Abortion

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:28 pm Haven't I made it abundantly clear what I want? I want to believe in the existence of a loving, just and merciful God who will grant me immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave.
That's the God we have.

But you don't seem to want that, after all. Because He's provided all that already, and you don't want what he is offering.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:36 am
phyllo wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:02 pm "Property" is a human construct. It doesn't apply to God.
Says who?

God says otherwise.
Where?
Ezekiel 18:4, for example: "Behold, all souls are Mine..."
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by iambiguous »

Once again, I manage to reduce an exchange with IC from this...

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:01 pmYou don't condemn anything, it seems. You just take complete moral relativism for how things are. So it has a lot to do with your self-descriptive work above.


This, in my view, is simply how the objectivist mind of a Christian fanatic works. His own moral convictions revolve around what he insists the Christian God condemns. WWJD. Or, perhaps, it is the Christian God's moral convictions that revolve around what IC condemns.

The Christian God deems abortion to be a Sin. And, on Judgment Day, those who either perform or have one will learn their fate.

Unless, perhaps, it's more complicated than that: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/us/abort ... index.html

As for what I condemn, over and over and over again I note that my point here focuses less on what each of us as individuals condemns and more on how moral and political convictions themselves revolve existentially around the points I raise in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Then I invite objectivists of IC's ilk to note how this is not applicable to them. Given particular contexts like the abortion wars.

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:58 pm So Islamists who own slaves and rape children...okay by you, because they believe they're in the one truth path? :shock:

...what's that next to the Christian God creating "...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:58 pm Nobody says God "creates" these things. Well, animists do, maybe...they have "gods" that "create" all sorts of phenomena, from crops growing to lightning bolts. But no Christian thinks that's what these things mean.

You need to update your theology.


Let's go to the Bible:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The heavens that from time to time send asteroids and comets our way bringing about "extinction events". And the Earth which was hard-wired by God to bring about that "endless procession" above.

And who was it other than God that created human biology with its countless terrible medical afflictions that make life a living hell [eventually] for all of us.

Likewise, this: "Miscarriage is generally defined as the loss of a pregnancy before viability. An estimated 23 million miscarriages occur every year worldwide, translating to 44 pregnancy losses each minute." National Library of Medicine

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:58 pm And as you point out:

...most won't blame God.


Come on, Mr. Snippet, as per usual, you leave out the rest of it:

"They'll convince themselves it's all just a part of God's plan. After all, what's the alternative? No God and the miscarriage "just happened"...just another manifestation of the brute facticity that is the human condition in a No God world."

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:58 pm So why do you?


I don't believe in the existence of God. Your God or any other one. Though, sure, I want to believe in Him. And for all of the reasons I've noted above and elsewhere.

And, yes, He may well exist.

After all, the thing about believing in God, of course, is that it gives you someone or something to go back to. These terrible natural disasters and medical afflictions don't "just happen" in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world...they are a part of God's plan, a part of His "mysterious ways" that we are simply not privy to "here and now".

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:58 pm Christian theology says we live in a broken, disrupted world, wherein mankind has rejected God. Natural disasters are not God getting angry, nor God punishing people, nor any such simplistic idea as that. It's a natural product of our disjuncture from the Source of life, health and goodness, which we human beings have ourselves caused.


Ah, a necessary adjunct of Original Sin. All the rest of us still being punished for something we didn't even do ourselves. Use that to explain away these terrible conditions:

https://www.onhealth.com/content/1/chil ... _sick_kids
https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2020posts ... llosa.html
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/chi ... conditions


Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:58 pm You won't like that: but the alternative is worse. It's called "death," and it's the inevitable outcome of living creatures having rejected God. Unplug yourself from the source of life, and you'll run down fast.

Seen this way, you realize that being allowed a chance to live, and to choose differently, even in an imperfect world, is vastly preferable to what we really have coming to us.


Right. Then back to the fact that your Christian dogma is just one of many One True Paths to immortality and salvation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

But you, what, swear to God that your path really, reallly, really is the One True Path?

Need proof, anyone?

Go here:

https://youtu.be/hHXXacBAm2A
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:58 pm So what do you want? Do you want to rail against God and die? Or do you want something better?


Haven't I made it abundantly clear what I want? I want to believe in the existence of a loving, just and merciful God who will grant me immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave.

But in order to believe in a God, the God, my God, I need others to take Him here:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path


Which, of course, Mr. Snippet, you will swear to God that you already have!

That, I suspect, is just another component of your own "condition". I mean, it's got to be a "condition", right? What other possible explanation can there be for arguments like yours?


...down to this:

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:38 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:28 pm Haven't I made it abundantly clear what I want? I want to believe in the existence of a loving, just and merciful God who will grant me immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave.

That's the God we have.

But you don't seem to want that, after all. Because He's provided all that already, and you don't want what he is offering.


From my frame of mind, he hasn't a clue as to how to respond substantively to the points I raise. And he refuses to be embarrassed when he is reduced down to posting mere assertions like this.

He's got two possible excuses, in my view:

1] it's a wholly determined universe and he posts only what he is compelled to post
2] it's a free will world but he is afflicted with a mental "condition" and it is all equally beyond his control
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Abortion

Post by phyllo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:41 am
Dubious wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:36 am
Says who?

God says otherwise.
Where?
Ezekiel 18:4, for example: "Behold, all souls are Mine..."
The prayer says "Our Father in heaven ..." . It does not say "Our Owner in heaven ..." nor "Our Slave Master in heaven ..."

And there as many references to "our Father in heaven" throughout the NT.

If you think that your father/Father owns you, then you might want to get some therapy. Cause that's really messed up.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:51 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 2:45 am
Which of those are you suggesting makes it okay to murder your children?
Your friends...
So you don't answer the question.
I'm not sure what question you are referring to.
But I do not see a mind-fucked virgin like yourself is ever going to understand the real problems here.
But right now all you are doing is saying NO to legal, regulated, safe abortions. And since you do not have the mental capacity or imagine the plight of other people you do not really qualify for any answers you are not equipped to understand.
And anyone who think this is a person, needs adjustment..
So what rights to you think THIS has:
FETUS
FETUS
fetua.JPG (21.86 KiB) Viewed 691 times
Tell us why you think this is a person with legal rights??
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Sculptor »

phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:25 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:41 am
Dubious wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:38 am

Where?
Ezekiel 18:4, for example: "Behold, all souls are Mine..."
The prayer says "Our Father in heaven ..." . It does not say "Our Owner in heaven ..." nor "Our Slave Master in heaven ..."
yes?? But it might as well.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Abortion

Post by Dontaskme »

phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:25 am that's really messed up.
Knowledge caused the mess.

Self awareness / knowing I exist is a separation that was natures biggest blunder, hence the mess.

However, all is not lost, that which can make a mess can clean it up...but people cannot stop breeding, so be it, they seem to enjoy wallowing in their own mess...let pigs be pigs...and sleeping dogs/gods lie.

Freedom at zero point.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

You don't like "snippets," you say -- then you write messages the length of essays, which would require me to respond in an essay of double length, if I didn't cut to the relevant.

So you really have two options: be short,and maybe use more, shorter messages to get your points across (I recommend one major point per post, for readability's sake for others) or get used to snippets. There's no alternative on a forum like this. It's not fair to people to get too lengthy. Understandably, nobody wants to read messages here that are too lengthy and have no concise point.

So I'm going to take the liberty of choosing the most relevant issues here. You may not prefer that, but everybody else does, I assure you.

First, to respect your complaints...
iambiguous wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:26 am But in order to believe in a God, the God, my God, I need others to take Him here:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
You have, at the minimum, the very "evidence" you demanded -- that you know as certainly as you "know" the Pope is in Rome, that you know God exists.

You say that the way you "know" that the Pope is in Rome is by the testimony of others -- for you say you have not been there yourself.

Yet others also declare their knowledge of God, and tell you that He exists. I would be one of those, but so would all the writers of the Bible, and millions of other Christians and Jews.

So the standard you said you wanted has been fully met. What do you want now?
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
Well, it's not "mine," in the sense that I didn't invent it; it's only "mine" in the sense that among all these, I chose it.

I invariably find that people who speak of "hundreds of religious paths" and such have investigated either very few or none of them. So it seems odd that they want to assert this as a problem. I don't think it's nearly the problem you imagine it to be.

Compare them, and you'll find out which path is really rational, moral and truthful. I suggest you start by considering carefully the life of Jesus Christ, and compare him to any other religious figure you choose. You will know when you do that. And it won't take you long.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

Well, that is a problem: "dasein," for you, has no meaning. You say you're not using Heidegger's version, or anybody else's -- it's your own, you say. So nobody but you knowns what you mean by "dasein." When I asked, you, yourself were unable to tell me what your definition of it is. :shock: Absent that, nobody can even know what it is you're asking...

If I understood your question, there's a very good chance I could respond to it. But it's not at all clear to me what your concealed meaning is.
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path
You'll have to tell me which "questions" you mean. "Revolve around" doesn't tell me much.
...down to this:
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:38 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:28 pm Haven't I made it abundantly clear what I want? I want to believe in the existence of a loving, just and merciful God who will grant me immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave.
That's the God we have.

But you don't seem to want that, after all. Because He's provided all that already, and you don't want what he is offering.
From my frame of mind, he hasn't a clue as to how to respond substantively to the points I raise.

God doesn't?

Or I don't?

If it's God, that's an amusing thought. If it's me, I've just responded above. So either way, it seems you spoke too soon.

Now, if I've missed or "snippeted out" a point you thought was important, how about putting it again, but this time in one message per point, so we can go back and forth on it in a way that everybody can follow?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:25 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:41 am
Dubious wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:38 am

Where?
Ezekiel 18:4, for example: "Behold, all souls are Mine..."
The prayer says "Our Father in heaven ..." .
Yes, it does. And by doing so, it points to the fact that God is "our" (i.e. everyone's) ultimate origin. But a "father" is much more than that, too, isn't he? A "father" (at least traditionally and Biblically, if not in our day) is a "patriarch." As such, he is owed honour by all who are his progeny. They owe everything they have to Him...including their very existence. And the "children" are answerable to the "father," who has greater wisdom, experience, and power than the "children." To the "father" they must look for their provision and guidance, and they remain under His authority so long as they are "children." So everything again comes back to the priority of God as Father.

So again, we have mankind as the property of God.

Now, I sense that the word "property" offends you. But it needn't, if you understand "property" in the larger sense of the word; for it does not merely mean "baggage" or "things." Parents "own" their children all the time, in this sense. When the parents go to a new place, the children come along. When the children eat, it's what the parents provide. The education of the children is in the discretion of the parents. And the parents determine what experiences are allowed to come into a child's life, so much as they are able.

As Father, God has absolute right of authority in such matters. So in that sense, they are rightfully under His governance and leadership. But just as children can rebel, and often do, God does not inflict His authority in a totalitarian way. He allows free choice; one may recognize oneself and others as the rightful property of God, or one can imagine oneself as the product of random forces, and owned by nobody, including oneself.

Those are the only two alternatives, really; nobody is capable of owning you...even you. For you are not your own creator, and cannot even guarantee your own next breath. Who then is more in charge of these things than God?
It does not say "Our Owner in heaven ..." nor "Our Slave Master in heaven ..."
Of course it doesn't. Because to say "all souls are rightfully Mine," as the Lord says, does not imply, "No soul has any choice," or "You are a slave."

The relationship described here is one that is paternal, as you point out...not one of slave-owner. Even though the Bible uses the word "Master" sometimes of God, it's not of involuntary servitude, but of rightful "mastery" by one both morally and judicially above you, but not one who robs you of choice. But "fathers" have rightful authority and respect due to them. And rightful masters should be obeyed by those who actually rightfuly owe them service. For we have been given everything we have by God...where is our gratitude for that? And where is he honour we owe him, for all the benefits He has given us? As God Himself declares,

‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the Lord..."
(Malachi 1:6)

Children are not "slaves." They do have to recognize the right of their Father to direct their way, but that does not make them slaves at all; because they can certainly refuse that, if they want...and if they are unwise.

We all choose what we will recognize and accept. But that, too, is a gift we have from God. As a mere creature of material forces and causes (were you that) you would have no choices at all. So the "fatherhood" of God is not just a fact; it's a fact God has granted you the freedom to recognize or refuse...with the natural consequences of each choice, of course. For to be "free" means to be free to choose not just what you think, but what your destiny will be, as well. Genuine freedom entails both choice and consequences.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:51 am
Your friends...
So you don't answer the question.
I'm not sure what question you are referring to.
The one below:

Veggie complained:
You think condoms never break? Or pills get forgotten? Or sometimes people just want a fuck.
I asked, "Which of those are you suggesting makes it okay to murder your children? "
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:48 am So what rights to you think THIS has:
fetua.JPG

Tell us why you think this is a person with legal rights??
The only entities that can have legal rights are "persons." So your question is, "What makes you think this is a 'person'?

And the answer is obvious. But let's start at the basics: if it's not a "human," what is this? DNA gives us the definitive answer: it's a human being, a "person" in the early stages of formation. But it has all the genetic material and potentials that will produce a human being in every sense that Sculpy is one. To abort her is to prevent such a being from existing, by tearing her limb from limb and flushing her into a sink or selling her body parts.

The whole point of abortion is to stop a human being, a "person" from living. That's the payoff of the whole procedure. Are not the abortionists the ones who object, "If it is allowed to live, I will have to love it, respect it, raise it, pay for it, protect it, provide for it...and I have no love for doing that." Do they not also go on, "Even though I chose the actions that created her, and gave her no choice in the matter, I will not even allow this little person the right to exist at all. I will not give her life, and then let her be adopted by the many longing for a child; rather than have her living in this world, I will tear her apart and pretend she never existed at all."

Such savagery, such poverty of soul, such black wickedness as that spirit makes a living person, the aborter, into less than a "person." One might almost say they had become demonic in their loathing of life, their spite toward the child they have created, and their contempt for potential adopters.

Now, you will say, "She doesn't look human to me." That's a lame response, for a couple of reasons that should be immediately obvious. One is that "What looks to you" determines the truth of nothing at all. But secondly, even if we agreed with you that this early baby should, for some reason I can't imagine, not count as a person, then you would only be advocating early first trimester abortion. :shock:

And is that what you really want to do? Do you want to say, "As soon as it looks like a person, it is?" Because if you want to say that, even late first trimester abortion is out, and all second trimester abortions, and all third trimester abortions, and all partial-birth abortions, and all the infanticine practiced by all the abortion clinics is out; for in all those cases, the form of a child is easily discernable.

I could say much more; but this is much more than enough.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Abortion

Post by phyllo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:26 pm
phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:25 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:41 am
Ezekiel 18:4, for example: "Behold, all souls are Mine..."
The prayer says "Our Father in heaven ..." .
Yes, it does. And by doing so, it points to the fact that God is "our" (i.e. everyone's) ultimate origin. But a "father" is much more than that, too, isn't he? A "father" (at least traditionally and Biblically, if not in our day) is a "patriarch." As such, he is owed honour by all who are his progeny. They owe everything they have to Him...including their very existence. And the "children" are answerable to the "father," who has greater wisdom, experience, and power than the "children." To the "father" they must look for their provision and guidance, and they remain under His authority so long as they are "children." So everything again comes back to the priority of God as Father.

So again, we have mankind as the property of God.

Now, I sense that the word "property" offends you. But it needn't, if you understand "property" in the larger sense of the word; for it does not merely mean "baggage" or "things." Parents "own" their children all the time, in this sense. When the parents go to a new place, the children come along. When the children eat, it's what the parents provide. The education of the children is in the discretion of the parents. And the parents determine what experiences are allowed to come into a child's life, so much as they are able.

As Father, God has absolute right of authority in such matters. So in that sense, they are rightfully under His governance and leadership. But just as children can rebel, and often do, God does not inflict His authority in a totalitarian way. He allows free choice; one may recognize oneself and others as the rightful property of God, or one can imagine oneself as the product of random forces, and owned by nobody, including oneself.

Those are the only two alternatives, really; nobody is capable of owning you...even you. For you are not your own creator, and cannot even guarantee your own next breath. Who then is more in charge of these things than God?
It does not say "Our Owner in heaven ..." nor "Our Slave Master in heaven ..."
Of course it doesn't. Because to say "all souls are rightfully Mine," as the Lord says, does not imply, "No soul has any choice," or "You are a slave."

The relationship described here is one that is paternal, as you point out...not one of slave-owner. Even though the Bible uses the word "Master" sometimes of God, it's not of involuntary servitude, but of rightful "mastery" by one both morally and judicially above you, but not one who robs you of choice. But "fathers" have rightful authority and respect due to them. And rightful masters should be obeyed by those who actually rightfuly owe them service. For we have been given everything we have by God...where is our gratitude for that? And where is he honour we owe him, for all the benefits He has given us? As God Himself declares,

‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the Lord..."
(Malachi 1:6)

Children are not "slaves." They do have to recognize the right of their Father to direct their way, but that does not make them slaves at all; because they can certainly refuse that, if they want...and if they are unwise.

We all choose what we will recognize and accept. But that, too, is a gift we have from God. As a mere creature of material forces and causes (were you that) you would have no choices at all. So the "fatherhood" of God is not just a fact; it's a fact God has granted you the freedom to recognize or refuse...with the natural consequences of each choice, of course. For to be "free" means to be free to choose not just what you think, but what your destiny will be, as well. Genuine freedom entails both choice and consequences.
Half of the sentences, in that post, contradict the other half.

Not surprising since you are attempting to reconcile ownership and fatherhood.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:44 pm Half of the sentences, in that post, contradict the other half.
Let's see if that's true.

Point out the contradiction you allege. It should be easy.
Not surprising since you are attempting to reconcile ownership and fatherhood.
Let's try it another way, then.

If your father does not "own" you in any sense, then who does?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Abortion

Post by henry quirk »

If your father does not "own" you in any sense, then who does?
Me, I'm not happy usin' own to describe what passes between me and my kid.

He belongs to me, and I to him, yes, but not in the sense that my car belongs to me or his PS4 belongs to him.

Nor is it in the sense that I belong to myself or that he belongs to himself.

He belongs to me, and I to him, by way of connection, love, responsibility, respect, investment.

It's a different category altogether.

In the same way: (if I were a theist) I might say I belong to God and He's my God. It's not about possession in either direction.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:00 pm
phyllo wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:44 pm Half of the sentences, in that post, contradict the other half.
Let's see if that's true.

Point out the contradiction you allege. It should be easy.
Not surprising since you are attempting to reconcile ownership and fatherhood.
Let's try it another way, then.

If your father does not "own" you in any sense, then who does?
Or, let's try this question, if it works for you better.

You're walking down the street with a child beside you.

Somebody walks up to you and says, "Is that your daughter?"

How do you answer?
Post Reply