Strega

[StregaModerator]

The reason women can have abortions was laid out in Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court in 1973 – it has to do with autonomy over ones own body.  It has nothing to do with rape – rape was cited as an extreme circumstance wherein those people who object to a woman having an abortion might find some grey area to agree.  I still find it astonishing that America has such an issue with OTHER PEOPLE having abortions.

The example Belle cited, of a woman secretly not taking her contraceptive pill in order to get pregnant agains her partners wishes, is probably the closest parallel to the case you are describing – IVF has just modernized the activity.

Once the man handed his sperm over to the IVF bank, with a designate purpose, he pretty much lost control over it.  Yes sure there was fraud, but you can’t send the baby back to the sperm bank – it exists.  I think the woman acted in an illegal and wrongful way, and it’s a tough price that would be laid on the father regarding child support, but what alternative is there?  You know the state is never going to offer to pay, so…. what are you suggesting?  Who finances the child?

[StregaModerator]

David this topic appears to have moved away from a generic ‘moral question’ and is now becoming detailed to a level that conflicts with philosophical debate.  Are we now discussing an actual situation?  Yours?

What do you think should happen?  Should the baby grow up knowing its father rejected it?  What is YOUR perspective on how this should pan out?

[StregaModerator]

David, regarding rape, the man gave consent at the point of conception.

I also rather like Belle’s perspective!

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by  Strega. Reason: adding comment re belle

[StregaModerator]

There’s an inescapable obligation already in place.  The admission of paternity is already made. Putting the fathers name on the certificate benefits the child.  Refusing to do so merely renders the father obstructive.  He’s the father.  He’s not denying paternity; he can’t under the circumstances you painted. Recording the fact on the birth certificate cannot add an obligation that isn’t already present.

[StregaModerator]

Yes. It’s hard enough for an unloved baby to progress in this world. The father IS the genetic father.

[StregaModerator]

Thanks, Reg!

[StregaModerator]

Oh Simon, Simon…  The Bible is full of an angry jealous god who blights people for entertainment, anihilates swathes of people, drowned pretty much everyone, set bears to eat children, and don’t let me understate the smiting.  The word “laughter” is only present in that terrible book if you pluck it out of the word “slaughter”.   Calling it a book of love is like calling the cat ‘o nine tails a caressing tool.

[StregaModerator]

@simonpaynton you have to be kidding me, right?  You’re using the Bible to support your theory?  So on this tiny blue dot, in a nano-moment of time, in a tiny corner of the tiny planet, a bunch of men collected the musings of another bunch of men, then selectively bound them and called them “The book” and this is your evidence?  I had to check twice to see whether it was you posting this.

[StregaModerator]

It’s a huge leap from Deism to Theism.  That there could have been a sentient creator is a conceptually feasible idea. That this creator then gave a shit about a tiny blue dot in its massive creation is highly questionable.  That human beings are then imagined not only to be the reason for the creation, but also involved in regular communication with the primal force is yet another non-sequitur.

[StregaModerator]

See Belle, I completely agree here.  If you’re not taking Gods word via a human interface, but listening inside your head, you’re pretty much doing what I do, but I think of it as consulting myself.  I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong!  I’m saying we have different interpretations for pretty much the same thing 🙂

[StregaModerator]

@simonpaynton The whole ‘thrive’ concept smacks of Ayn Rand, looking out for yourself.  The co-operation aspect is simply more Ayn Rand looking out for others only because it benefits yourself.  If it were not so, philanthropists would make up the bulk of our populations.  Instead, we have the opposite.

Humanity will most probably join the other 99% of extinct species as it compulsively destroys its own habitat.  Some other life form will get center stage to go for the top slot, just like we mammals did when the dinosaurs died out.

Wouldn’t it be fun if it was the chicken!

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by  Strega. Reason: to correct link

[StregaModerator]

Simon, there is not an evolutionary pressure to thrive. There is an evolutionary desperation to survive.  Thriving is irrelevant in nature as long as you live long enough to pass on your genes.

[StregaModerator]

@Kyrani. “Both sides are using scientific arguments”.  I’ve yet to hear a scientific explanation for God – I hear the god of the gaps argument for things that science has yet to explain, but I’m fascinated with the idea that science backs religion in some way.  I thought religion was all about faith, and faith by definition was unsupported by evidence.  Are you saying faith is no longer required?

On a side note, Isaac Newton did his gravity thing as a sideline.  His main work was alchemy, the study of turning base metals (lead) into gold.  He wasn’t very good at that.  We are lucky he took a bit of time off to examine gravity.

[StregaModerator]

Thank you, Reg!

[StregaModerator]

“Neither here nor there”.  OUCH!!!!

[Author]

Posts