Even if there was no consent to pregnancy, it still doesn't change the fact that she's responsible for creating an innocent child and then killing it for convenience ("invasion of liberty" my ass) reasons. That shouldn't be legal. Having an unwanted child was self inflicted.
So you ignore the rest of my comment and attempt to cherry pick something you think you have an argument against .. typical. How is she responsible for creating an innocent 'child' .. it takes two you know (or perhaps you don't) Are you responsible for all the actions that take place within your body? How can it be self inflicted if she (and/or the man) are taking all precautions to prevent it happening. You do so love this 'convenience' mantra don't you .. shame you have nothing to back it up with. Keep digging Sam the hole is getting deeper and deeper. Now will you answer the rest of my response .. I doubt it.
If the woman and the man had unprotected sex, then they didn't take precautions. Your arguement is invalid.
Why is it invalid .. unprotected sex typically carries a risk of 15-20% of a resulting pregnancy .. you accept a greater risk every time you get into a car (30%), are you injuries sustained in an accident therefore 'self inflicted'
Getting into a car doesn't always put somebody in a situation which can directly result in a car accident. Unprotected sex, even if there's only a 15-20% risk of pregnancy, always puts the people in a situation which can directly cause a pregnancy.
does it, so all those sterile people who have unprotected sex are putting themselves in a situation which can directly cause a pregnancy. That hole is getting deeper all the time. what is the betting you amend your comment . .don't you think it would be prudent to actually think before responding. BTW : Getting into a car ALWAYS puts you in a situation which can result in a car accident.
There were 10.9 million car accidents in the USA in 2009 - http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf so not as rare as you seem to think. WOW .. so you are talking about chance here, or risk, and the risk (or chance) of pregnancy from unprotected sex is less than the risk (or chance) of being in a car accident .. are you catching on now. weigh it up In order for a woman to become pregnant all of the following have to be assured. 1. That she is fertile 2. That he his fertile 3. That a sperm can survive long enough to fertilize the ova 4. That her ovaries have released an ova 5. That the fertilized ova will be viable 6. That the viable ova will implant into the uterine wall
The difference is that the car accident is random chance. If a couple is having consensual sex, they had better well be aware(and I don't see how they can't be, this isn't 1900's) that vaginal intercourse could possibly make her pregnant. I do believe that Abortion/Birth Control has led to a "screw it" society in which we really don't give a damn, and that has consequences. How can we possibly accept a society where we call pregnancies/children "unwanted"? How would it feel for a child if you told it: "You know, I really didn't plan for your pregnancy nor did I want you. Oh, but now I'm glad I have you." Yeah. Right. Of course the child's delirious, I wouldn't blame it.
and pregnancy is also a random chance. If a couple are in a car, they had better well be aware(and I don't see how they can't be, this isn't 1900's) that being in a car could possibly end in a accident. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but as we all know, opinions are like ********s .. every one has one.
No, Pregnancy is a random occurrence there's a difference. http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-odds-and-probability/ (That discusses odds/probabilities, same business though). The physical condition of a pregnancy is fixed in that only a few specific scenarios can make a woman pregnant, and that if those scenarios occur we know that there's a high possibility of pregnancy(Look at it this way, if it were a low possibility the whole notion of birth control would be nonexistent). In the case of pregnancy, there's a high possibility, low to medium probability. But that probability increases with repetition. Again, if it weren't so, we wouldn't have a need for any form of birth control. Comparing a pregnancy to a car crash is a false analogy, and you should know it. You don't/can't plan for a car crash. The fact that you can plan for a pregnancy is proof that it's not a random event, but a very specific ordeal with very specific calculations. This is also the reason why pro-lifers are anti-abortion. Pro-Choicers can say "It's not a Human yet", but I know fundamentally that it's a human. The possibility that it'll be a human is 99.5 percent(Let's assume that there's a .5% shot that we can bring something other than Humans into the world) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/11/humanderthals.html (Okay, maybe not). So the probability that a human woman would give birth to a human child is 100%. The only real question is, whether that child is viable and healthy or not. But without question, the fetus developing is a human being. To deny a fetus its common human rights, is arrogant. You said that we can have our own opinions, so I'll say mine. It's Stalinist in nature to deny a developing human being its rights. What about the "rights" of the woman? If we're so conscious of the well being of women, children and families why don't we take it much more seriously? Rather than promoting forms of Birth Control, Abortion, etc, why don't we promote the well being of a family? If a mother feels as though it's meaningful to have children, if a man feels empowered to be a father and if a couple is empowered to remain a couple, the child will be that much better off for it. Agreed, and they all "stink". So just as I'm sure you might find my position appalling, so too do I find the misguided belief on the "choices" we're making appalling. These choices are self-centered, focused purely on our temporary well being of today and not on the merit of the potentiality of tomorrow or on the merit of the strength of a family. http://afterabortion.org/1999/can-relationships-survive-after-abortion/
Actually when one decides to have an abortion they most certainly are thinking of the potentiality of tomorrow and definitely on the strength of the family. If a pregnant woman realizes that she won't have a very good future if she doesn't finish school, or get set in a good career or is in a good relationship with the man who got her pregnant then she most certainly is considering the future. Sometimes putting off parenthood is healthier for the person who will have a family later on when they are not only financially ready, but emotionally prepared as well.
I do know the difference between odds and probability, what you don't seem to realise is that even under the best case situation the probability of a woman becoming pregnant is low .. if this were not the case then why would the advice given to a couple who want to have a baby be to have sex as often as possible and not to use contraception (ie increase the odds in favour to increase the probability of the outcome) Probability is defined as - chances for divided by total chances Odds are chances for : chances against. Scientists have actually created a formula that can predict a woman’s chances of pregnancy View attachment 23922 The figure I quote of 20% is the odds, ie 20:100 or 1:5, it is almost impossible to calculate the probability as it relies on numerous factors 1. Number of times having unprotected sex (chances for) 2. number of times of actually being able to have sex (total chances) 3. Both people are fertile 4. Sperm survive long enough to fertilize egg 5. Ovaries have released egg 6. fertilized ova will be viable 7. viable ova will implant into the uterine wall come back to me when you have calculated all of the above with the probability of a pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex. Neither have I disputed the above . .though you are wrong in the possibility factor, without factoring in all of the relevant items you cannot state that there is a high possibility. .. you simply don't know. again I haven't disagreed with this .. however you are relating to a planned pregnancy where as I am talking about an unplanned one which can be quite rightly be compared to a car crash as neither are planned for. ie they are an accident. Fundamentally you are wrong, no where do any pro-choicers say it is not human life .. yet again you are trying to interchange human(adj) with human(noun) The probability that a human(noun) women would give birth to human(adj) life is 100% .. however human(adj) life does not necessarily mean a human(noun) life, there is much more to being a human(noun) than just our physical make-up. About as arrogant as denying a woman hers. My opinion is simple that the woman has total control over her personal reproduction, just as you have over yours and that no legal system should force a person into becoming a gestation chamber against their wishes .. that is Nazism. We do, but again you cannot force people to comply. totally agree, but you are not going to achieve that by enforcing things onto people who don't want it, and all the things you have mentioned above are all related to people wanting children, what do you do for those who don't ... sterilize them? Interesting link there, you do realise that the opposite is true as well, that having a child in order to try and save a relationship usually fails as well. http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/relationships/Relationship-244757.html
The well-being of a family depends upon the availability of reliable birth control and abortion as a back-up. Women's health is seriously affected by giving birth to children too close together. When the woman's health is affected, the health of the potential child is also affected. If the woman's health is damaged, she cannot adequately care for the already existing children. Then there is the matter of financial stability involved with supporting a family, and financial stability is affected by the number of children in the family. In these times birth control and abortion are NECESSARY to maintain the well-being of families.
If the couple used contraception and got pregnant as a result, then (for the sake of this arguement-ill play devil's advocate and be pro choice) maybe you could argue that that's comparable to somebody getting into a car accident. Anything is possible; even with precautions. However, you can't compare a couple having unprotected sex, to somebody wearing a seatbelt and driving a car responsibly, and getting into a car accident.
I believe that if a couple uses contraception, and then they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy, they should grow up and be a responsible person and let their child live, rather than be jerks and abort it for convenience reasons.
nice, you just encompassed everything you haven't been able to provide a single piece of evidence to support. Still waiting BTW, remember. Evidence to support consent to sex is consent to pregnancy Evidence to support that sex does not just create a risk of pregnancy Evidence to support that you cannot withdrawal consent You also conveniently ignored the following According to you there is no difference between an unborn "child" and a born one, or are you know changing that? If one adheres to your previously stated position of person at conception then the withdrawal of consent of use of a woman's womb is not different to the withdrawal of blood donations, both actions are premeditated, both actions remove the ability of the child to survive, both actions result in a dead child, or are you alluding to the fetus being given more rights than the born child? You do have this unsavory habit of ignoring things you simply cannot answer because you don't really have the experience or knowledge to properly debate a subject such as abortion.
1-Your evidence that "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy" involves apples and oranges comparisons. 2-American Nationalist explained it. Remember, he said that a car accident is a random occurrence, unlike a pregnancy. 3-Your evidence that consent can be withdrawn involves apples and oranges comparisons.
none of the above are evidence, they are opinions, and you have obviously short term memory loss as I have gone over the consent to sex argument numerous times with numerous factual examples. a random occurrence - random - proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern occurrence - the action, fact, or instance of occurring As already proven unprotected sex creates only a risk of pregnancy, therefore it is easy to conclude that a pregnancy IS a random occurrence consisting of numerous items that if even a single one is missing the pregnancy does not happen. Even California courts specified pregnancy as a random occurrence when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists tried to get California’s legislature to require consumers who purchase their own health insurance to buy coverage for the services of obstetricians and gynecologists. The courts response was as follows; In response to the suggestion that mandated coverage for maternity care will promote adverse selection, ACOG asserts that empirical evidence shows women cannot accurately predict when they will become pregnant, and therefore would not be able to time a purchase of insurance with an expected birth. - http://www.cato.org/blog/pregnancy-random-occurrence Here is a little more evidence (you know that stuff you don't bother with) for you to digest. American people (18 and over) have sex an average of 120 times per year - http://www.trojancondoms.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleId=25 - (2.3 times per week or 9.96 times per month (2.3 x 52) / 12)) I'm actually going to revise my risk percentages from 20% to 9% based on the following research done - During the first two days of a woman’s cycle (day 1 being your first day of bleeding), the average risk of pregnancy is virtually zero. After the first two days, the risk starts to rise steadily, reaching 9% on or about day 13. Then it begins to decline slowly until it levels off at about 1% on day 25. It stays at about 1% for the rest of your cycle. (The average monthly cycle lasts 29 days, but it is perfectly normal to have a cycle that lasts as little as 20 days or less or as long as 40 days or more.) - http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/risk.html So a woman who typically has unprotected sex 9.96 times per month has a 9% chance of becoming pregnant, or if you prefer a 0.9 out of 9.96, or if you want it for the whole year then here it is - over a typical year a woman will have sex 120 times, she has a 9% chance of becoming pregnant .. that equates to 10.8 times in a year she could become pregnant, and that does not factor in ANY of the other variables. Even if she were to have unprotected sex EVERY day of the year, it would still only equates to 32.85 times she could become pregnant, and again that is ignoring any other factors. So you tell me Sam, do any of those figures mean that pregnancy from unprotected sex is 'high risk'?
no he didn't, he offered an opinion with nothing to support it, just as you always do. - - - Updated - - - Already tried to explain that, but we both know it isn't going to penetrate that zealous dogma.
