Good catch. Although it was unfair of you to make the phrase ‘automatically mean becoming a parent.’
But yes, I’m uncomfortable being on the same side of, well, any issue with kanicbird.
And I’m not on the same side regarding the rape tangent. Just that having sex means assuming some responsibility.
Her offspring. She chose the activity that she knew might create offspring.
If you are going to apply superglue to your leg and then run blindfolded through a room with a baby in it, don’t expect me to support your right to beat the baby to death crying ‘my body, my right’, when you come out of the room with the baby attached to your leg.
Ever hear the phrase ‘all sex is rape’ by chance? Perhaps hear on the news that someone claimed rape after they regretted having sex, or perhaps willingly had a few drinks, even when he also had a few drinks, and for some reason she was unable to give consent because she was just as drunk as he was.
I know I’m not the only one who has to ask for clarification when someone says rape.
Unfortunatly it no longer means that.
You know that quote is bogus, don’t you.
Well a clarification, I consider myself enthusiastically pro choice - in that a woman should have the right to chose to engage in activities that could lead to creating offspring, with full knowledge that such an activity might result in such life creation.
I consider myself reluctantly pro-abortion for the rape aspect (permission was not granted, no choice was given to the mother), and as pointed out again reluctantly extend that right to all due to concerns of society.
I don’t need your linky, the initial attribution of is was false, but the phrase remains, has meanign and dilutes the meaning of rape.
Sure you can. The child’s interest in it’s parentage has no bearing on your responsibility or even your need to care. People turn their backs on offspring who have tracked them down all the time.
I’ve never understood why this is irreconcilable with abortion. A woman action’s create a problem so she deals with it, resolving the problem. Sounds to me like the responsible thing to do.
All women know that having sex might lead to creating a pregnancy. What does that have to do with pro-choice, pro-life, or abortion?
Well, if someone’s stuck on a desert island alone, I see no problem with infanticide if no other options exist.
I don’t believe someone should be forced to be a mother if they don’t want to, if that was the thrust of your question.
Just to clarify - no legal problem, or no moral problem?
I disagree that it’s the responsible thing to do. And I don’t q
bup, can you explain to me what exactly is unfair about my phrasing? If you believe that bearing a child is the only responsible way to handle a pregnancy, then what part of “automatically becoming a parent” do you disagree with?
What’s irresponsible about terminating an unwanted pregnancy? That seems a lot more responsible to me than having babies you can’t take care of properly (which far too many people do all the time).
Hit enter too soon. I don’t think, Bryan Ekers, you were implying this, but I think it’s worth pointing out that simply solving a problem doesn’t always mean it was a responsible thing to do.
DianaG, the way you phrased it, seemed to me to say “sex always causes pregnancy.” It carries the risk of pregnancy, which is controllable to a large extent, but not perfectly. I believe that morally one should, yes, be willing to accept the risk of becoming a parent, or at least carrying the baby so someone else can adopt it.
Maybe it seems like a nitpick, but sometimes grossly oversimplifying a statement can lead to unfair conclusions.
I disagree.
Ask a child of somebody who can’t take care of a baby if they’d rather be alive or dead.
Not to sound like a stuck record, but again: what he said. Abortion is “taking responsibility” by my understanding of the word.
bup, I swear that I’m not trying to be as fighty as I’m sure I appear, but unless you’re saying that your position would be different if sex *always * caused pregnancy, then I’m not seeing the relevance.
As an adopted person, I think I can answer that. Much better alive.
The desert island scenario makes both moot. If a woman gives her limited resources to the baby and she dies, the death of the infant becomes inevitable anyway. As long as she’s alive, one assumes she can act in a manner likely to increase rescue.
As for more realistic settings, she can handle the moral quandary anyway she likes. If she can’t, that’s no reason to impose a legal burden on others.
Well, that’s very casual of you, but all it means is you’re denying a safe, simple solution to a problem because you feel the more complex result is a more fitting punishment. That might be fine when you make your child scrub the steps with a toothbrush (though larger brushes are available) in order to teach him a lesson, but an adult woman would be within her rights, as I see it, to tell you to get lost.
Maybe we have different definitions of responsibility then.
I don’t want to get hyperbolic or dramatic, but I’m trying to think of analogies. Just taking any action that resolves a problem is not responsible.
I’m going to get a dog. If it seems too much of a hassle, I can always kill it humanely rather than taking care of it half-assed.
I don’t think that’s responsible. It’s legal, and dogs don’t have human rights, but it’s the actions of a person who don’t care about the consequences of their actions.
Not really. We have pretty reliable birth control. Sex is not inextricably linked to pregnancy, except in the strictest mechanical sense. There’s a possibility I can contract food poisoning from eating out, but that’s not the natural consequence, and it doesn’t follow that I have no right to medication because, “them’s the risks”.
Regardless, sex, in this day and age, functions socially in a way entirely divorced from procreation (unless that’s what you’re actually trying to achieve). We have sex to bond with our partners, to be fulfilled as human beings, or simply for fun. Procreating is not a requirement or necesary consequence of sexualtiy.