Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Hylife]

And is it capable of life without the mother, or at least some provider, even after the nine month term? Are we supposed to assume that, since human infants are unable to aqcuire food for themselves much less care for themselves, they are parasitic in nature and can thus be destroyed??

[texasdave]

Hylife,
That is what they are trying to suggest. I find it amazing how far people can and do try and justify their selfishness. This is what happens when people get away from God. They replace God with themselves and foolishly believe they are His equal.

[Bnet505]

Quote by: texasdave Hylife, That is what they are trying to suggest. I find it amazing how far people can and do try and justify their selfishness. This is what happens when people get away from God. They replace God with themselves and foolishly believe they are His equal.

Keep on topic, Dave. Abortion, God is in many of our other debate threads. Obviously you support the banning of abortion, but aren't we in a free country to do as we please as long as it doesn't interfere with others? The child in the womb has not yet developed a conscientious brain to understand it. It could be spared an unwanted life, seeing as the mother who wants to abort probably doesn't want the baby, or have to suffer with a stare and being judged as a "mistake" by his/her peers. I think that the former would be better.

[texasdave]

Bnet,
I think many of us "mistakes" would disagree with you on that. And freedom does not extend to dodging one's responsibilities, especially at the expense of someone else's life to do so.

[Bnet505]

Quote by: texasdave Bnet, I think many of us "mistakes" would disagree with you on that. And freedom does not extend to dodging one's responsibilities, especially at the expense of someone else's life to do so.

I guess then I must recycle. It is my responsibility even though I hugely disagree with it. Getting drunk with one's friends could dodge the responsibility of parents yet they can still do it.

[texasdave]

Bnet,
Explain further. What are you referring to?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Hylife And is it capable of life without the mother, or at least some provider, even after the nine month term? Are we supposed to assume that, since human infants are unable to aqcuire food for themselves much less care for themselves, they are parasitic in nature and can thus be destroyed??

No. A parasite would be an organism that survives in or on the actual body of another organism. Because small born children are necessarily dependent, they could be seen as somewhat parasitic, but so can anyone who survives because of the specialized labor of others in modern society -- unless you provide all of your own food, then you could be described as parasitic, as could I. The important point is not that the fetus is a human parasite, the important point is that it takes resources only from one person, with or without her consent; because of that, for the fetus to survive, the mother must sacrifice her bodily resources. If she does not wish to sacrifice to preserve the child's life, it is an infringement on her rights to force her to give up her bodily resources for the sake of the child.

This is not the case with any other dependent person. In every other case, there is more than one person who can provide for the dependent person's needs; thus, anyone who does provide for a dependent is volunteering to do so. A parent of a born child can surrender custody of the child at any time, and thus every sacrifice the parent makes for the child is chosen, not forced. This is obviously not possible with an unborn child.

So, sadly, unfortunately, the mother must be able to choose whether or not she wishes to give up her bodily resources to preserve the life of the child -- and if she decides not to, the child has to die. The only other option is to enslave the woman, and that is not an acceptable answer, as she is a born, independent person, with the ability to perceive, to feel, and to reason. If one of these two has to lose, it should be the fetus.

[inthemiddle]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint So, sadly, unfortunately, the mother must be able to choose whether or not she wishes to give up her bodily resources to preserve the life of the child -- and if she decides not to, the child has to die. The only other option is to enslave the woman, and that is not an acceptable answer, as she is a born, independent person, with the ability to perceive, to feel, and to reason. If one of these two has to lose, it should be the fetus.

except that the mother isnt being forced into slavery. In most (and i stress most)cases she chose to go into slavery by having sexual intercourse, and most likely without correctly using any form of protection or birth control. She chose to play with fire, and got burned.

If pregnancies happened suddenly and without warning like a head cold or the flu, I might be more apt to agreeing to your point of view.

[texasdave]

Unless it is rape, consentual sex implies consentual pregnancy.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: inthemiddle except that the mother isnt being forced into slavery. In most (and i stress most)cases she chose to go into slavery by having sexual intercourse, and most likely without correctly using any form of protection or birth control. She chose to play with fire, and got burned. If pregnancies happened suddenly and without warning like a head cold or the flu, I might be more apt to agreeing to your point of view.

The choice to have sex is not the choice to be pregnant. And pregnancies do happen suddenly and without warning -- how could they be otherwise? Can a woman decide, "I'm going to get pregnant today," have sex, and boom, she is pregnant?

Interesting analogy with the fire, by the way. Ever played with fire without getting burned? Me too. Ever get burned without playing with fire? Me too. Maybe that is an apt approximation of the conscious link between sex and pregnancy.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave Unless it is rape, consentual sex implies consentual pregnancy.

Nobody chooses to be pregnant. Nobody chooses not to be pregnant. There are steps you can take to make pregnancy more or less likely, but you cannot absolutely make it happen or not happen without major surgery.

Sex does not cause pregnancy. Sex is a generally necessary step before becoming pregnant, but there is not a direct cause and effect relationship, because people can have sex without becoming pregnant. Someone cannot be held responsible for a specific outcome simply because they put themselves into a situation where that outcome was a possibility; otherwise, every pedestrian who gets hit by a car would be responsible because they chose to walk.

[texasdave]

coffee,
Sex does not cause pregnany? That is just stupid. Why don't you try that in a child support hearing and see how that flies with the judge. " But your honor, I had sex with her that's all, I did not cause her pregnancy therefore I don't owe child support" They will laugh you out of court and then you'll be paying.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave coffee, Sex does not cause pregnany? That is just stupid. Why don't you try that in a child support hearing and see how that flies with the judge. " But your honor, I had sex with her that's all, I did not cause her pregnancy therefore I don't owe child support" They will laugh you out of court and then you'll be paying.

First of all, I would have to impregnate a woman before that could happen, and since that isn't going to happen, I'd like to see you bring me into court. "But your honor, he never had sex with that woman, but I thought his explanation of cause and effect was wrong, so, you know, I just wanted you to say he was wrong! I know it doesn't make any sense, but all I can do is appeal to authority! Come on, your honor, back me up!"

Secondly, sex does not cause pregnancy. It is a necessary precursor (in every case except for surgically created pregnancies; we can ignore those for the sake of simplicity) to pregnancy, but it is not a direct cause. Here's the proof: I have had sex, and I have never fathered a child. See? When there is a direct cause and effect relationship, there is a one-to-one correlation in the absence of other influences. Gravity attracts objects with mass toward the center of the greater mass, so things fall down toward the ground. Without other forces acting on the objects, this is always true -- always. That is a direct cause and effect relationship.

With pregnancy, there is more at work than just the choice to have sex. The man must be fertile, as must the woman; sex must occur within the window of possible conception within her menstrual cycle; his sperm must be of sufficient quantity and motility as to reach the egg and penetrate it; her body chemistry an activities immediately following the sex act must not inhibit the movement of the sperm; the sperm and the specific egg released must both be viable; the sperm must penetrate the egg and the egg's cell wall must thicken successfully before any other sperm can penetrate it; the fertilized zygote must replicate successfully, and the zygote must successfully implant in the wall of the woman's uterus. All of these things must happen for the woman to become pregnant. The choice to have sex is only one part of it, and everything else is outside of a woman's control.

That means pregnancy is not a conscious choice.

[Bnet505]

Quote by: texasdave Unless it is rape, consentual sex implies consentual pregnancy.

Really? What if you want sex without getting pregnant? Look, the right has to be there whether you like it or not. I am morally opposed to alcohol yet do I want to ban it? No.

[inthemiddle]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Secondly, sex does not cause pregnancy. It is a necessary precursor (in every case except for surgically created pregnancies; we can ignore those for the sake of simplicity) to pregnancy, but it is not a direct cause. Here's the proof: I have had sex, and I have never fathered a child. See? When there is a direct cause and effect relationship, there is a one-to-one correlation in the absence of other influences. Gravity attracts objects with mass toward the center of the greater mass, so things fall down toward the ground. Without other forces acting on the objects, this is always true -- always. That is a direct cause and effect relationship.

Hmm I find your logic quite perplexing. So your saying that sex does not cause pregnancy, and that all of the above does.

But in order for any of it to happen at all, it must start with the act of sex (except for cases of artificial insemination)

So sex does not cause pregnancy, but not having sexual relations does effectviely stop pregnancy al together.

am I missing something here?

The point is, that if I drive over the speed limit I get a ticket. If I assault someone I go to prison. Cause and effect.

If I choose to esgage in risky sexual activity I risk an unwated pregnancy

It's all cause and effect. If I kill or attack someone and go to jail, I cant just abort that consequence. Its unfair, and it takes away my freedom. My consequence for killing or attacking somone is Jail. Prison. Loss of Freedom. Loss of Rights. I have no choice, if I want to stay living here in America (I suppose I could run from the law)

But no matter how you look at it there is some consequence. I may have assaulted 10 people prior without getting any trouble. But I got caught on the 11th one. Sooner or later it catches up with you.

Pregancy should be looked at the same way in MOST cases.

They dont choose to get pregnate. They dont choose to lose their freedom. I didn't choose to go to jail. But we both engaged in behavior that is risky and has a chance of unwanted side effects

And we both have to deal with it.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: inthemiddle Hmm I find your logic quite perplexing. So your saying that sex does not cause pregnancy, and that all of the above does. But in order for any of it to happen at all, it must start with the act of sex (except for cases of artificial insemination) So sex does not cause pregnancy, but not having sexual relations does effectviely stop pregnancy al together. am I missing something here?

I'm not trying to be confusing, here. Sex is a necessary precursor to pregnancy, yes. One cannot get pregnant without having sex. However: the choice to have sex is not the choice to be pregnant, because there are too many other factors that have a casuative connection to the result of a viable pregnancy for that one choice, the choice to have sex, to be considered equivalent to the choice to be pregnant. If the choice to have sex was the choice to be pregnant, then rape would never lead to pregnancy, because the victim did not choose to be have sex, and thus did not choose to be pregnant. Correct? But that isn't the way it works, is it?

Quote by: inthemiddle The point is, that if I drive over the speed limit I get a ticket. If I assault someone I go to prison. Cause and effect.

No, these are only possible outcomes. There are several other factors that have an influence on whether these specific outcomes will come about; for instance, if you speed when there are no police around, you will not get a ticket. If you speed with a reason -- you are transporting a person to the hospital in a medical emergency -- you will not get a ticket even if there is a cop around. And if you are speeding and you are a cop, you may not get a ticket, period. The same with assault: there are other factors that influence whether or not you get a certain result.

Quote by: inthemiddle If I choose to esgage in risky sexual activity I risk an unwated pregnancy

Risk, yes. Choose, no. When you cross a street, you risk getting hit by a car; if you are hit by a car while crossing the street, did you choose that outcome? Moreover, did you choose the specific injury caused by that outcome?
Did Christopher Reeve choose to die of cardiac arrest after being paralyzed for years when he got on that horse?

Quote by: inthemiddle It's all cause and effect. If I kill or attack someone and go to jail, I cant just abort that consequence. Its unfair, and it takes away my freedom. My consequence for killing or attacking somone is Jail. Prison. Loss of Freedom. Loss of Rights. I have no choice, if I want to stay living here in America (I suppose I could run from the law)

These are potential risks of these behaviors, yes, because society has determined they should be. If society had not determined that, then the only necessary result of murdering someone would be a dead person. Everything else is only a risk.

Are you saying that the choice to have sex should be a criminal act resulting in the removal of a woman's freedom? That she has to lose her rights and cannot "abort the consequence?" Can I ask what penalty the man must therefore suffer, since he also committed precisely the same crime?

Quote by: inthemiddle But no matter how you look at it there is some consequence. I may have assaulted 10 people prior without getting any trouble. But I got caught on the 11th one. Sooner or later it catches up with you.

May I ask in what way an abortion is not a potential consequence of sex? Someone has sex, becomes pregnant, and has an abortion. Action, consequence, reaction. Why is this not acceptable? We are only permitted to determine what choice a person makes in reaction to their circumstances if that person has committed a crime. So once again, do you consider sex to be a crime?

Quote by: inthemiddle Pregancy should be looked at the same way in MOST cases. They dont choose to get pregnate. They dont choose to lose their freedom. I didn't choose to go to jail. But we both engaged in behavior that is risky and has a chance of unwanted side effects And we both have to deal with it.

You didn't choose to go to jail, you chose to risk going to jail; that does not necessarily make the result of jail the direct effect of your choice. Look at OJ Simpson. Choosing a risk does not mean you are always responsible for the consequences; look at my pedestrian example -- or look at your own statement, when you agree that people do not choose to be pregnant. And abortion, even if you personally don't like it, is a logical reaction to a certain set of circumstances. Even if you see a woman as responsible for the specific result of the risks she took (an illogical position, albeit common), why is abortion not acceptable as the end result of that chain of cause and effect?

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave coffee, Sex does not cause pregnany? That is just stupid. Why don't you try that in a child support hearing and see how that flies with the judge. " But your honor, I had sex with her that's all, I did not cause her pregnancy therefore I don't owe child support" They will laugh you out of court and then you'll be paying.

Sex CAN cause but doesnt ALWAYS CAUSE pregnancy is what coffe was trying to say I think.

A drunk woman doesn't get horny because of the prospect that she could be having kids. In fact, pregnancy is the last thing that is motivating her to want to have sex with the man in the first place. Is unprotected sex a crime? No.

[texasdave]

coffee,
You ever see that movie with Tom Cruise playing a hit man. I think it was called " Collateral" or something like that. Well Tom Cruise shoots a guy and he falls out a window onto a waiting cab below. The cabbie says, " You killed that guy" To which Tom Cruise replies, " No, I just shot him, the bullets and the fall killed him." That is what your " Sex doesn't cause pregnancy" argument sounds like. Semantics to dodge responsibility.

[Bnet505]

Quote by: texasdave coffee, You ever see that movie with Tom Cruise playing a hit man. I think it was called " Collateral" or something like that. Well Tom Cruise shoots a guy and he falls out a window onto a waiting cab below. The cabbie says, " You killed that guy" To which Tom Cruise replies, " No, I just shot him, the bullets and the fall killed him." That is what your " Sex doesn't cause pregnancy" argument sounds like. Semantics to dodge responsibility.

You're missing the point. He is saying that sex doesn't always means pregnancy. I have had sex multiple times without getting the woman pregnant. And if I did without wanting the child, then we would have full rights to abort.

[texasdave]

Bnet,
Then you would be murdering your own son or daughter. You don't have kids do you?