Arguing About Abortion

[catholicray]

95% of abortions are not deserved for the sake of liberty change my mind. Stephen Crowder am I right lol.

 

[Rau]

Such logic falls within the realm of a convicted murderer saying he does not consent to the imprisonment of his body and being released accordingly.

Certainly the deliberate choice of murder is made in the knowledge that incarceration may result. Since the act is done, one accepts the risk.

 

[catholicray]

Certainly the deliberate choice of murder is made in the knowledge that incarceration may result. Since the act is done, one accepts the risk.

“Deliberate” is debatable.

You’ve conceded my position logically. Care to further my understanding of your position?

 

[Rau]

“Deliberate” is debatable.

You’ve conceded my position logically. Care to further my understanding of your position?

Huh? I though we agreed anyway. Ps. Deliberate is somewhat redundant when one speaks of murder.

 

[catholicray]

And I respect that. Really I do.

But then your paradigm should only be binding on those that share it. I no more want to be forced under Catholic views than you presumably want to be forced under the Muslim Sharia.

My views are not dependent on the existence of God they are merely logical deductions given certain assumptions, (i.e. a murderer is not afforded liberty during his imprisonment). I could express the logic back to a Catholic reality that posits Jesus as Lord and savior of all but it’s fundamentally unnecessary.

 

[catholicray]

“Deliberate” is debatable.

You’ve conceded my position logically. Care to further my understanding of your position?

May have misunderstood you. My apologies if so.

Deliberate is an assumption of intent. External factors probably play a role in choice. I don’t think we have as much choice as is usually assumed regardless of the fact of free will.

Our will, while in tact, may be in comparison microscopic in the grand scheme of our “choice”.

Our will occurs within our choice and our will much like our hearts is judged by God rather than our choice ultimately.

 

[Rau]

External factors probably play a role in choice. I don’t think we have as much choice as is usually assumed regardless of the fact of free will.

That’s somewhat dangerous thinking. IMHO, adults need to admit that, say, jumping into the sack with each other was a choice for which they bear responsibility. And they bear responsibility for the inherent consequences of that choice. Big problems arise if that’s denied…

 

[catholicray]

That’s somewhat dangerous thinking. IMHO, adults need to admit that, say, jumping into the sack with each other was a choice for which they bear responsibility. And they bear responsibility for the inherent consequences of that choice. Big problems arise if that’s denied…

The logic is based on Catholic theology concerning mortal sin.

In order for sin to be mortal one factor that must be present is active will. So the “act” of mortal sin must include ones own will as one of three qualifications of mortal sin.

I agree the implications are dangerous but no less valid.

2000 years of contemplation puts us far beyond this debate but it’s well to catch others up

 

[catholicray]

We need desperately to acknowledge our responsibility within our own conscience that lies deep within where God speaks to us. What acts itself out in our flesh is fairly irrelevant if we were at first acting in faith to the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit brings the flesh into submission if we are faithful to it. We can only fool ourselves for so long before we acknowledge the fruit of what spirit we live by.

Regardless, it isn’t wrong to acknowledge the process.

 

[MamaJewel]

Freedom is not a license to exalt ignorance.

This is about reality. It’s misogyny to put the fault on women all the time for unwanted pregnancy. And our society does just that. She has to keep her legs closed and he is free to spread his seed 24/7.

The very basic fact that the pill has been on the market for over 50 years and it’s still for women to take is very telling. But men are the ones with perpetual fertility. Where are their methods to keep from getting a woman pregnant? None exist because it’s a blame the woman game.
For a female, consent to sex is consent to sex.
It would be way more rational to say that for a male, consent to sex is consent to pregnancy because, barring any issues, the human male is fertile 24/7.

Women don’t have to have any enjoyment of the sexual act to be impregnated.
Heck, women don’t even have to be conscious to be impregnated.
Nobody is entitled to a climax from the sexual act.
Men need to keep their business to themselves if their partner does not want to be pregnant. Period.

Put the responsibility for pregnancy on men, where it rightfully belongs. In doing this, the tide will turn on abortion. (Yep, make men seriously afraid to flippantly engage in the sexual act and causing so many unwanted pregnancies. That will ultimately reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and consequently the number of elective abortions.)

I can’t tell you how many women I know personally who had been pressured into sex and ended up pregnant. Some of the women were minors at the time.

The dynamics of human relationships are very complex.
Society needs to turn this tide around and hold those causing the problem accountable.

It takes two people to have sex. Saying it’s the mans fault because he is fertile 30 days a month, while the woman is fertile 3 days a month…that’s an abdication

Absolutely not an abdication.
See my above response.

I cant fire a gun in a direction there is only a 7% probability of hitting someone, then when I do, say I didn’t intend to hit someone. The result of a bulletin flying through the air has a consequence. That isn’t responsible behavior. That’s where the term negligence has developed meaning.

So you’re saying that you agree with me that the onus is on the males regarding an unwanted pregnancy?
The females aren’t “firing any guns”, rhetorically speaking. Nobody is entitled to fire a gun and leave a bullet in that individual, even when the individual says, “Fire at me!”

And please, if women can only get pregnant 3 days out of 30, then sex isn’t about pregnancy because that situation isn’t possible for the majority of the time for the woman. Sex, like the car analogy, would be about driving somewhere, not getting in an accident.

 

[Rau]

In order for sin to be mortal one factor that must be present is active will. So the “act” of mortal sin must include ones own will as one of three qualifications of mortal sin.

I can just see this explanation offered in defence at a rape trial. It would not wash for an instant, would it.

 

[Rau]

For a female, consent to sex is consent to sex.
It would be way more rational to say that for a male, consent to sex is consent to pregnancy because, barring any issues, the human male is fertile 24/7.

That’s excuse making. Women know what causes babies just as well as men do. When man and women have sex they know and accept the inherent risks.

Put the responsibility for pregnancy on men, where it rightfully belongs.

Where man and woman freely choose sex, they ought equally to bear responsibility for the consequences. The law (perhaps dependent on jurisdiction) generally seeks to work to that end, though that is not straightforward and only imperfect solutions exist.

 

[MamaJewel]

And they bear responsibility for the inherent consequences of that choice. Big problems arise if that’s denied…

who’s the “they”?
if the burden of the responsibilities was more equally shared there might be way fewer abortions…

Ummm, naw…
the misogyny went on far to long.
Today’s women who don’t want to be pregnant for the sake of being pregnant have no qualms aborting.

These aren’t our grandmother’s pregnancies.
I have come to actually believe that many women who abort are relieved to be free of the pregnancy.
A pregnancy isn’t considered to harbor a human being. Like parasites are the same species as their host.

 

[Rau]

And please, if women can only get pregnant 3 days out of 30, then sex isn’t about pregnancy because that situation isn’t possible for the majority of the time for the woman. Sex, like the car analogy, would be about driving somewhere, not getting in an accident.

That’s been previously addressed. Deposit semen in woman and everyone knows where that can lead. The probability of pregnancy is evaluated in the exact same way regardless of whether you are the man or the woman.

Ps. Most women KNOW that men are fertile every day. So while men and women each have different fertilities, as a couple it is the same for both of them.

 

[MamaJewel]

Why not just cut to the chase and claim bonobos and humans can kill each other because “they just know it feels good and they have an urge to do it” and be done with the pretence. That just doesn’t fit into your “progressive personhood” thesis, does it?

Yikes!!!
Are we talking about during sex?
Umm, some people do that.
triggered much???

Reproduction is a biological drive — that is the purpose for mating and sex.

For men it’s about the pleasure of sex. I don’t think they care about the consequences, especially since they don’t have many consequences. (And please don’t say “child support” because both parents are responsible for providing financial support to their progeny by law.)

For women, sex takes on many different nuances.
Like survival of self.
Like survival of self and children.
Like survival of family.
Increase in social status. Material gain. Emotional gain.
Freedom from a very unhealthy situation, even if it involves moving into a less unhealthy situation.
Pleasure, but not always. Too often, it’s not about the pleasure, but about the bonding.

Not that men can’t experience those nuances.
But I think for a majority of women and the majority of their time, reproductive urges and sex do not go hand in hand.

We no more consent to pregnancy during sex than we consent to a car crash by getting into our car.

Unless we’re “open to life”, then sex and any genital/ fluid contact = consent to pregnancy.
Heck, a woman doesn’t even need to have sex to get pregnant, per a midwife I know.
100% agree on the car crash though.

In both cases for the woman considering abortion, they are accidents to be avoided.

However, if there is a car accident, we aren’t allowed to go out and kill any human beings involved, regardless of their ages/ stages and whether or not they caused the accident.

And car crashes can and often do have serious, life-long negative impacts on a crash victim (and the fetus within her).

 

[MamaJewel]

That’s excuse making. Women know what causes babies just as well as men do. When man and women have sex they know and accept the inherent risks.

Nope.
Some women can have plenty of sex and not get pregnant.
Some women can get pregnant without having intercourse (but, yes, a male is still involved).

Consent to sex is consent to sex, unless one is “open to life”.

The law (perhaps dependent on jurisdiction) generally seeks to work to that end, though that is not straightforward and only imperfect solutions exist.

It absolutely does not.
Men can choose their level of involvement.
Women are the default parent and better be there, or there is hades to pay.

This is from the law, society, and even the church. I know it because for me, like many other women I have known or know, share this lived experience.

And you know what? I have watched those attitudes place children in jeopardy when that “default parent” is a crappy parent.

But the argument is about arguing about abortion, so I don’t want to go off topic. Enen though some of the points I am making are intricately intertwined with the wicked problem of abortion.

The probability of pregnancy is evaluated in the exact same way regardless of whether you are the man or the woman.

That’s the misogyny of the problem.
Wanna stop abortion?
A woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she names the potential father(s).
Abortion is done. DNA sample taken from the named. Fetal remains match to the named parent, and he loses a testicle.
Sounds radical? yeah, a bit…
But after two unwanted baby mommas, an unwanted pregnancy by any woman won’t be an issue anymore.

If she refuses to give a name…she can still electively abort. But that will be only abortion she has, because the unwillingness to tattle equals no future elective abortions.

Trust me, if men looked at losing something because of an unwanted pregnancy, they would be very careful who they connected with.

I might sound harsh, but as a mother to half a dozen male progeny, I have taught 5 of my sons the importance of not getting a woman pregnant when she does not want to be pregnant. I have also taught them the importance of selecting a decent partner and treating her respectfully.

Ps. Most women KNOW that men are fertile every day.

And???
What are they supposed to do about his fertility?
Remove his nads?
Does the law give any recourse for a woman to say to a man that he cannot leave a deposit in her? Is he entitled to an orgasm in her? The fertilities are not the same and neither is the intercourse, for that matter.

Even more important to the fact why we need to put the responsibility for unwanted pregnancies on men ages ago. It’s not uncommon for men to have several women pregnant at the same time. Gotta love Arnie Schwarzenegger.

 

[Stephen168]

The females aren’t “firing any guns”, rhetorically speaking. Nobody is entitled to fire a gun and leave a bullet in that individual, even when the individual says, “Fire at me!”

Are you suggestion men should not have sex even after a woman consents? That would be a very unorthodox marriage.

Sex, like the car analogy, would be about driving somewhere, not getting in an accident.

The purpose of travel by automobile is not getting into accidents; it is transportation.

Sex would be like getting in an automobile with a real bad driver hoping to enjoy the thrill of an accident and then being upset when you arrive without having one. Engaging in an activity designed for one purpose then being upset when that one purpose actually happens.

As a side note, I’ve never thought of my children in the same way, I think of automobile accidents

Consent to sex is consent to sex, unless one is “open to life”.

Intent does not change the purpose of an activity. Whether you intend to get in an accident or intend to arrive safety; auto travel is about transportation, not accidents.

 

[Rau]

Your views differ vastly from mine.

 

[Stephen168]

Wanna stop abortion?

A woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she names the potential father(s).

Abortion is done. DNA sample taken from the named. Fetal remains match to the named parent, and he loses a testicle.

And she loses an ovary, because she killed another human being.

But after two unwanted baby mommas, an unwanted pregnancy by any woman won’t be an issue anymore.

And after she has two unwanted pregnancies it won’t be an issue anymore.

Trust me, if men looked at losing something because of an unwanted pregnancy, they would be very careful who they connected with.

Trust me, if women looked at losing something because of an unwanted pregnancy, they would be very careful who they connected with.

Sounds radical?

It sounds vindictive.

 

[Elf01]

That’s the misogyny of the problem.
Wanna stop abortion?
A woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she names the potential father(s).
Abortion is done. DNA sample taken from the named. Fetal remains match to the named parent, and he loses a testicle.
Sounds radical? yeah, a bit…
But after two unwanted baby mommas, an unwanted pregnancy by any woman won’t be an issue anymore.

How about we steralize her too. In fact if I wasn’t Catholic I’d be OK with that.

If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant it’s on her to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant.

If a man doesn’t want to pay child support it’s on him to make sure he doesn’t get a woman pregnant.