Luckily, abortions are near a nominal and per capita all-time low in America thanks to education and the mass proliferation of birth control.Vonsalza:
Wow! Is this arcane, secret knowledge that sex results in pregnancy about 20% of the time?HopkinsReb:
It does indeed. About 20% of the time if no precaution is taken (I can cite if you need).
Question, and therefore line of reasoning, dodged. And not particularly nimbly, I might add.
No dodge issued. The unitive function of sex is well recognized in the Catholic Church, unless something was changed?Vonsalza:
Question, and therefore line of reasoning, dodged. And not particularly nimbly, I might add.
Of course not. That’s why the overwhelming majority of sexually active people use birth control.
Because she didn’t choose to have sex for the sake of pregnancy. She chose to do it for the “unitive” function.
So if someone goes to the casino and loses all his money, is he entitled to get it all back? After all, he didn’t go for the sake of losing his money. He did it for the chance of gaining more money.
If he bought a hedge against the probability of the loss, then sure.Vonsalza:
So if someone goes to the casino and loses all his money, is he entitled to get it all back? After all, he didn’t go for the sake of losing his money. He did it for the chance of gaining more money.
So segued to the discussion, you think people have sex specifically to risk pregnancy like that man specifically risks his money in the casino?
They had sex because the certain outcome is an orgasm, not pregnancy.
Yes, this is always the question when one group wants to deny the right to life of another group, and the answer is always the same: my right to destroy you trumps your right to live…because I have the authority to do it. You are prioritizing rights. For most people the right to live would be at the top of that list. Obviously that is not true of everyone. You don’t appear to appreciate the danger inherent in making life subordinate to other social values. I would have thought the 20th century would have made that mistake glaringly obvious.
I have said nothing about the reason they had sex. I’m saying they knew the possible outcome, and if they weren’t willing to raise a child, they shouldn’t have created one just to end up murdering him or her.
No. I’m opposed to murdering babies. I’m really not sure how to be clearer about this.
The issue is that we don’t consider fetuses as “fully people”, Ender.Vonsalza:
Yes, this is always the question when one group wants to deny the right to life of another group, and the answer is always the same: my right to destroy you trumps your right to live…because I have the authority to do it. You are prioritizing rights. For most people the right to live would be at the top of that list. Obviously that is not true of everyone. You don’t appear to appreciate the danger inherent in making life subordinate to other social values. I would have thought the 20th century would have made that mistake glaringly obvious.
This is a red herring. Stillbirths and miscarriages aren’t murders. Not all deaths are murders.
Sure. It’s just that your primary defense was that women who have most abortions engage in sexual activity with the awareness that pregnancy could result.
My primary defense was that murdering babies is bad. I was arguing against a specific line of reasoning you were using, not arguing my basic claim.HopkinsReb:
Sure. It’s just that your primary defense was that women who have most abortions engage in sexual activity with the awareness that pregnancy could result.
I’m asking what you’d do about women who had “sex” and were thus impregnated against their will.
I think my old youth pastor’s wife who had miscarriage after miscarriage is absolutely guilty of murder per your standard.Vonsalza:
This is a red herring. Stillbirths and miscarriages aren’t murders. Not all deaths are murders.