Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[againstthewind]

Quoting from coffeesaint

First: it takes two to make a baby, and the very fact that you are focusing exclusively on the woman as the one who should be in control of this is what makes it sexist.

The fact that you are saying this here and then that the woman is exclusively in control of her body when she is requesting an abortion is contradictory as evidenced by your statement below

Second, I exclude the man from having any legal control over a woman's body, yes. I would also exclude her mother, grandmother, sister, or any other woman fom having control over her body, except I have never heard a woman agitating for the right to control another woman's fertility.

Third, the entire pro-life movement is sexist because it would place women into a subervient, less-than-human role by making them slaves-- so in a way, everything you say is sexist.

I am not saying that a woman's place is in the home, I know many women who work. I also support the fact that men and women should raise their children with a united front. The Bible tells women to submit to their husbands, and on the other token to submit to our wives. We are submitting to our needs but as it is biblical, man is the head of the house

And fourth, once again, you're simply wrong: women do get pregnant from rape, and so they can "keep their legs closed" and wait until marriage, and still get pregnant.

I am not talking in cases of rape, or medically necessary, and furthermore you can't find out, but if it is because they're not allowed to reveal the circumstances of the abortion! I am speaking of voluntary sex and most rapes don't even end in pregnancy. Also, the only reason I'd even think of a married woman wanting an abortion is because it would be more convenient to go on with their lives as it was as opposed to bring a kid into the midst and is ultimately selfish. Who is a woman to play God with life?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Coffee There is no such thing as totally effective birth control.

Actually, there are two, and a third depending on the woman.

Abstinence.

A condom. When put on correctly, and when stored in the correct temperature and humidity conditions, a condom is 100% effective. A failure in the integrity of the condom is usually due to a fault, by a human, in either putting it on or storage that degrades the material.

The pill. For some women, when they are on the correct pill chemistry, if they take the pill at the same time every day, it is also nearly 100% effective.

Quote by: Coffee Sexist, contrary to biology -- and really appalling, if I may say. How can you even think this? And then you people claim mothers disavow responsibility? Holy crud[e].

Interesting.

So saying a woman has sole responsibility over her body in deciding an abortion is acceptable, but saying that a woman has sole responsibility over her body in deciding to have sex isn't?

In the end, it all falls on the woman. If she chooses to have unprotected sex, then she is responsible for that choice, since she is the one who faces the immediate consequences.

It's not sexism at all. And it will be how I raise my daughter... to be responsible for all aspects of her behavior.

Quote by: Coffee She shouldn't trust the guy to use protection? So because men lie, it's okay for them to lie about using protection, or to simply force themselves on women without protection because she should be the one to choose? How does that work? Can I slap my students and say, "You should have gotten out of the way."?

The bolded are akin to rape, and I don't count rape in this assessment.

Otherwise, no, a woman shouldn't trust a guy.

She is responsible for her body.

Quote by: Coffee Things totally outside of my control happen, no matter how much effort I put into improving the odds in my favor? Yet if I eat right and exercise, and then I get hit by a meteor, would you consider that my fault?

Your "meteor" is nonsensical and a poor example.

Lifespan, however, is a close and valid comparison. You fail in the effective use of that example. The things "outside your control" that shorten your lifespan, regardless of precautions, are also akin to rape... they are forced on you without your choice or ability to prevent.

Quote by: Coffee People do not choose to be pregnant.

Pregnancy is not a choice, it's a consequence.

If you choose not to take the proper precautions, then you cannot complain about the consequences.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: againstthewind Quoting from coffeesaint First: it takes two to make a baby, and the very fact that you are focusing exclusively on the woman as the one who should be in control of this is what makes it sexist. The fact that you are saying this here and then that the woman is exclusively in control of her body when she is requesting an abortion is contradictory as evidenced by your statement below

No, it isn't contradictory. It is an unfortunate fact of biology that only women can carry children to term. I think all of these problems would be solved if men could take the fetus from its mother and gestate it themselves. The fact is: it took two to make the child, and both should share whatever connection to the event they choose to share, and if they choose to raise it, then both should be involved. But in terms of carrying the child to term, the woman is the only one who can, so she is the one who gets to decide.

Quote by: againstthewind Second, I exclude the man from having any legal control over a woman's body, yes. I would also exclude her mother, grandmother, sister, or any other woman fom having control over her body, except I have never heard a woman agitating for the right to control another woman's fertility. Third, the entire pro-life movement is sexist because it would place women into a subervient, less-than-human role by making them slaves-- so in a way, everything you say is sexist. I am not saying that a woman's place is in the home, I know many women who work. I also support the fact that men and women should raise their children with a united front. The Bible tells women to submit to their husbands, and on the other token to submit to our wives. We are submitting to our needs but as it is biblical, man is the head of the house

I care not a fig for what the Bible says. Neither do our laws. You are free to make your own life choices based on it, but I will not, nor will I demand anyone else do so.
If you would force women to bear every pregnancy to term, you would be removing them from many potential jobs, and taking away many months of potentially valuable employment, against their will. You don't think that sexist?

Quote by: againstthewind And fourth, once again, you're simply wrong: women do get pregnant from rape, and so they can "keep their legs closed" and wait until marriage, and still get pregnant. I am not talking in cases of rape, or medically necessary, and furthermore you can't find out, but if it is because they're not allowed to reveal the circumstances of the abortion! I am speaking of voluntary sex and most rapes don't even end in pregnancy. Also, the only reason I'd even think of a married woman wanting an abortion is because it would be more convenient to go on with their lives as it was as opposed to bring a kid into the midst and is ultimately selfish. Who is a woman to play God with life?

Who are you to play God with a woman's freedom? Why a woman has an abortion is her concern, not yours. And since conception is not chosen, the argument is moot even when speaking of voluntary sex -- the choice to have sex is not the choice to get pregnant. The two events are correlated, but the one choice does not directly cause the consequence of conception.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Actually, there are two, and a third depending on the woman. Abstinence.

Obviated by rape.

Quote by: ZNFYRH A condom. When put on correctly, and when stored in the correct temperature and humidity conditions, a condom is 100% effective. A failure in the integrity of the condom is usually due to a fault, by a human, in either putting it on or storage that degrades the material.

"Usually" is not always, and the fact that the errors are human in origin does not change the fact that there are errors and they do make the condom ineffective. Look on the condom box: does it say 100%? No? Then my statement stands.

Quote by: ZNFYRH The pill. For some women, when they are on the correct pill chemistry, if they take the pill at the same time every day, it is also nearly 100% effective.

See that "nearly" you put in there? See how it isn't the same word as the "totally" that I used? Right.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Interesting. So saying a woman has sole responsibility over her body in deciding an abortion is acceptable, but saying that a woman has sole responsibility over her body in deciding to have sex isn't?

No, saying that the woman's control over her decision to have sex (if we are pretending that rape never happens, despite the fact that this pretense invalidates the entire line of reasoning) is equivalent to her control over conception is not acceptable. Saying that a woman can always control what happens as a consequence of sex is ignorant; saying that protected sex is always her responsibility and thus excusing men from trying to be responsible is appalling to me, but that is only my opinion.

Quote by: ZNFYRH In the end, it all falls on the woman. If she chooses to have unprotected sex, then she is responsible for that choice, since she is the one who faces the immediate consequences. It's not sexism at all. And it will be how I raise my daughter... to be responsible for all aspects of her behavior.

Then I'm sorry for your daughter.

Quote by: ZNFYRH The bolded are akin to rape, and I don't count rape in this assessment. Otherwise, no, a woman shouldn't trust a guy. She is responsible for her body.

If you take away rape, you ignore reality. How am I supposed to argue realistically with someone who is ignoring reality?
I understand your unrealistic point, and I think a woman should be careful to protect herself and shouldn't trust men -- but saying that the right and proper state of things is that the untrustworthy men should have no responsibility, should be excused from caring at all what happens as a result of sex, is to turn men into mindless animals and say that's okay. I don't think that's okay.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Your "meteor" is nonsensical and a poor example. Lifespan, however, is a close and valid comparison. You fail in the effective use of that example. The things "outside your control" that shorten your lifespan, regardless of precautions, are also akin to rape... they are forced on you without your choice or ability to prevent.

Aaand, since people do in fact get killed by ridiculous accidents,such as getting hit by buses and having bridges collapse on them, or having psychopaths show up at their colleges with guns, I think we can plainly see that your refusal to consider rape as part of the equation when discussing sex and responsibility is truly ridiculous.

Accidents happen. And people are killed by the choices of others, over which they have no control. Nobody can choose their lifespan. You do see that, right? Even someone who eats right, who plans to live to 80, if that person dies at 70 from a heart attack, would you say that the MI was that person's fault? Or would you say something like, "Wow, bad luck."

Quote by: ZNFYRH Pregnancy is not a choice, it's a consequence. If you choose not to take the proper precautions, then you cannot complain about the consequences.

Do you not see the contradiction in what you just wrote? If pregnancy is not a choice, how can you say someone chose it? How can you blame someone for something that they didn't choose?

[ZNFYRH]

Coffee

Your condescension is unnecessary and doesn't further your point.

And stop including rape... I'm not including that in any of this. Rape is when the woman has no choice. If you continue to mention rape, then you're missing the point.

The point is that as long as the woman has a choice, she is responsible.

If you're going to dismiss it as unrealistic, I suggest you save your time for someone else who accepts your dismissal.

Personally, I think the reason you're dismissing it is because it is valid, and realistic, and you just don't like it.

Quote by: Coffee Do you not see the contradiction in what you just wrote? If pregnancy is not a choice, how can you say someone chose it? How can you blame someone for something that they didn't choose?

::sigh:: Another one who thinks I said something that I never said.

I never said someone chooses pregnancy. I said pregnancy is the consequence of another choice.

You don't choose to die in a car accident, you choose to not wear a seatbelt. Death is a consequence.

Any couple trying to get pregnant tells you that they are choosing to get pregnant, but what that really means is that they are choosing to not use protection because pregnancy is a likely consequence.

Why is it you think you can free the woman of responsibility for her choice to not protect herself during sex?

[ZNFYRH]

Let me put it this way...

A pregnant woman wants 100% control over her choice to abort, put up for adoption, or keep the baby.

Yet you believe that she shouldn't be 100% responsible for the circumstances that led to her having to make that choice?

That's hypocritical.

Rape is beyond her control, and therefore not included in what I'm talking about.

As long as the woman wants the power after the event, she needs to take 100% responsibility for what led up to it.

Convince me my reasoning is invalid... I don't think you will. As a teacher, how many times have you told your students they are responsible for the consequences of their actions?

Would you tell them they are responsible for the consequences of their actions except pregnancy?

[Scoobydoo]

Or telling your students they are responsible for the grade on a test, but only partly resonsible for turning in homework prior to the test...

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Coffee Your condescension is unnecessary and doesn't further your point.

You're right, and I apologize. I have a hard time being objective with this topic, but I will try harder.

Quote by: ZNFYRH And stop including rape... I'm not including that in any of this. Rape is when the woman has no choice. If you continue to mention rape, then you're missing the point.

Without rape, as I said, then your point is not grounded in reality, and so I'm not sure why we should be discussing it. What I mean by that is, no law or policy we could possibly set as a society would be fair and equitable if it did not consider rape as a possibility for the source of a woman's pregnancy, and so any discussion will inevitably come to an impasse. But very well, we can examine it in an academic sense. At the end of this discussion, though, if I am asked to agree to a conclusion, I'm going to bring rape back into the discussion. Just so you know.

Quote by: ZNFYRH The point is that as long as the woman has a choice, she is responsible. If you're going to dismiss it as unrealistic, I suggest you save your time for someone else who accepts your dismissal. Personally, I think the reason you're dismissing it is because it is valid, and realistic, and you just don't like it.

No, I'm dismissing it for the reason I just stated: the reality is that women get raped, and sometimes (albeit rarely) they become pregnant following the rape. It happens, and so it should be considered.

I disagree with your argument that women are responsible for the consequences of sex because I disagree with it. I don't believe that women control the results of sex because pregnancy depends on too many factors outside of a woman's control. It depends on where she is in her cycle -- often predictable, but not controllable. It depends on the fertility of the male -- again, predictable but not controllable. It depends on her body chemistry, and his, to determnine the longevity and motility of the sperm. It depends on the point when the sperm and egg meet, and whether the two successfully join. For it to be a successful pregnancy, it also depends on whether the zygote implants in the uterus, and whether the two people have genetic compatibility, without serious congenital defects. And then we get into the pregnancy itself, which is also largely uncontrollable, though it can be helped along; but again, accidents can happen.

There are just too many things for her one choice -- to have sex or not to have sex -- to be seen as the sole deciding factor. I'm not trying to excuse women from all responsibility for their sexual behavior, but I honestly do not see pregnancy as the result of a single person's conscious choice. Too many people have sex, unprotected sex, and never become pregnant. Heck, too many people try to become pregnant and still can't pull it off -- how can it be seen as one person's choice, and thus one person's responsibility?

Quote by: ZNFYRH ::sigh:: Another one who thinks I said something that I never said. I never said someone chooses pregnancy. I said pregnancy is the consequence of another choice. You don't choose to die in a car accident, you choose to not wear a seatbelt. Death is a consequence.

Prove to me that the choice not to wear the seatbelt is the one choice that caused that person's death. Explain to me how the circumstances that led to the accident, and the way in which the injuries were dealt to the person, and the types of injuries, and the response of emergency personnel, had no influence on his death -- because all that mattered was the seatbelt. Prove to me that one choice meant everything, and nothing else could have changed the outcome if it had happened differently -- then I'll agree with you that an uncontrollable outcome is the consequence of a conscious choice.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Any couple trying to get pregnant tells you that they are choosing to get pregnant, but what that really means is that they are choosing to not use protection because pregnancy is a likely consequence. Why is it you think you can free the woman of responsibility for her choice to not protect herself during sex?

A likely consequence is not a guaranteed consequence, and thus not the direct result of a conscious choice. I am not freeing the woman of her responsibility; she has to deal with the results of her choice if that is her choice. You are saying (I think) that she should have to bear the child to term if she becomes pregnant because she already made her choice when she had consensual sex; right? Her freedom was already exercised by that choice, and now the matter of choice is moot?

I believe that pregnancy is an accident. I do not think that the choice to have sex is the choice to be pregnant, and so the woman who finds herself pregnant needs to be able to choose whether she wants to be pregnant or not; that choice is separate from her choice to have sex. The consequences of having unprotected sex are that she needs to deal with the situation: if she is pregnant, she needs to do something about it, either bear the child or abort it; if she has contracted an STD, she needs to deal with her condition; she also needs to deal with whatever the effects are on the relationship with the man. Those are the consequences of her choice to have sex -- not nine months of pregnancy. That does not follow, because the pregnancy was not her choice: it was an accident.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Let me put it this way... A pregnant woman wants 100% control over her choice to abort, put up for adoption, or keep the baby.

Right: she has 100% control over her body. How it got to where it is doesn't matter, unless her actions are criminal.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Yet you believe that she shouldn't be 100% responsible for the circumstances that led to her having to make that choice? That's hypocritical.

No it isn't. Because the pregnancy is STILL not her choice, and the pregnancy was not caused by her choice -- the two are not linked in terms of her rights, and so her control over one does not affect her control over the other.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Rape is beyond her control, and therefore not included in what I'm talking about.

Pregnancy is also beyond her control.

Quote by: ZNFYRH As long as the woman wants the power after the event, she needs to take 100% responsibility for what led up to it. Convince me my reasoning is invalid... I don't think you will. As a teacher, how many times have you told your students they are responsible for the consequences of their actions?

Well, I won't convince you your reasoning is invalid because you are already convinced that mine is. My students are responsible for those consequences of their actions that are within their control. For instance, if a student fails my class because she doesn't turn in the work, then the grade was her fault, and I'll say so: I'll say, "You should have turned in the work." But if she fails my class because she got into a car accident and was too injured to attend school for two months, then it is not her fault -- because the consequences were not under her direct control. And if she failed the class, I wouldn't say, "Well, you shouldn't have gotten into a car accident."

Would you say that?

Quote by: ZNFYRH Would you tell them they are responsible for the consequences of their actions except pregnancy?

Pregnancy is the result of uncontrollable factors. It is not the consequence of a person's actions because the person cannot choose to be pregnant or choose not to be pregnant. So: no, I would not tell someone that her pregnancy was her fault. I don't believe it is.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Scoobydoo Or telling your students they are responsible for the grade on a test, but only partly resonsible for turning in homework prior to the test...

Why did they fail to turn in the homework? Did they choose not to do it? Or did their house burn down with their homework in it? If it's the second one, is it their fault?

By the way, if the accident scenario I mentioned in my last post happened, or the fire scenario in this post, the student is allowed to make up the work and change the grade; they are not forced to repeat the class. Because the end results were not their fault, because it was not the direct effect of their choice.

[Scoobydoo]

Coffeesaint,

just a general policy, that student is responsible for test, but only partly resp for homework.

A house burning down I find hard to liken to a person choosing to have intercourse. One is an act of nature, that you have control over, the other is the person doing somethign by their own volition

[Scoobydoo]

oops- meant to say one (act of nature- fire) you have no control over

[CoffeeSaint]

Sure, a person usually chooses to have intercourse. But they don't choose pregnancy. I agree that the kid and his homework is not a good analogy, but it wasn't mine -- I was responding to you and ZNFYRH.

I've never been overly pleased with the analogies for sex and pregnancy. Can you suggest one? I've used walking, with falling down as pregnancy; I've used driving, with a car accident as pregnancy. Neither of those is perfect because you CAN choose to fall down, or to drive your car into a tree, and the thing can happen just as you want it to. Pregnancy isn't like that, so the analogies fail.

We need something that can't happen without a certain action on your part, but that you can't cause to happen directly even if you want it to.

[Scoobydoo]

I think though that if you *choose* to do x action, with an awareness it may very well result in y, then you bear responsibility. Unless a person is mentally challenged and has no idea sex often = baby on the way, OR if someone is raped, those are different.
Otherwise, oh I thought of (I think) a good comparison. Eating chocalate cake.
I know if I go have an extra thick piece of cake at midnight, with gooey chocalate frosting, I *may* v ery well gain 2 pounds. I may not. I can't will it to happen, and I can't will it not to happen. If I choose to eat the chocalate cake, it's a chance I take. If I do, and the scale reflects that, I can't cry that "its' not my fault, I had no part in that..."

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Scoobydoo I think though that if you *choose* to do x action, with an awareness it may very well result in y, then you bear responsibility.

That's the core of what I'm trying to convey, Coffee.

Choosing to have unprotected sex means that pregnancy has an increased chance of happening. That means the girl is the sole person responsible for getting pregnant (unless she is raped).

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ZNFYRH That's the core of what I'm trying to convey, Coffee. Choosing to have unprotected sex means that pregnancy has an increased chance of happening. That means the girl is the sole person responsible for getting pregnant (unless she is raped).

See, you actually had me agreeing right up until you made it this absolute: the girl is the sole person responsible for getting pregnant. Even if I accepted that the choice to increase the possibility of something is the same as choosing that specific outcome, there are two people involved in the conception of a child, and I utterly refuse to accept that the man has no responsibility unless the woman also has no responsibility. It cannot all be put on a woman's shoulders simply because it is her who must be carry the child or abort it. Without the man, there would be no child -- so how can he be removed entirely from the equation?

At any rate, I will agree that a woman shouldn't whine about being pregnant if she had unprotected consensual sex. I agree that this would be considered stupid or reckless behavior if one did not want to become pregnant. I would probably tell that woman, "You shouldn't have had sex, then."

But not because the pregnancy is logically the result of her choice. It isn't, for the reasons I have now repeated too many times. I can see that we could emotionally hold her responsible -- and I would also hold the man emotionally responsible -- but there is not enough control for there to be a law based on this. We can't assign guilt without proving causation and intent, and we can't do that with pregnancy.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Coffee It cannot all be put on a woman's shoulders simply because it is her who must be carry the child or abort it. Without the man, there would be no child -- so how can he be removed entirely from the equation?

Because it is her body and abortion is her choice.

By denying the man that choice, she is denying him any "power" or "control" over the situation.

Because he has been denied that control, the correct balance is that he also should have no responsibility.

It's pure hypocrisy, otherwise.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Because it is her body and abortion is her choice. By denying the man that choice, she is denying him any "power" or "control" over the situation. Because he has been denied that control, the correct balance is that he also should have no responsibility. It's pure hypocrisy, otherwise.

It's not hypocrisy, it's biology. The man has been denied control over the gestation of his child by Mother Nature, in her infinite wisdom. What he has control over, and thus responsibility for, is his behavior in regards to the sex act and the potential conception of the child. Men should use protection because it is only fair that we shoulder half of the burden of safe sex. Men should use self-control for the same reason. To encourage anything else is to reduce men to the level of children, or animals, who need to be watched over by their mommies so they don't do anything stupid; it is also to encourage men to commit rape, more specifically date rape, because they don't need to see themselves as making the decisions: all they need to do is show up and demand sex. The woman is the only one who makes the decision -- and since men are stronger, maybe some of these spoiled children would rather change her mind physically than take "No" for an answer. Might I also note that condoms are the only method of birth control effective at stopping the spread of disease? And that disease spreads both ways? Perhaps men should be responsible for that element, wouldn't you say?

Lastly, it comes back down to it again: the decision to have sex is not the decision to be pregnant. Your argument that men should have no responsibility about sex because they have no control over pregnancy is a non sequitur: the two events are separate.

[Marilyn Monroe]