I think you are still misunderstanding the distinction I am trying to make with the analogy, and I should note first that this argument isn't conclusive. My point is that the choice was forced, not the result. Another situation: deranged guy takes a Koala hostage, has knife to its throat, says to you "hand over all your money or the Koala gets it." Now if you happened to be carrying your life savings, you might let the Koala be killed. He had no right to impose that choice on you, and you aren't as culpable as if you had say, recklessly poisoned the Koala by feeding it some pizza.

"We kill unborn non-persons but not born non-persons which is a fact." Accepted.

Giving the father a right to choose regarding whether an abortion occurs, (not just financial) would be unworkable, artifical equality contrary to biological fact, and involves subjecting the mother's body to the will of another. In the alternative, who is the mother meant to pay? Child support doesn't go to the Government, it goes to the custodial guardian. It is necessary because the child needs to be supported. It's after the fact, so what? I don't understand your line of reasoning.

I would not think that dementia takes away personhood. As a person, you aunt has a right to life.

"Sorry if they had the same value-the human dignity issue- they would be in different situations & no these are non-persons they're granted personhood and personal sovereignty so why not unborn persons?"
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

"To me the only sticking point is that that born non-persons are given rights that unborn ones aren't, that is the inconsistency."
And I think this is a societal/practicality issue, we don't have to give them equal rights but there is no downside to doing so and it is not possible to empirically determine personhood. If a law required all viable fetuses be removed by caesarian if possible, rather than abortion, my only difficulty would be that women would be unable to experience natural childbirth. I agree re:reasonableness.

>My point is that the choice was forced, not the result.

Yes but the choice is forced upon you through a choice you made. You try to make out well this is a natural want/need like walking well there are other ways of reaching sexual gratification oral, anal, masturbation that does not result in even the possibility of pregnancy .

& again this new analogy involves the guy with money being innocent, & secondly using a Koala tries to artificially distance the relationship, instead use the man’s child and that he actually handed the child to the extortionist knowing he may do what he did.

"We kill unborn non-persons but not born non-persons which is a fact." >Accepted.
TY

>Giving the father a right to choose regarding whether an abortion occurs, (not just financial) would be unworkable, artifical equality contrary to biological fact, and involves subjecting the mother's body to the will of another.

Back to a basic precept of social interaction we take responsibility for our consent & participation in actions taken.

Also this wouldn’t be done just by the stroke of a pen in isolation, to be fair to all parties resources would be given to-promote sex education, promotion of alternative ways to enjoy sexual gratification without the risk of pregnancy, counseling and compensation for the mother having the child, greater enforcement of fathers paying maintenance –since they now have equal consideration- resources for teenage mothers single parents, resources for assisting adoption.

>In the alternative, who is the mother meant to pay?
If she wants to have exclusive right to the choice and if we as a society wish allow that exclusive right choice than it is beholden for us to be fair to the father who didn’t want the child and pay the father’s share.

>It's after the fact, so what? I don't understand your line of reasoning

I’m talking before custody, that there is no equal consideration for the man anything that doesn’t deal directly with that point is ad hoc.

If there is to be fairness in this equation and the man’s -

- then in the case when the woman wants the child the man is absolved of financial responsibility and again we as a society should pick up the tab.

>I would not think that dementia takes away personhood. As a person, you aunt has a right to life.

The late stages of dementia a person effectively loses the ability to function as a self-aware ‘person’ we continue to grant them personhood just like infants and the mentally handicapped even though they don’t have functional personhood.

"Sorry if they had the same value-the human dignity issue-…….
>I don't understand what you're trying to say.

If they the unborn and born were valued the same way they would be treated the same way.

>And I think this is a societal/practicality issue, we don't have to give them equal rights but there is no downside to doing so and it is not possible to empirically determine personhood

If we killed or experimented on the born non-persons there would be no downside, in fact using them for experimentation and body parts would benefit society greatly.

>If a law required all viable fetuses be removed by caesarian if possible, rather than abortion, my only difficulty would be that women would be unable to experience natural childbirth.

I’m assuming you are talking about ones that lodge in the fallopian tubes, given the advances in keyhole surgery in may be possible to extract it without sterilizing the mother. We don’t know.

I agree re:reasonableness
That is something :)

I do wish though we weren’t limited to the number of words and posting in this forum and that at least on this thread others would contribute as it’s very hard to gauge the strength and consistency of a debate just between two people. I’m somewhat disappointed by the lack of interest in this thread but have enjoyed the fact they even though we disagree on some things I can see that you are rational in your responses not like some on the forum.

Neohuman, I still think your are misunderstanding my distinction. I'm not trying to say sex is a natural desire, I'm making a minor point not worthy of so many words, that culpability is reduced because the dichotomy of choices, ie. the requirement to choose itself, was forced rather than voluntary. (You did not choose to be born, neither the result nor the particular choice (option) is forced, but the choice itself is )

"Back to a basic precept of social interaction we take responsibility for our consent & participation in actions taken."

What exactly is the woman consenting to? I would expect that she wouldn't be consenting to give the man control over her body. She has to pay the father's share? If she could pay the father's share then child support isn't be required. Since she can't pay, someone has to or the child and/or the mother end up in poverty. Before custody support for the child is fairly unnecessary, so the man doesn't come in to it re:financial issues. But you also wrote this:

"If there is to be fairness in this equation and the man's - then in the case when the woman wants the child the man is absolved of financial responsibility and again we as a society should pick up the tab."
Which I already said I agree with, except that society trying to discourage child birth might logically adopt the position that the man should pay. (Even if that is unfair.)

"If they the unborn and born were valued the same way they would be treated the same way."
Valued after everything has been considered. I'm talking inherent value. Eg. a chocolate bar has a certain inherent value. If I'm in a chocolate store or I want to eat something else or I don't particularly feel like chocolate at the moment, then I would value it less than a starving person would. The abstract value of the unborn, born child are the same but in practice when everything else is considered they may be different.

"If we killed or experimented on the born non-persons there would be no downside, in fact using them for experimentation and body parts would benefit society greatly."
I don't know enough about dementia etc., but if the ability for abstract thought is totally gone and that is known for sure, then such experimentation may be fine. The downside is that grieving people would be distressed by it, emotions would run high. Emotions and psychological effects need to be considered.

"I'm assuming you are talking about ones that lodge in the fallopian tubes, given the advances in keyhole surgery in may be possible to extract it without sterilizing the mother. We don't know"
No that's not what I was referring to; its my understanding that inducing birth isn't possible in all cases of premature birth, but there's a good chance I may be wrong about that. If I'm not, then caesarian would be needed and I think that once you have one it is dangerous to have a subsequent natural birth.

"I do wish though we weren't limited to the number of words and posting in this forum and that at least on this thread others would contribute as it's very hard to gauge the strength and consistency of a debate just between two people. I'm somewhat disappointed by the lack of interest in this thread but have enjoyed the fact they even though we disagree on some things I can see that you are rational in your responses not like some on the forum."
Thanks, good luck with the scandal thread. I dunno, without a word limit I'd spend too much time here; and some people would post really long bits of glurge. I'm more interested in some font options and a quote feature.

Thanks Duec unless you want to take this to another forum -I have one in mind- that has no limits on words on posting- which seem to hinder us conveying what we mean to each other- i'll leave it there.

BTW I don't think Sells is any different from the CS fundies it just looks like he is using the 'open your heart to the holy spirit' garbage and thinks if it's dressed in complex philosophical language it will win the day.