Who Should Pay Child Support? (Split from Roe v Wade is on deck)

[bilby]

A fetus does not meet the scientific definition of a human being.

This is so bizarre. How has society become so stupid?

I love the way that you believe that there is no society, only individuals, right up until you want to assert the contrary to make a rhetorical point, while desperately trying to avoid running foul of the terms of use.

LD may be a lot of things, but a society is surely not one of them.

 

[TomC]

This is a statement of religious belief. "Inherent worth" is a religious, not a scientific, concept.

No, it isn't a religious belief. Nor is it a scientific belief.

It's my own belief about morality. Everyone has inherent worth.
Sorry to bother you with my secular morality, but there it is. Every human being has some worth and dignity, even if ideologues like you disagree.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I feel very sorry for you; In a saner world, you could seek some kind of compensation, or at least apology, from the people who abused your developing brain in this way. But that's not the world we live in.

Do you have any idea how insulting that is?
Probably not.

 

[laughing dog]

A fetus does not meet the scientific definition of a human being.

Google "Life Cycle of a Primate".

Or don't, it's pretty clear to me that basic science isn't important to you if it interferes with your ideological world view.
Tom

ETA ~This is exactly what I'm mean when I say that discussion of this subject is like talking to creationists. Science matters when it gets you support for your ideological world view. When science doesn't get you that, you just dismiss it as unimportant/wrong. ~

A fetus does not meet the scientific definition of a human being.

This is so bizarre. How has society become so stupid

I know the feeling - I get after posts like yours above.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is a statement of religious belief. "Inherent worth" is a religious, not a scientific, concept.

No, it isn't a religious belief. Nor is it a scientific belief.

It's my own belief about morality. Everyone has inherent worth.

Except for the born child of course of whom you don't think deserves support from the person who fathered the child if he wanted the woman to abort.

 

[TomC]

This is a statement of religious belief. "Inherent worth" is a religious, not a scientific, concept.

No, it isn't a religious belief. Nor is it a scientific belief.

It's my own belief about morality. Everyone has inherent worth.

Except for the born child of course of whom you don't think deserves support from the person who fathered the child if he wanted the woman to abort.

And once again.

You ignore what I actually post, make up a strawman, then get all emotional in your reply to the strawman.

I assume it's because responding to what I actually post would interfere with your ideological world views. It's the best explanation I can think of. Feel free to post a better explanation.
Tom

 

[bilby]

This is a statement of religious belief. "Inherent worth" is a religious, not a scientific, concept.

No, it isn't a religious belief. Nor is it a scientific belief.

It's my own belief about morality. Everyone has inherent worth.
Sorry to bother you with my secular morality, but there it is. Every human being has some worth and dignity, even if ideologues like you disagree.
Tom

I don't disagree.

I am simply providing a clear proof that your claim to scientific objectivity is false.

Your position is, like almost everyone's, a restatement of your core beliefs, filtered through a layer of rationalisation.

Brains lie to us constantly. They tell us our conclusions are based on reasoning, but mostly our reasoning is based on our conclusions.

This is a direct result of our having evolved in small tribal groups where leadership meant reproductive success, and where decisiveness was far more important in a leader than accuracy or correctness.

We can break the bonds of this mental illusion, but it's very difficult, not least because it's very hard to detect.

Note your defensive assumption that I disagree with your conclusion, simply because I challenged the (nonsensical) reasoning you gave for it.

ETA - this is the "Better explanation" you are asking Jimmy for. The problems you identify in his debating are problems directly created by the rationalisation process I describe above, and they are pretty much universal - we see you doing exactly that same thing right here in this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is a statement of religious belief. "Inherent worth" is a religious, not a scientific, concept.

No, it isn't a religious belief. Nor is it a scientific belief.

It's my own belief about morality. Everyone has inherent worth.

Except for the born child of course of whom you don't think deserves support from the person who fathered the child if he wanted the woman to abort.

And once again.

You ignore what I actually post, make up a strawman, then get all emotional in your reply to the strawman.

It could definitely be a strawman, but I really don't know. You won't say otherwise. I mean, you have gotten the "That is a strawman!" post down though. So good for you.

I assume it's because responding to what I actually post would interfere with your ideological world views. It's the best explanation I can think of. Feel free to post a better explanation.
Tom

I have no bloody idea what you believe. You only have yourself to blame for that.

 

[Elixir]

I have no bloody idea what you believe. You only have yourself to blame for that.

Well, there is that one thing - "all people have inherent worth" has been put forth explicitly as a personal belief.
Of course it's a rather insipid and meaningless statement, since it doesn't specify what comprises that belief or the worth referenced in the statement; is it their worth as a companion or mate to another human, as plant fertilizer, as cannon fodder or in some other capacity? Does this mean that every invisible human blastocyst holds equal value to every living breathing thinking human? (Certainly not equal in fertilizer terms) or does that "value" vary from individual to individual? If the blastocyst is more or less valuable than me or TomC, what is the cause, and what is the measure of that variance?
So many questions... I suppose that all we are to derive from the statement is that Tom is very very ... well, not "moral" since he said it has nothing to do with that,,, but very very ... something.

 

[Gospel]

This would be a great time to cut to commercials. With so many clear personal fouls, a technical one (or two) is imminent.

 

[TomC]

I am simply providing a clear proof that your claim to scientific objectivity is false.

Where did I claim scientific objectivity?

I'm just pointing out that scientists have rather well founded opinions on basic biology. If you disagree with the scientists fine, creationists do it all the time.
Tom

 

[Playball40]

Well, as the thread has worn on, it becomes apparent that there are two camps of self-interest.

I still expect my single-rate "testicles insurance" would solve the problem nicely.

Wish to have testicles and use them? Either pay insurance to the state for preemptive shared-risk-pool childcare costs, volunteer for situational liability (subject to removal as an option, owing to abuse), be married (accept complete liability for all children, within the terms of marriage), or get snipped.

Take your pick.

This is the compromise everyone will hate so I'm pretty sure it's the best compromise.

Tax the jax

 

[Loren Pechtel]

but not necessarily exclusively

I'd like the details. I'm very much interested.

I too will be interested to hear how Jimmy explains how that works, given RvW.
Tom

Exclusively means that the woman decides entirely one her own. She has ultimate authority over her body, but she can take input from other people, such as a boyfriend, husband, friends, parents, etc... to help guide her to the choice she needs to make for herself.

You do understand how decisions are made right?

Which allows her a free choice to inflict external costs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Inflict?

 

[TomC]

Inflict?

You do understand the word don't you?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That was straight forward, didn't help with the conversation though.

 

[bilby]

I am simply providing a clear proof that your claim to scientific objectivity is false.

Where did I claim scientific objectivity?

I'm just pointing out that scientists have rather well founded opinions on basic biology. If you disagree with the scientists fine, creationists do it all the time.
Tom

Did you actually read my post, or just respond angrily to this one sentence, and stop reading two sentences in?

Did you think about what I wrote, or were you too busy being enraged?

If you go back and read what I wrote, and then think about what I said, you might understand why I am massively disappointed by your response here, while simultaneously being completely unsurprised.

 

[Metaphor]

Your previous inept attempts at camoflaging your religious beliefs as science prepared me well.

I am not the one calling a fetus "a human being" - you are.

A human fetus is a human being. What else could it be?

All fetuses with human parents are human. I think you may be arguing that whether they have personhood is a religious belief. I'd call it 'philosophical' rather than 'religious', but it's biology that human fetuses are human.

 

[TomC]

Did you actually read my post, or just respond angrily to this one sentence, and stop reading two sentences in?

I did read the whole post.
That was the sentence it veered into a strawman. The rest of it is just as applicable to everyone else as me personally.

Elementary biology, like "Life Cycle of a Primate", describes the human biological process. We start, as individuals, at conception and end at death.

If you think I believe that because the RCC teaches it you're very wrong. RCC teaches lots of things I think are total b.s.. The fact that our views overlap some doesn't make me wrong.

Years ago, the Pope declared the U.S. invasion of Iraq a crime again humanity. Did my anti-war protest suddenly become a result of childhood abuse? I don't think so.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before. I graduated from 12 years of Catholic education believing that abortion was simply a medical choice, nobody's business but a woman and her doctor. It was years later that I had reason to think about that long and hard. That's when I drew a different conclusion.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm sure I've mentioned this before. I graduated from 12 years of Catholic education believing that abortion was simply a medical choice, nobody's business but a woman and her doctor. It was years later that I had reason to think about that long and hard. That's when I drew a different conclusion.
Tom

Yup, you decided you had a say in what the woman and doctor could do.

*Woman at appointment with OBGYN*
OBGYN: And I think that we should...
*door opens, TomC walks in*
OBGYN: Umm... who are you?
TomC: I'm TomC.
OBGYN: You aren't allowed in here, this is...
TomC: This is as much my business as hers. You see, I have some ideas...