Americans Becoming More Pro-Life

[Hallistar]

Yeah, I'm calling Poe

???
That "can't be sure whether sarcastic or serious" thing?
If I wasn't serious, then i would be claiming that avoiding morals is rational?

And why would I say feelings should be related to the state? I'm the leading "Law should only be based on morals" NSG poster.

Except we don't like living in theocracies, tyvm.

[The Black Forrest]

Consent to have sex with someone is simply consent to have sex with someone.

Since the likelihood is high, people use contraception and condoms. Regardless or not, there is no obligation to carry an egg that ended up fertilized to full term.

Do you believe that abortion should be illegal for women who do not use contraception?

Nope. Especially when considering the "Religious" effort to remove access to contraception.......

[Hallistar]

Consent to have sex with someone is simply consent to have sex with someone.

Since the likelihood is high, people use contraception and condoms. Regardless or not, there is no obligation to carry an egg that ended up fertilized to full term.

Do you believe that abortion should be illegal for women who do not use contraception?

No.

[Christian Democrats]

Consent to the act that causes pregnancy is not consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant?

You accept there is a possibility, as with the possibility of getting into a car accident when you drive, and you work to mitigate that possibility.

Is the mechancial purpose of the car to kill human beings?

Is the biological purpose of intercourse to cause pregnancy?

[Christian Democrats]

Do you believe that abortion should be illegal for women who do not use contraception?

No.

Why?

[Pootania]

1. Fetuses are both human and alive
2. All human have the right to life
3. Therefore, fetuses have the right to life
4. Women have the right to control their bodies, but the right to life overrides this
5. Therefore, abortion should be illegal

The only instance I could see abortion as an ethical practice is if the mother's life was in jeopardy.

1. Cancer is both 'human' and alive. Irrelevant.
2. No, they don't.
3. False conclusion, based on false assumptions.
4. No, it doesn't. If you believe it does, go to your local hospital and try to compel someone to give a transplant against their will.
5. False conclusion.

Cancer isn't a human being and removing an organ (which you need to live) is different than killing an unborn human being's life.

Try again.

[AiliailiA]

And you support compulsory and comprehensive sex education in schools, don't you?

Do you have statistics on how many women do not know that semen can lead to pregnancy?

I don't need them. Anything more than 0 is sufficient.

If you oppose sex education in school, you oppose the direct and obvious means of minimzing that number. What's your position?

And remember that we're talking about girls, not just women. Girls are capable of getting pregnant around 12 years of age. How secure are you that they will have informed themselves (or been informed by parents) of the pregnancy risk in certain things boys want to do with them, and which they are quite capable of enjoying.

Or is this one of those "personal responsibility" things. It's a parent's responsibility to educate their children about sex, and if they don't then it's their fault when someone else gets pregnant. Then, that pregnant girl or woman should be held responsible for getting pregnant, because she should have know even if she didn't. Nothing wrong with doubling up the blame, right. But God forbid that the government should step in to try to remedy the first (parental failure to educate) and thus prevent the second. That would be interfering in personal responsibility. Better that the Government should be irresponsible, right.

It IS that kind of thing, isn't it? You actually do oppose compulsory and comprehensive sex education in schools, don't you? And the only reason you don't want to answer the question here and now (despite obvious relevance) is that it makes you look like a total hypocrit.

*looks at you*

[Trotskylvania]

Consent to have sex with someone is not consent to have their kids.

Take your medievalist bullshit and stow it. Women do not exist to fulfill your personal standards of modesty and virtue.

Consent to have sex with someone is consent to have their kids.

This is because the likelihood of becoming pregnant from vaginal intercourse is high, and the purpose of semen is to cause pregnancy.

Even during estrus a woman is about %20 likely to become pregnant. That's not a high percentage chance. Even where it, it's not consent to become pregnant and have a child with that person.

Indeed, even if that were the case, we would be forced to conclude that taking any preventative measures, weather not having sex near estrus, requiring the male to pull out, taking contraceptives, or using an IUD, diaphragm or condom, would be a pretty clear sign that the female has said no to having a kid.

[Hallistar]

You accept there is a possibility, as with the possibility of getting into a car accident when you drive, and you work to mitigate that possibility.

Is the mechancial purpose of the car to kill human beings?

Is the biological purpose of intercourse to cause pregnancy?

The biological purpose is for pregnancy, the typical purpose is for fun, and we *gasp* can actually take control of nature and master it. What exactly is the imperative for a woman to carry a fertilized egg to term?

[No Water No Moon]

What is the likelihood of a woman being raped on any given day?

In the US?

More than 600 women in the US are victims of sexual violence every day.

(About 13,000 women in the US are victims of domestic violence and/or domestic sexual violence every day. About 3 women in the US are murdered by an intimate partner every day. Just for context).

Violence and/or rape are very real threats to women.

What is the likelihood of a woman becoming pregnant from any given act of vaginal intercourse?

I don't know where you'd find that statistic - people don't tend to report the number of sexual acts they engage in.

[Chinese Regions]

and?

[David Williams]

Why are you even talking about the color of kettle's?
1. It's irrelevant
2. when you look at a kettle it's quite obvious what color it is.
3. Whatever kettle you're talking about show me it and i'll tell you what color it is. otherwise stop talking about it.

If you're using the color of the kettle as a "it's black and white" argument, it doesn't make a single statement other than "I am right".

And i don't see any sense in this :

1. In jobs of the state feelings are to have no relation to it (separation of feelings and state).
2. Abortionists are the most immoral people ever. Understanding the definition of morals, avoiding them is Not reasonable, and Irrational.

Calling the kettle black is a saying which means that you are a hypocrite.

1. Exactly, the feelings should have no relation.
2. Morals according to whom? A denominational interpretation of the Bible? So what if they don't blindly follow it?

Above 1 and 2: Thanks for clearing things up.

1. Correct. something that is immediately agreed.
2. IMO, morals can have two definitions.
A: doing what is moral = Doing what is most Universally (as well as beyond) beneficial (Universal morals).
B: Human morals, Giving all human beings as much rights and freedoms as possible without having ones that contradict each other.

There is the possibility that a "Denominational interpretation of the bible" is in line with both definitions. Assuming what they interpret is correct and factual.

[No Water No Moon]

1. Cancer is both 'human' and alive. Irrelevant.
2. No, they don't.
3. False conclusion, based on false assumptions.
4. No, it doesn't. If you believe it does, go to your local hospital and try to compel someone to give a transplant against their will.
5. False conclusion.

Cancer isn't a human being and removing an organ (which you need to live) is different than killing an unborn human being's life.

Try again.

Fetal jelly isn't a human being either, and the point about transplants is that American law does not believe the 'right to life' trumps bodily autonomy.

[Pootania]

Do you have statistics on how many women do not know that semen can lead to pregnancy?

I don't need them. Anything more than 0 is sufficient.

If you oppose sex education in school, you oppose the direct and obvious means of minimzing that number. What's your position?

And remember that we're talking about girls, not just women. Girls are capable of getting pregnant around 12 years of age. How secure are you that they will have informed themselves (or been informed by parents) of the pregnancy risk in certain things boys want to do with them, and which they are quite capable of enjoying.

Or is this one of those "personal responsibility" things. It's a parent's responsibility to educate their children about sex, and if they don't then it's their fault when someone else gets pregnant. Then, that pregnant girl or woman should be held responsible for getting pregnant, because she should have know even if she didn't. Nothing wrong with doubling up the blame, right. But God forbid that the government should step in to try to remedy the first (parental failure to educate) and thus prevent the second. That would be interfering in personal responsibility. Better that the Government should be irresponsible, right.

It IS that kind of thing, isn't it? You actually do oppose compulsory and comprehensive sex education in schools, don't you? And the only reason you don't want to answer the question here and now (despite obvious relevance) is that it makes you look like a total hypocrit.

*looks at you*

What about kids who are home schooled or attend private school? Should the government abolish these too and force everyone into the crappy public education system?

[Christian Democrats]

Consent to have sex with someone is consent to have their kids.

This is because the likelihood of becoming pregnant from vaginal intercourse is high, and the purpose of semen is to cause pregnancy.

Even during estrus a woman is about %20 likely to become pregnant. That's not a high percentage chance. Even where it, it's not consent to become pregnant and have a child with that person.

Indeed, even if that were the case, we would be forced to conclude that taking any preventative measures, weather not having sex near estrus, requiring the male to pull out, taking contraceptives, or using an IUD, diaphragm or condom, would be a pretty clear sign that the female has said no to having a kid.

And if the woman does not take any "preventative" measures, why should she be allowed to abort?

[Trotskylvania]

You accept there is a possibility, as with the possibility of getting into a car accident when you drive, and you work to mitigate that possibility.

Is the mechancial purpose of the car to kill human beings?

Is the biological purpose of intercourse to cause pregnancy?

No, as a matter of fact, it is not. Humans use sex for many different things, like our bonobo cousins. It's why we don't know when women are in estrus, why they have monthly cycles rather than yearly ones, why women are capable of having orgasms, and why we view sex as an important part of bonding with people.

[Hallistar]

No.

Why?

I think the bigger question is why should it be illegal. I suppose they could be taxed greater something if they seek an abortion, but how would you prove that they did or did not use contraception?

Funnier is that more conservative areas want to ban contraception altogether, as it violates the doctrine of some churches. Do you believe that contraception should be available easily and on demand?

[United human countries]

Really, these surveys are BS since they tend to poll people in one region, and polling random people isn't going to be exactly fair, especially in areas with strong conservative stances like the Bible Belt and the South.

[Christian Democrats]

Cancer isn't a human being and removing an organ (which you need to live) is different than killing an unborn human being's life.

Try again.

Fetal jelly isn't a human being either, and the point about transplants is that American law does not believe the 'right to life' trumps bodily autonomy.

Can you point to "bodily autonomy" as a right in the U.S. Constitution?

[No Water No Moon]

Is the mechancial purpose of the car to kill human beings?

Is the biological purpose of intercourse to cause pregnancy?

The biological purpose is for pregnancy...

Actually, no. Pregnancy is only one of a number of 'biological purposes' for sexual intercourse. And not even the most common.

[David Williams]

???
That "can't be sure whether sarcastic or serious" thing?
If I wasn't serious, then i would be claiming that avoiding morals is rational?

And why would I say feelings should be related to the state? I'm the leading "Law should only be based on morals" NSG poster.

Except we don't like living in theocracies, tyvm.

Good luck living with yourself.

[Chinese Regions]

1. Cancer is both 'human' and alive. Irrelevant.
2. No, they don't.
3. False conclusion, based on false assumptions.
4. No, it doesn't. If you believe it does, go to your local hospital and try to compel someone to give a transplant against their will.
5. False conclusion.

Cancer isn't a human being and removing an organ (which you need to live) is different than killing an unborn human being's life.

Try again.

Cancerous cells contain the same DNA, albeit slightly mutated, as the person who has it.

[Ovisterra]

Fetal jelly isn't a human being either, and the point about transplants is that American law does not believe the 'right to life' trumps bodily autonomy.

Can you point to "bodily autonomy" as a right in the U.S. Constitution?

We're not arguing what is, we're arguing what should be.

[No Water No Moon]

Fetal jelly isn't a human being either, and the point about transplants is that American law does not believe the 'right to life' trumps bodily autonomy.

Can you point to "bodily autonomy" as a right in the U.S. Constitution?

I don't need to. Seriously, go to your nearest hospital, ask any of the doctors if they could legally hook someone up with a transplant against the will of the donor. Even blood.

[Trotskylvania]

Even during estrus a woman is about %20 likely to become pregnant. That's not a high percentage chance. Even where it, it's not consent to become pregnant and have a child with that person.

Indeed, even if that were the case, we would be forced to conclude that taking any preventative measures, weather not having sex near estrus, requiring the male to pull out, taking contraceptives, or using an IUD, diaphragm or condom, would be a pretty clear sign that the female has said no to having a kid.

And if the woman does not take any "preventative" measures, why should she be allowed to abort?

I thought I made it clear that I do not accept your misogynistic and medievalistic conceit that consenting to sex implies consenting to pregnancy.

I merely made it clear that your own terms are ridiculous and contradictory.

It has already been previously established that fetuses are not persons. And that mothers are the best at deciding whether or not they are able to raise a child. Better to abort a fetus that can't think or feel than to bring a child into the world into poverty and hardship, or who will be resented by the mother.