You're still hung up on the idea that I have to "prove" that there's a person in the womb. I don't. Family is not the only important value. Social cohesion is important to, and that requires high trust within society. Like I said in some other thread, I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice for the usual reasons. However the phrase "impose your value system", while you treat it as a negative, actually is not. We impose our values all the time, when it comes to life and property by punishing murder and theft. This is a clear imposition on the killer and thief. I agree with the conclusions of the pro-life people, but my reason for holding that position has usually nothing to do with the common reasons. It's just that I admire a culture that values life, plain and simple. The organism that grows in the womb falls under that definition. - - - Updated - - - I don't give a damn about society if it's a decadent society. And yes, they are my personal views. I have no shame in affirming them and defending them. The views you hold are, in the end, just your personal opinions as well. The question is if you'll admit it.
Yawn, don't care. I don't care what your definition of a "child" is. I place value on the organism from conception. If she's in no danger, and wasn't raped, yes. Your obvious shame-baiting won't work on me, sorry. I have immense respect for women, but everyone in society has a duty. Your only moral authority is the arbitrary and ever-changing laws made by self-interested politicians?
Row v Wade has been the law of the land for over 40 years. If women want to abort their own babies/fetuses/blobs-of-tissue then, FINE! I don't even have any objection to making the government pay for the procedure. For most of the kinds of women who are going to have abortions, we will have a choice of paying for the procedure or putting both 'Mama' and her offspring on welfare for decades (or for the rest of their lives). Abort 'em or support 'em? If they want it, GIVE IT TO THEM! Conservatives need to get off this damned abortion obsession that some of them have. All it does is guarantee that hyperlibs will go on winning elections while we on the Right will go on losing them....
How is an abortion due to rape different from an abortion due to consensual sex? Who or what gave you the idea that women have a duty to reproduce? If YOU think they do, that's fine but to insist that ALL women must do what you think is a duty is wrong.
That was the whole point to expose the anti-rightists absurdity that women consenting to sex are "consenting to pregnancy". Neither party is consenting to the pregnancy when they engage in recreational sex. However if a pregnancy occurs the woman has a choice to continue or terminate it because she did NOT consent to being pregnant.
Thank you for admitting that your agenda to impose your anti-rightist views on society are based entirely upon your own opinion and nothing more. Have a nice day.
Consent to a cause is consent to a direct effect. Separating the two like that is like saying because I consent to you driving your arctic cat on my land but not to you leaving tracks.
Yes, indeed, we do have a whole gigantic smorgasbord of welfare handouts already in existence. But, freely provided, elective abortion for females that want it will inevitably cut down on the welfare "suck", if only because there will be fewer piglets pulling on the national welfare "teat"....
Except that the effect of intercourse is merely to deposit sperm and nothing more. The tracks left on your land by my arctic track are not the same thing as repaving your land. Weather and plants will gradually erode the tracks if left along but if I paved over those tracks I would be doing so without your consent. In order to do that paving I need further consent from you to proceed.
You only have to prove it if you want to defend your position. In Native American culture, the decision to have an abortion was made based on respect for the needs of the tribe. That suggests that your arbitrary value assessment is oversimplified. Even if we ignore, for a moment, women and embryos with severe health problems, you cannot say that abortion is universally wrong (or unethical, or decadent). Would you admire a Native American woman of the 1400's who selfishly insisted on having her baby, disregarding the needs of the tribe? These are cases where we protect actual persons from other actual persons. Those models do not apply to the zygote/embryo/fetus since it is not an actual person. The property model is more applicable since the gestating human body could be considered the property of the pregnant woman. I observe that you keep saying you admire a culture that "values life" when it would be more accurate to say you admire a culture that "values the living human body" (since you do not care about non-human life, and you do not care whether it the brain is functional or not). You stated "I have no shame in affirming them and defending them" and you have affirmed your beliefs several times during this exchange but you have consistently avoided defending them. I assume that all of us here are expressing our own personal opinions and beliefs. I certainly am. However, if you look back through the thread you will see that I have no shame about defending my beliefs with science and logic.
Lol, that's like trying to say that driving on my land in your arctic cat doesn't make tracks, because it's gravity pulling on your sled that makes the tracks. It's just phoney baloney. Everyone knows what sperm do,what the biological purpose of sex (and depositing sperm) is.
Recreational sex happens all the time but not every instance results in pregnancy. Why not? If the effect does not result from the cause then it is not a "direct effect" but rather an indirect consequence of the failure of contraception. No one consents to the failure of contraception. That is a risk that is acknowledged but the intent of contraception is prevent a pregnancy from occurring during recreational sex.
Since the arctic cat is guaranteed to leave tracks and sex is NOT guaranteed to produce a pregnancy maybe a better analogy would be that you give your friend permission to ride on your land, but not to leave an oil stain on your driveway. If it happens to leak while he is on your driveway, then he helps you clean it up (because you did NOT consent to oil stains).
And creation of a new person is not the intended purpose of recreational sex. Sometimes accidents happen. If your friend accidentally leaves a mess on your driveway, do you want him to say "oh well, it is a machine so it is inevitable that sometimes it is going to drip oil"? or do you want him to clean the stain off your driveway?
It is the understood biological purpose of sex - unless you don't buy into evolution. People aren't stupid - they know why male sperm exists and what it does. What you're saying is like saying that the use of lethal force has nothing to do with death. Like, "I meant to use lethal force, but I had no idea it could be lethal." It's silliness.
People know what sperm can potentially do, and that is why women who do not want a child will get an abortion to prevent that from happening. You could argue that the understood purpose of a gun is to kill people, so all guns should be illegal (but I believe responsible people have a right to own and use guns, so I would never make that argument). If you are target shooting with your buddy and he accidentally shoots you in the leg, are you going to say "Oh well... I knew it was a risk when we got the guns out, so don't bother taking me to the hospital to have the bullet removed." ?
Lol, you're getting far ahead of yourself. You admitted already people know the biological purpose of sex, and want to avoid the outcome - that doesn't mean that consent to sex is not consent to become pregnant - it is. Simply having a gun is like simply having a penis - the cause is in "pulling a loaded trigger". The problem is that, the way you originally stated it, you said that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, meaning it is not consent to *become* pregnant. That's baloney. But when you talk about consent to pregnancy as of it means consent to bear a child to full term, you're getting ahead of yourself. All that I'm saying here is thay consent to have sex is consent to become pregnant. Not to give birth or anything, don't get ahead or yourself. One step at a time - no need to make straw men mate.
For the nth time, wrong. Values cannot be debated, only the methods by which values can be supported or opposed. My position isn't an absolute one, and it depends on the situation. But for most cases having the baby probably aligns better with my values. Pre-industrial civilization was still caught in the Malthusian trap. Population control was a much more important thing back then. Things have changed today, and we have yet to hit the new Malthusian barrier. Completely irrelevant to my point. Do you deny that the punishment for murder is an imposition of values? This question is not rhetorical, what's your answer? You shouldn't assume you're an expert on my views. You're wrong about that. I value life. Once again, values cannot be debated. Read "The Problem of Socrates" from The Twilight of the Idols. You'll see more where I'm coming from. I think you're an honest guy, but frankly you're not seeing my view clearly, despite my best efforts.
You say that as if it's problematic. Do you honestly think something exists beyond just that? Some day you might realize that all you have, too, are are own opinions and views, and nothing more. I respect people who can admit that, and I have no respect for those who hide behind the symbols of their idols. I'd consider myself a man of the Right.
