Is pregnancy a conscious choice? (1 Viewer)

[1069]

Pregnancy is a result of ?

A.I.? IVF? Rape? Consensual sex? Take your pick.

 

[AYFR]

A.I.? IVF? Rape? Consensual sex? Take your pick.

See I said under natural circumstances
A.I and IVF are not natural. With these you are making the conscious decision to get pregnant
Also whether you like it or not rape is sex just not consenual.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

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.

Thank you kindly. And thank you as well for not stooping to insults, either.

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)

I hear you, and I do agree that abstinence is the simplest way to prevent pregnancy from consensual sex. But I honestly don't think that is realistic in today's society. Look, most people are waiting until they are older now to have children; late twenties, even early thirties. Most people do not marry their childhood sweethearts. Most people are not virgins when they marry. Most people do not stay married to the same person for life.

These factors indicate that sex is a part of our lives, and not just for procreation. Let me say that again: sex is a part of our lives. It is part of who we are as a people, as a culture, as human beings. It isn't just something we do that we shouldn't. It isn't just a pleasurable pastime. And it isn't just for making babies. It is a fundamental part of the human experience.

What we need to do now is make sure that we understand that this relationship with sex is not a bad thing. Sex is not a bad thing, and we should not look at it as such. We should not look at what happens because of sex as a bad thing. We should not see pregnancy as a bad thing, and we should not see abortion, or adoption, or child-rearing as bad things. They are not. They are natural outgrowths of these two pieces of us: sex, and freedom.

But when we label pregnancy as a consequence, something that has to be dealt with, as a responsibility that one must face up to, we make it a bad thing. When we blame people for getting STD's, when we call them dirty whores/sluts/what have you, we make sex a bad thing. And that hurts us all, in more ways than I think any of us know.

I know I'm rambling, and I wish I had better words and more time to make this say exactly what I want it to say. Yes, pregnancy does come from sex, and I'm not disputing that. I'm trying to get everyone to examine how they see that relationship: is it action and reaction? Is it choice and consequence? Is it sin and punishment? Or is it just nature, and nature? Two things that happen to people?

Before anyone can trip on a banana peel, they have to walk. Before anyone can walk off the edge of a cliff, they have to walk. But we don't see those as consequences of walking, and we don't tell people, "If you didn't want to trip, you never should have started walking." Why should we treat sex, which is no less a part of our nature than walking, as something different? Walking sometimes has serious consequences, which must be dealt with in a serious way; so does sex. As long as we deal with those consequences, why shouldn't we have sex?
Why shouldn't we walk?

 

[AYFR]

I do just have one thing to say to that, to be a pregnancy is a blessing not a curse.

 

[tecoyah]

This is simple if you don't want a baby then don't have sex (Consenual, rape is another matter)

If only....things were truly this simple....Alas they are not. Many people are incapable of Chastity, and rather enjoy sex....it is a part of life. To expect Abstinence from the population is extremely Naive, and a recipe for failure. While it is true there are those that have limited, or zero appatite for the plasures of sexual relations....it is certainly not the majority.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I do just have one thing to say to that, to be a pregnancy is a blessing not a curse.

But if it is used to remove someone's rights, then how can it still be a blessing? Something is only a gift if you can turn it down; if you can't, then it becomes an obligation -- a burden.

 

[Felicity]

But if it is used to remove someone's rights, then how can it still be a blessing? Something is only a gift if you can turn it down; if you can't, then it becomes an obligation -- a burden.

So...just say "no"....BEFORE conception. We are not animals that run on instict despite what tecoyah would like us all to think...We ARE (ALL of us)capable of chastity--it's a choice.

Hey, I'm pro-choice! Choose chastity.

 

[Jerry]

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?

The right to life, of coarse.

Certainly a woman is entitled to any medical treatment which only concerns her self. However since a pregnancy does not objectively only concern herself, the issue becomes more complicated then "treatment of a medical condition".

In the current legal climate, where men are rendered irrelevant to the family, both in abortion and gay ’marriage alike (Red Harring not intended) pregnancy does subjectively only concern the mother.

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.

Entertaining the analogy for a moment....
Amputation for a hairline fracture?

There’s a name for that psychosis, where people seek to remove parts of themselves out of some notion that the part is wrong, unwanted or holding them back, though it escapes me at the moment.

As for choosing a cast, that assumes that the intent of the "treatment" is to promote health. Such a premise would automatically rule out amputation of the leg unless the injury were placing the mother's life or general health in grave danger.

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 don't deny the facts of the current legal climate.

My position comes from a premise in conflict with Roe-v-Wade, and as such I see Roe-v-Wade to be in error.

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:

Ah, the "Implied Consent" argument.

When public schools start in with mandatory sex-ed, you can expect a few objectors looking to relieve their frustrations here with the coming "Informed Consent" angle.

Implied Consent and Informed Consent arguments are interesting when debating personal responsibility, again, as pregnancy need not ever be a concern in those arguments, however they do absolutely nothing to address either a States right to regulate abortion or to establish a ZEF's "personhood".

In most abortion debates, I find that those arguments are useless to everyone.

 

[Jerry]

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.

Watch those words, mate.
Wev'e got us a grammer facist on this thread with nothing more inteligent to contribute than sarcasm and critisism.


....nuklier....

 

[Jerry]

If only....things were truly this simple....Alas they are not. Many people are incapable of Chastity, and rather enjoy sex....it is a part of life. To expect Abstinence from the population is extremely Naive, and a recipe for failure. While it is true there are those that have limited, or zero appatite for the plasures of sexual relations....it is certainly not the majority.

....from a population, no....from an individual, yes.

 

[Jerry]

But if it is used to remove someone's rights, then how can it still be a blessing? Something is only a gift if you can turn it down; if you can't, then it becomes an obligation -- a burden.

Well that's just it, isn't it...abortion removes the ZEF's right to life, as did Roe-v-Wade, and so neither are blessings.

Pro-Choice removes from it's children what it claims for itself, and that's hypocrisy.

 

[Purple]

Well that's just it, isn't it...abortion removes the ZEF's right to life, as did Roe-v-Wade, and so neither are blessings.

Pro-Choice removes from it's children what it claims for itself, and that's hypocrisy.

Pro-life removes the rights and freedom of women.

 

[Light]

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.

I dont see how a result of any action to be conscious. An action can be conscious, but any scientist can see that a conscious result is preposterous. How can anyone consciously get a result.

Anything can happen.

Even someone who tries to commit suicide by shooting themselves cant consciously get a result, they can only calculate and get a loaded gun, point and shoot. They cant consciously get a reaction, or a result out of an action, they can only NARROW the amount of different possibilities. For all he knows, the gun could misfire, or a meteor could hit his house.

the same with pregnancy, a woman could have sex, but she cant consciously get pregnant because it is IMPOSSIBLE to consciously recieve a result. It is only possible to be conscious of an action, and the narrowing of possibilites resulting from that action.

 

[Jerry]

Pro-life removes the rights and freedom of women.

Yes it does, and for just reason.

 

[Purple]

Yes it does, and for just reason.

Just reason?!

There is no "just reason" that any law abiding citizen should lose their rights.

 

[Red_Dave]

So...just say "no"....BEFORE conception. We are not animals that run on instict despite what tecoyah would like us all to think...We ARE (ALL of us)capable of chastity--it's a choice.

Hey, I'm pro-choice! Choose chastity.

Only pregancy isnt always a choice. What about those who are raped for example?

 

[Jerry]

Just reason?!

There is no "just reason" that any law abiding citizen should lose their rights.

Felons forcibly loose their right to vote and bear arms, a person looses their right to life when they endanger the life of another, which is why one is allowed to use Lethal Force against another in life threatening situations, so right there your argument sinks.

Also, SCOTUS disagrees with you:

ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Rights have rank.
The right to life is at the top, because without it there are no others.

 

[Purple]

Felons forcibly loose their right to vote and bear arms, a person looses their right to life when they endanger the life of another, which is why one is allowed to use Lethal Force against another in life threatening situations, so right there your argument sinks.

You must have missed the part where I said "law abiding citizens" so your felon argument sinks.

Also, SCOTUS disagrees with you:



Rights have rank.
The right to life is at the top, because without it there are no others.

I don't care what Scotus says. And btw, it says, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

"IF" being the key word here. The fetus has not been given personhood and if you want to argue personhood for the fetus you should argue that on the "personhood" thread.

Without freedom there is no life, there is only slavery.

 

[Jerry]

You must have missed the part where I said "law abiding citizens" so your felon argument sinks.

Quite right.
Well I’ll just mention the draft and Imminent Domain, then.

I don't care what Scotus says.

You don't care if SCOTUS rules that a ZEF is a "person" from conception on.

You don't care about the SCOTUS ruling which currently gives women the legal ability to abort now.

Wow.

And btw, it says, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

"IF" being the key word here. The fetus has not been given personhood and if you want to argue personhood for the fetus you should argue that on the "personhood" thread.

I thought you didn't care what SCOTUS says....

If you do not wish to entertain the argument of “Just Reason“, then in the future do not invite it as you did in posts 37 and 40.

Without freedom there is no life, there is only slavery.

I suppose I should come to expect such sophistry from one who doesn't even care what the high court of the land has to say on a given issue.

 

[Purple]

You don't care if SCOTUS rules that a ZEF is a "person" from conception on.

You don't care about the SCOTUS ruling which currently gives women the legal ability to abort now.

I don't think the government should be ruling on reproduction at all, it's none of their business. Even if they ruled that a fetus is a person and outlawed abortion tomorrow, I would still encourage women to break the law and take back their own bodies.

I thought you didn't care what SCOTUS says....

I suppose I should come to expect such sophistry from one who doesn't even care what the high court of the land has to say on a given issue.

I'm just tired of seeing you post the same quote over and over again in every abortion thread. You don't get it and I'm tired of looking at it.
The law does not state that a fetus is a person, therefore it has no rights. The right to life is not guaranteed to non-persons as your favorite entity "SCOTUS" has ruled. Why do you keep posting a quote that doesn't even back up your argument?
I'm done with you on this thread Jerry.

Back to the actually thread.

Pregnancy is not a conscious choice.

 

[Jerry]

I don't think the government should be ruling on reproduction at all, it's none of their business. Even if they ruled that a fetus is a person and outlawed abortion tomorrow, I would still encourage women to break the law and take back their own bodies.

It is the government's business to regulate medical procedures and protect it's citizens.

A woman's body would not have been taken from her for her to take back.

I'm just tired of seeing you post the same quote over and over again in every abortion thread.

Then don't look

You don't get it and I'm tired of looking at it.

Get what?
That PC doesn't see an unborn as anything worthy of respect?

I got that.

That there are those in PC who would advocate killing their own child, even if SCOTUS declared protection over it, out of some notion that women should just be allowed to do what ever they want?

I got that.

What exactly am I not getting?

The law does not state that a fetus is a person, therefore it has no rights.

The law is beginning to say that a fetus is a person.

That is why I quote Roe-v-Wade section 9a, because if "personhood" is established prenatal, then Roe-v-Wade itself becomes the abortion ban.

The right to life is not guaranteed to non-persons as your favorite entity "SCOTUS" has ruled.

I never said otherwise.

Why do you keep posting a quote that doesn't even back up your argument?

I quote it because it backs up my argument, silly.

I'm done with you on this thread Jerry.

We'll see.....

Back to the actually thread.

Pregnancy is not a conscious choice.

Got tired of loosing you tangent, aye?

Very well, back to the main subject of the thread.

Pregnancy is not a conscious choice.

It is a risk one accepts when they have sex.

 

[SpooK]

:rofl That post made me laugh. Thanks Jerry

 

[Purple]

It is the government's business to regulate medical procedures and protect it's citizens.

The government's job is not to make women slaves.

A woman's body would not have been taken from her for her to take back.

This makes no sense at all.

Get what?
That PC doesn't see an unborn as anything worthy of respect?

I got that.

That there are those in PC who would advocate killing their own child, even if SCOTUS declared protection over it, out of some notion that women should just be allowed to do what ever they want?

I got that.

What exactly am I not getting?

What you are not getting is that no one, no government has the right to make women slaves to gestation. Women are not incubators to be used to forward the backward thinking of those who want to keep women in a subservient role.

The law is beginning to say that a fetus is a person.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.

I quote it because it backs up my argument, silly.

NO you quote it because that's all you've got and you think it makes you sound smart. It doesn't.

Got tired of loosing you tangent, aye?

No I'm tired of arguing with a hypocrite. If abortion had been illegal when you needed it you would be singing a different tune. Silly.

 

[brewmenn]

Pro-life removes the rights and freedom of women.

Pro-choice removes life from fetuses.

 

[tecoyah]

Pro-choice removes life from fetuses.

But not from people...in my opinion