"Person-hood" is not the defining factor in abortion

Only after you were called out on those insults....then backed in a corner, you apologized.


But your FIRST instinct is always to disparage women. Again, look at your response above. It's not "the couple involved" or "the man and woman" it's..."women should take responsibility for their actions."

Just like when you started catching flak for saying "Yes, pro-lifers want to control women"...you tried to caveat it by saying "No, I just mean EVIL women"....a caveat you didn't express at first, only when your misogynistic comments became "too obvious" even for you.

I'm telling you right now, Sam...you better get over this. Because even if you find some subservient, co-dependent "doormat" of a woman to marry....your attitude is going to bleed through any pretense and some of your female bosses (and you'll have them at some point) are going to pick up on it.

 

1-Even if I wasn't called out on those insults, I would still apologize. I genuinely feel sorry for making those insulting comments.

2-I forgot to mention it in my previous posts, but I do believe that men should also take responsibility, not just women. For example, if a man abandons his partner in a situation of an unwanted pregnancy, I do believe that a man who does that is trashy. Men and women should both take responsibility in situations like that.

3-I better get over "what"? I don't even hate women. I don't hate anybody. You are derailing this discussion by putting words in my mouth.

 

and neither is your interpretation of whether it is the right thing to do, you have absolutely no knowledge of the individual circumstances surrounding each and every abortion that takes place.

If you calculate the actually percentage you will find that from 356 days with the average times sex occurs of 118 times the percentage is 33.1% in any given year, 33% is not that high a risk factor .. in fact she has a 67% chance of NOT becoming pregnant throughout her forty or so reproductive years.

Then you are trying to change the definition of intent -

Intent (noun) - Intention or purpose
(adj) - determined to do (something)

Even in a legal sense intent does not fit -

A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

If every single act of sexual intercourse created a pregnancy, or even 75% did, then there would be some merit to the consent to sex, consent to pregnancy premise .. it doesn't and there isn't, so in reality we ARE still talking about risk, for a woman who is not actively seeking to become pregnant there is no intent to do so.

 

Nor do you.

I don't know what orifice you are pulling those numbers from, but if you have 118 tries at something which is only 1% likely, that's much more than 33%. But even if we were to accept the numbers you give, you are still contradicting yourself. You first say that the woman would get pregnant at a rate of 33.1% in any given year, then you immediately turn around and say it's a 33% chance for her whole life. You're not so slick as to slip that one past.

Whether it is conscious or not, there is a biological intent to reproduce with sex. The primal, subconscious mind has intent integrated through evolutionary necessity.

You're saying that one act of sex alone holds such a low risk we shouldn't consider it intentional, but how many acts does it take until those percentages ARE pushed up over 75% (3 years worth of sex, according to your 33.1% figure). The vast majority of women don't get pregnant the first time they have sex, this is a cumulative effort, and the percentages must reflect that.

 

Neither do I make that claim, which is why I believe it is the woman's right to make the decisions that effect her.

Erm .. just because the time frame changes doesn't mean the percentage goes up. If it is 33.1% in a year then by simply calculation it is 33.1% (I rounded down) for the time frame of her reproductive live, which is around 40 years.

356 days in a year multiply by the number of years a woman is fertile (on average) of 40 years = 14240 days
On average 118 sexual intercourse encounters multiplied by the number of years a woman is fertile on average of 40 years = 4720 sexual intercourse encounters.

4720 is 33.1% of 14240 . .simple maths really.

for each time a woman has sex you have said there is a 1% chance of pregnancy occurring, that equates to 0.01 per sexual intercourse, that equates to 1.18 over a year, or 47.2 over 40 years .. so by using your figures we find the risk is LESS than using mine.
Even using the high figure of 9% (from the most fertile period) it equates to 0.09 per sexual intercourse, or 10.62 over a year, or 424.8 over 40 years .. still lower than the figures I used.

Hmm, so are you now alluding to people being held responsible for subconscious intent .. good luck with that.

So how does that work, each time a woman has sex the percentage risk does not change from the range of 1 to 9% depending on the period in her cycle .. there is no cumulative effort.

Anyway this is really going off track a little, the whole point of the risk inclusion was to show that a woman having a single encounter of unprotected sex is unlikely to conceive, we have ventured into the realms of a woman having unprotected sex 118 times per year (or three years from your comment) a scenario highly unlikely unless conception is the intent.

There has been no inclusion of other relevant factors at all, such as -

The fertility of both the man and woman
the timing of the sexual intercourse to coincide with the peak fertility time of the woman
that a sperm will even reach the ova
that a fertilized ova will even implant

nor has the intent premise taken into consideration if the woman (or man) are using contraception, by the very fact they are or were using contraception there is no intent to conceive, in fact the very opposite is true, the intent is to stop conception.

 

I don't know how you aren't understanding this. If there is a 33% chance in her first year alone, then there would have to be a 0% chance for the other 39 years in order for the overall chance to remain 33%. That first year already accounts for all 33%. Then you have ANOTHER 33% next year. So, on average, you can expect pregnancy within 3 years (with a tiny number of people on the end of the bell curve). Think of it this way, if you flip a coin once, you have a 50% chance of heads. But to flip a coin 40 times and never get heads once is extremely unlikely.

Wow, all you did was divide number of days in 40 years by the number of sex acts in 40 years. Congratulations, you have just computed that people have sex on 33.1 percent of days (every 3 days). This of course says nothing about the rate of pregnancy, so this statistic is meaningless here.

Look, it's obvious that you don't understand the math, so let's just look at the implications of what you are claiming, and that should be enough to debunk it. IF, as you claim, a woman has a 33% chance over her entire lifetime to get pregnant, that would mean that only one out of three women will EVER get pregnant, and that lucky one in three would have only ONE child. And that's assuming that all of the children live! Obviously WAY off. The average 2.3 kids that the typical family has (http://www.sfu.ca/~jeffpell/papers/AverageAmerican.pdf) would translate into a 230% chance of pregnancy in the reproductive years (again, only counting the ones who live). And even that percentage is brought down by the fact that you can't get pregnant when you're already pregnant. A 230% chance is pretty damn certain.

 

your right, I completely buggered myself up .. apologise for that. I'm never afraid to admit when I am wrong.

Now that-that little item has been settled, perhaps we can move on the the more conclusive evidence of the OP, which none of the above actually disputes.

 

Very few abortions happen for health reasons, according to studies.

http://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2005/NRL10/NewStudy.html

 

And you think that will stop women from using that excuse to justify why they are getting an abortion if they are told they must justify it?

The fact that pregnancy directly affects and puts a woman's health and life at risk means that abortion will always be legal to some extent.

 

A person is a being with intellect, emotion and will. There are non-human persons. There are humans who are no longer or not yet persons.
However, murder is not the unjust killing of a person; it is the unjust killing of a human being.
What's more, human life does not begin at conception or birth. Human life is CONTINUED through conceptions and births.
A human being can become a person at some point between conception and birth.

In other words, a human being is a human being before and sometimes long after they're a person.

First trimester abortions kill human beings; they do not kill people. Unfortunately, as I wrote above, murder is not the unjust killing of people; it's the unjust killing of human beings.

 

According to the definition of the word 'murder', I would say that's a maybe.

According to current laws however abortion is not murder so long as it is done with the consent of the pregnant woman.

 

and again you recycle old arguments that have nothing to do with the OP.

You are quoting studies that produce results based on the CURRENT legislation where abortion is legal, the whole premise of the OP is based around what could happen should abortion be made illegal, in other words this 'study' has no relevance to the OP, now go find one that is of actual relevance ie when abortion was illegal.

Let me remind you (again) - So let us assume that in some pro-life utopia that SCOTUS have overturned Roe and all "children" from the point of conception are protected under the constitution by federal law, this does not over-rule the use of deadly force in self-defence.

 

If somebody consents to risk and drives a car and gets into a car accident (the injury), who is responsible-the person who caused the car accident (and consented to risk), or the person that got hit in the car accident?

 

nothing to do with my comment.

 

Is having an organ in injury? Really? I have an appendix and a liver and a heart, and several other organs. That's not an injury.

 

Did any of those items start to grow in you after you were born?

 

Irrelevant. What's wrong with growing a new organ?

99.999% of women who have abortions aren't bothered by having a new organ; they just do it for convenience reasons.

 

I thought it might be to you.

Ah the old convenience bait again

 

When are you going to elaborate just what about pregnancy is inconvenient?

 

Pregnancy is an inconvenience because it forces women to raise kids and spend money, which is inconvenient for some women.

 

no 'person' has the right to use another human as a host against their will

wonder at what point life insurance companies would consider a fetus a person?


,

 

No, that's what is inconvenient about children. Please tell us what is inconvenient about PREGNANCY.

 

Well that is factually incorrect for a starters, no woman is forced to raise kids and spend money she can always give the kid(s) up for adoption after they are born.

So please do try again and state why PREGNANCY id an inconvenience.

 

Pregnancy isn't an inconvenience or an "injury". It's a natural bodily function.

 

The injury part of your post is irrelevant as that is not what we are discussing (even though you are still wrong)

If as you now say pregnancy isn't an inconvenience why have you repeatedly expressed that view, even in this thread no more than 5 posts ago, shall I remind you;

Sam you twist, turn and change so often you would make a rally driver proud.