if women choose to get pregnant, then why do they getting abortions to terminate their pregnancies? are they looking for an excuse to take prenatal vitamins? why would a woman choose to get pregnant only to terminate said chosen pregnancy, nate? lololChoosing to have sex does = choosing to accept the chance of pregnancy. As I said above accepting a chance of getting pregnant means (gasp) sometimes people actually get pregnant. Thus indirectly:
choosing to have sex = choosing to get pregnant if it occurs
I was merely making the point that most women have made a choice to get pregnant by virtue of their actions.if women choose to get pregnant, then why do they getting abortions to terminate their pregnancies? are they looking for an excuse to take prenatal vitamins? why would a woman choose to get pregnant only to terminate said chosen pregnancy, nate? lolol
Pregnancy after sex is uncommon?no one said theres no connection. people do regard it as the pleasure center, im sure. just because the gun kicks back into you doesnt mean you cant do something to counteract the unwanted effects. the overwhelming majority of sex had by humans on planet earth does not result in pregnancy, so its not stupid to be surprised by pregnancy after having sex–it is relatively uncommon.
People make choices all the time that they regret. I’m sure the 1 in a 100 odds seemed great before the woman got pregnant. You seem to think a choice was only made if someone likes the results which is ludicrous. Please find me a definition of choice that says you have to like the results. I see no reason to allow murder though in such cases to help people avoid dealing with the consequences of choices they have made. Do you also support murder as a viable option for someone to get their money back after they lose in the stock market on what was supposedly a sure bet?nate, so you understand the choices women make. so then explain why a woman would choose to get pregnant only to terminate said pregnancy. should be easy for you.
tim, i dont think so. most people i know have way more sex than they do babies.
Yes, I choose to accept the risk that implies and thus the results. I have no right to sue the car company who sold me the car if I get in a wreck unless they have been negligent in some regard in its manufacturing and did not tell me. Is that radical thinking to you? I know its a novel concept these days called “accepting responsibility for our choices”.then you choose to get injured in a car accident whenever you drive in public. thats the logic youre working with. lol
People make irresponsible*** choices*** all the time, then often try to erase those by blaming it on someone else - in this case, a fetus incapable of conscious acts.if women choose to get pregnant, then why do they getting abortions to terminate their pregnancies? are they looking for an excuse to take prenatal vitamins? why would a woman choose to get pregnant only to terminate said chosen pregnancy, nate? lolol
You’re (seriously) suggesting the connection between sex and procreation is analogous to the connection between car washes and ex-post-facto bird pooping???small chance of conception, sure. theres a small chance your car will be shat on by a bird, right after getting it washed. thats the risk you take by driving your vehicle outdoors. so… i guess you have to leave the bird droppings on your car, and you cant wipe it off… does that make sense to you? it shouldnt. in the case of legal abortions, fetuses dont have a right to life. people say animals have rights, but we eat them anyway; its legal.
The possibility of procreation is accepted when the act is undertaken. It is in a sense expressed in the language of the act itself. This is what “Theology of the Body” is all about: that actions are charged with meanings separate from our intentions.if women choose to get pregnant, then why do they getting abortions to terminate their pregnancies? are they looking for an excuse to take prenatal vitamins? why would a woman choose to get pregnant only to terminate said chosen pregnancy, nate? lolol
you shouldnt go to the hospital for your injuries because you chose to get injured. live with your choices, right? lolYes, I choose to accept the risk that implies and thus the results. I have no right to sue the car company who sold me the car if I get in a wreck unless they have been negligent in some regard in its manufacturing and did not tell me. Is that radical thinking to you? I know its a novel concept these days called “accepting responsibility for our choices”.
No, going to the hospital would be dealing with the consequences in a moral fashion and I would go. That is called responsibility and I most certainly would be living with my choices. When something bad happens and our choices end in consequences we don’t like, that doesn’t give us free reign to murder people. I would not demand the right to murder someone because of the accident. The equivalent action to pro-choice advocates in this case would be if I decided to argue that I had a right to get in an accident and not sustain injuries. How dare that accident cause me pain and suffering? Based on this I would then demand access to the person’s organs who caused the accident and the right to murder him in order to get the parts I needed to keep myself alive.you shouldnt go to the hospital for your injuries because you chose to get injured. live with your choices, right? lol
I think you just conceded a choice was made, which is really all I wished to prove. The “pro-choice” crowd by virtue of their name is the one concerned with making sure all women have a choice in whether they are pregnant or not. I think I have shown that almost all women do choose that. All women may not like it, but they have chosen it.getting an abortion is also “dealing with the consequences.” as demonstrated by your being ok with going to the hospital, whether youve accepted a risk has no bearing on whether you can deal with the consequences should that risk materialize. you should reflect on this milestone, and consider not distracting from your point by citing choice when its irrelevant; youre concerned with whether an action is moral, not with whether something was chosen. congrats, nate.
The difference is, going to the hospital doesn’t directly result in the death of a human being.you shouldnt go to the hospital for your injuries because you chose to get injured. live with your choices, right? lol
i think you have trouble reading… i have never conceded that choosing to have sex = choosing to get pregnant. you can put your mission accomplished banner away, george bush. but whether its a choice is irrelevant, as youre fine with “dealing with the consequences” which result from ones choice (e.g., going to hospital for car accident injuries). i notice you felt it necessary to qualify your statement by saying “in a moral fashion.” you should abandon the “you chose to get pregnant” angle, because its not even relevant to why you oppose abortion.I think you just conceded a choice was made, which is really all I wished to prove. The “pro-choice” crowd by virtue of their name is the one concerned with making sure all women have a choice in whether they are pregnant or not. I think I have shown that almost all women do choose that. All women may not like it, but they have chosen it.
The next step is in arguing about what are the acceptable steps in dealing with those consequences which were freely chosen by virtue of freely choosing the act that caused them. Murder is never an acceptable option in my opinion, period. You don’t believe its murder and thus we have nothing further to debate. You also don’t believe in inalienable rights, so I’m not sure even proving the baby was a human life would mean anything to you.
I think your attitude describes what is wrong with the attitude of society today. We only made a choice in our actions if we like the consequences of our actions. We have to get rid of student debt, because students don’t like the fact that they are actually required to (gasp) pay back what they borrowed. Did not these students make the choice to put themselves into that much debt?
the difference is irrelevant to me.The difference is, going to the hospital doesn’t directly result in the death of a human being.
Come on, try harder.
Abortion because a woman simply does not want to be pregnant is not comparable to seeking treatment for injuries sustained in a car wreck, unless you are saying that the pregnant state is an injury or a disease. If that is the case then it would be the first ‘disease’ I know of which is totally dependent on the whims of a patient, i.e. she is legally allowed to ‘cure’ it at an abortion clinic, but also legally entitled to sue or have criminal charges brought if some random gunman or incompetent doctor inadvertently ‘cures’ it for her. How’s that work in your line of reasoning?you shouldnt go to the hospital for your injuries because you chose to get injured. live with your choices, right? lol
I’m sorry, you keep wanting to move on and discuss what are the appropriate methods to treat the consequences of a choice that someone may or may not like. To me that implied you were ceding a choice had been made. I really don’t care to discuss whether killing a child is acceptable with you. There are about 100 other points that would have to be discussed before that discussion could go anywhere. If your position is that choices only occur when we like the consequences of them that is fine, and we know where each other stands. I know from past conversations you have a very fluid idea of reality so your position does not surprise me.i think you have trouble reading… i have never conceded that choosing to have sex = choosing to get pregnant. you can put your mission accomplished banner away, george bush. but whether its a choice is irrelevant, as youre fine with “dealing with the consequences” which result from ones choice (e.g., going to hospital for car accident injuries). i notice you felt it necessary to qualify your statement by saying “in a moral fashion.” you should abandon the “you chose to get pregnant” angle, because its not even relevant to why you oppose abortion.
i think your attitude is whats wrong with society today too.
It bears directly on the issue because it demonstrates that your analogy is a false one, and the argument which relied on it is worthless.the difference is irrelevant to me.
the consequence of a choice =/= what was chosen. you disagree, but if someone chooses to go to school, for example, they wouldnt say they chose to die because kids have been killed in school. most would disagree with your logic, but i can respect your consistency.I’m sorry, you keep wanting to move on and discuss what are the appropriate methods to treat the consequences of a choice that someone may or may not like. To me that implied you were ceding a choice had been made. I really don’t care to discuss whether killing a child is acceptable with you. There are about 100 other points that would have to be discussed before that discussion could go anywhere. If your position is that choices only occur when we like the consequences of them that is fine, and we know where each other stands. I know from past conversations you have a very fluid idea of reality so your position does not surprise me.