Abortion

[Scott]

Taking a gamble is synonymous with taking a risk.

Gambling is an entirely random endeavor whereas accepting a risk implies a certain margin of uncertainty in an otherwise controlled situation.

For the audience, I already established in the post IBDaMann was responding to that gambling and taking risks are frequently viewed as very similar concepts by quoting dictionary definitions of gambling that establish this. IBDaMann just snipped that part out. Audience members can take a look at the post for themselves:

Post in thread 'Abortion'

Sep 29, 2025

I think of life as something like a casino- we all make gambles in our choices.

Just as "definition" is the wrong word for discussing disctionaries, "gamble" is the wrong word for discussing life. Just as "usage" is the correct word for discussing words, "risk" and "uncertainty" are the correct words for describing what you are trying to express.

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on a lot of your assertions here. The words you prefer are frequently synonyms for the words I'm using. Taking a gamble is synonymous with taking a risk. From The American Heritage...

• Scott

 

[IBDaMann]

Fixed that for you.
@IBDaMann would be very disappointed in me if I didn't correct your grammatical and terminology errors.

You petty grammar Nazi! ... who got everything correct. Well done. I'm sure @Scott has expressed his gratitude, yes?

I vaguely recall @Scott claiming that poor grammar is acceptable if you call it a "new trend".

Question: Does this fact change the living human into anything other than a living human?

Of course, all humanity is removed while becoming the super-super-super-super-superset "organic matter."

If not, then why is this fact relevant to the contracted killing of living humans?

Because you very inappropriately used the word "killing" to describe killing. What were you thinking?

I'll just mention that I also technically take issue with the usage of the words "the woman". This isn't just any ordinary woman; this is a MOTHER.

... as well as a co-conspirator, filicidist, killing supremacist, and the child's victimizer.

Btw, the father is DEFINITELY "getting the shaft" here, wouldn't you say?

Not quite like the child, but yes, the father is definitely getting bent over for one of the longer shafts.

 

[IBDaMann]

Because sperm and eggs (in and of themselves) lack a complete set of DNA (from both parents). Growth/development of a new human cannot occur unless fertilization first occurs.

Sperm and eggs don't have beating hearts, per the definition.

 

[Scott]

I had no children with any of them, which was good

That's a terrible thing to say about your own children, i.e. "I'm glad I never had them"

For the audience, IBD's mistake here was in responding to only half of my sentence. He responds again to the second half, which is a much better response to the sentence as a whole. I'll get to that next.

I had no children with any of them, which was good since I wasn't financially prepared to have children at the time.

Are there children in this world who are born into worse financial situations who nonetheless are loved and do well? Do those children regret having been born, or do they place a premium on family?

To your first question, sure, but there are also children in similar or even better financial situations who do poorly. As to your second question, I strongly suspect that at least some may have thought that it would have been better that their parents waited until a more opportune time or perhaps that their parents were ones that stuck together- I think it's very likely that even if I'd gotten any of the 3 women I had sex with pregnant, we still wouldn't have stayed together.

 

[Scott]

I imagine I would probably have had regrets if I -did-

That's a shitty thing to say about your own children.

Again, IBDaMann is making a mistake by responding to only the first half of my sentence here. His response to the second half of my sentence is better, though still flawed. I'll get to that now.

I imagine I would probably have had regrets if I -did- have a child with one or more of them, for the same reason.

You would regret having a child due to the inconvenience of having a child?

I strongly suspect that you've never had serious financial problems in your life, at least during the time when you were either considering and/or had children. Serious financial problems are more than just an "inconvenience", -espcially- if ones has a child to care for. Care to share your worst financial time? We can do a comparison between mine and yours if you like.

 

[Scott]

You apparently haven't heard of the new trend on this:

You apparently never heard that "new trends" aren't necessarily good or acceptable.

I have. That being said, I believe that in this particular case, the trend is quite good. For anyone in the audience who'd like to see what trend I'm referring to, please see the following post:

Post in thread 'Abortion'

Sep 29, 2025

Teachable moment: In the English language, when the gender is not known for a singular individual, "he" is to be used.

You apparently haven't heard of the new trend on this:
**
In modern times, generic he has come under a lot of scrutiny, leading to discussions about inclusivity and a shift away from unnecessarily gendered pronouns (like generic he). With the intention of making writing more inclusive and accessible in such cases, prominent style guides began making a range of suggestions such as including both singular pronouns (e.g. he/she)...

• Scott

 

[IBDaMann]

I have. That being said, I believe that in this particular case,

You and your special pleading fallacies probably won't be ending anytime soon.

 

[IBDaMann]

I strongly suspect that you've never had serious financial problems in your life,

Wrong angle. You need to explain why I should believe that I would have been better off being killed by my parents who were very poor and who experienced great inconvenience having me.

All four of my grandparents were dirt broke, but managed to raise the families from which my parents came. Why should those families have been killed instead?

Serious financial problems are more than just an "inconvenience",

Nope. They are the definition of "inconvenience." Your word games are dismissed.

Care to share your [family's] worst financial time?

My grandfather, having zero money, dragged my grandmother from town to town, looking for work. Wherever they went, my grandmother took on two part-time jobs to make some money. My grandmother did all of her own sewing, because they could not get any new clothes.

They nonetheless had two children who they quickly taught to help around the house and to find ways to do odd jobs for cash. My father never played any sports or participated in any activities. It was school and odd jobs.

My grandparents didn't kill their kids, and their poverty and adversity made their kids stronger.

We can do a comparison between mine and yours if you like.

Compare yours to my grandparents'. Explain how your situation warrants killing your own children.

 

[IBDaMann]

... but there are also children in similar or even better financial situations who do poorly.

They had to be left alive in order to have that result.

As to your second question, I strongly suspect that at least some may have thought that it would have been better that their parents waited until a more opportune time or perhaps that their parents were ones that stuck together

Fallacy. Waiting will give birth to an entirely different person. No child can be put off until a later time.

 

[Scott]

Pure irresponsibility across the board, legitimized by the bogus idea that everything is random anyway.

Not sure where you get this idea that I thought that "everything is random anyway".

I'm not sure why you are denying it

Anyone can make unsubstantiated assertions. I asked you where you got your idea that "everything is random anyway". Instead of telling me, you simply doubled down on your unsubstantiated assertion. This isn't doing your credibility any favours.

 

[Scott]

Let me know when you're going to address my questions.

What questions?

 

[Scott]

What I know is that in all cases, I either used protection or my partner was on the pill.

You engaged in risk reduction but you accepted the risk nonetheless.

Agreed.

So I clearly took steps to minimize the chance of getting my partners pregnant,

Nope. You took steps to reduce the risk, not to minimize it. Abstinence is needed to minimize the risk of pregnancy.

Fine, I took steps to reduce the risk.

 

[Scott]

And to think, if I'd just said "sometimes the risks we take pay off, sometimes they don't", you would have been fine with what I said eh?

Nope. There are two types of risk. You have clarifying to do.

2 Questions:
1- What are these 2 types of risk you speak of?
2- What do you want me to clarify?

I could guess, but it's easier for you to just spell it out.

 

[Scott]

Define "living human".

This is a stupid request. You are well aware that I have defined "living human" here on JPP dozens of times across dozens of threads.

A being with a heartbeat and human DNA.

So [right at 3] weeks.

FTFY. Yes, you are very close. It could be earlier, e.g. 19 days.

Could be. You'll need evidence. All you have is heartbeat and brain activity.

All I need is a heartbeat and human DNA.

So it is not a murder below that?

Below? English isn't working for you. Try Spanish, or French.

Answer my question.

Been following this subthread for a while. I see that IBD dropped the ball. @IBDaMann , I've done the legwork so that you can understand what A Proud Lefty is talking about, just look at the nested quotes. What's your answer? Manslaughter if it's less than 19 days? Misdemeanor for masturbation?

 

[Scott]

The fetus is housed within her body. If you want some measure of control over what happens to your seed after you give it to a fertile female via her vaginal cavity, you need to make a contract -before- doing so.

No the contract was signed when she made her vagina available for puncture.

Unless we're talking about marriage, prenuptual agreements or birth surrogacy, I think there are few people signing anything before sex. We are talking about consensual sex, which means that both parties agree to have sex. That's generally the only contract before having sex and it's a verbal one.

I have no problem if she wants unilateral control however the trade off is she then has unilateral responsibility. I don't want to hear the bs about her demanding child support from the man while have control.

Fine, but then you should have to have her sign an agreement -prior- to her having sex. Or, at least, that's what I thought could work. Looks like I'm wrong, at the very least in Wisconsin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/505lpy/can_i_have_a_girl_sign_a_contract_that_either

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/505lpy/can_i_have_a_girl_sign_a_contract_that_either/


I don't agree with the judge's decision. I definitely believe that one -should- be able to make such a contract. Since this apparently isn't possible, it looks like the best you can do is make a contract anyway and hope she doesn't take you to court to force you to pay child support anyway, at least in Wisconsin.

I think it should be obvious, but just in case it isn't, I also don't think that women should be able to get a man to pay child support if something in the "forced fatherhood" category is done by the woman:
**
Forced fatherhood or imposed paternity, occurs when a man becomes a father against his will or without his consent. It can include deception by a partner about her ability to get pregnant or use of contraceptives, birth control sabotage, paternity fraud and sexual assaults of males that result in pregnancy.

"Sperm theft" (also known as "unauthorized use of sperm", "spermjacking" or "spurgling" (a portmanteau of sperm and burgling)), refers to a specific form of forced fatherhood in which a man's semen is used to impregnate a woman without his consent.
**

Source:

Forced fatherhood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

WRONG! Sperm do NOT become children!

They most definitely do, though they ofcourse have to first join with a female egg and at least get to the stage of a human fetus to do so.

Then that poster was accurate sperm don't become children, sperm AND egg do.

A sperm and an egg is hardly sufficient to create a child. They are both just -part- of what's required. You're forgetting the most important part of all- the female's body that houses them both. That's the real heavy lifter in creating a baby. This becomes abundantly clear when it comes to birth surrogacy- note that while the sperm and the egg can be from various sources, the one constant is the gestational carrier:
**

Surrogacy​

Surrogacy (also known as host or full surrogacy was first achieved in April 1986. It takes place when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is transferred to a gestational carrier. Surrogacy has several forms, and in each form, the resulting child is genetically unrelated to the surrogate:

• The embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and the intended mother's eggs;
• The embryo is created using the intended father's sperm and a donor egg;
• The embryo is created using the intended mother's egg and donor sperm;
• A donor embryo is transferred to a gestational carrier. Such an embryo may be available when others undergoing IVF have embryos left over, which they donate to others. The resulting child is genetically unrelated to the gestational carrier.

**
Source:

Surrogacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you one of those people that think guns kill people?

Not alone- as with creating a baby, you need 3 things- bullets, the gun and most important of all, a person to pick a target and then pull the trigger.

 

[Scott]

Why do I keep bringing -what- up? I don't know what you think I'm bringing up, but as can be seen in the nested quotes above, I already agreed with you that humans beings aren't cows, chickens or livestock back in post #166. The point you keep on ignoring is that I'm making a -comparison- between the intelligence of human fetuses and livestock animals like cows and chickens. Put simply, there is strong evidence that these animals, once past the fetal stage, are highly intelligent and yet most people are not vegetarians. I think it's people generally consider that life below a certain level of intelligence is simply worth less than life with more intelligence. Now, I also think there is too much speciesm, which is this notion that just because it's a -human- fetus, it must be accorded special status, but even there, the trump card is that compared to the pregnant female whose body a fetus is house, the level of intelligence of the pregnant female is probably an order of magnitute or more compared to her fetus. It's all about priorities.

What do you mean "highly" intelligent? Is your doctor a dolphin? I hear they're REALLY intelligent.

Are you suggesting that you need to be a doctor to be highly intelligent?

 

[Scott]

Because after a living human is born, they no longer require a woman's body to sustain it. Especially in first world countries, this tends to mean that if the woman so chooses, she can give up the baby for adoption. This is clearly impossible before the living human is born. What's at stake here is the woman's autonomy.

wrong.

ladies often give up the baby for adoption prior to delivery.

it's called surrogacy.

I was just talking about surrogacy with Yakuda. The bottom line, however, is what birth surrogacy calls the "gestational carrier" (that is, the female who is pregnant) -can't- relenquish the baby prior to delivery. That's the crux of the matter- whether it's fair to impinge on the female carrier's ability to remove the embryo or fetus from her body, at least in stages that are somewhat removed from the birth window. Furthermore, it's one thing if a female agrees to deliver a baby for someone else, that is, birth surrogacy. It's another thing entirely if there's no such arrangement in place. At that point, the well being of the pregnant female is only one of the issues- the other is the future well being of a child whose own mother thought it would be better to terminate the pregnancy. As I've pointed out elsewhere, in the U.S., the primary cause of women terminating their pregnancies is the believe that their financial resources aren't up to the task.

 

[Phyllis Diller]

it's one thing if a female agrees to deliver a baby for someone else, that is, birth surrogacy.

yes.

correct.

 

[Scott]

I decided to see what the law had to say about the definition of a living human, if anything. It looks like the law gives a pass to the term, instead focusing on the compound word "natural person". Here's what it has to say on this term in regards to human embryos and fetuses:
**

Natural Person and Fetal Rights​

The issue of whether an unborn fetus is considered a natural person, with all of the rights and protections associated with that status, has been a hot-button issue for a very long time. In the U.S., this issue is commonly referred to as “fetal rights,” and deals with not only issues of right to life (anti-abortion), but with protections related to the health and safety of the child from conception to birth. This is a complicated issue, with some people attempting to place a fetal age at which the baby can be considered “viable,” or alive; and others claiming that the baby has a right to life and protection from the moment of conception.
**

Source:

Natural Person - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Natural Person defined and explained with examples. Natural Person is a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law.

legaldictionary.net

So, there's the law for you. The other issue, which I think is far more important in the long run, is the moral one. On that front, I don't think that having a heartbeat should all of a sudden accord the status of natural person, for the simple reason that a -lot- of animals have fetuses with heart beats and yet they don't suddenly get "fetal rights"- this doesn't even change after they're born. For me, there must be something more than the fact that something that's alive has human DNA to give it special rights. I think this should always be level of intelligence, as well as bodily autonomy, in the sense that said living being no longer requires the body of a female in order to survive.

are corporations people?

Under U.S. law, they are now considered to be legal people. I suspect it's why the term "natural person" came about to begin with, to differentiate between what I consider to be -actual- people and corporate "people". From the article I referenced in the post you're responding to:
**
The term “natural person” refers to a living human being, with certain rights and responsibilities under the law. By contrast, a “legal person,” or an “artificial person,” is a group of people that is considered by law to be acting as a single individual. Both natural and legal persons are entitled to sue other parties and sign contracts. They can also both be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
**

I suspect what you -really- want to know is whether I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FED. I don't. Like you, I think that decision should be overturned. For anyone who hasn't heard of this decision, here's Wikipedia's entry on it:

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A quote from the article that I think is pretty good:
**
The Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, and others criticizing it for reaffirming the longstanding principle of corporate personhood, and for allowing large corporations to wield disproportionate political power.
**