IAP Political Forum

Woo-hoo!!!

Anyways, other than morally, why are you against abortion? Just curious.

Welcome to Pandora's Box everybody.

A child's right to life is more important than a mother's right to choose.

Is that a moral stance?

No. A constitutional one.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

* I am clinically drunk, so this is my last serious post of the day*

Is that what you really believe? Or is that just a slogan?

It's what I really believe...

If it weren't for morals we'd be killing PEOPLE, not only unborn babies.

If I didn't believe it, would I have posted it?

P.S. You type amazingly well for a drunk person.


Very true.

Not to mention the same constitutional argument for the protection of our rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can be applied to murder as well.

Also, welcome to IAP ;D.

This brings up a few questions.

I have heard it said that the Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens.

If this is true, the fetus would have to be a US citizen for this to apply. Is the fetus a citizen? It doesn't have a social security number, or a name, legally speaking. A birth certificate is normally the document used to establish these things.

Looking at this from a constitutional rights paradigm, I believe the rights of the US citizen [the mother (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)]would have primacy. IMO, a much better case could be made under the more universal concept of human rights.

There are practical reasons why I oppose banning abortion (prevention of back-alley abortions, etc.), but on a fundamental level I say the mother's right  of physical self determination overrides the the fetus' right to life, as well as the state's interest in prohibiting harm to the fetus.

Then that person never read the Decleration of Independence:


Government is created to protect the rights we already have as human, not the ones we earn as American citizens.

The more tittalating argument is whether life begins at conception, not so much whether a fetus deserves the rights of a human being.

And now we come full circle to an argument without a victor.


The UN Charter is not needed... mostly because that document's format is very similar to our own Decleration. Just as ours is similar to France's.


I have to disagree... but it's quite clear arguing would be fruitless... so maybe we can just all agree to disagree and quickly let this fall to the bottom of the stack?

  I don't know how titillating it is but here is my two cents:
 IMO life doesn't begin at conception or at viability or the third trimester. Life began when the first paramecium put together enough nucleic acid to slime its way out of the primal goo many millions of years ago. Life is a continuum. Sperm and egg cells are live cells are they not??
 I think the question you mean to ask is, at what point does the potential for an individual become a realized individual. This is subject to such a wide range of individual interpretation that every one has a different answer, morally, scientifically, spiritually and personally. This is why I support the free choice of the person who's body the action of cell union takes place in. This is an extremely personal decision. In fact I can't think of a more profoundly personal decision anyone can make. I maintain that nobody has the right to make that decision for her beyond advice.

Silly commentary of the day... Abraxas, just BOTHER to read those papers and tell me if you don't notice a few differences (like, in extent or, houm, actual rights, houm, actually entitled...)


As for abortion...

- Life without freedom is not really life, unless the individual freely decides to trade freedom for life.
- Fetuses are not free (as long as they are physiologically dependent on their mother's blood for nurture and oxygen)
- Fetuses are not independent live beings (same parameters as above)
- In not being free nor independent live beings, their right to life is overruled by mother's right to freely decide (which includes suicide, btw).

Thus I agree with the right to abort earlier than the viability threshold (24 weeks) if the mother decides so. Only the mother can renounce to her freedom and NOBODY else is entiled any right to deprive her of such freedom, nor to punish her for the use of such freedom. But now, some people valor certain lives above of freedom... and interestingly enough, want to FORCE that opinion upon EVERYBODY ELSE... which is called Tyranny. :police:


"Every moralist holds at least one cause worth of tyrannize his fellows"

Depends relly on what you define as morals, I don't consider an abortion and murder to be the same thing seeing as imo a baby in the early stages to me is nothing more then a dependant collection of cells growing in the mother's womb.

I think that people who are on either extreme end of this issue are actually rare. There will always be cases in which it will be unthinkable to abort or not to abort. Baffles me that this is what people hang their hat on.

I am for the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy, but only in the first two months. A month after conception, you will know that you're pregnant, and that gives you a month to decide on or come up with the money for an abortion. After that, if you don't want a baby, you have options like adoption, finding a family member who will raise the baby, (which sucks for the family member). There is no shortage out there of childless parents who specifically want babies (not kids) and will most likely raise your child better than you could.

The truth is many women find adoptive parents before birth and at the last minute, after having had the baby, decide to keep the baby. Giving a baby up is one of the hardest things a woman can do, but then, for some women it's nothing because they weren't mentally prepared for it or were in denial through the pregnancy.

I would actually be totally against abortion, I have decided, except that if it were illegal, women will still find ways to do it that are dangerous to their health, so I am for a woman's choice in the first two months.

I'm for a women's right to choose, but the real beef of the argument is the differences in morality; is it not?  Who's to choose what is moral and right when we all obviously have different opinions?  How can we just throw around a word that we are not able to define?  And if it is undefinable does it exist?

Here is a reason for being against it but it is a total crutch. An abortion is a far more dangerous procedure than a birth. Maybe not physically but mentally it can be devestating to a woman.

Taking morals out of the equation is impossible though. Every decision we make, wether we realise it or not, is governed by our own set or moral considerations. I believe this is hardwired into us and those people WITHOUT this are called phsycopaths.

Now on to the question. My stance and why I feel the way I do.

I think abortion for any reason other than life of the mother should be illegal after the first trimester. I am personally against abortion as a whole except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. But in the above cases there should be a relatively safe way for the process to occure.

See, I know a woman, a good friend, who was raped. Someone broke into her house and assaluted her. She will NEVER have anything even remotely resembling a normal life. Mentally she is a very loosely bound bundle of nerves that just the slightest little thing can rip apart. She can not hold a normal job becuase she can not face the possiblity of being left alone with men. If there is not another woman in the room with her she instantly has a panic attack. Her house had become a vertiable fortress which she checks with an obsessive/compulsive tendancy. Doors with dead bolts that run all the way through the hard oak door and into the support structure around the door,,,locked locked locked,,,windows barred and locked...check again and check again.

I exlain this to illustrate how devestating the act of rape is to a person mental state. Now add in being pregnant with a sontant reminder of the hideous act perpetrated upon her. There should be a way for her to get rid of it even if it IS a life. The moment you place a law then make privisos there must be a way bilt in to judge each case and wether it meats the stipulations of said Privisos. I can only imagine how much more devstated my friend would be if she had to go up before some judge and beg permission to get rid of the actermath of something that so destroyed her.

I know women who have had abortions, due to "mistakes."  They seem fine, perhaps their reasons for doing were selfish, but it was still their choice!


I agree

I'm glad to see I started an abortion thread after downing a bottle of Jim Beam. Life is fun.

A fetus is alive and abortion is murder.

I've quit beating around the bush and just accepted it.

BUT! I don't fucking care if women have their unborn babies murdered. The baby has no value, I don't fucking care what you do with it. If you want to kill it, than kill it. I don't care if it has the right to live. Guess what, we're going to kill it. Get over it. It's a fricken unborn baby. We can make more, its not very hard.

I support the murder of unborn babies.

how about you calm the fuck down.

I support D9's choice to frankly state his position.  Guess I'm pro-choice that way.

Haha.

As sad as it sounds, I actually agree with D9. I simply do not care.

heh, so no point to this thread.

Well, I care about the issue, just not unborn babies.

What about those in an Intensive Care Unit on a ventilator and TPN (Total Parental Nutrition) through a central line?

Recovering from trauma/illness/surgery and being a fetus are temporary states of being.


Neither are those in the ICU.


Then by all means, lets unplug all the ventilators today.

I think it's important, but I do not make my political decisions on this issue by its self. And you're right. The fact that people vote on this single issue is discouraging, to say the least.

There is a certain point during a pregnancy where a fetus has become a baby and drawing that line could be like what 2112 or illy has said; the first trimester.  I agree with that.

I am a man and I have no right to define what a women should do with her own body.  It should be her choice.  Morals constantly create grey areas and no one can really know what is best but for the individual to figure it out for themselves.   We should fund any type of program that allows women to get the most information, care and support they need when the situation of pregnancy arises so that they are able to make a wellinformed decision that is best for everybody.

There is nothing worse than bringing an unwanted and unloved child into this world. 

The last say in things I have as a man is just before ejaculation. After that its all up to what SHE wants as it sjhould be.

As I said I am against abortion and I would not have anything to do with my woman ever again if she aborted my child,,,,,but I would do the right thing and pay for the operation.

I don't see what definitive point says anything after the first or second or third trimester is considered "alive".

The whole thing is a process.

If you step on a cocoon, did you kill something?

In the beginning it is a mass of cells and at some point it has a beating heart and a brain. I would be okay with removing it when it is still little more than a mass of cells and a placenta.

Like with illegal immigration I'm too conflicted between both arguments to have a real stance. Being pro-life was my first choice. Someone gets pregnant then no one, not even the mother has the right to abort that child because that's murder. If you don't want the child then you shouldn't have gotten pregnant and you should've known about safe sex, now you have to deal with it. Or you could put the kid up for adoption afterwards, but whats to say the kid won't ask about their real family later on in life?

Then I was pro-choice. Just because someone's pregnant doesn't mean they have to stay pregnant. It is their body and it's therefore their choice on what they want to do with the child, and if they have to abort it do it in the early stages.

Ya see, I'm too conflicted between both sides.

Wow, Micfranklin, you and I have followed very similar paths on this issue.  I am now at the point of saying that 1st trimester abortions should be ok or if there is a danger in to the mother's life.  Since the fetus amounts to a parasite in the first 3 months and could not survive outside the body, it should be the choice of the mother.  My problem is I don't know what a real line should be drawn.  Lucky for me, I am a man and don't have to deal with the physical ramification of a pregnancy or an abortion, so it is easy for me to sit here and say what my feelings are.  I know that my wife is pro-life, so it isn't an issue in our house and hopefully we never will have to face a situation where we have to consider that option.  Knowing that I can never know all the situations where abortion could be the best option (whether legal or illegal), I can't say we should make abortion illegal.

So them stem cells would be out of the question then?  Oh and we can't eat chickens or eggs because that is wrong too.  Or antibacterial soap because that kills stuff too that is living or could be created.  

In the case of your cocoon, that is a transformation, not a creation of something.  

There is so much wrong from both sides.

Life does not begin at conception. Both sperm and egg are already alive.

The question is when does humanity begin?

As far as I can tell, and I am no biologist, but the sensible point is the break-even point of viability.

When the fetus has a better than 50-50 shot of living outside the mother, it can be considered a person. Up until then, it exists at the will and whim of the mother.

I can't see any way to change that - otherwise, suddenly a pregnant woman has no rights to her own body. Can she be forced to take no action unhealthy to the baby? Who decides? More importantly, who has any more right to decide than the woman carrying the child?

Once the child is able to survive outside the mother, it ought to be considered a person. Up until then, it is only a potential.

Many do not come to term.

The largest abortionist is still God. Most that do not come to term, do so without outside intervention. A misscariage, a still birth - God aborts them.

I think that is a crucial observation.  Life is a process.  People are different at different stages of their lives. 

Birth, Patton, birth.

People as well as the natural processes that make up our ecological spheres.  Is it a question of morals or of the interuption of natural life cycles?

A sperm alone or an egg alone don't form human life. As soon as those are combined (conception), it's going to become a human being. That's the bottom line.

Yep I agree.  I think we can quit debating it.  All I care about is that we continue to murder unwanted babies.

I know I may be conflicted on abortion views but even I think this you made this dirty and twisted on so many levels.

Not really. I've just simplified this issue.  I quit arguing about most of what you guys are arguing about.  I don't care if a fetus is alive or not at one week or whatever.  FINE, it is.  YEP you're right, as soon as the egg is fertilized it's a human being.  YES SIR, you've got it.

I don't give a flying fuck about all that. All I care about is that people who don't want to have babies DON'T have babies. Fine, we're murdering them, get over it.  Out of sight, out of mind.

I could probably be an abortionist.  I really don't see any value in an unborn baby. So what, we killed it, go make another one.  Big fricken deal.  Its not like it was hard to do.  Getting pregnant isn't an amazing miracle! There have been billions of people on this planet. Doesn't seem like a miracle to me.   

This sounds alot like an assumption no one would want or love the child.

Stem Cells are a completely different subject and has nothing to do with the political discussion of the issue of Abortion.

The "mass of cells" is a "temporary" state...much like the state one is in when connected to breathing machines, intra-aortic ballon pumps, and require nutrition intravenously....the difference is Abortion is a "permanent" action taken against a "temporary" state of being.

I draw an arbitrary line for "life" at conception.  It might be the wrong place to draw that line but it seems like the safest point.

If I could have my way the next president would get some SC judges in place that would overturn RvW and put the issue to the states.  My reason for this is because I think the RvW decision was politically based and it doesn't honor the constitution.  Either overturn it or at least reframe it away from the core argument that abortion should be legal because of a right to privacy.

Once it gets to the states it's going to be a mess but I'm hopeful some will develop a culture of life.

The millions of abortions we have each year is a tragedy.

So dependence on another for life is the deciding factor "to be considered a person?" You've painted an extremely ambiguous definition for yourself on several levels....If someone in ICU has less than a 50-50 shot at living, DEPENDENT on others for life...they are not "considered a person?" What about a 3-month old DEPENDENT on guardians for food, water, protection from the environment...are they not "considered a person" because of DEPENDENCE of others?

It just sounds like a special pleading for this issue....and hypocritical when tested against other human life.


Nice sound bite, but it patently misrepresents the political issue of Abortion and Abortion rights...and natural physiologic processes...death from a miscarriage or a "still" birth are no different than cancer...both are natural...and both are lethal.

The issue of Abortion isn't an issue if there is no fetus to Abort....the common mistake of pro-Abortionists is to latch on to cute "sound bites" while having absolutely no clue about physiology and pathophysiology.

In your above analogy that doesn't really deal with abortions, if a patient is alive only due to the will of a machine, isn't it the CHOICE of the family (barring a living will) of whether that person lives or dies?

No, it MIGHT.

It might not.

It often does not. Most aborted fetuses, are aborted without any human involvement.

Killed by God for God's reasons.

No.

In the course of a heart transplant, the patient is stays alive only with the assistance of machinery.  This does not give his family authority to kill him.

The cases in which support is removed involve a determination that the person is already effectively dead, or has no chance of recovery.

At who's choice?

What at who's choice?  I don't understand your question.

There is no US jurisdiction in which simple dependence on a machine entitles a family to kill you.

You are talking Abortion RIGHTS...this is a LEGAL distinction and has nothing to do with the reality of the physiologic similarities between those dependent on machines and those dependent on a mother.

You don't seem to get it...this has nothing to do with the political issue of Abortion.

"Killed by God for God's reasons."...yet another cute "sound bite"...but absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

Are people who actually experienced birth "Killed by God for God's reasons?"....a simpleminded slogan that could be relevant to vehicular deaths.

I was only working with the analogy you started with.  Now try not to get too emotional, trust me, I know it can be difficult when dealing with an issue that one feels strongly about, but it doesn't help either side in the discussion.  I still am working out my feelings on it all, but as I have pointed out, it isn't something that effects me nearly as much as a woman in a situation to have to make this decision.  Now, if a fetus's only means of survival is dependent on absorbing nutrients from a person, then that person should have the right to decide if they wish to continue to supply that nutrient.  If not, then remove the fetus, if the fetus survives, then name it or give it away, if it does not, then let science see what can be learned from it.  These are my scientific feelings on the issue.  My emotional feeling differ, hence my lack of an ability to state with certain my view of abortion.  I know that I could never ask my wife to have an abortion.  I love my 2 year old son and could never imagine having him aborted when he was even a couple of weeks formed in my wife. 

Most of them don't.  If your baby is white maybe.  If not, the baby's luck for finding loving parents would have better odds at craps.

Don't patronize me again.

I'll bet you don't have the faintest clue what my stance is on this issue.


We are quite different then...unlike you, I actually know "my feelings" 


This adds nothing new...you are STILL discussing the LEGAL distinction of RIGHTS...and not physiologic similarities I discussed earlier.

I've been involved in facilitating adoptions, and believe you are mistaken.

The demand for healthy babies of any color is incredible.  Seeing a couple jump through the hoops needed to house, love and cherish a child is heartrending.

Older children and those with severe disabilities are a different story, but there are people with extraordinary commitment and huge hearts who adopt them too.

One, I wasn't trying to patronize you.  Since tone is not able to be portrayed very well through the internet, it is possible that I misjudged your reaction and you misjudged mine. 
Two, I am glad you know how you feel on the issue, congrats, and since you say I don't know your stance, then please enlighten me.
Three, I must of misunderstood the physiologic similarities point you were making.  I am still discussing the legal distinctions because that is the heart of the issue.  Everything else is just feelings.

Thanks for that information Zuk.  Specifically, do you know what the adoption rate may be, just an estimate (I know you don't sit there and count) from your own experience.  Is 60% of all creeds and colors adopted, or higher? 75%? 85%? 100%?

This is very true.  I know of a couple that has been trying to adopt for some time now, they almost were able too, but the bio mom decided to keep the kid at the last minute.  They were devastated.  We have a couple in our neighborhood who has to adopt from Russia, because the demand is too high here.  Now this is just anecdotal, but it seems to me that adoptions is a very high demand, yet low supply market.

I don't know.  Based on the number of children american couples essentially buy from eastern europe and china, I am inclined to think that the adoption rate for american born babies without severe defects should approach 100%.

Again, the numbers for the very severely disabled may differ.  It isn't easy to parent a healthy child; those who adopt the very crippled amaze me.

You could make the argument that abortions no matter the trimester can be for the "greater good."  Yes a zygote, fetus, baby, is or has the potential for life, whatever.  That rejected child has the potential to be a burden on society; unloved, they'll become a criminal and then be sent to prison where they'll receive the death penalty anyway... why delay the process?  -- extreme i know.  Anyway my point is abortion is a "preemptive strike" to prevent what could happen.  Sounds crazy?  YES BECAUSE THIS THREAT IS CRAZY!  There's no specific question and I'm spiraling into a pit of confusion. Is this legal or moral?  WHAT PEOPLE?! WHAT?!!!!!

I think you have been reading too much freakonomics.

No, I had these thoughts before thats why freakonomics was an awesome book and the arguments really resonated.

Please accept my apology then...I do not take to condescending or patronizing behavior very well, I most certainly must have misjudged your words. 

 

From IAP 1.0:

This is an extremely tough issue to negotiate through, my position has changed course over the last quarter century or so.

First, from a moral standpoint, I find it wrong, and am against the decision to undertake one.

It is murder.

However, having worked in public health my entire adult life, there are inescapable realities.

There are many factors in play that make Abortion a reality.

Men and Women will not stop having unprotected sex.

Many women will not want to carry the baby to term for a variety of reasons, so demand for the practice will never go away.

We, as a society, can deny a womans ability to have this procedure done by skilled medical professionals in a sterile environment, or choose to push her into undertaking extreme measures at attempting to abort in other ways.

If taken as a purely public health issue, the correct answer is clear...taken from a purely moral issue, it is quite different.

No one dies from questionable morals, but they do from sepsis.

From: IAP 1.0 (http://archive.itsallpolitics.com/abortion-federal-issue-state-issue-or-no-issue-at-all-vt24902.html)


I use physiologic distinctions for those who wish to appease their sense of morality by trying to make the human fetus less than human and therefore subject to elective termination with no more thought than squashing a bug.

You are very correct in that the ISSUE is related to LEGAL distinction of RIGHTS...these LEGAL distinctions make no mention of whether a human fetus is IN FACT a human being....they are used in order to confer rights of the mother to "choose" life or death for her child.

As an aside...I have had the pleasure to discuss this issue with many here before...one of my favorites with regards to "legal-vs-physiologic" distinctions begins about here, it is on page 18 of a 20 page thread...an IAP 1.0 classic: IAP Abortion Classic (http://archive.itsallpolitics.com/-vp321207.html#321207)

Whatever else one can say on this subject, these facts remain incontrovertible:

#1: The decision to have an abortion or carry a fetus to term is a reproductive decision.

#2: Reproductive decisions can and should be made by the parents and anyone they choose to involve, not the state.

No one likes abortions. No one promotes abortions. In fact, most of us who support legal abortions also support programs that promote safe sex and abstinence, in order to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

It seems clear to me that the abortion issue is primarily one rooted in partisan, evangelical religious politics. I believe most pro-life people genuinely care for the unborn; I also believe they let their emotional reactions blind them to the facts of life.

Namely: unwanted pregnancies happen. It's an ugly fact; people who are not ready for or capable of the responsibilities of being a parent get pregnant. That fact is not going to change. The question is, how do we treat the people who face this crushingly difficult situation?

My answer is, we treat them with dignity and respect that they deserve. We support them, rather than labelling them "whores" and "babykillers." We do our best to put ourselves in their shoes, and try to understand the decisions they face.

Then we respect their right to make their own reproductive decisions. Period.

I don't think this word means what you think it means...

Very good post, Voltaire 2.0.

Copulating is a reproductive decision.

A long time ago, Chovy wrote "People [copulate].  What do they think they are going to get?  Donuts?"

Sorry for being so late... my computer is having a bit of an issue and I can't seem to move on the internet very quickly.

Alright, Voltaire, I think you made a good post, and I partly agree with your reasoning. Whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice is irrelevent. The choice is not the state's to make. But that same line of reasoning should bar the mother or father from making that choice as well.

"Life" is a right of all beings and whether you consider the fetus to be a person or not is irellevent... it is still undoubtedly alive and to interupt that life is legally murder.

I consider that life to be more significant than that of a chicken egg and stem cell research is a totally different debate entirely so it would be inapropriate to begin a discussion on that.

Even as an atheist I think abortion is morally and legally wrong.

How deserving are they if they can't treat the act of procreation similarly?

Please. Get off the high horse.

People have recreational sex. That is also an inescapable fact of life.

Unintended pregnancies can happen to anyone, regardless of their "respect" for the act of procreation.

People also bungee jump.

When people undertake an act with a foreseeable and known risk, it is not a sort of cosmic injustice when the natural consequence arises.

I can't believe you just compared unintended pregnancy to bungee-dying.

I'm not talking about justice. I said the decision about whether or not to continue with the pregnancy is the parents' to make.

It was simply question. I'll try to be less snooty next time.

Is it less recreational if birth control is used?
Another inescapable fact is un-protected sex can lead to pregnacy.

Certainly they can't.

It's also highly less likely when birth control is used.
 

How much respect do they have if they ignore the possible consequences of
screwing?

*Ahem*

Incontrovertible = not open to question, unless I am very mistaken. Precisely how I used it.

What do you think it means??

It is not unreasonable, given modern methods of birth control, to have sex and expect not to have a baby. Unless you're living in the 19th century, sex no longer necessarily = babies.

But let's talk about this. Are you saying that no one should have sex unless they want a child?

If so, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Do you plan to have a child every time you have sex? Did you plan to have a child the first time you had sex? I really, really doubt it.

Why?  The observation illustrated is in bold above.  Do you disagree?

Well, I wasn't planning to discuss stem cell research, so okay.

However, I disagree with you. It is the parents' right to decide what is best for them and their potential child. I believe this to be indisputable. Parents make all kinds of decisions for their children. The very first is whether or not to have a child.

Uhh.... okay. I wasn't debating whether birth control should be used.

Unintended pregnancies can happen even when birth control is used. I'm hardly advocating un-protected sex - quite the opposite.


No kidding. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
 

Okay, let's go over this again. Do you plan to have a child every time you have sex? I really doubt it.

It is completely unreasonable to expect that people will not have sex unless they are ready to have a child. As such, we must make allowances for unintended, unwanted pregnancies.

Thanks. :)

Yes, let's review.  Your argument against a one to one relationship indicates a misunderstanding the bungee jumping illustration was intended to clarify.

When people undertake an act with a foreseeable and known risk, it is not a sort of cosmic injustice when the natural consequence arises.  It is a foreseeable consequence of sex that a couple will reproduce.

Yes. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, it is unreasonable to expect people to have sex only when they are ready to have a child.

It is not unreasonable to have sex and expect not to have a child - since about 1960 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill).

And none of this changes my main point, which is that only expectant parents can make the decision to carry to term or not.

No, it's not. Not anymore. There are many circumstances in which people people copulate with reasonable expectation that they will not reproduce. Join us the 21st century!

Not to mention cases of rape, incest, etc. Admittedly these are relatively few; even so, how twisted would it be to force a woman to carry a rapist's child to term?

You seem to conflate one to one correlation and risk.  See above.

Now you just need to distinguish a reasonable expectation and a foreseeable risk.

I don't expect to have a flat on the way home, but I carry a spare because it is a foreseeable consequence of driving on pneumatic tires that I could have a flat.

I conflate nothing. The risk is incredibly low - so low, that we can now have sex without expecting to have a child.

Once again, I understand the distinction entirely. You are implying that because there is a risk of consequence, one should always plan for the consequence - however low the risk. This is completely unreasonable.

Actually, your example works against you. Abortion is the backup plan for those who find themselves unintentionally pregnant.

Then why did you change the terms?


No.  That is not the point. 

If people have sex, and know that pregnancy is a risk, they are deciding to undertake that risk.


Actually, it wouldn't against me unless spare tires were people.  Your observation is a only a restatement of your premise.

I'm not changing the terms. You're attempting to use terms in a way with which I disagree.

Now you're just getting silly, with the tire bit. It was your metaphor - why use it unless you intend it to be compared with the subject at hand. You compared getting pregnant with getting a flat. I responded in kind, by pointing out that having the option of an abortion is like carrying a spare tire. Jeez.

You are implying that people should always plan for potential consequences, no matter how low the risk. That is your argument. You can't get around that.

Correct me if this is not what you're saying:

1. Pregnancy is a very, very low (when contraception is used) risk consequence of having sex.
2. No matter how low the risk, people should plan for the consequence of pregnancy each time they have sex.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're saying.

You are so right.

At the risk of having judgements made about me here, I'll share my story.  I met my soulmate, the love of my life in my early 40s.  This is the 2nd marriage for both of us, and we badly want a family.  However, now when we're both 47, we've had three miscarriages, the result of, as our doctor puts it, 'old' eggs.

We're now beginning the adoption process, and it is way competitive.  Although we have enormous resources compared to most younger couples, we keep being preempted at the top of the adoption list.  We'd gladly care for, love, and do our best to provide a productive life for a crack baby of a different skin tone.

You will be a blessing to a child in need.

Welcome to IAP.

My opinion?

I'm a pro-life, anti-abortion liberal.  I personally would take accountability for my actions, deliver, care, and love any child that I fathered.  I am repulsed by abortions.

However, I'm more pro-freedom, and believe that a woman should have the right to make her own choice, and being accountable for her own actions and emotions.  I do not believe that we should legislate a surrender of freedom to protect a woman's mental state.