It amounts to the same thing. A male and female having fun in a way that could result in a sperm and egg combining. Most people when they have sex use some form of contraceptive. There’s no intention for pregnancy to happen. It’s just two people having sex for pleasure and romance.
and the female has no human rights over her own body? That’s slavery.
Yea but the difference is moral choices, are well, moral. They’re not codified into law.
The problem is the child doesn’t exist yet, the female’s body is being hijacked without her consent and I know from personal experience not all accidental sperm donors are honorable folk you’d want to raise kids around anyway.
What the differance I think between our two view points is.
See in your view of life Sex is something that should only happen when two good people love each other deeply. I agree that is a very nice picture. I’ve made a point not to have sex till I meet someone I love like that. Although I freely indulge in the porn, dirty talk, and making out till I meet that person.
I apologize if I misrepresent your view point, and welcome correction.
Anyway in my experience people are, well, people they get involved with the wrong sorts of people things happen, and well other things result. Then some poor woman is left with kids and their jackass father to deal for the rest her life while she has to drop out of college. It’s no wonder I mean we’re genetically closer to bonobos then any other animal. I think that explains alot.
The point is it’s chaotic world. Idealized families aren’t always possible for a variety of reasons. Sure there’s adoption but pregnancy is a huge kettle of fish on a person’s life and body, and when it comes time to give the kid that grew in her body up then there’s huge emotional trauma.
Prenatal bonding is an instinct as old as humans themselves.
I think the problem is not that such points are hard to define, but that you’re expecting to find them at all. Nothing happens instantaneously anyway - not even conception.
Your argument demands a clear demarcation between ‘human person worthy of ascribing human rights’ and ‘not’, but no such point actually exists, so you’re just plumping for anything that resembles a point.
Who said that? You again are taking this to levels that I have not expressed. I said she has a choice to potentially have a child, at the time of sex that choice is made. She has the right to decide what to do with her body.
I agree.
I disagree, when she consented to put herself in a situation that may create a life she IMHO gave that consent to her child.
Basically you have stated my idealized view of sex/love, and I have stated that this seems unworkable in the real world, partly due to the items you have stated.
Even though I would allow a mother to decide to murder her unborn child concieved by a willing act of herself, I still feel she is morally responsible for that murder - though not legally.
What gets me is how bizarrely legalistic this is. The consent to the “child” is implied at best - should people be tricked and forced into having children? I can’t imagine that as a good thing in any way.
It applies, quite obviously, to the foundation of your entire argument: your definition of consent. And you have just demonstrated a huge inconsistency in your philosophy. Why on earth should someone recover damages for an injury they consented to receive? I see no way, by your definition of consent, that a driver can argue they did not consent to any and all injuries they may sustain on the road. Please explain why you think the injured driver should recover damages, and how that is consistent with your consent argument on abortion.
To maintain their quality of life, which is what I am expressing for the fetus, but not only the quality of his life, but his very life itself.
This can happen when walking, or bathing, I don’t see what driving has to do with it. When you have a guilty party should not the innocent party be compensated?
I just did, and as I see it it is totally consistent with my consent argument on abortion.
I’m still not sure how you are trying to relate these 2
Your argument boils down to “whether a woman wants to have a child or not, by choosing to have sex, she agrees to have one if she gets pregnant.” Not all women believe that, but you think they should all honor this “contract” anyway. It’s trickery because, like I said, the consent is implied in the act. You don’t have to want a kid to become obliged to carry one to term; according to this rule, just having sex is enough. By “force” I didn’t mean you want to force people at gunpoint, I mean you feel morality should compel them to have a child they didn’t want and, in fact, may have taken precautions to avoid.
Even so, what you have after conception isn’t a ‘person’ in any meaningful sense of the word. OK, so it’s a bit of a watershed moment, but I still think you’re seizing upon it because your argument demands a watershed moment, and this is the only thing that looks like one. But it’s in the wrong place for the arguments you’re making.
A car accident is a rare, unforeseen, and unintended consequence of driving, that is completely separate from the goal of getting from point A to point B. Not everyone has an analogous mindset towards sex and pregnancy, and in fact it might seem quite foreign to some. From a Catholic perspective, for instance, sex and pregnancy are inextricably united; pregnancy is not the only goal of sex, but it is perhaps the most important one, and it is certainly not an “afterthought” or “byproduct.”
I’m not arguing in favor of kanicbird’s consent concept, just offering an explanation for why the car accident analogy doesn’t always make sense.
Say one for example she was on birth control pills. Which she believes will be effective, and one night she gets a little promiscuous. This happens to be the night the birth control pill’s 3% chance of failure happens and she ends up praggars.
Sometimes people’s emotions get the better of them, and they don’t think their risks all the way through, and sometimes they’re just flat out too drunk to think things through rationally.
Is a single badly timed slip up worthy of a life change event?
Sweet deal. Certainly have me thinking and thanks for that
There’s the huge issue of when exactly the child exists though. Many believe it doesn’t exist till there’s some level of brain function. You pick fertilization but what separates it from cells at that point?
It’s just 23 chromosomes from some guy and 23 chromosomes plus some mitocondria from some gal as far as I can tell at that point.
Probably as close to agreement as we’ll ever get on the issue I think
OK, but in that case we can create any morality if we just cook up the right premise. The problem you run into is when you extend that morality from this specific case to the general case. As others have pointed out, your concept of an “implied contract” is extremely broad and will easily create problems that I doubt you’d be willing to support-- whenever you engage in an activity that might produce consequence X, even when you have taken extreme steps to make sure X doesn’t happen.
Close, but more emphasis on the rights of the human the parents created by a act they willingly entered into that they knew could cause that human to be created. And less on trickery, as both parents knew that the act of sex has a non-zero potential of creation of a human, no one was tricked, not even close.
As for forced, yes I think morality should steer them towards having the child.
I’ve also said the start of brain activity may be such a moment too, but for this OP, I’m sticking with conception. But it’s more then that, the process actually started when the couple engaged in the act that created this person. There is something that is going to happen, even a baby will develop or not, a nd as I stated above mimics probability of subatomic particles. Collide a penisatron into a vaginatron and there is a chance that a babytrino may be created, if you use a rubber membrane the chance is reduced by a factor of 20 but still there.
And pregnancy is a rare, unforeseen, and unintended consequence of having sex with birth control, that is completely separate from the goal of having pleasurable feelings. Yet **kanicbird **is arguing that engaging in sex, even with highly effective birth control, constitutes consent to pregnancy.
And then turns around and ignores the consent given (under this definition) by someone in a car accident.
Even the start of brain activity doesn’t really represent a change into a ‘person’, so you’d still be clutching at straws with that. conception doesn’t represent anything resembling a change from ‘not-a-person’ into ‘person’, except because you say so.
Your argument is assuming its own conclusion - however likely or ‘potential’ pregnancy may be at a certain stage, it’s only that likely or potential because you’re saying it’s wrong to stop it.
As I view it morally yes, as the right of the innocent life would supersede here. You don’t murder a innocent 3rd party for the consenting actions of the 2.
If the child is unwanted it is a very sad situation.
I agree, and I don’t know, so for the sake of the innocent I tend to fall back to the earliest possible time, just to be safe.
It is, but that’s life ya know. It might not be the right time. Maybe the dad’s a creep or maybe neither of them has the education to get the job to afford a kid. Maybe the family would shun them.
We biologically mature at like 14 but for many people it can be in their 30s before they’re in a good place to have kids. In the mean time having a kid could really screw things up, plus poison the well in their life and making it way too hard to get to a good place to have kids and raise them like they’d want to.
Which would be a situation?
One girl who had an abortion after a condom malfunction when she was 17 in high school but waited till her and her husband were pulling in $60,000, had health insurance for her kids, got a house out in the country, and saved away for their college fund 5 years later and had 3 kids?
VS
17 year old who carried the pregnancy out of guilt, giving up her hopes of college, and raised the kid alone?
That’s the issue I think. Not everyone will agree with that so you can’t really find fault with them as long as they’re following their own conscience I believe.
kanicbird, is it your belief that people like myself who never want to have children should abstain from sex their entire lives?
That’s the logical conclusion of your argument that if you consent to sex you have consented to parenthood, so those who don’t want to be parents should abstain from sex. Bear in mind that men can be fertile into their 70s. Don’t believe me? Joe Hardy’s youngest daughter is 9 years old. He is 84 and a great-grandfather. The man’s got grandchildren older than his youngest daughter.
So to be totally safe, that means no sex ever for as long as you live.
