One should have empathy for women who have convenience-abortions and later regret their own lack of empathy toward the life that was inside them. I don't support that but I do believe that the "biological consequences for sex" have been falsely reduced by liberal, secular-progressive, lock-step promotion of abortion.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and if as you state nature has developed mechanisms to ensure there are consequences to sex why does even unprotected sex only give a 15-20% chance of pregnancy, and out of those that do actually get pregnant at least a quarter of the fertilized ova will fail to implant. You are more likely (30%) to be injured in a car accident than you are to become pregnant from unprotected sex, do we withhold treatment from people who are injured in car crashes because if the implied consent of getting in the car? I'll remind you that ensure means to make certain that (something) will occur or be the case - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ensure would appear that nature doesn't really ensure pregnancy from sex at all. So in essence sex creates nothing more than a risk of pregnancy, and no person is expected to suffer injury for a risk taken .. and pregnancy is a serious literal injury, and is already recognized as such by the courts in some circumstances Pregnancy percentage risk from unprotected sex - http://www.babymed.com/getting-pregnant/what-are-the-odds-conceiving-conception Number of fertilized ova that fail to implant - http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/complications/miscarriage.aspx Pregnancy as an injury - http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/when-pregnancy-injury
Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of a pregnancy unless it is rape which is a horrendous crime. The problem with that stat is that we don't get in car accidents with the same frequency as we have sex. Frequency increases the odds. Currently, sex (sperm pierces egg) is the ONLY way a pregnancy can take place. Inherent in risk is possible injury no matter what the endeavor. I that weren't so, we wouldn't call it 'RISK' in the first place. Please provide a citation where it was recognized by a court of law that all pregnancies are injury. Yet we are being told the world is over-populated....What is your point anyway?
Nope, consent to sex is consent to taking a risk .. sex and pregnancy are two different acts .. and no one is expected to suffer injury for taking a risk, and you didn't say that sex creates the possibility od pregnancy you stated sex ensures pregnancy. Care to provide some evidence that sex occurs more frequently than car accidents? You are in error, a sperm is not required to produce a fertilized egg - http://news.sciencemag.org/2001/07/egg-fertilized-without-sperm - though I concede this procedure has not been used on human eggs ... YET. it still doesn't match your assertion that sex ensures pregnancy, if that were true then every single act of unprotected sex would result in fertilization and pregnancy. and are people expected to suffer injury for risks taken? Please quote where I say all pregnancies are injuries, though it is a glaring discrepancy that some are and some not, unless you can show me how a pregnancy resulting from rape is different from a pregnancy through consensual sex, and in reality all pregnancies are injuries the only difference being that a woman consents to the injury in a wanted pregnancy and does not consent to the injuries in an unwanted pregnancy. The world is over populated, though what relevance that has in an abortion debate eludes me. My point being that your post I replied to alludes to the usual pro-lifer opinion that consent to sex is (implied) consent to pregnancy, and the erroneous statement that "nature has developed mechanisms to ensure there are biological consequences to the act of sex", which is plainly not correct.
Rapists die because of back-ally rapes all the time. We need legalized, regulated rape houses. Yes, protecting health is a justification to kill people. Why, just the other day I killed my neighbor for a new liver. Thank goodness it's legal to kill others to harvest their organs! And they're more than just a CHILD. This is why women should be able to kill their children!! To say otherwise is demeaning! Exactly. If a woman decides, one day, to no longer be a mother, she has the RIGHT to kill her children. Yeah! It discriminates against those who want to discriminate the very young for being "not worthy of life"! Exactly. Freedom needs to be extended to everyone. Except children. Hence why young moms should be able to kill their children if they want to! And if a mom decides she doesn't want her kid anymore, she has the right to kill him. Such brilliant logic being used, here. Exactly why parents should have the CHOICE to kill their OWN children! Amen.
Yep sounds about right the usual pro-life response of equating two items that have nothing in common .. intellectually dishonest I think is the term. Funny, protecting health is used as a justification to kill people every day, executions, war, self defence are all methods used to protect the health of society, a country or the individual. Be interested to know what organs you would get from a 8 week fetus . .gotta love the emotional hyperbole though. Nope a child is a separate entity, it doesn't require to live inside of another person utilizing their blood and energy in order to survive, neither does a child need to release chemicals into the woman in order to suppress her immune system, nor does it require a new organ to be grown in order to sustain it's life, nor does it require the re-routing of a woman's circulatory system in order to supply it with blood. Nope but she does have the right to give up her born child if she chooses to. How do you discriminate against something that is not even considered a person? Children are as free as any other person .. oh hang on you are another with this misconception that a zef is a "child" no need if pro-lifers stopped sticking their noses into contraception and sex education, and of course a woman can quite legally give up her children at any time, so no need to kill them .. shame a pregnant woman doesn't have that choice. you mean the inane logic used by you to try and associate abortion with infanticide, how very intellectual of you. nope, but they do have the choice as to whether they keep their children or give them up for care ..pregnant women don't have that choice and if pro-lifers have their way will just be brood mares. Ah another religious pious pro-lifer trying to force their personal religious beliefs onto everyone .. how sad.
How's that contraception working out for y'all with the birth rates around the world? I could have swore that we are in the midst of a population boom.
bit of a sweeping statement given that there are a number of countries where contraception is little used, strangly enough they are also countries with the highest birth rates. You might want to take a look at this before generalizing so much next time; Contraceptive usage - Any Method by country Countries With The Highest Birth Rates
I found that when I searched the internet, abortion numbers were often muddled, and varied. The same with contraception. What are the highest birth rates within the US? I was under the impression that the greatest growth was occurring in inner cities, where there also happens to be the greatest availability of contraceptives.
Overall the US birth rate is declining, in 2007 there were 4,316,233 births compared to 4,055,000 in 2010 - a 7% drop. By state the top ten number of births are as follows; Florida 231,426 Illinois 176,830 Pennsylvania 149,291 Ohio 148,729 Georgia 147,181 North Carolina 130,813 Michigan 121,128 New Jersey 112,715 Virginia 106,684 Arizona 99,459 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763849.html Interesting the current state laws for each of the above concerning sex education are as follows Florida Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a district chooses to offer such courses they must include information about abstinence until marriage. Schools are required by law to provide STD and HIV/AIDS education and it must include information on methods of prevention, including abstinence until marriage. Illinois Schools are not required by law to provide sex education. If information on STDs and HIV/AIDS is provided, it must include a message of abstinence until marriage as well as details about other methods of prevention. Pennsylvania Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but they must provide information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Ohio Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but they must provide information on abstinence, HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Aside from abstinence, however, schools are not required to provide information on disease prevention. Georgia Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on STDs, HIV/AIDS, contraception and abstinence. North Carolina Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence and ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs Michigan Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must include information about abstinence until marriage, STDs and HIV/AIDS. They are not required to provide information about contraception. New Jersey Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Virginia Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, they must provide information about abstinence until marriage. The law does not require schools to provide information about STDs or HIV/AIDS. If it is provided, it must include information on abstinence until marriage. Arizona Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, they must include information about abstinence. They are not required to provide information on contraception, STDs or HIV/AIDS. http://www.teen-aid.org/State_Resourses/State_Sex_Education_Laws.htm and as you can see only three of the top ten must have sex education in schools.
The German courts determined abortion is de facto legal, but were honest enough in their ruling to state the obvious... The Supreme Court judges who decided Roe v. Wade: Each and everyone of them who voted the majority, ethical cowards...I'd go so far as to say moral deviants. Their ruling made nary a passing mention of abortion's true consequences, they essentially "punted" as cowards will do and made their decision on the basis of protecting the plaintff's right to privacy and choice. Choice of what precisely? Is there an admission of facts here? An independent life is terminated, which the German courts had the courage to include in their determination. No the USSC, swept the ethical considerations under the rug, like Pontius Pilate's in black robes; they washed their hands of the blood of innocents. Ms. Roe's right to choose trumped any other discussion in the matter, with nary a mention even, of what Ms. Roe was choosing to actually do. The appeal to authority therefore, specifically bringing up "but the Court's say this" is a fallacy. The Supreme Court are not experts on anything aside from interpreting the Constitution on the basis of technicalities. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. Yes abortion is de facto legal, but it is not ethical merely because the Supreme Court says so.
As far as I am aware the Supreme Court does not legislate for morality, it isn't their job to do so, that is what the 1st amendment is all about is it not, the separation of church and state and nowhere do they even attempt to answer the question of whether abortion is moral or not, that is left to the individual, so in essence is it a little dishonest of you to claim that pro-choice people claim it is moral based on the Roe decision, for most of us all Roe does is to set the legality of abortion. Legislation based on the specific moral viewpoint of a certain group is not a democracy it is a theocracy and stopping that happening in the US was one of the primary reasons for the 1st amendment .. remember many of the first settlers in the US were those fleeing religious persecution in their own countries
Then how do you explain all the laws on pornography? They are based on standards of morality. And there are SCOTUS cases in which they debate these standards, and how to apply them to the law.
The laws are based on the theory that pornography leads to more violent crimes. And also the theory that child pornography is a result of taking advantage of one too young to give consent to the action. It is the effect of damaging order in society, not the morality itself, which is the problem.
And you have arrived at the non-religious pro-life stance. It is the effect of damaging order in society that I am constantly talking about in relation to abortion. I am saying the state has societal interests in relation to abortion. Others appear to be saying that morality is not a good enough reason to restrict abortion. They are wrong.
How does abortion damage order in society? Morality is not sufficient reason to restrict individual freedom. We are supposed to have freedom of conscience in this country, which means a wide range of morality and many different views can exist simultaneously. - - - Updated - - - Neither did it consent to continued gestation and eventual birth.
It's hard to explain. But it is the reason that abortion, unless to save the woman's life or health, is illegal at the 9 month point. It's the reason for many restrictions on abortion, why it's not 100% free choice, and why one can't just abort on choice 1 day before the baby is born. The basis for these abortions still being restricted is a concept called "sanctity of life". As in, allowing society to remove babies in this way will overall reduce the "sanctity of life" in society's minds. It's a moral concept. One can see in less reliable systems of govt, how this "sanctity of life" concept plays out in a society, when it is reduced. It's not fun to live in those societies.
I'd be more inclined to say that the reason abortion is restricted is because of the de facto assumption that pregnancy is a good thing, this can be clearly seen in numerous court proceedings, and a desire of the then SCOTUS to attempt to 'please' those who, like now, stood against the woman's right to abortion .. in fact the 73 SCOTUS made a quite conservative decision on abortion, one I believe is what is causing the problems today. Had they simply done what Canada did and strike down any and all restrictions to abortion I believe we would be in a much less confrontational situation than the present. Problem is the "sanctity of life" is based on a belief system, one usually endorsed by and founded in religious origins. "Sanctity of life" is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life which are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated, and this goes against natural law, natural law has no favourites when it comes to life, we as in the human race are of no more value than any other life on this planet .. we just believe we are.
Think what you will, there are some serious sanctity of life issues going on in inner cities, and other areas "across the tracks" in US cities. As in a lack of the concept. There are other areas around the world that periodically show this lack of respect for human life, or loss of the concept of sanctity of life. They are in Afghanistan, other areas of the ME, Africa. The Nazis are another example of a society losing this concept. Imo, abortion reduces this concept. To what degree, I don't know. But I think it should be a state interest in restricting abortion.
Just as it is in the USA with the demonization of homosexuals and the state already restricts abortion, they already impose their interest .. that is one of the decisions taken by SCOTUS in the Roe case, that any state may impose restrictions if they wish. I know you will disagree with me, but human life only has as much value as another places upon it, that is obvious all over the world, and to me the value of a born person far exceeds the value of one not born.
I agree, but both govt and society can take action to influence those opinions. And in some cases they should. As in Rwanda. After the brutal genocide there, they elected more than 50% of their parliament as women. I believe this society did this out of the sanctity of life concept I speak of, but have difficulty in defining. Also, I think you will find I am not typical right-wing, as I believe in full and equal rights for gays, no discrimination, and I don't believe that gays have a negative impact on society in any way.
I've never heard or read this claim any time in the past. Most abortions are done before there is any brain development. Emotional distress... WTH???
