How Abortion is a Right (argument from analogy)

Ya, those "men" who can't even feed themselves....LOL!!!

 

When the government tells me what I have to do with my body - whether or not I can have an abortion and at which point - yes, they are regulating my body.

 

Cool. Use another one - any example in which grown adults act on the very simple premise of cause and effect. Do you put your hand on a stove to test if it's hot, given the 50/50 chance it will burn you?

 

Govt was not there on the occassion you chose to risk impregnation. That's entirely on you.

 

So you're saying that those who drive recklessly, don't know that driving recklessly could kill them? Seriously? You're going to have to do much better than that.

What is it with this desire to cast women as utterly clueless?

 

Just like your dog-tired trite freeway "example" ...silly and meaningless...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Consent to one act is not consent to any other act....even driving recklessly is NOT consent to have an accident.

WHERE TF DID I SAY WOMEN WERE CLUELESS!


NO WHERE!!!


That is just your "I have nothing new or factual to post so I'll accuse people of saying something they NEVER SAID"""

 

Cause & Effect is 'meaningless' to you? That makes you either a toddler (and therefore a danger to yourself), or weirdly obstinate (another toddler habit, as it happens).

 

What 'new' thing can be said about conception? It's primordially unchanging, dear.

Meantime, choose the action - choose the consequences. The premise for all functioning adulthood.

To suggest that women don't understand the connection between coitus and conception (which is the only way you can support your argument that women didn't 'consent' to conception), is to demean women.

 

Yes. Yes it is. Sorry.

 

Agreed. It is. And because I chose to have sex and it ended in pregnancy, I'm supposed to hand the control over my body to the government?

 

Oh man, I've been living in sin with an older lady, here's hoping the biological clock has ran down.

 

Why don't you define pregnancy as an STD? Then abortion fans would not be under constant pressure to explain their ideology.

 

@ToughTalk

Accidentally hit "post reply," for your quote in post, above. I cut my post, to finish it, but when I tried to return it, I was 2 minutes late. So think of this as the analog to one of those annoying parkers, who takes up two spaces.

ToughTalk said: ↑
That's ridiculous. You go into the act knowing full well the possibility that pregnancy could be the outcome. You've consented to the act regardless.
<End Quote>

What is ridiculous, is expecting humans to always act logically & responsibly, when their instincts are driving them to do just the opposite. Have you ever known any humans?

Secondly, I have no doubt that, in many cases, the people did act responsibly, and used birth control, but it failed. Condoms, birth control pills, none of these are perfect. But if you are suggesting that a person's choices should be limited to abstinence or a 1% chance of needing to make the result of your tryst, the focus of the rest of your life, it is you who is not being realistic. I am sure, by the way, that women do not think of getting an abortion so lightly, as if it were just one more errand, on their list. IOW, I do not believe that your perspective is grounded in reality, when you characterize abortion, generally, as a "flippant form of birth control."

Speaking of misconceptions,
I would guess that a significant portion of abortions occur among the very young, who are inexperienced, and ignorant. Ironically, it is those parents who are most against abortion, who are most likely to oppose sex education, and least likely to talk openly, and frankly to their kids about sex; and I would be surprised if it isn't these "sheltered," kids who don't actually account for the larger number of unwanted pregnancies, and abortions, rather than the kids whose parents treat them like individuals who have the potential to create a new life.

 

Yes we most certainly due. Especially when the action has severe consequences.

 

I am only accepting your invitation to point out a flaw in your analogy, though I also support a woman's right to choose (though only up until fetal viability, not for 9 months). You are equating a dying person, who is, in practical terms, completely meaningless to our species, with a fetus which, eventually, becomes a baby, upon which our continued existence wholely depends-- not on any one child, of course, but considered as a class: the dying are disposable, the newborn are indispensable.
So, I think it is reasonable to say that we CANNOT infer, from your example, that the same rules would apply. Human beings do have a vested interest, as a race, in the birth of children, which requires the participation of mothers. Again, I am not saying this to propose that no fetus should be allowed to be aborted. I am only pointing out that there is good reason for pregnancy to be considered, in some respects, as a special case.

And I think our law does a fairly good job of that. It allows a woman complete bodily autonomy, for more than half of her pregnancy; it is hard to imagine a reasonable excuse why someone who did not wish to carry it to term, would not have ample opportunity to abort the fetus (it turns out, the U.S. has one of the world's most liberal policies, I have been informed by those posting to my own, abortion thread). Our law does not hold the female responsible for sustaining the fetus, merely for her deciding to have sex. Life, of course, has its own consequences that must be dealt with, as I am sure it is unpleasant to have to get an abortion (unlike what some respondents to this thread seem to believe).

BUT, if the woman CHOOSES to NOT ABORT HER FETUS BY 24 WEEKS, then she has assumed responsibility for getting that fetus to the other end of the birth canal, alive (to the best of her ability). This does not seem unreasonable. If you are looking for an analogy, you have neglected the most obvious one: residency. If you take in someone, and they're a pain, or it's just not working out like you thought it would, you can ask that person to leave, and even get the cops to assist, if your temporary roomie isn't being cooperative. But after living in a space for a certain amount of time, the boarder becomes endowed with certain rights so that the owner's capricious whims no longer suffice, to throw the person out. The owner would then be required to go through a fairly lengthy evictions process, involving the serving of legal documents, and the opportunity for the boarder to appear in court, for the proceedings surrounding his attempted eviction.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Consent to one act is not consent to any other act....even driving recklessly is NOT consent to have an accident.

You just seem to want women punished for having LOTSA FUN SEX

LOL, talk to a lawyer...

But when you consent to let someone enter your house then do NOT object when they start beating you...Remember YOU think consent to one thing is consent to evrything else


You just seem to want women punished for having LOTSA FUN SEX

 

You: """Our law does not hold the female responsible for sustaining the fetus, merely for her deciding to have sex.""

What!?

 

More clueless ramblings in an attempt at childish insults....right on schedule

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Consent to one act is not consent to any other act....even driving recklessly is NOT consent to have an accident.

WHERE TF DID I SAY WOMEN WERE CLUELESS!

NO WHERE!!!

That is just your "I have nothing new or factual to post so I'll accuse people of saying something they NEVER SAID"""

WHERE TF DID I SAY WOMEN WERE CLUELESS!

NO WHERE!!

So that wasn't truthful.



Which I never said.

NO, you just need a wild imagination so you can spout the same ridiculous tripe over and over again..

LOL, the biologicially clueless speaks again...NO, women canNOT "concent" to conception....they could have sex a thousand times consenting to conception and not conceive.

They can consent to sex.....

The only ones who demean women are those who insist women be perfect in every way, never have an unwanted pregnancy , never have unsafe sex, never act like humans, and GOODGAWD never act like men...and then insult and denigrate women who don't live up to their "madonna or whore" ideals...THAT is demeaning women..

 

If you have been reading this thread, you should be aware that this has been a major point of debate, whether a woman, "knows the consequences," possible, from the sex act, so therefore assumes responsibility, should pregnancy ensue. I am pointing out that this is a false argument, because she is only being compelled to carry the fetus to term, if she fails to deal with (abort) it, for 24 weeks. It is her choice to MAINTAIN the pregnancy, which eventually leads to the obligatory responsibilities.


(Don't hate me, for pointing out facts).

 

1) Correct, none but avoiding sex on that ocassion are 100%. Thus women choose a method of contraception which matches their risk profile. If they accept a possible pregnancy, they will choose less certain (or nil) methods. Once again, all of this is within her control.

2) It's not only 'not light', but it's far FAR heavier than simply preventing the pregnancy in the first place. What does this tell you about people who manage risk in their lives so inefficiently? And no, it doesn't make them 'human'. PLENTY of women get through life without enduring an abortion, and it says nothing at all about their sex lives. There's a fundamental lack of either imagination or experience, in thinking that those few days a month when a woman needs to take precautions, somehow preclude a wild sex life.

3) You would be wrong. The majority of abortions are not naive teenaged girls. Further, you couldn't be more wrong in thinking that lack of 'sex education' contributes to abortions. It's actually the opposite, and this is borne out statistically. Girls who grow up in cultures where sex is not 'taught' (ie, conservative cultures), are less likely to end up with unwanted pregnancies than girls who grow up in permissive cultures.

 

You're literally saying they don't know how babies are made.

Because if they KNOW, then they are indeed consenting.

 

You misread my words; I never said that I thought the, "majority," of abortions were, "naive teenage girls." My exact words were, "I would guess that a significant portion of abortions occur among the very young, who are inexperienced, and ignorant." That is a fair bit of editorializing, on your part, for just one sentence. When I said, "very young... inexperienced," I was including, in my own thinking, women in their early 20's; the words, "teenage girls," come directly from your own imagination. BTW, didn't you make the point, in another thread, about educating the young about sex, that anyone wanting to do this, secretly was thinking of children in a sexual way? May I suggest that it appears your own subconscious bears a bit of personal, honest reflection?

Moving on, there is no justification for reading, "a significant portion," as, "a majority." Nonetheless, I thank you for at least having the integrity to have quoted all of my post, about which you are commenting, so any reader has handy, what I actually wrote, for comparison. I will therefore write this off as not an intentional misrepresentation, but just carelessness on your part. Luckily, misquoting a person, can't lead to pregnancy.


Your claims about different, "cultures," if you are comparing different countries, which of course have both moral & social evironments which vary from those which prevail in the U.S., is not applicable, for being able to extrapolate conclusions, about our own culture (even had you supplied these statistics, which you did not). If you are aware of any research on American girls, contrasting parents who are open with them about sexual matters, with parents for whom sex is, "something we don't talk about, in this house," I would be most interested in getting the links. In lieu of any such research, I regard your conclusions as nothing but your own personal theory.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
LOL, the biologicially clueless speaks again...NO, women canNOT "consent" to conception....they could have sex a thousand times consenting to conception and not conceive.

No, that is always your twisted interpretation of what I posted...never the truth of what I posted.

YOUR misunderstanding of English, whether deliberate or not, does not have me saying that at all......

Just because they know how babies are made does NOT mean they are consenting to every act for the rest of their lives because they consented to sex.

If YOU consented to sex does that mean you also consented to give the man a loan, buy him a ca,r let him beat you ??? ReallY !!!


How hilariously illogical...