You are a bit short sighted here. The fact a man has sperm in which to fertilize a woman's egg, to begin with, is a miracle. In other words, just the whole process of reproduction, creating new life, is miraculous.
Not to you, but to some (me included). Like the air you breath and your...
What? You often do this... "It's like keeping a secret from myself." "Am I and my husband one?" "I'm not one with my children" etc.
Why do you compare the nature of God to yourself, always?
So because you aren't THE godhead, you can't fathom how such a scenario can exist? Also, do you think...
Aside from the big stuff we hear about, but rarely see for ourselves, I think miracles are fairly personal. I also think things people consider supernatural or just unusual fly under the radar of detection (since it didn't strike them as a miracle, but if you think about, probably was?)
Nah, I wouldn't argue it should be legislated in such a way. And you're right about the rest. It's of no surprise, we often legislate in strange ways, even against natural order.
Yeah. Just yeah.
Thanks for the go around.
You'd need to make a definition of miracle, then. I said earlier breathing and heart beating is miraculous. For me, that is.
What would you consider to be one, to know one, when you witnessed it?
Why should it apply to this relationship? A fetus is supposed to be there, it is supposed to be in the mother's womb.
The burden of responsibility is not on the fetus in this case.
EDIT: it's depravation of natural being. Are you going to argue strangulation isn't murder, next?
The concept doesn't apply, is what I'm saying. I know some clever legislators or law makers made it a legal definition, so it does, but I cannot fathom it, per se.
Pregnancy could be considered a "risk" associated with having sex, depending who you ask and when. In other words, consent can't...
Back to square one. Where's a fetus supposed to go? In the mother's womb. Natural order. Who put it there? Cause and effect, how do women get pregnant? By who's choices was the baby in the womb, where it rightfully belongs?
You've said it perfectly: the mother's rights trump in this...
Try not to get into the straw man further. The chance doesn't change anything. It's significant enough to warrant an entire term (unwanted pregnancy). It's cause and effect, which is undeniable. It's expected for many people, even if they bet against the house.
The reason abortions take...
You're changing the picture a bit though. Sexual intercourse does not follow into that, of course. However...
Sexual intercourse without protection that results in unwanted pregnancy, and thus in turn becomes the termination of human life through abortion, looks a lot closer.
Dude, you know...
It's irrelevant because it hurts your position. There's nothing wrong with the statistic. The truth is, it's highly dependent on both the partners, the time of month for her, the sperm count for him, and plethoras of other factors.
It's still cause and effect, which apparently you are arguing...
You argued intent. There is no intent. Obviously someone died, so harm is done.
How is that different?
You can have sex without the intent to conceive just as much as you can get in a fight with someone and not intent to kill them, and yet they end up dead. This is your argument, not mine...
How does this differ from the irresponsible parents not using protection while copulating?
Why is that not considered second degree?
Also, strict liability. How do you address that?
If you can't be bothered to click a link, why should I be bothered to cite for you? But okay:
from BBC - Future - Sex: What are the chances?
"So, in other words, fecundability of 15% means a 100 – 14 = 86% chance of getting pregnant in a year. A figure of 90% is often quoted as the proportion...