- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15,998
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Location
- Tiamat's better half
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm in complete agreement. But I don't think expecting the population to accept the fact that pregnancy is a slight possibility even when the strictest of measures have been taking to avoid pregnancy is unreasonable. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with expecting people to not have drs. off their offspring.. To expect Abstinence from the population is extremely Naive, and a recipe for failure.
I'm in complete agreement. But I don't think expecting the population to accept the fact that pregnancy is a slight possibility even when the strictest of measures have been taking to avoid pregnancy is unreasonable. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with expecting people to not have drs. off their offspring.
The government's job is not to make women slaves.
This makes no sense at all.
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.
Almost only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.
NO you quote it because that's all you've got and you think it makes you sound smart. It doesn't.
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.
There is , as far as I know, also no practice at this point which allows for the termination of human offspring.
Likely, the VAST Majority of the population knows full well that sex leads to pregnancy,and that contraception is not always complete. There is , as far as I know, also no practice at this point which allows for the termination of human offspring.
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'm in complete agreement. But I don't think expecting the population to accept the fact that pregnancy is a slight possibility even when the strictest of measures have been taking to avoid pregnancy is unreasonable. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with expecting people to not have drs. off their offspring.
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.
So do you think that pregnancy is a conscious choice, then?
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.
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.
Fair enough.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.
Perhaps not, but that is the topic of the thread; if you are only interested in arguing fetal personhood and states' rights to regulate abortion, what are you doing here?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.
The decision to have sex is a conscious decision to accept the risk that a pregnancy might result. That's why many who don't want to become pregnant take steps to lessen the risk. I know that most instances of intercourse are not attempts at making a baby however to assume that people having sex aren't conscious of the possibility of that happening is rather absurd. We're just not that stupid. Most people having sex have a complete understanding of how babies are made. So I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make.
It would be similar to asking is eating doughnuts a conscious decision to get fat? Eating doughnuts will certainly have that effect if you eat them recklessly often enough. It's not as if you can look in the mirror and say God help me this isn't fair that I'm now fat as shite and this fat has invaded my body without my permission when you've been stuffing your mouth with lard. Sure you can exercise and only eat doughnuts certain times of the month, and take diet pills but putting that crap in your mouth is a conscious decision to remain open to fat invading your body.
That's great. Are you telling me that if I eat donuts I'm not allowed to have bypass surgery? Because I have to live with the conscious decision to become fat that was implied in my eating of the donuts?
By the way, eating is opening one's self to the possibility of fat entering one's body. Should we remain chaste from eating, as well? Or use, er, food control? Like wrapping the food in a balloon before you eat it? Or, as you mentioned, taking diet pills every day without fail for forty years, and damn the possible side effects?
I'm saying that the idea that people have sex for pleasure and thus pregnancy is unfair as a consequence is absurd. People who eat alot of fast food do it I presume for pleasure not because they desire to be a disgusting slob.
And bypass surgery is different from an abortion because whether prochoicers like to admit it or not the choice is about whether to extinguish a life that has begun or allow the life to develop. So while I hate breast implants and find the whole idea of considering small breasts a disease I'm not going to fight for breast implants to be outlawed. That surgery only affects the person choosing to have it.
It does not affect more than one person. The fetus is not a person. And you're off the topic again.Clearly when it comes to reproduction the choice to abort affects more than one person. If a woman is a pregnant she is carrying a life inside her and unless that life is aborted naturally a new person will enter the world. So I think the decision of whether or not to allow women to terminate their pregnancies deserves more consideration than decisions about bypass surgery and breast implant surgery.
But you do allow sex as a good enough reason to mandate loss of control of one's body for nine months? Kinda harsh on the ol' nookie, don't you think?I also don't view 9 months as a serious enough hardship that we should allow life to be extinguished without good reason.
If you're smart and have the desire to be fit and healthy you will be careful about what you put in your mouth.
Can I ask how this paragraph went from bypass surgery to abortion . . . to breast implants?
It does not affect more than one person. The fetus is not a person. And you're off the topic again.
But you have the freedom and the right to be stupid, to be unfit and unhealthy, and to put whatever the hell you feel like in your mouth. And who are you to judge what people do with their own bodies? Isn't that counter to your whole accepting small breasts point?
I do agree that neither pregnancy nor body type/shape should ever be seen as a disease.Well you brought up bypass. As far as breast implants goes I guess I just view the idea that pregnancy is a "disease" in the same regard that I view small breasts as a "disease." Both suggestions are beyond ridiculous.
This is true. It is also irrelevant.I said abortion ends a life. This is not reasonably disputed.
I don't believe there should be a freedom to take a human life. I accept all manner of things I don't agree with. Abortion is a deal breaker though...I'll never agree to view it as an acceptable birth control method.
I do agree that neither pregnancy nor body type/shape should ever be seen as a disease.
So, since neither is a conscious choice, then people should be allowed to handle either one as they see fit -- or would you want to stop them from controlling their own bodies?
Understood. But I don't think you really believe in that first statement there, do you? I think you probably mean there should not be a freedom to take an innocent human life, or a harmless human life -- unless you're against self-defense as well.
First: women get sex changes, too.People are stopped from controlling their own bodies all the time. Not every man who wants a sex change gets one.
All states, actually. But this is a different issue. The problem with selling body parts, as jallman pointed out quite eloquently in the thread on that topic, is that the buyer can't be guaranteed your body part will not cause them harm; it is a matter of controlling the harm to the buyer, not the seller, that makes the sale of body parts illegal.We aren't allowed to sell our body parts in most states.
We aren't allowed to commit suicide and can be held against our will on suicide watch for trying.
So this argument makes little sense. It's quite obvious that we don't have complete freedom to do anything we want with our bodies as it is. And women are already told in many places that if they've allowed a pregnancy to get too far along then they must continue it. So that too is evidence that the law prohibits you from having complete control of your body.
Of course, an abortion is not harmful.
Well you can sell your body for sex in Nevada.All states, actually. But this is a different issue.
This is the most illogical blatant lie I've ever heard told on the site. No wait jfuh's was worse. But body parts are donated routinely. The government has no problem with one person "giving" another a body part. The government has a problem with money being exchanged.The problem with selling body parts, as jallman pointed out quite eloquently in the thread on that topic, is that the buyer can't be guaranteed your body part will not cause them harm; it is a matter of controlling the harm to the buyer, not the seller, that makes the sale of body parts illegal.
Well there have been cases of botched abortions. There are also quite a few women running around talking about how their own abortion psychologically damaged them. And regardless there is another human involved and if that other human isn't "dead" when the abortion is done then the dr. didn't do what he was paid to do. You can't get more harmed than "dead."Still doing harm to one's self, still related to psychological problems. Abortion is still not harmful to the mother.
I never said that but I would argue that some do definitely.Are you arguing that all women who have abortions have psychological problems? Boy, I'd love to see you prove that.
The argument for bodily sovereignty actually does make a lot of sense, when you eliminate all of the red herrings: a woman should not be forced to give up control of her body in order to preserve the life of something that has no rights. There isn't an analogous situation in any of the things you mentioned: she is not harming herself by having an abortion, nor is she killing herself, nor is she harming another person who has rights under our laws
The fact that the government feels it can restrict bodily sovereignty at any point means that bodily sovereignty can be restricted.(and that last one, by the way, is what makes the gray area that allows for late-term abortion bans; that gray area does not exist in the first two trimesters). Therefore the government has no right to remove her right to bodily sovereignty.
By the way, since when do rights have to be absolute to exist? EVERY right has caveats and exceptions. If the right to freedom of speech were absolute, I would be able to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. But I can't. Does that mean I don't have the freedom of speech? No, it doesn't. So even if your examples were analogous, they would not prove that the government would have the right to involve themselves in a woman's pregnancy.
Let's see: A human is alive and developing and then a dr. kills it. Sounds harmful to me. Harmful can be relative and subjective but when someone dies as a result of something you did then clearly your action was harmful.
Well you can sell your body for sex in Nevada.
This is the most illogical blatant lie I've ever heard told on the site. No wait jfuh's was worse. But body parts are donated routinely. The government has no problem with one person "giving" another a body part. The government has a problem with money being exchanged.
Well there have been cases of botched abortions. There are also quite a few women running around talking about how their own abortion psychologically damaged them. And regardless there is another human involved and if that other human isn't "dead" when the abortion is done then the dr. didn't do what he was paid to do. You can't get more harmed than "dead."
I never said that but I would argue that some do definitely.
I don't get your style of debate. You just say stuff I never said and then say I'm saying it. What's up with that?
Another person who has rights under the law. That right there is the problem. History has shown repeatedly that when one group of humans has taken away the rights of personhood from another group of humans future generations have always looked backed in shame. Personhood is a political and legal concept meaning nothing more than that the court calls you a person or not. What we do know about the unborn is that they are humans.
The fact that the government feels it can restrict bodily sovereignty at any point means that bodily sovereignty can be restricted.
Right but it shows the government can and has.
Selling sex is not selling your body, it is using your body to provide a service for money. No different than massage -- though I admit the service is quite different.
A human. Not a person, which is what I said. It isn't someone that dies, it is something.
Which freedoms are lost? It's not as if the government impregnates a woman. Most women seeking an abortion were responsible for their pregnant condition. There is nothing illegal or immoral about holding parents responsible for their offspring and in fact it's done all the time. This expectation for parents to care for their children would just extend to those in the womb. There are people who go to jail for refusing to pay child support. The government has no problem limiting their "freedom" after they have chosen to neglect their born children so how would extending this same courtesy to the unborn be that drastically different?And if that something lives, then someone loses her freedom, and that is most assuredly illegal and immoral.
Cool.But I'll tell you what: if we look back in shame on abortion a hundred years from now, I owe you a Coke.
That's illogical.And the fact that it is not restricted in terms of abortion in the first two trimesters of pregnancy means that it cannot be restricted.
Is there anything else we have to say on the issue of pregnancy being a conscous choice?
And yet as unfair as that all seems the government does it all the time by holding men and women accountable for children they've produced whether they wanted to be a parent or not. In fact there are men who never even were told they were a parent as a result of one sex act and years later they are hauled into court to be declared a "financial father" to a child they never even knew existed.I know we've encountered this concept before and dealt with it facetiously in the past (the concept that prostitution is "selling your body"- literally, not figuratively).
But it struck me just now that this might be one of the keys to understanding the prolife side.
They believe that when a woman consents to sex, she gives up her right to bodily sovereignty.
By consenting to one act (sex) with one individual (a man), she gives tacit consent for an entirely different individual (a fetus) to occupy her body, overtax her organs, and requisition her bodily resources for the better part of a year.
Moreover, individual #2 did not even exist at the time she agreed to sex with individual #1.
It's hard to see how agreeing to a specific act with one person can be interpreted as contracting an implicit obligation to someone else entirely, someone who doesn't even exist yet.
Maybe this belief of theirs is tied up with the belief that women who accept money for sex are "selling their bodies", not figuratively but literally.
I wonder if they believe that if a prostitute accepts money for a specific act, she has implicitly agreed to other acts? To nine months of bondage or indentured servitude? To a lifetime of slavery? If they've "sold their bodies" literally, is it okay to cut them up? To remove pieces of them?
Have they tacitly consented to that? If not, why not?
You seem to have issues. I don't know. Children are children. Parents should be obligated to them born or unborn. Once a parent has brought a child into existence than the parent should be held accountable for that child's well being. Now you might think that the "unborn" aren't yet in existance but sonograms, ultrasounds, and basically science would strongly disagree with you.After all, if a woman has "sold her body", then her body no longer belongs to her, but rather to the person she sold it to. Correct?
So that person now owns it and can do with it as he sees fit, right?
Look I know you would love for me to be some prude with sexual hang ups. I'm not. I love sex. I had sex before I was married. I always knew there was a possibility I could get pregnant though I was very careful and never did until I wanted to. But I always knew if I created a life I'd be obligated to care for that life. It's about parental love, obligation, responsibility, honor, ect.... The list goes on and on. It has nothing to do with whims, desires, and what you want and everything to do with standing up and doing the right thing by your child because it is your child thus your obligation.This seems to tie in somehow with the "if you consent to sex then you no longer own your body and are not allowed to decline to gestate a fetus" argument.
Yes it is and it is your warped view. No one can change the fact that the more you have sex and the less protection you use the more likely it is that you will get pregnant. And no one can change the fact that despite all your precautions the possibilty still exists though it is way less likely.Maybe it's just the fact that both lines of reasoning postulate that a when a woman chooses to have sex, she somehow sacrifices her humanity; she dehumanizes herself, to a greater or lesser degree.
This is a very ugly and frightening view of sex, in my opinion.
By the way, since when do rights have to be absolute to exist? EVERY right has caveats and exceptions. If the right to freedom of speech were absolute, I would be able to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. But I can't. Does that mean I don't have the freedom of speech? No, it doesn't. So even if your examples were analogous, they would not prove that the government would have the right to involve themselves in a woman's pregnancy.
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?