Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? (v3)

Comparing a pregnancy to a freak car accident is an irrelevant and disgusting comparison, d_p.

Abortion exists because of thought processes just like that.

 

I know that when I have sex, even if I'm wearing a condom and she's on birth control that there is a .1% or lower chance of her getting pregnant. But that's the chance I take to get some booty.

You have to accept that there are certain consequences with anything you do.

 

I don't see it is an irrelevant comparrison at all, DM. There is an action which carries with it some inconvenience or risk. You proceed to do it, having taken every reasonable precaution to avoid said risk. Does this mean you have consented to the consequences if bad things happen in spite of the precautions? The comparrison is perfectly valid?

Disgusting? Well, that's a matter of opinion, and I'll certainly accept yours. But I think the comparrison is completely logical. It fails to address the embryo as a person deserving of legal protection, but then, so do many people. That's just a matter of your disagreement, and doesn't really undermine the validity of the comparrison.

Edit: Agreed, Cyprus, and to not do things because of some freakishly low odds of bad things happening would be silly -- after all, meteorites sometimes crash through windows, so sitting in your living room isn't safe. My point, though, was -- when you take reasonable precautions to avoid an undesired effect, have you really entered into some contract with yourself or society to accept the consequences of that risky action without complaint or effort to circumvent the consequences?

-Paul

 

when you take reasonable precautions to avoid an undesired effect, have you really entered into some contract with yourself or society to accept the consequences of that risky action without complaint or effort to circumvent the consequences?

When it comes to something as big as killing a baby or stopping a life from existing, yes. BUT, adoption is always an option.

 

Your arguments deal with sex = babies, but I want you to ask yourself why it must be consensual sex, if its not about morality and if's about the natural order of things (which, quite frankly is about morality too, but whatevs!)

In two cases, a woman got pregnant against her will. Yet, for the woman that chose not to have sex, you will grant her her right to choose whether or not to bring a fetus to term. Yet, for the woman that chose to have sex, you deny her such rights. This can't be about the fundamental linkage of sex and pregnancy because then consent has nothing to do with it.

OWM, again, I have been talking about BALANCING RIGHTS. You keep forgetting that in your attempts to constantly paint my comments as being based solely on religious or moral points. I haven't mentioned either of those, SO STOP CLAIMING THAT I AM.

The car accident analogy is not appropriate because it does not in any way represent a balancing of rights.

When a woman becomes pregnant, a new human life is created (it is alive and it is human). That life has at least some measure of rights that are balanced against those of the mother. That is a direct consequence of sex.

Through her consent to have sex, and therefore create that human life, the woman's rights are weakened relative to those of the baby. However, without that consent, her rights are not weakened unless she chooses to have them weakened (by consenting to carry the baby to term).

The baby's right to life supercedes the mother's weakened right to control her own body. However, the mother's right to life, or the unweakened right to control her own body, superecedes the baby's right to life unless weakened by the choice of the mother.

Is that simple enough for you?

Kimball Kinnison

 

No, it isn't. Furthermore, I never claimed you were basing this on RELIGOUS morality, that thought has come only from you.

Through her consent to have sex, and therefore create that human life, the woman's rights are weakened relative to those of the baby.

-WHY! I ask the same question again and you give the same non-answer! "Consensual sex means that a women has given up some of her control so the babies right to live outweighs her right to a fetus-free body." WHY? "Because, since she had sex, since she chose to, that means her rights are outweighed by the babies rights." WHY! "Because she CHOSE to have sex! Isn't that simple?"

Quite frankly, No! You still dodge the most essential part of the question! Cyprus does the same, yet with contempt and scorn for those "stupid" enough to get pregnant.

Why is it so important that a woman's choice to have sex is the dispositive factor in determining why a fetus has a right to live..

You have all failed to answer this question, quite frankly, because you can't. There isn't a good answer to this question that involves purely secular logic. You have to believe that there is something sacred or mystical about sex that creates such a binding contract for this line of logic to make any sense.

Avoid it, repeat your statements, but know that you still can't confront the fundamental why question.

Why should the woman's choice mean her rights are weakened?

The car analogy is apt. A women's rights are no more weakened by her decision to have sex than they are to enter an automoible. There are risks that cannot be controled, and there are options that can be chosen.

 

-WHY! I ask the same question again and you give the same non-answer! "Consensual sex means that a women has given up some of her control so the babies right to live outweighs her right to a fetus-free body." WHY? "Because, since she had sex, since she chose to, that means her rights are outweighed by the babies rights." WHY! "Because she CHOSE to have sex! Isn't that simple?"

Why? If you punch me in the arm is my right to stab you in the back of the head and suck out your brain? It's really just a matter of simple ethical priorities. Dead = very bad. Living with something growing inside you that causes minimal discomfort because of a CHOICE YOU MADE = not that bad.

Quite frankly, No! You still dodge the most essential part of the question! Cyprus does the same, yet with contempt and scorn for those "stupid" enough to get pregnant.

How can I dodge a question that was never asked of me?

If after this post you still think I'm dodging your question, either you don't understand my reply in the context of your question, or I don't fully understand your question in the way you want me to reply. I'm not a question dodger...

Why is it so important that a woman's choice to have sex is the dispositive factor in determining why a fetus has a right to live..

It's not really, but the further victimization of someone is the dispositive factor in determining why a fetus has the right to die.

You have all failed to answer this question, quite frankly, because you can't. There isn't a good answer to this question that involves purely secular logic. You have to believe that there is something sacred or mystical about sex that creates such a binding contract for this line of logic to make any sense.

No, it's a simple matter of action and reaction, for every action there is a consequence. I don't understand why you think there isn't a good answer to your question, it seems obvious to me, even if I'm not articulate enough to explain it. I wish we had someone of Dizfactor's intelligence on our side. *shakes fist*

Why should the woman's choice mean her rights are weakened?

That's assuming it's her "right". I don't believe it's her right, at least not in the context of human ethical standards. Her right is no more important to live than the babies right to live, but the babies right to live outways the right of eliminating that baby just so you won't experience 9 months of discomfort.

The car analogy is apt. A women's rights are no more weakened by her decision to have sex than they are to enter an automoible. There are risks that cannot be controled, and there are options that can be chosen.

Worst. Analogy. Ever. Seriously, getting into a car has NOTHING to do with the termination of a baby, NOTHING.

 

No, it isn't. Furthermore, I never claimed you were basing this on RELIGOUS morality, that thought has come only from you.

OWM, you are a law student. You are supposed to be able to read. You haven't exactly been demonstrating that ability here. I said "religious or moral points".

-WHY! I ask the same question again and you give the same non-answer! "Consensual sex means that a women has given up some of her control so the babies right to live outweighs her right to a fetus-free body." WHY? "Because, since she had sex, since she chose to, that means her rights are outweighed by the babies rights." WHY! "Because she CHOSE to have sex! Isn't that simple?"

I answer again. You claim it is only a non-answer because you refuse to consider a different viewpoint.

Let me put it this way. You support such laws as anti-discrimination laws because you believe that a person's "right to work" supercedes another individual's "right to free association". That is a case of balancing rights. Depending on several factors, the rights of one person relative to the other are stronger or weaker.

This is no different. It is balancing the various rights of the baby and the mother.

Why? Because through her voluntary actions, she has created a human life. As a human life, it has some measure of rights that have to now be balanced against hers.

Avoid it, repeat your statements, but know that you still can't confront the fundamental why question.

OWM, I have not avoided it. You simply refuse to look at it from a different viewpoint. Open your mind a bit and try to look at things from a different point of view. Cast out your preconceptions.

The car analogy is apt. A women's rights are no more weakened by her decision to have sex than they are to enter an automoible. There are risks that cannot be controled, and there are options that can be chosen.

Then, whose rights are her rights being balanced against? The accident itself has no rights, and in the analogy the accident represents the fetus.

You only say it is apt because you refuse to consider what I am actually saying, preferring to respond to a straw man fallacy instead. I honestly expected more from a future lawyer.

Kimball Kinnison

 

You and I both know that abortion is utilized mainly in the vast majority of cases as a method of birth control and not as a life saving procedure.

I don't agree with that statement at all.

First of all, 87% of all the counties in the US lack an abortion provider. Second of all, abortions are expensive. Thirdly, how could possibly know how many abortions are the result of a failure of birth control (such as a broken condom)? It happens, and when one chooses to abort in those circumstances, it is not being used as "birth control".

Birth control is designed to prevent pregnancy. I agree that some individuals probably do use it as birth control, but given the difficulty of access to abortion services in this country, the cost, and the stigma if one gets found out, I think that this is a much rarer instance than you portray it to be.

Abortion is the ducking of responsibility by killing the result of one's own actions.

How is this the case if one uses birth control and it fails?

Again, you are making pregnancy come across as "punishment". That should never be the case, and such a viewpoint lends credence to those who insist that the anti-abortion-rights lobby simply wants government control over the expression of sexuality.

K_K

For example, the mother surrenders the right to control her body, but her right to life is still superior to that of the baby unless she chooses to surrender that as well

There are no "balance" of rights if the mother has no say in the matter from the moment of conception on. You and I are in agreement that a continuum of rights exists, but we disagree in what we take this statement to mean. To me, the mother's right to choose trumps the zygote's right to life; as development progresses, this ceases to be the case.

Given the risks to life and limb that pregnancy can cause, the mother should at least have early choice. Once the pregnancy has progressed to a specific stage, I agree that she gives up the right to electively terminate her pregnancy, but that moment does not come at conception.

Peace,

V-03

 

Just because Rutledge defined "people" as not including slaves, did that make slaves not people?

basically, yes. in 1776, slaves were not, in practice, full "people" in any real sense of the word. despite the fact that there were some people advocating that they should be, and despite the fact that we would agree with that latter group, they weren't "people" by the definition of the time, which is really the only one that matters in any practical sense. eventually, the argument that the definition of people should be expanded to include slaves won out, and slaves became people.

mind you, my argument doesn't necessarily favor either side, as such. if Roe v Wade were overturned, and certain states wanted to redefine fetuses as "people," they would be free to do so. i would argue that we shouldn't, and that there's no reason why we must, but we certainly can.

I know that when I have sex, even if I'm wearing a condom and she's on birth control that there is a .1% or lower chance of her getting pregnant. But that's the chance I take to get some booty.

You have to accept that there are certain consequences with anything you do.

yes, of course you do. however, accepting that there are consequences of your actions is not the same thing as not seeking treatment. if i do something risky, like, say, rock climbing, and i fall and break my arm, going to the hospital and getting a cast doesn't mean i'm not taking responsibility for my actions. on the contrary, going to the hospital is part of accepting responsibility for my actions.

so, yes, if i decide to have sex, and someone gets pregnant, i'm responsible for that, since i knew the risks when i made the decision. as such, i'm responsible for making arrangements to terminate the unwanted pregnancy. i did something knowing that there was a risk of an unwanted pregnancy, and if it happens, i'm responsible for seeking treatment for the condition.

 

It happens, and when one chooses to abort in those circumstances, it is not being used as "birth control".

Birth control is designed to prevent pregnancy. I agree that some individuals probably do use it as birth control, but given the difficulty of access to abortion services in this country, the cost, and the stigma if one gets found out, I think that this is a much rarer instance than you portray it to be.

Utilization of termination of pregnancy to prevent delivery of a developing unborn infant is a method of birth control, albeit a barbaric one.

It surely isn't done for medical necessity in the vast majority of cases, now is it?

The woman doesn't want to have a child, so she has it sucked down a sink.

I agree that some individuals probably do use it as birth control, but given the difficulty of access to abortion services in this country, the cost, and the stigma if one gets found out, I think that this is a much rarer instance than you portray it to be.

Rare?

Abortionists can take the sign off McDonald's which says "Millions and Millions Served".

How many of those do you think are medically necessary?

I just know you realize that the majority of cases revolve around this: "Oh ****, I'm pregnant. Crap, I didn't want to deal with this at this time in my life. So, I guess I'll have to go down to the clinic to get it taken care of."

How is this the case if one uses birth control and it fails?

Again, you are making pregnancy come across as "punishment". That should never be the case, and such a viewpoint lends credence to those who insist that the anti-abortion-rights lobby simply wants government control over the expression of sexuality.

I'm not the one here looking at pregnancy as a punishment.

You are.

I look at it as simply as a result of the sexual act where life can come into being. When that life exists, it is the irresponsibility of said women to not be proper caretakers of the priviledge of what their sex entails and destroy that which they have created out of selfishness and irresponsibility.

The punishment isn't on the mother, it's on the unborn child who gets terminated because the mother doesn't feel like dealing with them.

----

This statement says it all about the abortion-rights advocacy (made by dizfactor):

if it happens, i'm responsible for seeking treatment for the condition.

Treatment for a condition?

Amazing the lenghts people go to justify dehumanizing that which to them has no inherent value.

Pregnancy is seen as a punishment or a 'condition' by the abortion rights advocacy when it is unintended, but when it is intended it magically changes to something of value.

That argument is inherently logically absurd. However, I'm not surprised at it, because throughout history, all sorts of evils have been justified in such a manner.

 

You are supposed to be able to read. You haven't exactly been demonstrating that ability here. I said "religious or moral points".

-First of all, comments like "you are a law student, you should be able to read" are not appropriate, they do nothing to further discussion, and serve only to bait people. This is a borderline flame. Please discontinue. (Besides, i emphasized the religous part to make clear that I was talking about morality, not necessarily RELIGOUS morality, and in this thread you have twice suggested I wanted to brand your views as religous dogma, which I didn't.) Furthermore, comments continually accusing me of close-mindedness and the like are also not arguments, it is a tool used when frustration takes over. Please stop accusing me of being close-minded, as you wouldn't like being called a blinded by religion or something like that either. It doesn't become the chief moderator to resort to such childish attacks.

-The car analogy was meant to demonstrat a principle, the idea of cause an effect. Just because something is a risk doesn't mean a person shouldn't have choices to deal with the consequences. It illustrates the limitations of the cause/effect argument. I suppose it is a bit limited because getting in a car, indeed DM, is not like having sex, but from another point of view, it can at least demonstrate the principle.

-Again, I think both of you have missed the essential point. And Kimball, before you go accusing me of being too stupid to read and too close-minded to understand your point, consider the fact that it is YOU who has failed to think beyond your preconceived notions.

I'll start with Cyprus, whose answers I think actually offer a little more insight:

It's not really, but the further victimization of someone is the dispositive factor in determining why a fetus has the right to die.

-So here, you think the fact that a woman was raped means that carrying her rapists child would be a further victimization and a tragedy. So THIS means that a woman's right to move on from the emotional tragedy of rape means that a fetus's natural right to live is overborn. You have thus made a value judgment about the nature of the sex used to conceive the child. Let me ask you, what about the young girl who wasn't quite raped, but certainly pressured into sex by the older more experienced 'playa'?

That's assuming it's her "right". I don't believe it's her right, at least not in the context of human ethical standards. Her right is no more important to live than the babies right to live, but the babies right to live outways the right of eliminating that baby just so you won't experience 9 months of discomfort.

-And yet, you are willing to throw all this out the window if she was raped. So I'll ask again. Why? Why do you place so much value on the initial choice to have SEX, rather than the logical choice, the decision to HAVE A BABY.

Obviously, I don't think that the decision to have sex is the same as teh decision to have a baby, if that's what happens. You guys do. You can't claim its solely about the babies right to live, because then you would have to because it's right to live can be outweighed by the mother's rights in certain circumstances.

I'm sorry, no matter what, in your world the fetus's right to live, the balancing test, turns on whether or not the mother chose to have SEX. This is making a value judgment on the nature and responsibility taken on during sex. Just because you let someone in the door doesn't mean you have to keep them for 9 months. That's what I have a hard time understanding, aside from puritanical notions about the sex act, why does having sex (consensual sex of course) translate into being forced to stay pregnant? Just like a woman can be forced to have sex against her will and get pregnant, a woman can have sex and then get pregnant against her will. In essence, her egg was 'raped' by the sperm because she did not willingly consent to having her egg fertilized.

Kimball, I'll try it one m

 

-First of all, comments like "you are a law student, you should be able to read" are not appropriate, they do nothing to further discussion, and serve only to bait people. This is a borderline flame. Please discontinue. (Besides, i emphasized the religous part to make clear that I was talking about morality, not necessarily RELIGOUS morality, and in this thread you have twice suggested I wanted to brand your views as religous dogma, which I didn't.) Furthermore, comments continually accusing me of close-mindedness and the like are also not arguments, it is a tool used when frustration takes over. Please stop accusing me of being close-minded, as you wouldn't like being called a blinded by religion or something like that either. It doesn't become the chief moderator to resort to such childish attacks.

I stated quite clearly that it was not based on either religious or moral reasons, and yet you have continually made insiuations that I am hiding something about my position. I will say this point blank, then, and feel free to complain to the Head Admin or anyone else over it:

LEARN TO READ!

You aren't reading what I write, but instead keep reading what you think I am "really" trying to say. I have received years of advanced training in the use of the English language with skill and precision. I strive to be very precise in my use of language, structure, and syntax. As a law student, you are supposed to be getting training in understanding such precision without coloring it with your own prejudices and biases. You don't seem to be doing that at all.

If you can't respond to my statements wihtout pulling out a strawman fallacy as you routinely do in any thread relating to a social issue, then just ignore my posts, report me to the Head Admin, or whatever else you feel like doing. I have repeatedly asked you to stop claiming that I am making such arguments and you have repeatedly returned to such claims.

Kimball, I'll try it one more time. Why does the decision to voluntarily have sex mean that the mother's rights on the balancing scale are weakened against the fetus? This is the same question I've asked four times now, and if you answer with because she voluntarily chose to have sex... like you have done every time, well, I'll probably just ask you the same question again and you'll probably give the same answer.

I have already answered this.

By choosing to take an action that results in the creation of a human life, she has willingly participated in creating that life and endowing it with rights (of at least some level). In doing so, in voluntarily participating in creating that life, she surrenders some measure of control over her own body.

However, when she has not made such a choice, to voluntarily pariticpate, she has not surrendered such control.

Whether you like it or not, and regardless of what you think, sex is intricately liked to procreation by indelible biological means. You cannot simply separate the two.

This is not rocket science. I have very clearly and precisely outlined these connections. You fail to see the connections because your own paradigms reject it. I can't help it if you choose to ignore what I say in favor of what you want me to say.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Amazing the lenghts people go to justify dehumanizing that which to them has no inherent value.

actually, it's you who's being logically absurd. nothing has inherent value. how can something have value without someone doing the valuing? value is something that's conferred on a thing because someone values it. if someone doesn't value something, it has no value.

Pregnancy is seen as a punishment or a 'condition' by the abortion rights advocacy when it is unintended, but when it is intended it magically changes to something of value.

there's nothing magical about it. that's how value works. it's an act or a decision, not a condition.

 

Kimball, screaming at me to learn to read while you parrot the same thing over and over doesn't help. Furthermore, maybe I don't understand what you are saying, since you say the same thing over and over without justification. Doesn't your advanced writign teach you about communication? Sometimes, you need to try and explain things in a certain way to some people, and another way to others. But I'm game, I'll try one more time, maybe you can learn that some people don't read what you are saying and think the same thing you do. I am at a loss myself, because it amazes me that you could still not understand what I and trying to ask. But we'll play again:

I asked:
Why does the decision to voluntarily have sex mean that the mother's rights on the balancing scale are weakened against the fetus? This is the same question I've asked four times now, and if you answer with "because she voluntarily chose to have sex..."

I can't believe you could give this answer:

By choosing to take an action that results in the creation of a human life, she has willingly participated in creating that life and endowing it with rights (of at least some level).

-Why Kimball, please, tell me why. Is this like a joke? Are you trying to give the same non-answer every time as a way of playing a trick on me? I'll ask you again, WHY does choosing to take an action that MIGHT result in human life mean she has WILLINGLY participated in creating that life and thus endowign it with rights that outweigh hers? Didn't you read my argument about why this ISN'T so? She may have consented to the sex, but she didn't consent to the fertilization. In cases of rape a woman consents to neither the sex NOR the fertilization. .

In doing so, in voluntarily participating in creating that life, she surrenders some measure of control over her own body.

-More circular logic. At this point, I have to believe you are doing it on purpose. How else could one justify saying "having chosen sex means she weakens her rights against the fetus's because she CHOSE to have sex!"

Come on Kimball, quit trying to bait me and answer the question without repeating yourself! By what do you justify your assertion?

Just because you consent to have sex doesn't mean you consent to getting pregant. A woman can have sex and then get pregnant against her will. Just like a woman can consent to giving oral sex but then get raped and impregnated. Would you say "well, she consented to sex, that means that teh guy was justified in forcing regular sex on her and impregnating her." No, of course not. A woman can consent to having sex, but then STILL withhold consent to getting pregnant. If she gets pregnant, it is gettign pregnant against her will, JUST LIKE IN RAPE.

But again, this is about your inability to answer a simple question. Why does choosing to have sex mean a woman has surrendered control? Why does she get to keep that control if she chose not to have sex?

 

it seems that K_K believes that consent to fertilization is inherently implied within consent to sex, and that that consent to fertilization necessarily weakens the pregnant woman's rights.

OWM disagrees, and instead asserts that consent to sex and consent to fertilization are separate and unrelated, and that the former does not in any way, shape, or form, imply the latter.

i don't think either one of you is going to make any traction against the other while you disagree over what is implied in the decision to consent to sex.

 

She may have consented to the sex, but she didn't consent to the fertilization. In cases of rape a woman consents to neither the sex NOR the fertilization.

"Consent to fertilization" is a crock, and you know it. It is not a single act that you can consent to or object to, separate from the sexual act. They are one and the same.

They are intricately linked by the most basic facts of biology and causality.

Your argument is like saying "I consent to play Russian Roulette, but I do not consent to getting shot in the head". It makes no logical sense at all. By accepting the risks involved in pulling the trigger, you are accepting the effect that comes by virtue of causality, whether it is an empty chamber or a bullet to the brain.

In the same way, sex and fertilization are inextricably linked. You cannot consent to one without the other.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Your argument is like saying "I consent to play Russian Roulette, but I do not consent to getting shot in the head". It makes no logical sense at all. By accepting the risks involved in pulling the trigger, you are accepting the effect that comes by virtue of causality, whether it is an empty chamber or a bullet to the brain.

if you get behind the wheel of a car, are you consenting to getting into an accident with a drunk driver?

In the same way, sex and fertilization are inextricably linked. You cannot consent to one without the other.

i don't think that's realistically true anymore, if it ever was, in an age of mostly-reliable birth control. when you take precautions to prevent pregnancy, any pregnancy which does occur is an unfortunate accident, just like when you take precautions regarding auto safety, any collision which may occur is an unfortunate accident.

 

if you get behind the wheel of a car, are you consenting to getting into an accident with a drunk driver?

You are consenting to run the risk.

As I have stated before, the accident analogy is not appropriate to describe it because it doesn't convey the balancing of rights after the accident. If driving is sex, and the accident is fertilization, then what other rights are conflicting with the victim's after the accident? None.

However, in the case of pregnancy there are other rights to take into consideration.

i don't think that's realistically true anymore, if it ever was, in an age of mostly-reliable birth control. when you take precautions to prevent pregnancy, any pregnancy which does occur is an unfortunate accident, just like when you take precautions regarding auto safety, any collision which may occur is an unfortunate accident.

An "accident" that creates a new human life, creating a new entity with rights that need to be added to the equation.

If you could (hypothetically) play Russian Roulette with a 1 million round revolver (and only 1 bullet), would that mean that the bullet in your brain was any less a direct result of your active choice to pull the trigger and take that risk? All birth control does is reduce the risk. It does not eliminate it, and so it does not eliminate the fertilization consent either.

Kimball Kinnison

 

i don't think that's realistically true anymore, if it ever was, in an age of mostly-reliable birth control. when you take precautions to prevent pregnancy, any pregnancy which does occur is an unfortunate accident, just like when you take precautions regarding auto safety, any collision which may occur is an unfortunate accident.

Yes but when was the last time you ever heard of a birth control method (outside of having the "snip" so to speak ) that was 100% sure? It's no big secret that any time you have sex, even with a condom, you are taking a chance at getting pregnant. Just because you took that chance, does that mean that the baby that was created as a result should just be disregarded as a "mistake"? I think that's horribly unjust and immoral.

 

In the same way, sex and fertilization are inextricably linked. You cannot consent to one without the other.

That's one of the most illogical things I have ever read. Breathing produces free radicals, which damage cell membranes, which can lead to malignancy.

If I take a breath, do I consent to get cancer?

No, because I have no choice in the matter. This is quite a bit different from sex; while the failure of birth control may lead to pregnancy regardless of whether or not I wish it to happen, I have the option of aborting.

Sex and fertilization being inextricably linked have absolutely nothing to do with possessing a right to choose. The right is there, whether or not the sexual act results in a pregnancy.

Peace,

V-03

 

If I take a breath, do I consent to get cancer?

No, because I have no choice in the matter. Similarly, while the failure of birth control may lead to pregnancy regardless of whether or not I wish it to happen, I have the option of ending the pregnancy.

Breathing does not create a new life with its own rights that enter the equation.

Again, that is where all of the "accident" analogies break down. It is a question of rights, but the mother's rights are not the only ones in the equation.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I never argued that they were.

However, until a fetus can survive on its' own outside of the mother, the mother's rights are the only ones that are paramount.

Peace,

V-03

 

However, until a fetus can survive on its' own outside of the mother, the mother's rights are the only ones that are paramount.

Why? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

You are consenting to run the risk.

but as long as you're behaving within the recognized boundaries of safe driving, the consequences are not your responsibility. by driving carefully and taking appropriate precautions, you absolve yourself of any responsibility for the consequences of the crash.

more to the point, even when you do exceed the boundaries of safe driving, you still haven't waived your right to medical treatment. if i get trashed and wreck my car, they still take me to the hospital.

As I have stated before, the accident analogy is not appropriate to describe it because it doesn't convey the balancing of rights after the accident. If driving is sex, and the accident is fertilization, then what other rights are conflicting with the victim's after the accident? None.

same here.

However, in the case of pregnancy there are other rights to take into consideration...

An "accident" that creates a new human life, creating a new entity with rights that need to be added to the equation.

that's only if you presume that the fetus is somehow entitled to any rights at all, much less the same rights as an adult who is understood to be a person.

If you could (hypothetically) play Russian Roulette with a 1 million round revolver (and only 1 bullet), would that mean that the bullet in your brain was any less a direct result of your active choice to pull the trigger and take that risk? All birth control does is reduce the risk. It does not eliminate it, and so it does not eliminate the fertilization consent either.

your analogy is extremely poor. unlike pregnancy, Russian Roulette is a one-time event of limited duration, there are only two possible outcomes, one of those outcomes is final, and the chance of an undesirable outcome is entirely left to chance and cannot be mitigated by any sort of precaution. none of those conditions apply to pregnancy.

furthermore, someone who consents to playing Russian Roulette still theoretically retains full agency, it's just that they've put themselves in a situation where they have very little control. they haven't relinquished any right to control simply because they've put themselves in a situation where, in practice, they don't have any real capacity to exercise that control. if they still had options, they would be free to choose among them.

similarly, a woman who consents to sexual activity still has options, and has surrendered none of her rights to exercise them. she has the capacity to take the morning after pill to prevent fertilization, and she has the capacity to terminate any fertilized egg, thereby effectively un-doing the fertilization.

Yes but when was the last time you ever heard of a birth control method (outside of having the "snip" so to speak ) that was 100% sure? It's no big secret that any time you have sex, even with a condom, you are taking a chance at getting pregnant.

yes, of course you are. however, the fact that you've taken that chance doesn't in any way imply that you have no right to correct any problems which arise.

Just because you took that chance, does that mean that the baby that was created as a result should just be disregarded as a "mistake"?

if it is a mistake, of course.

I think that's horrible unjust and immoral.

and you're free to think that. however, i don't see how your opinion on the subject should be expected to trump the opinion of the woman who's actually in the situation.