No more circumcision in SF?

[One Brow]

In most cases the child is in the mother's womb because of her consent.

You can't grant consent to a child that does not yet exist.

 

[One Brow]

The assertion that the child has no right to use the mother's womb is ludicrous in the extreme. The child would not be there in the first place if the mother had not engaged in activity that is DESIGNED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE ACT to put a child there. The child had no choice to be in a womb, or that womb, or to exist at all. So if I lock you in a room against your will, I should then have the choice to kill you because I do not want you using that room since it belongs to me? Insane.

Yes, your analogy is insane, I agree. At the time of intercourse, there is no child to be locked in a room. A better analogy would be that you leave a door open, and a squatter comes inside to live. YOu can't get rid of the squatter because they'll die if they go back on the street. Of course, you might be the sort of liberal socialist commie pinko who says that every homeowner should be forced let any squatter who is on their property stay there, and has to feed them and take care of them. I'm a real American who thinks a person should be able to control who does and does not use their property (and their womb). You liberal socialist commie pinkos and your squatters-rights movements are trying to destroy America.

Of course this always leads to the discussion about when life begins.

Liberal socialist commie pinkos always worry about the squatter and how alive they are, never about the property owner and her rights to say who uses her territory.

For me it is mostly one of accountability for your actions. I am reasonably certain that most everyone who willfully engages in sexual intercourse have some inkling what could happen as a result.

Those wimmen get the notion to fool around, they gots to pay the price! At the end, that's what the anti-abortion forces always come back to, controlling women.

(In cases like Moe pointed out I think then it falls into another realm. My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

So, your interest is arguably a smaller percentage of the population than those that are raped?

 

[Agoxlea]

How picky? Do they have to be a certain color, intellect, gender, age, or class to have the right to life? or have the government protect that right?

All I meant was that I thought we would disagree when life began. My only requirement for those rights was being a living human being, and I made the assumption that we'd disagree on what that meant/when that was. I didn't mean that I'm picky about certain individuals, just that they are in fact individuals.

 

[LogGrad98]

This gets back to the entire debate we've had ad nauseum about whether or not the only purpose of sexual activity/intercourse is for procreation.

Some people believe this to be the case - - others have different ideas about this. If you're of the belief that procreation is a byproduct of sexual intercourse, rather than the primary goal, then that might change your point of view.

I do not argue that there are multiple results and purposes of intercourse, that is the nature of it for human beings. I do think of it in terms kind of like the choice to carry a firearm (concealed carry). The purpose may be for protection or recreation, but the outcomes can be far different, and anyone who does carry a firearm, regardless of their intent, are responsible for any outcomes that may occur. Just because they didn't mean to hit a bystander does not mean they are not liable for it.

I think the same goes for sexual activity. Sure it is completely legitimate to be use for recreation, but that does not absolve one of the responsibility for the outcome. If you engage in an activity that by its very nature can have a (perceived) negatvie outcome, you need to be prepared to deal with that outcome, whatever it may be. Be it disease, emotional scarring, or a baby, if you engage in recreational sexual activity as many of us do, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Unfortunately things like the lady who sued McDonald's over hot coffee and won have changed how we view personal accountability. She should have known that putting a flimsy cup of very hot liquid between your legs while driving could potentially have a negative outcome, and she should have accepted responsibility for the outcome. Instead she gets rewarded for stupidity and she is in no way held accountable for the choice that caused the issue to begin with.

I know there are many many layers to this debate, but for me the core of it is that we are intelligent beings that should have some understanding of choice and consequence. If you do not want, or will not accept responsibility for a potential outcome to a behavior, then you should not engage in that behavior. To me that is the core of being a productive member of a society.

As well as what separates intelligent people from the dumbasses out there. =)

 

[PearlWatson]

I love DoI/Constitution thumpers like you. You're the equivalent of those nut ball Bible thumpers down south.

Now you love me. Make up your bloody mind.

If espousing the principles this country was founded is nut ball then I'm a proud one.

 

[sirkickyass]

Hence the portion of my comment "In most cases". Even with birth control failure that child is there because of the mother's consent. No BC is 100% effective. She consented to have sex knowing that there was a 1% or better chance she could get pregnant.

You're not extreme enough for me. Life beings at erection.

 

[colton]

The assertion that the child has no right to use the mother's womb is ludicrous in the extreme. The child would not be there in the first place if the mother had not engaged in activity that is DESIGNED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE ACT to put a child there. The child had no choice to be in a womb, or that womb, or to exist at all. So if I lock you in a room against your will, I should then have the choice to kill you because I do not want you using that room since it belongs to me? Insane.

Of course this always leads to the discussion about when life begins. For me it is mostly one of accountability for your actions. I am reasonably certain that most everyone who willfully engages in sexual intercourse have some inkling what could happen as a result. If they are adult enough to engage in the act they should be adult enough to deal with the consequences without needing to potentially destroy another life-form simply because it is "inconvenient". As was stated previously, adoption is always an option. I know that there is a shortage of babies available for adoption, so it isn't like it would not be possible to find willing parents.

(In cases like Moe pointed out I think then it falls into another realm. My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

I agree with just about everything LogGrad wrote here.

 

[colton]

Yes, your analogy is insane, I agree. At the time of intercourse, there is no child to be locked in a room. A better analogy would be that you leave a door open, and a squatter comes inside to live. YOu can't get rid of the squatter because they'll die if they go back on the street. Of course, you might be the sort of liberal socialist commie pinko who says that every homeowner should be forced let any squatter who is on their property stay there, and has to feed them and take care of them. I'm a real American who thinks a person should be able to control who does and does not use their property (and their womb). You liberal socialist commie pinkos and your squatters-rights movements are trying to destroy America.

That's a horrible analogy. A child doesn't just wander into a womb. The mother had SOMETHING to do with it, don't you think? (Again, let's say like LoganGrad did that cases such as rape are a different situation.)

 

[sirkickyass]

(My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

This is an intellectually dishonest boogeyman. Abortion is not pleasant for the woman either. There is no evidence beyond the anecdotal that "recreational abortion" is a real problem.

If anyone cares: I think everyone here is engaging in moral arguments. That's fine. I'm not in a good position to tell someone they should have a different system of morality (as screwed up as I may think there's may be). My support for rights to choose is based entirely in practicality and it comes down to a few quick bullet points:

1. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion; it just makes it less safe, more expensive, and significantly class triggered.

2. There are significant secondary social effects that are highly costly to society as a whole that result from the elimination of abortion rights.

3. Referring to procreation as the sole reason to have sex is contrary to all human experience and certainly denies the existence of entire industries.

 

[sirkickyass]

That's a horrible analogy. A child doesn't just wander into a womb. The mother had SOMETHING to do with it, don't you think? (Again, let's say like LoganGrad did that cases such as rape are a different situation.)

If a fetus is a baby, why does it matter whether it's a rape case? Is that baby less of a person because its father did something horrible?

I think if you're going to acknowledge that there's an exception for rape then you've already acknowledged that the mother has some prior right that has to be opted out of in some way before a fetus can take residence in her body. Now we're just discussing what constitutes an effective opt-out, but that means on some fundamental level you have to agree with the premise that a fetus and a human being are NOT the same thing.

 

[colton]

1. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion; it just makes it less safe, more expensive, and significantly class triggered.

2. There are significant secondary social effects that are highly costly to society as a whole that result from the elimination of abortion rights.

3. Referring to procreation as the sole reason to have sex is contrary to all human experience and certainly denies the existence of entire industries.

Maybe you're not specifically referring to LogGrad's viewpoint (which as I mentioned above I largely share), but if so there are a couple of straw men there.

1 and 2) LogGrad didn't talk about making all abortions illegal or eliminating all abortion rights. At most, he's talking about making abortions illegal where the woman was a willing participant in the sexual intercourse. And I suspect he would also make an exception for cases where the woman's life is in serious danger due to the pregnancy.

3) Where did anyone say procreation is the sole reason? That's not LogGrad's nor my view. And yet, can you deny that it's a very foreseeable possible unintended consequence? Does not the very nature of the act guarantee that possibility, as LogGrad said in his post which I quoted above?

 

[Bronco70]

How in the hell did this thread turn into an abortion debate?

 

[colton]

If a fetus is a baby...

That's an awfully big IF. It's not my view that a fetus is equivalent to a baby, nor necessarily deserves the same protections as a baby. However, that doesn't mean the fetus deserves NO protections.

What's your view--does a fetus deserve any protections? For example, if a guy beats on an 8 month pregnant woman and terminates the pregnancy, should his penalty just depend on the damage to the mother? Or should he receive a stiffer penalty due to the loss of life (or whatever word you prefer) of the fetus?

 

[sirkickyass]

Maybe you're not specifically referring to LogGrad's viewpoint

I wasn't.

1 and 2) LogGrad didn't talk about making all abortions illegal or eliminating all abortion rights. At most, he's talking about making abortions illegal where the woman was a willing participant in the sexual intercourse. And I suspect he would also make an exception for cases where the woman's life is in serious danger due to the pregnancy.

I regard that as a distinction without a functional difference. This is a coded way of saying "I oppose abortion rights except in approximately 4% of situations where abortions currently occur." That's advocating for the elimination of abortion rights without saying it outright.

That is totally non-responsive to the two issues you're responding to: making abortions illegal just makes abortions less safe and there are significant negative social effects (poverty, crime, etc) that result from the ban.

3) Where did anyone say procreation is the sole reason? That's not LogGrad's nor my view. And yet, can you deny that it's a very foreseeable possible unintended consequence? Does not the very nature of the act guarantee that possibility, as LogGrad said in his post which I quoted above?

In that post LG writes, "afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act." My point is that in the vast majority of sexual encounters that IS NOT "the intended consequence of the act."

 

[sirkickyass]

That's an awfully big IF. It's not my view that a fetus is equivalent to a baby, nor necessarily deserves the same protections as a baby. However, that doesn't mean the fetus deserves NO protections.

Lets come at this another way so you don't focus on six words and ignore the rest: any rights that a fetus has are premised on the fact that because the fetus is a human being in gestation that it takes on some characteristics of being human itself. Why is a rapist's fetus less human than a non-rapist's fetus? What is it about the fetus itself that is made less human and therefore has fewer rights that the father was a rapist?

There's no reasonable answer to that question that doesn't acknowledge primacy of the mother in some fashion.

Rape exceptions are intellectually bankrupt and are only repeated pro forma by pro-lifers because they know it's politically unacceptable to take their position to its logical conclusion.

What's your view--does a fetus deserve any protections? For example, if a guy beats on an 8 month pregnant woman and terminates the pregnancy, should his penalty just depend on the damage to the mother? Or should he receive a stiffer penalty due to the loss of life (or whatever word you prefer) of the fetus?

For a number of reasons, I believe in a viability analysis modified by what I call "functional viability" to account for greater abilities to deliver premature births although at significantly higher risks of disability or chronic complications.

 

[PearlWatson]

If a fetus is a baby, why does it matter whether it's a rape case? Is that baby less of a person because its father did something horrible?

I think if you're going to acknowledge that there's an exception for rape then you've already acknowledged that the mother has some prior right that has to be opted out of in some way before a fetus can take residence in her body. Now we're just discussing what constitutes an effective opt-out, but that means on some fundamental level you have to agree with the premise that a fetus and a human being are NOT the same thing.

Yeah, she has a right to choose whether to have sex or not. If that choice is taken away then abortion is justified (early in pregnancy).

 

[sirkickyass]

Yeah, she has a right to choose whether to have sex or not. If that choice is taken away then abortion is justified (early in pregnancy).

Why does that choice affect the humanity of the fetus? Why does it diminish the fetus' "right to life?"

 

[colton]

I regard that as a distinction without a functional difference. This is a coded way of saying "I oppose abortion rights except in approximately 4% of situations where abortions currently occur." That's advocating for the elimination of abortion rights without saying it outright.

That is totally non-responsive to the two issues you're responding to: making abortions illegal just makes abortions less safe and there are significant negative social effects (poverty, crime, etc) that result from the ban.

Is the protection of the weak and innocent not enough of a positive social effect to counterbalance the possible negative social effects that may result?

Put another way, and obviously taking the argument to an extreme, if killing all of the redheads in the country had a positive social impact for some reason (less crime by Irish mafia? ;-) ), then would that somehow counter-balance the significant negatives involved due to the killing of innocents? I guess I'm kind of thinking of the famous short story, The Lottery, here.

Maybe killing is too strong an example, since I've already admitted I don't consider fetuses to be on quite the same level as babies and therefore I don't consider abortion to be murder. But scale down the punishment of the innocents appropriately, and I think my analogy still works.

In that post LG writes, "afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act." My point is that in the vast majority of sexual encounters that IS NOT "the intended consequence of the act."

I think he was talking about the evolutionary/biological intended consequence, not necessarily the couple's intended consequence.

 

[PearlWatson]

In that post LG writes, "afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act." My point is that in the vast majority of sexual encounters that IS NOT "the intended consequence of the act."

I think he meant the natural consequences of the act.

 

[PearlWatson]

Why does that choice affect the humanity of the fetus? Why does it diminish the fetus' "right to life?"

It doesn't. It justifies the destruction of the life. In the same way a person is justified for killing another person in self defense.