Having sex does not equal consent to having a fetus within oneself, anymore than leaving my door unlocked at night gives a homeless derelict permission to enter my house.
If you opened your door and invited the derelict in, then I’d say that you consented. Feel free to disagree, but deciding to have sex feels a lot more like an invitation than an oversight.
That’s a bad comparison. Firstly, sex is causal of a fetus in a way that leaving your door unlocked isn’t causal of a homeless derelict. Even though not all sex leads to procreation, the only way the fetus is going to appear in the uterus (barring special cases like artificial insemination) is by sex.
Secondly, there’s a matter of choice in the case of the homeless person that isn’t in the case of the fetus. With the homeless man, you have the choice of whether or not to unlock your door, and the homeless man has the choice of whether or not to enter. Therefore, he bears partial responsibility for his presence in your house (and most would say primary responsibility). However, in the case of the fetus, while you have the choice of whether or not to have sex, the fetus does not have the choice of coming into being. Therefore, you bear sole responsibility for the fetus’s presence there, and none of that responsibility goes to the fetus.
The child custody battles would be sorta innarestin’… and would there be a murder investigation for every miscarriage? I suppose there would have to be.
Jesus. This actually makes sense to you? The fact that twins have always co-existed is undeniably a distinction. Not a meaningful one, but, sure, it’s a distinction. And shame on those fetuses for willfully imposing their presence. Not like those conjoined twins, who have the common courtesy not to intrude on another except in a simultaneous manner. Makes all the difference in the world. :rolleyes:
If ever I need an example of someone twisting all thought and logic so that abortion can be justified, I’ll know where to find it.
zev if one of the co-joined twins is clinically brain dead, then the separation would be allowed. How long does a pre-birth fetus have a brain that can be legally defined as clinically dead?
Though of course there is the expectation that a fetus will develop a brain that is no longer clinically dead, can we take this possible future status of the baby as reason to prevent a procedure that would be legal given the current state of the baby?
Well, yes. Brain death in grown people is not always permanent. For example, hypothermia is a condition that can create a flat line that is reversible. You could not morally kill such a person, during the flat line, despite the current status of brain “death.” Why? Because in the future that condition will not exist.
Do you agree that someone whose “brain dead” condition is not permanent should not be killed?
Blalron, how come people who are pro-abortion act like getting pregnant is like being a victim of a drive by shooting?
As if the woman is just standing there, and then, boom, outta nowhere she’s pregnant, with no actions or fault of her own.
Love and romance are man made ideals. Natures sole purpose of sex is procreation. Having consentual sex is to take part in an activity which is meant to further the species. Pregnancy should be an expected outcome barring taking precautions. Why do prochoicers act like it’s this nuisance thing that isn’t supposed to happen?
Bob Cos but the brain dead condition of a baby is permanent if the life support provided by the mother is removed. Why must the mother continue to provide life support to a currently brain dead being? If the state considers the being to be a baby, then the Mother should be allowed to relinquish responsibility for the baby to the Father or to the State. If it is not within the power of Father or State to raise that baby, is it really the Mother who can be blaimed for the babies demise.
Or for a different angle, is a Father responsible for the Murder of a baby, if he gets a woman he knows to be alcoholic pregnant, and if the pre-birth baby dies due to alcohol? Is the Father not guilty of raising the baby in an unsafe environment?
Well, setting the voting age at 18 years plus or minus 9 months is no more or less arbitrary than setting it at 18.
I’d gladly use this redefinition as an excuse to argue for lowering the ages by 9 months (“early release for time served”), but it would be just that, an excuse.
I’m not Blalron, but I haven’t seen any “pro-abortion” opinions in this thread. Maybe you meant to say something a little less inflammatory?
Do you have a cite for nature having a “purpose” for anything?
There are no rules that say you can only have sex for certain specific reasons, and if you do it for another reason you should be punished. Sex has known possible outcomes, and known ways to deal with those possible outcomes, and people are free to make whatever choices they want.
Do you think most sex acts result in pregnancy?
Do you think those precautions are 100% effective?
(Hint: No and no.)
Nope. But I’ll bet the majority of abortions are not because birth control methods fail. It’s because they were never used.
I’m willing to bet that if people were more responsible, and logical when it came to sex, there wouldn’t have been anywhere near 40+ million abortions in the last 30 years.
Cite?
I said I’m willing to bet. I didn’t state it as a fact.
Not every Goddamn statement has to have a Cite, does it?
I should elaborate on that–I don’t believe that every woman who ever got an abortion acted responsibly in the first place. (Women, after all, are as human as men, and therefore just as prone to error.) But neither do I believe that all women who get abortions failed to take precautions beforehand, or that those who were irresponsible deserve to have motherhood thrust upon them as some kind of divine retribution for their error.
Of course, if a fetus is a full-fledged person from the moment it begins to grow, then that’s irrelevant. A woman is merely a container for it, and she has no choice but to pay the price for her sins and bring another unwanted life into the world to pay the price as well.
Oh, Gawd.
So, friday night slut get’s knocked up (again :rolleyes: ) but it’s better for the result of her “sin” to end up in the goop pan of the Planned Parenthood “clinic” than to get a shot at life?
Rich, poor, black, white, etc. Once that heart starts beating it’s a person. I wasn’t planned nor wanted by my 'rents. But I is real glad they didn’t believe in murder!
So you do support abortion, up to the point where the fetus develops a functioning heart?
Thank you, Zev for giving me something to ponder over my long weekend 
Interesting take on it.
Beyond that, I would assume that would mean that parents would have to name their children in utero
We did
I suppose that mothers who do drink/smoke/use illegal drugs could be charged with endangerment and/or some degree of homicide if a miscarriage results.
I can’t believe laws like this aren’t already in place. What kind of society are we when we support a woman’s right to choose to drink her baby into fetal alcohol syndrome?
I’m not Blalron, but I haven’t seen any “pro-abortion” opinions in this thread. Maybe you meant to say something a little less inflammatory?
I’m curious. If abortion is a sacred right of women, why is the term pro-abortion “inflammatory?” Shouldn’t it be a good term, considering abortion is a right – right up there with the right of women to vote?
or that those who were irresponsible deserve to have motherhood thrust upon them as some kind of divine retribution for their error.
Yeah. Nobody should have to live with the repercussions of their irresponsibility.
Btw, Zev, you da man.
For the same reasons that ‘Pro war’ and ‘Pro incarceration’ are not good terms. War and incarceration are very close to being last resorts for most people. This is true regardless of whether you support those practices or not. I’m sure the average soldier isn’t ‘pro war’ even though they clearly reserve the right to use war when appropriate. Similarly the average pro-choice advocate isn’t pro abortion. Abortion is an unpleasant and potentially dangerous option to be used under circumstances where it is necessary. It isn’t something to be encouraged, and ‘pro abortion’ is a term that indicates that abortion is encouraged.
Would pro-lifers feel it accepatble to be referred to as ‘pro forcing women into feelings of suicidal despair due to carrying an child resulting from incestuous rape’? I doubt it, and for the same reasons. That is an unpleasant yet sometimes necessary outcome of your beliefs on this subject. It insn’t something you actively encourage.
My brother is a Marine. How dare you compare him with someone who supports killing unborn babies!:mad:
He had to kill to defend our country! that in no way is the same as people who kill babies because it’s to the convienance of some slut!
You’re either for (pro) abortion or you’re not! Playing with words makes it no more less moral!