See this is why it's so hard to have this conversation and why I didn't want to go here in the first place. Not three exchanges in and it's so bent over backwards to mean whatever you want it to mean. You use emotional terms to define "person" when talking about a fetus. Drunk driving, slavery, braindead individuals you bring up in analogies. Then when it's a sperm you get all technical. You forego emotional bonds and focus on chromosomes, cell count, and viability of further life independent of another human. Suddenly the potential life it could lead, if preserved, means nothing and it's all about whether or not it could survive and grow on it's own.
darth_ender said: I can see the argument to be made for an embryo not being a child (though I don't agree), but I don't see the sperm comparison as valid. Left to its own devices, a sperm will never develop, never survive independently, never make it past a single cell, is not even genetically human as it is lacking half its chromosomes. Once fused with an ovum, suddenly it multiplies, has the potential to grow into a 100 year-old man or woman, as long as health or the influence of others don't hinder it. It requires life-saving reliance on another human for a time, but it is still genetically a unique human, growing, ultimately with the likelihood of survival on its own.
Course in the next comparison you mention a fetus would need "life-saving reliance on another human for a time" as though you didn't just dismiss that as a qualification of "personhood" for a sperm. The argument's already turned so upside down to mean whatever you want.
No problem.
darth_ender said:Thanks for the summaries and for catching my poor phrasing. I'd meant originally to say, If I am not only the only....but I am also the reason," but clearly forgot how I was originally writing my sentence by the time I got to that point. I edited it, but as "If I am the only...and I am the reason," as it's probably less likely to get confused that way by future readers. Thanks for pointing that out :)
darth_ender said:I see. It seems still over the top. Maybe to improve it, the organ loaned would not be so critical as the heart (which unlike the uterus [which is designed exclusively for pregnancy, btw, and therefore is fulfilling its design, while a heart transplant does not], is absolutely essential for human life to continue).
So, what about if the woman in question was born with some genetic illness or born premature? Like it was only through massive medical intervention that she even survived to the point in which she could decide to get an abortion. Would you then be okay with her gaining infinite abortion rights because her initial design was to die when she was a little girl?
darth_ender said:Perhaps a kidney would be best. A person can live without it, but the potential for death from the surgery or future loss of the other kidney probably better matches the risk. And in a finite period of time, the person would get the kidney back.
I know, it seems like splitting hairs, but while we're on the topic of refining analogies, let's get them right ;)
RicOlie_2 said:
Yes, the kidney analogy is far more appropriate.
Twister, you exaggerate the risk involved in pregnancy by a hundredfold, and you are forgetting that both ender and I share the belief that abortion is justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger.
Your concerns about C-Section are exaggerated as well, as the procedure carries less risk than you seem to imply. That's how I was born, and my mother had six kids after me, and I know other women who have had C-Sections.
You also ignore the risk of abortion, and in your analogies, don't portray that option as having side-effects. Some women, who have had abortions are not incapable of having children, because their uterus was damaged in the operation. Not to mention the emotional and psychological effects it can have, and the loss of a life and a person (not that you consider it a person, but it at least has the potential to become a happy, intelligent, and productive human being.
Comparing the act of sex to uncaring just want fun drunken car rides is already a huge exaggeration in and of itself. I mean unless that's only meant to apply to a person knowingly cheating on a spouse with someone who knows that person's cheating and they intend to bring a life threatening STD back to their faithful spouse and the person in the know has that and knows it.
Anyways the choice of organ hardly matters at this point. I just didn't want the risks of pregnancy to be entirely ignored.
I'm not ignoring the risks involved with abortion but that would be her choice to deal with. The analogies were already getting hard to follow anyways.
First let me say it's fantastic that you want to take care of your children. Unfortunately you unwittingly help my side of the argument by mentioning this. Many guys just walk out on their children or never know they exist and it was just a one night stand to them. In many ways guys get choice by default. Even if a woman gives the kid up for adoption she'd still be forced to go through the 9 months of pregnancy if the choice of abortion was denied to her. For guys the "consequence" of kids could potentially be absolutely nothing. Well nothing but feeling good for a time of course. Only good decent honorable Men try to be good fathers to their children, try to be good husbands, and do right by them. It's a respectable and wonderful choice but it remains a choice.darth_ender said:
Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival. My children take a toll on my health and billfold. But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives. As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.
Though that "less healthy" thing is debatable as it's just as likely that you're more healthy with kids than without. There's not some certain definable physical toll that being a father takes. Can't exactly measure it with c-section scars, stitches, or blood loss the way just giving birth can be.
