It’s not, and if that’s as far as it goes, no problem.
I understand the concept. How do you think it applies to what I said? I’m well aware that the foetus exists (and I’ve “seen” several thanks to the US machine). I just don’t consider it a person.
Tubal ligation actually has a higher failure rate than the pill. Of course, that hasn’t stopped me from trying to obtain one for ten years (since I turned 18). I might be able to convince a doctor to do it when I’m over 35.
Even so, it’s not 100% and I’m still unwilling to be pregnant should birth control fail. That’s what ‘I will never have children’ means. Not ‘I’ll change my mind if my birth control fails.’
Doesn’t that kind of hinge on you thinking I would change my mind about having a kid if I was pregnant? So I don’t give up sex, I get pregnant because of a birth control failure, and you think I should just have the kid?
You’re right. I’ve been flat out told that I don’t know that I don’t want kids because I don’t have kids by more than one doctor.
Then you’d be going without sex for ten years and counting.
‘Have the baby’ is not an option. In the extremely unlikely event that I get pregnant (and trust me, someone so opposed to it as I am doesn’t forget to take the pill), there is no ‘have the baby’. That’s the point. The only 100% certain way I can avoid an abortion is to never, ever have sex.
Which means I would have to abstain for the next, oh, 25 years or so.
It isn’t. But Sarahfeena is not pro choice. Hence I asked the pro-lifers here the question. Should a woman who does not want children, ever, and is completely unwilling to ever have them in the event of a birth control failure give up sex?
The question was prompted by the OP’s statement that he could understand abortion by a 14 year old but:
Since birth control fails, and any woman who is pregnant against her will and has an abortion is irresponsible, it seems the pro-lifers leave only two options. Learn to accept your new role as a mommy, or give up sex. The former is not an option for me.
That doesn’t count for catholics. They are extremely limited in what they can do to prevent becoming pregnant. The rhythm method sucks. If you don’t want to get pregnant in that world, you don’t have sex. Period.
I don’t think I’m talking about Catholics, and even if I was, I don’t think someone who is religious enough not to use birth control would have an abortion, anyway. So, what’s the point?
I’m getting a bit sick of this shitty debate tactic - let’s call it “argumentum ad fallacium”. Even if you knew what the logical fallacy you were accusing me of really was, and how it worked (you clearly didn’t), and even assuming you were correct in that accusation (which you were not,as has been pointed out), it would still be a shitty way to debate, just dropping in a one-line drive-by (I notice you haven’t been back to defend it - typical). Much more honest and certainly better debating,m would be to point out what about the argument was circular, which premise fell in on itself, that sort of thing. The fact that you know the name of a common logical fallacy doesn’t impress me if you don’t know how to use it properly.
I didn’t say you were. I’m saying that your “be very careful” method isn’t insurance enough to allow a person to have sex and still be a good catholic and still not give birth. I have two catholic friends who had abortions. Catholic rules don’t take accidents, irregular periods, or real life into consideration.
I suppose. My reaction is to the word, “person.” I offer the following not as some sort of conclusive answer, but as illustration:
Again, I’m not suggesting that settles the matter. My point is that I have always understood the concept of “person” to describe an entity with certain attributes unto himself, and quite divorced from his current circumstances. A person could be defined by having a unique existence, with a linear identity (as a start), or any of a number of ways that describe the entity himself and not his circumstance. Having determined someone is a person (outside of abortion threads, typically easy 
), societies and other persons assign certain rights, perhaps qualified rights. But the rights are a consequence of being a person. The right doesn’t render one a person.
That’s what I infer from the post. A person is defined (in one way) as an entity with a qualified right to life. Since a fetus doesn’t have that right, he’s not a person. Once he’s born, he has that right, therefore he is then a person. It is only the unborn where this seems to occur. An adult’s rights may shift if he finds himself in a different circumstance, but he doesn’t suddenly transmogrify into a non-person. Only in abortion debates, it seems to me, do we see an entity’s basic definition (not the rights assigned to him by virtue of his circumstance) change by virtue of a change in location.
If MrDibble said, “Whether or not a fetus is a person is immaterial, since the mother’s right to bodily autonomy must prevail,” I might disagree, but it wouldn’t seem circular. But to say (or imply) that the same child is a person the second after delivery, but not before, seems to me to torture the meaning of the word in a circular fashion in an attempt to force a conclusion that we couldn’t possibly be terminating the life of a person. Why is he not a person prior to delivery but is the second after? And, again, this is different than asserting or questioning why an unborn “person” might not have the right to life if the mother chooses otherwise.
A lot of words to parse a single word, “person,” but wanted to clarify my point.
That is true, but in all seriousness, there are ways (besides tubals) to make pregnancy so unlikely that there is virtually no risk at all (using a condom and the pill for instance…and using them CAREFULLY). If you had a tubal, you could still take the pill or use some other type of birth contol. You would probably be more likely to have a baby left on your doorstep than to get pregnant.
“Not pro-choice” is not an accurate way to characterize my position.
I probably would. But, I have a different attitude towards children than you, and we will never see eye to eye on it.
I seriously do not even know what to say to that. Anyone, Catholic or not, who thinks they shouldn’t use birth control, but then has an abortion when they get pregnant, has at the very least, a problem with logic.
Just saw this. Read my response, which I apparently was composing as you posted this (take a deep breath first). We have had enough exchanges in these abortion threads where I would think it impossible you, or anyone, would accuse me being a drive-by contributor, whatever your opinion is of my position.
The problem with logic lies with the church; not with a human being with “god given” urges and fallibility. They/she followed birth control rules as dictated by the church and it didn’t work out. Rather than ruin their own (and other) lives, they chose to deal responsibly with the problem. The responsible solution is to not bring yet another life into the mix.
There are plenty of “good catholics” out there who follow the rules until their faith gets in the way. It’s when they’re faced the harsh reality of the cruelty of those rules that logic kicks in.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the RCC’s teachings (not trying to convert you, just pointing this out). If you understand and accept the theological premise of NFP, there is nothing logical, responsible or consistent with choosing abortion when NFP fails. If you don’t accept it, it’s then purely a question of whether or not abortion is a moral choice when one finds oneself preggers.
Ooookay…well, it doesn’t really matter in this debate, because the rules of the Catholic Church have nothing to do with my argument. I was talking about catsix, and clearly, she has no moral problem with birth control. I certainly have no moral problem with her using it…indeed, with her feelings about pregnancy and children, I believe it is a moral imperative that she use it. So…why bring up the Church at all?
I bring up the church because they don’t allow for reliable birth control. You can’t be a good catholic and morally responsible about birth control simultaneously if giving birth isn’t an option. Your only option is abstinence. And I believe it is morally wrong to deprive yourself and your spouse of a major aspect of a healthy, loving relationship.
I realize a lot of pro-lifers (not necessarily anyone in this thread) tend to tap dance around questions like this, because it’s practically a pathology these days to believe that sex isn’t the be-all end-all of human existence. But I’ll answer you directly, catsix. If you wish to reduce your risk of accidental pregnancy to zero, then yes, I’d recommend that you give up sex entirely.
Yes, I concur. The essence of the question seems to be, is the sanctity of life so important that celibacy is the proper choice for someone who absolutely cannot conceive (no pun intended) of delivering a child? The answer (from this pro-lifer) is, yes, that’s the moral choice. Since you asked.
That’s better. I didn’t mean that you were solely a drive-by debater, but that particular post was very much a one-line drive-by. Kinda more what I expected of Malacandra than you, so I probably got a bit snippy.
Anyway, to your point - like I’ve said before, my definition of what it means to be a “person” arose independently of, and prior to, my consideration of abortion.
You may recall the whole “Societal Actor” explanation for my thinking?
Anyway, it’s not inherent in the definition that foetuses are not persons, and it’s certainly not a pre-sought conclusion. My abortion stand arises from my own concept of “personhood” and derived rights, not the other way around.
Or, to rephrase, the definition of “person” arises first. If foetuses became societal actors tomorrow, my stance on abortion would certainly change.
I’ve already been evaluating how I feel about 3rd trimester abortions because of things said in earlier threads (I wasn’t convinced, but certainly did think about it)
No problem!
Thanks for jogging my memory. I do recall that exchange. Seems to me that a newborn is not much more of a “societal actor” than he was the moment before birth. If I recall this properly as well, someone suggested that the unborn could be perceived as a societal actor in that there have been studies that show their influence (beyond the obvious) on the mother, and even on others. Anyone, IMO, the unborn and the newborn are very similar in this regard–helpless, needy types.
I’d be interested in how your thoughts progress on this. I’m betting we’ll have the opportunity to discuss.
At the risk of repeating myself, “Location, location, location” - before birth, not a member of Society. After Birth, member of Society. ergo, “person”. Before that, only “potential person” .