|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:09 am
i had this old analogy to counter the old "pregnancy is not a choice" argument.
pregnancy is a choice through implied consent. The action of sex and the knowledge of possible pregnancy makes this so.
it is much like firing a gun. When you fire a gun, you understand the risks and the effects of the gun- namely, the bullet could hit and hurt or kill someone.
much the same with sex. When one has sex, they understand that they risk becomming pregnant.
they claim that pregnancy is not a choice. if not, then neither is shooting someone.
Simply because the act of sperm and egg combining is not voluntary does not mean that the risks were not known and clear enough to put the subject at fault for having sex in the first place.
much like how the act of a bullet piercing flesh is not a voluntary act, but a potentially undesired result of the gun being fired.
This argument of "It was not my choice to have the bullet kill the person" would not work in court. the courts and most people understand that simply the act of leveling a weapon and pulling the trigger is the cause of the bullet-wound. therefore, if the results to prior actions are still considered voluntary, i state that pregnancy, by implied consent, is indeed voluntary.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:22 am
woot that was awsomeness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:37 am
It's still quite flawed, considering that by aiming the gun you would be attempting to shoot the person. If that is so it would be more comparable to someone who is trying to get pregnant.
If you just kind of shot willy nilly in a place that wasn't highly populated and so had an extremely low chance of shooting someone, it might be more comparable to safe sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:28 am
it's more aimed at the fact that consequences for previous actions are still considered voluntary. lack of intent of the consequence does not free one of understanding of the consequence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:55 am
The whole sex-isn't-consenting-to-pregnancy-because-of-abortion thing is a sort of circular argument, based on legal status of abortion. If abortion is legal and available, then no, consenting to sex is not consenting to having a baby.
If I voluntarily go walking on a tightrope 100 ft above concrete, I would be consenting to the risk of falling to my death IF I wasn't using a safety net. If there's a net, than no, I am not really risking falling to my death.
If I'm able to abort an unwanted pregnancy, then when I consent to sex I'm not risking having to carry a pregnancy to term, because I could abort it. If I can't, for whatever reason, obtain an abortion, then yes, by having unprotected sex I'm risking getting pregnant and having no way out of it.
Ergo:
Because I would never have an abortion unless my life were in danger from the pregnancy before the fetus reached viability: when I consent to vaginal sex, I consent to the possible risk of getting pregnant and carrying a healthy fetus to term.
If, say, Waters were to consent to vaginal sex, she is not really accepting a risk of nine months of pregnancy, since she sees abortion as an option.
I really hate this argument. Opposing abortion is not about "accepting consequences" or "taking responsibility." It's about opposing the use of a safety net that we see as involving the unnecessary, intentional and premeditated death of a human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:05 am
not neccesarily to giving birth, but pregnancy itself. like thier whole "oops forgot to turn the preggo switch on or off lolz"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:20 am
divineseraph not neccesarily to giving birth, but pregnancy itself. like thier whole "oops forgot to turn the preggo switch on or off lolz"   Exactly.
The argument isn't consenting to giving birth, it's consenting to pregnancy, and not a specific length of pregnancy, just plain pregnancy.
You could say, I consent to pregnancy but I'll abort since it's an option, but you're still consenting to pregnancy when you have sex; the responsibility of being pregnant is STILL halfway yours. You chose something that resulted in pregnancy, and while you can end the condition you consented to, it doesn't change the fact that you had given your consent when you chose to have sex. Pretending that a fetus just appears to make a woman's life miserable when she did nothing to invite it in (like, being one of the people that brought it into existance) is ridiculous.
I think the gun argument needs work, but there's a difference between consenting to birth and consenting to pregnancy.
If opposing abortion was about "accepting consequences," then there would be no reason to be opposed to aborting rape pregnancies; this argument is mainly used when women go, "I didn't do anything to deserve being pregnant!" and act like it just one day happened out of the blue. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:28 pm
Beware the Jabberwock It's still quite flawed, considering that by aiming the gun you would be attempting to shoot the person. If that is so it would be more comparable to someone who is trying to get pregnant.
If you just kind of shot willy nilly in a place that wasn't highly populated and so had an extremely low chance of shooting someone, it might be more comparable to safe sex. You don't have to aim the gun at someone to have them get hurt or killed, you can aim it up it the air or shoot it off and have it hit someone that they didn't know was there. I think the point was the choices people make can lead to consenqences people don't like or planned on happening but even so they could of think of the choices more cafefully and think about all the possible consenqences before they make that choice. Anyways I don't by the "It's not my choice to get pregnant", if they didn't want to get pregnant then they should of thought about it before they choose to have sex, cause even safe sex their is still a possiblity for pregnancy, nothing prevents pregancy 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:40 pm
i completely agree with that. people learn the percentages and know the likelyhood of them getting pregnant and yet they ignore what they know and wind up getting themselves pregnant. it's like drunk driving. people know they could kill someone if they drive drunk. if they kill someone they have to take responsibility for their action. if a girl gets pregnant then she needs to take responsibility for what she has done. she shouldn't be able to go to a doctor and kill someone and pretend that it never happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
