months of indentured servitude for what is now, thanks to the wonders of modern science and forward-thinking society, an avoidable aspect of personal biology.

I don't see why they shouldn't be required to accept the consequences of their voluntary actions. I'm a firm believer in personal responsbility and acceptance of the consequences of one's decisions. Abortion on demand is merely a convenient way to avoid the consequences of bad sexual decision making at the expense of the live of a living human being. I'm not at all certain that a woman's convenience and desire to escape from her poor judgment outweighs the life of a human being.

Like gravity, some decisions have life-changing consequences, and people ought to be encouraged by the law to be careful, prudent and make good decisions, not encouraged to make rash, selfish hedonistic decisions that affect others negatively.

I'll have to echo Lordpasternack here and ask you why choosing to have an abortion isn't taking responsibility for sexual behavior? In many cases, choosing to have an abortion is far more responsible than having a child one doesn't want or can't support. Not to mention, in an aspect of this issue you assiduously avoid, the responsible decision to avoid unnecessary physical risk. Carrying a pregnancy to term is not easy, and it can be life-threatening.

*-- I see you've left the field for a moment. I think I might, too-- it seems that whenever I question a particular point of your proposed policy, you backtrack on what you've actually said. I would be eternally grateful to anyone who wants to find examples of this-- at the moment, I'm too damn tired for the cut-and-paste.

**-- and to clarify an earlier point, I was indicating that the fetus very well could be considered a human being. But whether it's human or not is aside from the point of whether or not a woman is obliged to sacrifice her health, time, financial and psychological well-being, or possibly even her life, simply to keep that other human being alive.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth wrote: Consent to sex constitutes consent to the implied contract, which may include compulsory gestation. If you don't want to consent to that contract, don't have sex. It's just that simple.

hadespussercats wrote: And I'll repeat, "if there is inequity as a result of the fact that women have the children," then men who want children but can't find women to bear them are shit out of luck until medical science advances to meet their needs, as it has in the case of women who get abortions. Until then, well, as you say, cry me a river.

I'm with ya there.

How can you be "with [me] there," if you believe in "compulsory gestation"?

It may only be compelled as a part of enforcing a contract. As I said elsewhere, it may be preferable to have a contract that calls for money damages rather than duties of specific performance. That would remove any compulsion in such a sensitive situation.

But the essence of my argument is that because there is a contract that requires specific performance, it is reasonable to enforce that contract through the common methods of contractual enforcement, and it's not "compulsion" to do anything other than what was previously agreed to.

The thing I don't understand about your idea, Seth, is this whole "contract" idea. What contract? A contract in law is: offer, acceptance, consideration and a meeting of the minds or a manifestation of mutual assent.

If we were really talking about a contract, then if the parties don't discuss the issue of offspring and they just decide to move forward and have sex, there is no "contract" between the two. You're basically suggesting that by the mere fact of having sex without affirmatively specifying in advance that the man is to support any progeny that result from that sexual congress, then he will only have the obligation to care for the child if he affirmatively and expressly assents to that care after he is notified of the pregnancy and before the child is actually born.

The thing is - there is no express contract there. Nobody agreed to that, unless they happened to write something out or verbally agree to it ahead of the coitus.

Particularly when you don't believe in compulsory child support?

Who said I don't believe in compulsory child support?

Why is money an entity that deserves more legal protection than control over one's own body, and the right to refuse to undergo avoidable physical risk?

It's not. But one is permitted to contractually sign away one's "control over one's own body." That happens every time someone joins the Army. And the Army can compel specific physical performance even if it kills you.

And, this is a key point in your theory - where, exactly, has the woman "signed" anything away? Your sort of inventing an implied loss of control over her body by the mere fact that she doesn't contractually preserve that right before consenting to penile penetration. Where do you get that from?

[lordpasternack]

A zygote is not a fucking human being. Point, fucking, blank. Saying that it is the same as fully developed, breathing, thinking, feeling, moving real sentient human beings is not only PLAINLY WRONG - but it's demeaning to those real human beings, to say they're worth just as much as single-celled brainless organisms.

[Coito ergo sum]

Any dispute that the organism involved is of human origin, and is therefore "human?" I mean it's not a turtle or a chicken zygote, is it?

So, it's indisputably human.

And it has achieved "the quality or state of having existence."

By that definition the cancer cell is a "human being", since it's human and also exists.

That's the wrong definition, though. The relevant definition of "being" for the purposes of the meaning of "human being" is "a living creature".

Sophistry and pettifoggery. A zygote is a different sort of cell entirely, as is a collection of normally functioning cells called a blastocyst, embryo or fetus. Any rational person can distinguish between a "living human being" and a "living cancer cell."

Yes, a zygote is different than cancer. However, they are both not human beings. A zygote might potentially age and develop into a human baby or an old man down the line, but not necessarily. A good deal of them are jettisoned by the body and never affix to the uterus wall. Still others are ejected later. Some die in childbirth, and others in childhood. A human zygote, however, is not a human being, and a baby is not an adult. A is A. B is Not A.

[Coito ergo sum]

A zygote is not a fucking human being. Point, fucking, blank. Saying that it is equal to living, breathing, thinking, feeling, real human beings is not only PLAINLY WRONG - but it's demeaning to those real human beings, to say they're worth just as much as single-celled brainless organisms.

Their worth is purely subjective anyway, and completely irrelevant. If I had to choose between the life of Jared Loughner of Tucson Arizona, human being, and a newly formed zygote in the warm and inviting womb of one LordPasternack, I'd let your zygote live every time. Heck, if it was between your toenail clippings and old Jared, I might lean towards the clippings....

[lordpasternack]

It's not sophistry of course to claim that brainless, non-sentient, microscopic bundles of cells are in fact "human beings"…

[lordpasternack]

A zygote is not a fucking human being. Point, fucking, blank. Saying that it is equal to living, breathing, thinking, feeling, real human beings is not only PLAINLY WRONG - but it's demeaning to those real human beings, to say they're worth just as much as single-celled brainless organisms.

Their worth is purely subjective anyway, and completely irrelevant. If I had to choose between the life of Jared Loughner of Tucson Arizona, human being, and a newly formed zygote in the warm and inviting womb of one LordPasternack, I'd let your zygote live every time. Heck, if it was between your toenail clippings and old Jared, I might lean towards the clippings....

Oh, you!

[Coito ergo sum]

So in that case, a man may avoid the consequences of one-half responsibility for conceiving a child he doesn't want by refusing any kind of support, but a woman may not avoid the consequences of one-half responsibility for conceiving a child she doesn't want, if the man decides he wants it?

.

That's a fair point - however, he did acknowledge that if the man does want the pregnancy to continue that the woman is wholly justified in charging him rent for the uterus (since she doesn't want it, and he's compelling her to use her uterus). He was unclear, however, as to whether he would place any limits on that rental amount. I pointed out that in a free market, the woman as the owner of the uterus would be able to charge whatever she liked. So, she could simply charge an amount that the father could not afford, and he would either not agree to pay it (in which case she would have no obligation to continue using the uterus for fetal development purposes on his behalf), or he would agree to pay it and then breach the contract (in which case she could sue him for the contract damages). He sort of just skipped that part though.

He also has not been clear what "contract" he's talking about here. There is no "contract" other than what the parties actually agree to. If they don't discuss the issue of responsibility for the progeny, how can there be any offer, acceptance, consideration and manifestation of mutual assent? They just had sex. If she consented then she agreed to have sex. No agreement was made beyond that unless they said or wrote words that establish a contract with terms. In a case where there is no express contract beyond the words used to get each other into bed, if any, then I see nothing in his theory that would establish that a child born as a result of that sexual intercourse ought not to have support from both parents. Even if the father never agreed to provide that support, the child still has a right to it and the mother has no right to contract it away. And, even if the mother could have aborted the child but the father did not likewise have the ability to abort the child, it doesn't follow that both parents don't still have the obligation to support their progeny.

I feel as if Seth has skipped over these important parts and by skipping over those parts he creates a scenario that is contrary to reality.

[lordpasternack]

Pharyngulated :-

Now that's misogyny 

've often wondered what it would be like to have a conversation with an insect — a creature that shares no moral or rational assumptions with me. Now I've seen something close, at least, a fellow named Seth, discussing his obligations to his partners in sex. Basically, he feels none. It's a long ranty comment, and much of it is more explicit than I'd rather post here, but it amounts to insisting that pregnancy and abortion are all the woman's responsibility, because it is her fault that she demanded a penis enter her vagina.

You want a man inside you, it's up to you to deal with the mess left behind. I won't bitch at you if you have an abortion, but you don't get to demand ANYTHING from me, certainly not child support. If you don't like the mess, don't invite me to the party.

How's that for fair?

It's a marvel of twisted logic, and really had me wondering if Seth was a virgin.

I have to agree, though, that his demands are fair, as long as it's not his fault that he's having vaginal intercourse, and as long as he was honest and specific in his expectations with his partner before hand. Who would then, of course, refuse to have sex with him, ever.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... sogyny.php

[Coito ergo sum]

A zygote is not a fucking human being. Point, fucking, blank. Saying that it is equal to living, breathing, thinking, feeling, real human beings is not only PLAINLY WRONG - but it's demeaning to those real human beings, to say they're worth just as much as single-celled brainless organisms.

Their worth is purely subjective anyway, and completely irrelevant. If I had to choose between the life of Jared Loughner of Tucson Arizona, human being, and a newly formed zygote in the warm and inviting womb of one LordPasternack, I'd let your zygote live every time. Heck, if it was between your toenail clippings and old Jared, I might lean towards the clippings....

Oh, you!

[Warren Dew]

Aside from the disturbing nature of tacit contracts as a concept, I have no problem with this point of view.

Mostly I was pointing out that there are implied contracts for most things, society somewhat arbitrarily decides what those contracts are, and that we already have one for this case. I wasn't really disagreeing with you.

Personally I don't think I'd have a problem with Seth's implied contract either, as I understand it, and changing to his form would basically just involve changing the law to say that abortions are illegal except with permission of the father as well as the mother or in cases of rape. In this case, the onus would be on the woman to get a different contract before sex if she wanted to be able to abort unilaterally - for example, getting the man's permission to abort before letting him in. I think our current system is more workable, but I don't have a big problem either way, since all that's required to change the terms is an agreement beforehand. This would still be a far cry from banning abortion, of course.

Nor would the man necessarily have the right to compel performance. Depending on how the law was written and interpreted, the woman's getting an abortion without the father's permission might only give the man the right to sue for damages.

What the amount of such damages might be brings up your earlier statement:

As for men who want children but can't find a woman who wants to bear them for him, well, as I've mentioned before in this thread, there's a good reason for medical science to look into male pregnancy. Until the day such a thing becomes feasible, well, sorry Seth, but as you say, that's just the breaks of biology.

Men can hire an egg donor, use in vitro fertilization, and hire a pregnancy surrogate. In the U.S. the total cost is probably around $30,000-$50,000 at the moment.

[normal]

SETH! You're giving us bad PR!

[Bella Fortuna]

SETH! You're giving us bad PR!

Just riding coattails, don't mind me...