Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
No it isn't, any more than getting into a car is consenting to getting into an accident.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
No it isn't, any more than getting into a car is consenting to getting into an accident.
Driving a car is consenting to taking responsibility for the outcome, even if the outcome is extremely inconvenient and unintentional.
That is the way things are, if you choose something and it involves someone else you must take responsibility for the outcome.
Exempting parents from this basic ethic is quite irrational.
Tom
Unification
Well-Known Member
Yes, and consenting to the chance/potential of an accident.
What kind of mind makes choices without weighing all potential outcomes... A rational or an irrational mind?
No it isn't.
People can have lots and lots of sex with zero chance of pregnancy. It is only the PiV sort of sex that carries that chance .
Tom
Unification
Well-Known Member
I've gotten used to being excruciatingly precise in this discussion. That is because the abortionists will jump on any little nit they can pick to avoid discussing the point I actually made.
Tom
Unification
Well-Known Member
Understandable bud, like the enthusiasm.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
It's good for the fetus?
well yeah. Not all Nazis are inherently bad. Do they have deplorable stances? Absolutely. But they're not entirely evil. Not all allies were inherently good. They were not above racism or other prejudices. People are not easily divided into moral and immoral. Not all abortion is bad. I already explained my ethical, personal and societal position on the subject.
Well if the fetus has like half a brain or has no skull it might be considered a mercy.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Did you have one from conception?
This is why I feel the need to be excruciatingly precise.
@Guy Threepwood meant the heathy progeny of capable mothers. But instead of addressing his point you found a nit to pick instead.
Tom
I am pretty sure he did not say that. He would not have used "if" but "when".
Ciao
- viole
Of course, when the consensual sex is PiV intercourse during ovulation, but consent to potential pregnancy is not the same as consent to actual pregnancy. And that distinction helps to back up Marisa's point.
Which calls for three very separate scenarios. Each having it's own parameters by which the general public can moralize.
"Taking responsibility" for any potential risks and outcomes during sex is already measured by responsible use of contraceptives. If a woman does become pregnant, her first priority is to herself and her health because pregnancy is a medical condition to the woman.
When I went for my pre-natal visits to my obgyn years ago for my two pregnancies, docs made sure *I* was ok because I was the actual patient. What was MY blood pressure? What was MY blood sugar levels? What was MY weight gain? All based around the stage of pregnancy that *I* was in and the gestational age of the fetus.
What concerns me with pro-life arguments about that "taking responsibility" for a pregnancy is that the focus is on maintaining the existence of the fetus without any mention of the status of the health of the pregnant woman.
That was me nearly 20 years ago, athletic, proper weight gain, glucose levels fine...but still had a traumatic and nearly fatal labor and delivery. We tend to assume that most women should be just fine with that risk. Or at least not speak up that much about it. Forget about the numerous stories of gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, pregnancy-onset strokes and TIA's, separation of placenta from uterine wall....women run those risks from pregnancy regardless of how healthy they may have been prior.
My pet peeve with these discussions aren't just pro-life people calling pregnancies "inconveniences" (they really aren't....they're life-altering inefficably)...but that "taking responsibility" for a pregnancy automatically disregards a woman's health risks in favor of the existence of a fetus as a measure of "taking responsibility."
Tell that to obgyns who make it their entire focus as the health of the pregnant woman being THE primary focus. Women everywhere IMO should do the same...put their health first before the opinions of others.
Unification
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the response.
Taking responsibility and pro-life are separate.
Regardless of choice/desire/will made to have PiV intercourse, there are potential outcomes. If one consents to anything, they consent to all potential outcomes. I see what you have said as more of the "intent" of the PiV.
Whether it's for pleasure, love, lust, to create..... pregnancy, disease, emotion, cognitive clouding of better judgement, miscarriage, etc. are all potential outcomes.
"MY," it's really your "body's" health, blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and weight gain and your body really isn't yours. You aren't your body. Just as a fetus/baby isn't their body. All one is "killing" or "murdering" or "aborting" is the physical matter. The baby doesn't die, but the matter and form it inhabited does and changes form also. The baby(photon,wave of electromagnetic energy) will just seek another ripe body to inhabit when the pineal gland is formed elsewhere.
No one is anyone's authority but their own. No one needs to make anyone else feel guilty about anything, ones own conscious mind is what will make them feel guilty if so, and allowing other minds to have control over their own by what's "right" and what's "wrong" by the ego's way of slapping labels and judgements and guilt trips on everyone and everything through fear and blame.
Last edited:
Unification
Well-Known Member
There is no stopping or control over "the forces of life/nature."
I'm not following. What do you mean by "intent"?
I beg to differ. As long as I am a recognized citizen with equal rights, liberties, and protections, I have self-ownership of my body. Because of my recognized sex, however, that carries different biological processes, there are some who see that as cause for rescinding my ownership to be less than that of a man. Unless, you think it's perfectly fine for an outside agency to moralize what a man's testicles are really worth and how they should be controlled for the betterment of society. We've seen how accepting that parallel has been (outlandish, for good reason).
Well ok. Not everyone shares that view. But that's cool.
Right. So it would be awesome if some outside "moral police" agencies would just get the hell out of other women's uteruses.
Unification
Well-Known Member
I'm not following. What do you mean by "intent"?
I beg to differ. As long as I am a recognized citizen with equal rights, liberties, and protections, I have self-ownership of my body. Because of my recognized sex, however, that carries different biological processes, there are some who see that as cause for rescinding my ownership to be less than that of a man. Unless, you think it's perfectly fine for an outside agency to moralize what a man's testicles are really worth and how they should be controlled for the betterment of society. We've seen how accepting that parallel has been (outlandish, for good reason).
Well ok. Not everyone shares that view. But that's cool.
Right. So it would be awesome if some outside "moral police" agencies would just get the hell out of other women's uteruses.
Your reasoning/intent for having PiV sex. Different than consent.
You aren't differing. You are not your body, but you have the right to your body.
Yes, the outside moral police are other minds and their endless input on your own mind.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
So we should just leave people who get into accidents bleeding on the side of the road? After all, it's their responsibility, we should avoid sending paramedics and ambulances to help them? Should hospitals refuse to admit accident victims? That's the way things are, if you choose something and it involves someone else, you must take responsibility for the outcome. Exempting accident victims from this basic ethic is quite irrational.
See how stupid that sounds?