R. Shackleferd
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 316
- Reaction score
- 117
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That has been repeatedly shown to be a flawed line of reasoning. It still fails as an argument.The unborn baby was "invited in" by engaging in behavior known to result in pregnancy.
That has been repeatedly shown to be a flawed line of reasoning. It still fails as an argument.
Leaving your windows open is known to result in trespass (and often burglary, too). Are you 'inviting them in', and thus cannot evict them?The unborn baby was "invited in" by engaging in behavior known to result in pregnancy.
You can consider it anything you wish it still remains invalid. Your consideration does not negate that reality.You consider it flawed, I consider it valid.
Leaving your windows open is known to result in trespass (and often burglary, too). Are you 'inviting them in', and thus cannot evict them?
You can consider it anything you wish it still remains invalid. Your consideration does not negate that reality.
How is this thread not a tacit recognition of the fact that a child's life begins at conception?
Leaving your windows open is known to result in trespass (and often burglary, too). Are you 'inviting them in', and thus cannot evict them?
Whymake 'when life begins' even a part of this entire issue?
You and I have debated this before - "when" life begins isn't always a component in "why" many women don't want to carry a child.
It is, however, valid to when her right to terminate ends.
No, what's valid in the right to terminate (when this ends) is whether or not the baby can live independently from it's mother. . . even with medical help.
So by having an alternative means of incubation-type support we're just bumping up (or back, however you want to say it) the line at which the child can live without the need for the mother as a carrier.
None of this has anything to do with when life begins.
How is this thread not a tacit recognition of the fact that a child's life begins at conception?
Whymake 'when life begins' even a part of this entire issue?
You and I have debated this before - "when" life begins isn't always a component in "why" many women don't want to carry a child.
So if you had a swimming pool without a fence or anything else, and you woke up one morning to find children playing in it, you would have no right to get them all to go away?A better analogy would be in having a swimming pool in your yard without a fence or anything else to keep children from wandering in and drowning.
And yes,... people who have done so have been charged for their negligence before.
Working within a framework. If you believe something o be true, I can discuss the consequences of that even if I don't agree with you.How is this thread not a tacit recognition of the fact that a child's life begins at conception?
More like having sex is like owning property - people get burgled even if all their windows are closed. You could probably liken unprotected sex to leaving a window open, though - it's going to increase the chance of a trespassers and a bunch of bugs might fly into your house and take residence, so it's often a pretty stupid thing to do. You can still evict trespassers though, even if you left a window open.Mac said:So are you saying that having sex is like leaving a window open?
So if you had a swimming pool without a fence or anything else, and you woke up one morning to find children playing in it, you would have no right to get them all to go away?
EDIT: And I'm fairly sure that, in this analogy of yours, using a condom (it's called a 'barrier method' for a reason!) would be analogous to putting up a biiig fence around your swimming pool - even one with guard dogs (spermicide) and everything.
You're left with only condemning abortion for those who have unprotected sex - and good luck proving that one!
Then, given the topic of this thread, your analogy is an entirely inaccurate one.Sure you would.
What you would not have the right to do is to kill them in the process.
I thought that was your 'rape' version of the analogy?Yep pretty much as I have stated numerous times before.
According to The Castle Doctrine - and as long as not evicting them would lead to them taking your food (burglary) - you would do.That's not quite true; as the swimming pool analogy doesn't quite equate the "assumed" responsibility for the risk that having sex does.
However,... to better make this point,... lets say you did have a pool,... with a biiiig fence (condom) and guard dogs (spermacide) and one morning you looked out and there (despite all your barriers and intentions) are kids swimming in your pool.
You wouldn't have the right to kill them for tresspassing. Now would you?
Are you referring to rape?That has been repeatedly shown to be a flawed line of reasoning. It still fails as an argument.
What about the instances where there IS a fence as in the use of accepted method of contraception?A better analogy would be in having a swimming pool in your yard without a fence or anything else to keep children from wandering in and drowning.
And yes,... people who have done so have been charged for their negligence before.
No, just that is not an adequate analogy to pregnancy.Are you referring to rape?
What about the instances where there IS a fence as in the use of accepted method of contraception?
Do you mean; "when you knew the risk (that no protection is %100) and you took the chance anyway?"
What part of "assumed the risk" are you not understanding?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?