Is pregnancy a conscious choice?

[CoffeeSaint]

Starting a new thread to avoid further derailment of Doesn't It All Come Down To . . .

Is pregnancy a direct result of sex? Is the conscious choice to have sex equivalent to the conscious choice to be pregnant? Can pregnancy therefore be seen as the result of a conscious choice, and the continuation of the pregnancy the natural consequence of that choice?

 

[tecoyah]

Starting a new thread to avoid further derailment of Doesn't It All Come Down To . . .

Is pregnancy a direct result of sex? Is the conscious choice to have sex equivalent to the conscious choice to be pregnant? Can pregnancy therefore be seen as the result of a conscious choice, and the continuation of the pregnancy the natural consequence of that choice?

Sex is an action, which varies in its purpose depending on the individuals taking part in it. There are those who consider it a chore, and a requirement of the relationship they are in, thus making it more suited to procreation exclusively. There are those however, (myself included) who find Sexual Intercourse to be quite pleasant, and "Use" the recreational aspect of this act for the endorphine rushed, Joyful playtime, and bonding experience it can be. In this light the natural consequence of Sex is....well...pleasure.
It is a fact that Pregnancy comes about when a Sperm fertilizes an Egg, and also fact that the vast majority of fertilized Eggs result from Sex, So indeed it seems preganancy is a direct result of sex, and sex is usually a conscious choice (there is no need to sideline this discussion with a rape debate). Continuation of said pregnancy can also be seen as a natural result, but need not be The Only result, as miscarriage, and stillbirth point out.

Simply Put....Yes, sex can result in a Baby being born. But its also a He!! of alot of Fun.

 

[Felicity]

Sex is an action, which varies in its purpose depending on the individuals taking part in it. There are those who consider it a chore, and a requirement of the relationship they are in, thus making it more suited to procreation exclusively. There are those however, (myself included) who find Sexual Intercourse to be quite pleasant, and "Use" the recreational aspect of this act for the endorphine rushed, Joyful playtime, and bonding experience it can be. In this light the natural consequence of Sex is....well...pleasure.
It is a fact that Pregnancy comes about when a Sperm fertilizes an Egg, and also fact that the vast majority of fertilized Eggs result from Sex, So indeed it seems preganancy is a direct result of sex, and sex is usually a conscious choice (there is no need to sideline this discussion with a rape debate). Continuation of said pregnancy can also be seen as a natural result, but need not be The Only result, as miscarriage, and stillbirth point out.

Simply Put....Yes, sex can result in a Baby being born. But its also a He!! of alot of Fun.

I'm in total agreement there. There are two purposes of sex. Both are natural outgrowths (ha-ha! pun!) of sexual activity between two people.

 

[ngdawg]

Being infertile, it was only for fun...still is now that I again can't procreate
Now, if I could only have more fun.....

Opps, mind wandered..
Anyway, the primary function, of course, is to procreate. It's been said that, to make the female more responsive to the 'task', 'pleasure points' evolved(the human female is the only animal that does NOT go into heat- human menses is the direct opposite of every other mammal's physiology), these pleasure points taking the place of going into heat.
I belong to another forum and the amount of college age kids who come in to post "Oh My Gawd, Is She Pregnant??' threads would boggle your mind-to which we all respond that if one doesn't take this notion into constant consideration, zip it up.
No birth control is 100% because no one does 100% correct application of it, regardless of what it is. Even things like Norplant can fail if both are endowed with higher than average 'hormonal conditions'. I even had one friend who had one ovary, was on BC pills and still got pregnant with her 5th kid.

 

[Purple]

I don't believe that pregnancy is a conscious choice since we can't make the decision to become pregnant. We can hope, we can help, but we can't decide that this time is going to result in a pregnancy, it's never 100% guaranteed.

 

[1069]

I don't believe that pregnancy is a conscious choice since we can't make the decision to become pregnant. We can hope, we can help, but we can't decide that this time is going to result in a pregnancy, it's never 100% guaranteed.

Nor can we prevent it 100% of the time, as no method of contraception has a 100% efficacy rate.
So, no, of course pregnancy is not a conscious choice.
One can only make a conscious choice to try and conceive (doesn't mean one will succeed) or to try and prevent conception (again, doesn't mean one will succeed, especially not over the long term).
Rape can result in pregnancy; one can conceive while drugged into unconsciousness.
Conscious choice simply isn't a component, any more than one can choose to get cancer (or choose to prevent it).
One can try; one can take steps, one can take appropriate measures... but in the end, whether or not one will get cancer (or won't get it) is encoded in one's DNA. Conscious choice plays little role, although certain actions can increase or decrease the likelihood.

 

[Light]

Starting a new thread to avoid further derailment of Doesn't It All Come Down To . . .

Is pregnancy a direct result of sex? Is the conscious choice to have sex equivalent to the conscious choice to be pregnant? Can pregnancy therefore be seen as the result of a conscious choice, and the continuation of the pregnancy the natural consequence of that choice?

I think that pregnancy is a consequence of sex, and that a woman and a man must realize that and perceive the affects of that pregnancy and judge what might happen if something goes awry. I do not believe you can consciously get pregnant....i see acts as being conscious not results.
I find results highly unlikely to be conscious.

 

[brewmenn]

Yes, pregnancy is a direct result of sex. It's not a "conscious choice" in the respect that a woman can "will her self pregnant", but consensual sex is a choice, and pregnancy is a possible outcome of it.

It's a "cause and effect" of the "necessary cause" type...

Necessary causes:

If x is a necessary cause of y; then the presence of y necessarily implies that x preceded it. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

since some of you like analogy's heres mine...

I decide to practice my golf swing. So I take a bucket of balls and my club out behind the garage. I aim straight at the back of my garage, but since I'm not a golfer I figure my swing is not very good, but just to be save I string up some nets beside me just in case. So there I am trying to hit some balls into the back of my garage, most of the time missing the ball, and when I do hit it it bounces harmlessly into the grass. But after a couple of hundred swings I make solid contact... I really crush it. It ricochets off my garage, takes a strange bounce, comes straight back at me, missing the nets, and sails into my neighbors yard, just as a rouge wind guts blows by and steers the ball drastically, into my neighbors picture window, shattering it.

I did not make a concious effort to break my neighbors window. I did not intend to break my neighbors window. I did not even hit that ball towards my neighbors window. I had no control over how the ball bounced. I took precations to try and prevent the ball from leaving my yard. I could neither perdict nor control the wind that blew the ball on the course that it went on, which resulted in breaking the window. But do you think my neighbor will, or should, care about any of that? I don't think so, I hit the ball, and it ended up breaking their window, therefore I am reponsible for the broken window.

 

[brewmenn]

I'm wondering, from those of you who don't think a woman is culpable for a pregnancy that results from concentual sex how you feel about the culpability of the male partner in this sex act. The male has absolutly no control as to where his ejaculte goes once it leaves his male member (sorry 1069, that was the most "unscurrilous" terms I could think of) so surely if the woman is not to be held responsible for her pregnancy, then the man shouldn't be either, and therefore should not be required to pay child support.

I'm starting to like this idea...:twisted:

 

[1069]

I'm wondering, from those of you who don't think a woman is culpable for a pregnancy that results from concentual sex how you feel about the culpability of the male partner in this sex act. The male has absolutly no control as to where his ejaculte goes once it leaves his male member (sorry 1069, that was the most "unscurrilous" terms I could think of) so surely if the woman is not to be held responsible for her pregnancy, then the man shouldn't be either, and therefore should not be required to pay child support.

I'm starting to like this idea...:twisted:

Been there, done that.

link

link

Like others before you, you perceive child support as a men's issue, and neglect to realize that females are also required to pay child support in cases where males are primary custodians.

 

[AYFR]

Yes pregnancy is a direct result of having sex, but just like anything else it is not guaranteed.
The fact is you have sex you might get pregnant
You don't have sex and you WON'T get pregnant.
This is not talking about artifical ways either. If you do that then you still are trying to get pregnant (I hope)

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Yes, pregnancy is a direct result of sex. It's not a "conscious choice" in the respect that a woman can "will her self pregnant", but consensual sex is a choice, and pregnancy is a possible outcome of it.

It's a "cause and effect" of the "necessary cause" type...

I absolutely agree. Sex is one of the necessary causes of pregnancy. Pregnancy, however, is not a conscious choice.

since some of you like analogy's heres mine...

I decide to practice my golf swing. So I take a bucket of balls and my club out behind the garage. I aim straight at the back of my garage, but since I'm not a golfer I figure my swing is not very good, but just to be save I string up some nets beside me just in case. So there I am trying to hit some balls into the back of my garage, most of the time missing the ball, and when I do hit it it bounces harmlessly into the grass. But after a couple of hundred swings I make solid contact... I really crush it. It ricochets off my garage, takes a strange bounce, comes straight back at me, missing the nets, and sails into my neighbors yard, just as a rouge wind guts blows by and steers the ball drastically, into my neighbors picture window, shattering it.

I did not make a concious effort to break my neighbors window. I did not intend to break my neighbors window. I did not even hit that ball towards my neighbors window. I had no control over how the ball bounced. I took precations to try and prevent the ball from leaving my yard. I could neither perdict nor control the wind that blew the ball on the course that it went on, which resulted in breaking the window. But do you think my neighbor will, or should, care about any of that? I don't think so, I hit the ball, and it ended up breaking their window, therefore I am reponsible for the broken window.

Unless your neighbor is a total jerk, he certainly should care why you broke his window. The fact that you didn't mean to makes this an accident, an unintentional trick of circumstances beyond your control -- in this case, the rogue wind that blew your ball into his window. However, in terms of responsibility, yes, you are responsible for the broken window. The woman is responsible for dealing with the pregnancy, which is why she has to go to the doctor, decide what to do, and pay for it; that's responsibility.

However: because you did not break the window intentionally, you do not lose any rights. You have to pay for it, but you do not go to jail. Because the woman has committed no crimes, and did nothing intentionally, she should not be punished for the unfortunate circumstances beyond her control that caused her pregnancy. In other words, we may be right in making her deal with the pregnancy by making a choice for herself, but we do not have the right to take one of her choices away from her. You do not lose your rights unless you make a conscious choice.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Yes pregnancy is a direct result of having sex, but just like anything else it is not guaranteed.
The fact is you have sex you might get pregnant
You don't have sex and you WON'T get pregnant.
This is not talking about artifical ways either. If you do that then you still are trying to get pregnant (I hope)

Interesting how this question has morphed. I did not ask if pregnancy is a direct result of sex. I asked if pregnancy is a conscious choice. Since pregnancy is not guaranteed, do you agree that the choice to have sex is not the choice to get pregnant? That while sex is a necessary cause, as brewmenn pointed out, pregnancy is not a universal result of sex, and therefore the two events are not linked to the same choice?

And I do not mean to be a pain, but I will have to point out again that the choice to abstain from sex will only keep you from getting pregnant if you are not raped. If you are talking only about consensual sex, I would appreciate it if you mentioned that. I will also note that a simple surgical procedure can also ensure that you will not get pregnant, and yet you can still have sex -- and even if you get raped, you won't get pregnant. So perhaps this is not such a simple equation.

 

[brewmenn]

Is pregnancy a direct result of sex?

I did not ask if pregnancy is a direct result of sex.

hummmmmmmmmmm... :2wave:

 

[AYFR]

Interesting how this question has morphed. I did not ask if pregnancy is a direct result of sex. I asked if pregnancy is a conscious choice. Since pregnancy is not guaranteed, do you agree that the choice to have sex is not the choice to get pregnant? That while sex is a necessary cause, as brewmenn pointed out, pregnancy is not a universal result of sex, and therefore the two events are not linked to the same choice?

First I will address this Yes you did ask if it was a direct result

Starting a new thread to avoid further derailment of Doesn't It All Come Down To . . .

Is pregnancy a direct result of sex? Is the conscious choice to have sex equivalent to the conscious choice to be pregnant? Can pregnancy therefore be seen as the result of a conscious choice, and the continuation of the pregnancy the natural consequence of that choice?

And I do not mean to be a pain, but I will have to point out again that the choice to abstain from sex will only keep you from getting pregnant if you are not raped. If you are talking only about consensual sex, I would appreciate it if you mentioned that. I will also note that a simple surgical procedure can also ensure that you will not get pregnant, and yet you can still have sex -- and even if you get raped, you won't get pregnant. So perhaps this is not such a simple equation.

Second yes I do mean consensual sex and will say so from now on.
Also yes it is that simple, people just choose to make it hard

 

[Jerry]

Starting a new thread to avoid further derailment of Doesn't It All Come Down To . . .

Is pregnancy a direct result of sex? Is the conscious choice to have sex equivalent to the conscious choice to be pregnant? Can pregnancy therefore be seen as the result of a conscious choice, and the continuation of the pregnancy the natural consequence of that choice?

Pregnancy is a "foreseeable risk" of sex.

"Is pregnancy a direct result of sex?"

Generaly, yes.

"Is the conscious choice to have sex equivalent to the conscious choice to be pregnant?"

The risk of pregnancy is assumed upon engagement of the act.

"Can pregnancy therefore be seen as the result of a conscious choice, and the continuation of the pregnancy the natural consequence of that choice?"

Generally, yes.


The fact that grone, educated adults need to ask these questions gives me reason to doubt the viability of sex-ed and basic biology in the public school.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

hummmmmmmmmmm... :2wave:

Sorry, my bad. We still need to focus on the main question, though, which is in the thread title.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Pregnancy is a "foreseeable risk" of sex.

From your link:

A skier hits a bump on a ski run, falls and breaks his leg. This is a foreseeable risk of skiing.

As the broken leg is a foreseeable risk, the ski resort is not culpable for his broken leg. On the other hand, the skier is also not culpable for his broken leg. It was an accident. He did not get on his skis with the intention of breaking his leg, even though this was a "foreseeable risk." Therefore he is allowed to seek medical attention which will be paid for by his insurance; nobody says, "You chose to break your leg; you'll have to walk home." His options for dealing with his leg are not limited by his choice to ski.

"Is pregnancy a direct result of sex?"

Generaly, yes.

Poorly worded question; my apologies.

"Is the conscious choice to have sex equivalent to the conscious choice to be pregnant?"

The risk of pregnancy is assumed upon engagement of the act.

But not the specific outcome. It was not chosen, as the broken leg was not the skier's choice.

"Can pregnancy therefore be seen as the result of a conscious choice, and the continuation of the pregnancy the natural consequence of that choice?"

Generally, yes.

So that would be no, actually. Unless you would argue that the skier chose to break his leg? And should therefore have his medical options limited afterwards? Your "foreseeable risk" argument seems to absolve the other party involved, which is presumably the man; all right, I can accept that the man is not solely culpable for the pregnancy, as the ski resort is not solely culpable for the skier's broken leg. What about the skier, though? Just because it isn't the resort's fault doesn't mean it is his; it could be that there is no fault -- an accident. And of course, legal responsibility does not necessarily imply a conscious choice.

The fact that grone, educated adults need to ask these questions gives me reason to doubt the viability of sex-ed and basic biology in the public school.

Thank you for insulting my intelligence.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

First I will address this Yes you did ask if it was a direct result

You're right, and I apologize. But I would like to try to clarify what I meant with the question. Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology when I say "direct result," but what I mean is that there is a determining relationship, a straight line of causation: if A, then B. Is this true of pregnancy and sex, in your opinion? Or do the uncontrollable biological factors -- the ones that make it not a guarantee, as you stated -- make sex only a necessary cause, not THE cause, of pregnancy?

Second yes I do mean consensual sex and will say so from now on.
Also yes it is that simple, people just choose to make it hard

I disagree. I think people oversimplify a complicated issue, one that ties to women's rights, sex, romance/love, family, personal rights, privacy, medicine, religion, and what it really means to be a human being. Among other issues. I don't think anything about this is simple.

 

[1069]

The fact that grone, educated adults need to ask these questions gives me reason to doubt the viability of sex-ed and basic biology in the public school.

"Grone"... ??

/groans. :doh

Come on, Jerry... at least use the darn spell-check when insulting our intelligence.

 

[Jerry]

As the broken leg is a foreseeable risk, the ski resort is not culpable for his broken leg. On the other hand, the skier is also not culpable for his broken leg. It was an accident. He did not get on his skis with the intention of breaking his leg, even though this was a "foreseeable risk." Therefore he is allowed to seek medical attention which will be paid for by his insurance; nobody says, "You chose to break your leg; you'll have to walk home." His options for dealing with his leg are not limited by his choice to ski.

This is absolutely correct.
A woman who becomes pregnant is and should always be allowed to seek medical treatment of the same nature as that of a skier with a broken leg. If the pregnancy threatens her life or places her general health in a greater danger than that of a normal, healthy pregnancy (akin to a healthy leg), then I, for one, would not oppose her getting an abortion.

A normal, healthy pregnancy, however, is not an injury.

But not the specific outcome. It was not chosen, as the broken leg was not the skier's choice.

Again, this is correct.
Neither person chooses for a pregnancy to occur any more than they choose to contract an std.

Conception of an unborn and transition of an std are both "foreseeable risks" which are assumed upon engagement of the act.

The abstinence argument is akin to: "If you don't want to risk a broken leg, don't ski. If you choose to ski, you accept a broken leg as a possible consequence."

Pregnancy need not even be an issue for that argument to apply, as it encompasses stds’ as well.

So that would be no, actually. Unless you would argue that the skier chose to break his leg? And should therefore have his medical options limited afterwards? Your "foreseeable risk" argument seems to absolve the other party involved, which is presumably the man; all right, I can accept that the man is not solely culpable for the pregnancy, as the ski resort is not solely culpable for the skier's broken leg. What about the skier, though? Just because it isn't the resort's fault doesn't mean it is his; it could be that there is no fault -- an accident. And of course, legal responsibility does not necessarily imply a conscious choice.

I accept the notion that a pregnancy could be an accident.

If one endures a foreseen possible consequence of their own actions, such as a broken leg, they do not automatically have license to turn and kill someone unless that someone is endangering the life of another, thus a woman has no right to kill any ZEF not endangering her life.

"All roads lead to Rome" = "All arguments lead to "personhood".

Thank you for insulting my intelligence.

I apologize for the underhanded flame. It was uncalled fore.

One wonders why these questions are posed by otherwise well educated individuals as these questions seem so obvious. If a proponent of public sex-ed can not answer them then that further obscures what exactly it is that many say my children should be taught.

I’ll leave that alone for another thread, however.

Perhaps if we light a candle and recite the Java Rosary in the Church of Starbucks we will receive enlightenment?

 

[Jerry]

"Grone"... ??

/groans. :doh

Come on, Jerry... at least use the darn spell-check when insulting our intelligence.

Have you ever seen one of my posts which has not been spell checked? That was simply the correct spelling for the wrong word. You ain't seen notin.

***
"Our"?
That post was not addressed to you.

***
Given that Spelling is related to meaning rather than sound, perhaps before we have another sex-ed debate we sould discuss the logic in encuraging students to "sound out the word".

...just another failing of the public education system....my wife says I've gotten allot better at spelling since we first met.

 

[1069]

Have you ever seen one of my posts which has not been spell checked? That was simply the correct spelling for the wrong word. You ain't seen notin.

Truly? In what language is "grone" a word?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

This is absolutely correct.
A woman who becomes pregnant is and should always be allowed to seek medical treatment of the same nature as that of a skier with a broken leg. If the pregnancy threatens her life or places her general health in a greater danger than that of a normal, healthy pregnancy (akin to a healthy leg), then I, for one, would not oppose her getting an abortion.

A normal, healthy pregnancy, however, is not an injury.

True, but it is a medical condition. And if someone has more than one option for treatment of a medical condition, by what right do we limit their options?

With the broken leg, for instance. Plaster cast or air cast? Wheelchair or crutches? Should it be up to us? Or a decision the skier makes with his doctor? An accidental occurrence should not limit one's freedom of choice.

Again, this is correct.
Neither person chooses for a pregnancy to occur any more than they choose to contract an std.

Conception of an unborn and transition of an std are both "foreseeable risks" which are assumed upon engagement of the act.

The abstinence argument is akin to: "If you don't want to risk a broken leg, don't ski. If you choose to ski, you accept a broken leg as a possible consequence."

Pregnancy need not even be an issue for that argument to apply, as it encompasses stds’ as well.

Glad to hear you say this, and I agree. This is the part that should be common basic knowledge.

I accept the notion that a pregnancy could be an accident.

If one endures a foreseen possible consequence of their own actions, such as a broken leg, they do not automatically have license to turn and kill someone unless that someone is endangering the life of another, thus a woman has no right to kill any ZEF not endangering her life.

"All roads lead to Rome" = "All arguments lead to "personhood".

If the ZEF were a person, you would be correct. As it is not, the woman has the option. I know you aren't disputing this, though.

I apologize for the underhanded flame. It was uncalled fore.

One wonders why these questions are posed by otherwise well educated individuals as these questions seem so obvious. If a proponent of public sex-ed can not answer them then that further obscures what exactly it is that many say my children should be taught.

I’ll leave that alone for another thread, however.

Perhaps if we light a candle and recite the Java Rosary in the Church of Starbucks we will receive enlightenment?

The idea that pregnancy is a foreseeable risk is unquestioned. However, there are those who argue that the choice to have sex is equivalent to the choice to be pregnant, and that the continuation of the pregnancy can be compelled because the woman already had the opportunity to choose freely: when she had sex. That is the logic I question, and I started this thread in order to carry over a series of arguments from another thread that I was derailing with a long-winded car and driver analogy. Those arguments haven't been brought over as yet, so I'm sort of in limbo.

And it's the Church of 42, but we don't actually believe in enlightenment. Not for anyone who isn't already a member, that is. We're not into sharing.:mrgreen:

 

[AYFR]

You're right, and I apologize. But I would like to try to clarify what I meant with the question. Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology when I say "direct result," but what I mean is that there is a determining relationship, a straight line of causation: if A, then B. Is this true of pregnancy and sex, in your opinion? Or do the uncontrollable biological factors -- the ones that make it not a guarantee, as you stated -- make sex only a necessary cause, not THE cause, of pregnancy?




I disagree. I think people oversimplify a complicated issue, one that ties to women's rights, sex, romance/love, family, personal rights, privacy, medicine, religion, and what it really means to be a human being. Among other issues. I don't think anything about this is simple.

First I want to say that Coffee you are a great debator and I emjoy debating with someone intelligent and that doesn't have to stoop to insults to get their point across.
Now to the subject on hand
I see what you are saying above but lets take it backwards
Pregnancy is a result of ? Just go backwards on your straight line.
While sex may not ALWAYS result in getting pregnant, under natural circumstances Pregnancy is always result of sex. I hope I'm not confusing here. What I am saying is sex doesn't always causre pragnancy but pragnancy is always caused by sex.
To your second part, alot of todays problems are caused by people making simple things complicated.
This is simple if you don't want a baby then don't have sex (Consenual, rape is another matter)