Abortion

[leibowde84]

Yes. Over the course of a year. I phrased it accordingly.

Let me google that for you

I did. There is nothing that says that there is even close to an 85% chance of a woman getting pregnant when they have sex. Please provide.

 

[catch22]

Maliciousness would only be present if the sex was had in the interest of getting pregnant. I would not say that the mother forced the fetus into it for the same reason ... lack of intent.

Lack of intent is punitive, even legally.

Strict liability. Second degree murder. Manslaughter. If there's no excuse for those situations, why here?

 

[leibowde84]

Also, there's the issue of fecundity. Any given day or sexual encounter is not the same chance. It's best to measure it over the course of time.

Ask tons of teen mothers if they figured they'd get pregnant on their first try.

That's why we should use the average.

 

[leibowde84]

Lack of intent is punitive, even legally.

Strict liability. Second degree murder. Manslaughter. If there's no excuse for those situations, why here?

Because they require intent to do harm or reckless endangerment.

 

[catch22]

I did. There is nothing that says that there is even close to an 85% chance of a woman getting pregnant when they have sex. Please provide.

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 of young couples who will be expecting a child after a year without contraception, which corresponds to a fecundability of 18%."

Confirmed this with another site, State of Utah, which says 85% over the year. The BBC article sites a study from which it derived this data. Yes, you have to go into yourself, this is as far as I'm going to chew it for you.

Next time you're in to see your doctor ask him. Having sex can and does result in pregnancy in a reliable, reproducible, observable pattern. You can minimize it with birth control. Not using birth control, ask him what he thinks.

I can't believe you're arguing this.

 

[catch22]

Because they require intent to do harm or reckless endangerment.

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?

 

[catch22]

Because they require intent to do harm or reckless endangerment.

Second degree murder is murder without intent.

 

[leibowde84]

Second degree murder is murder without intent.

Nope. It is murder without the intent to kill, but the intent to do harm is still required.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

Strict liability must be explicitly indicated by law. This is not the case with sex.

 

[catch22]

Nope. It is murder without the intent to kill, but the intent to do harm is still required.

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.

So, differentiate that with sex without protection resulting in pregnancy, ending in the termination of human life.

 

[leibowde84]

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 of young couples who will be expecting a child after a year without contraception, which corresponds to a fecundability of 18%."

Confirmed this with another site, State of Utah, which says 85% over the year. The BBC article sites a study from which it derived this data. Yes, you have to go into yourself, this is as far as I'm going to chew it for you.

Next time you're in to see your doctor ask him. Having sex can and does result in pregnancy in a reliable, reproducible, observable pattern. You can minimize it with birth control. Not using birth control, ask him what he thinks.

I can't believe you're arguing this.

This statistic is irrelevant to this discussion, as it says nothing about the risk of pregnancy per instance of intercourse. I think an average is the best way to show how likely a woman is to get pregnant each time they have sex. This would have to be very high to see it as consent for pregnancy. Further, this only deals with couples not using birth control. How would the likelihood of pregnancy after a years worth of sex between couples trying to get pregnant or not using contraception indict I've of the likelihood of getting pregnant each time intercourse is had.

 

[catch22]

Strict liability must be explicitly indicated by law. This is not the case with sex.

Ignored my first question. Please answer it.

 

[catch22]

This statistic is irrelevant to this discussion, as it says nothing about the risk of pregnancy per instance of intercourse. I think an average is the best way to show how likely a woman is to get pregnant each time they have sex. This would have to be very high to see it as consent for pregnancy. Further, this only deals with couples not using birth control. How would the likelihood of pregnancy after a years worth of sex between couples trying to get pregnant or not using contraception indict I've of the likelihood of getting pregnant each time intercourse is had.

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 against and attempting to minimize. As if answering or manipulating the chance of pregnancy changes the fact unwanted pregnancy happens all the time. To the point where it's considered a problem worth addressing.

That is a straw man, by the way. So stop, apparently I'm the only one who can partake in straw men.

 

[leibowde84]

Ignored my first question. Please answer it.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

How would the act of intercourse fit into this?

 

[leibowde84]

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 against and attempting to minimize. As if answering or manipulating the chance of pregnancy changes the fact unwanted pregnancy happens all the time. To the point where it's considered a problem worth addressing.

That is a straw man, by the way. So stop, apparently I'm the only one who can partake in straw men.

"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."

- this is why the statistic you provided is irrelevant. Since the likelihood changes from instance to instance, we must use the average. It is only fair to look at the average likelihood of pregnancy when attempting to make general restrictions on abortion rights while acknowledging implicit consent.

Your statistic only applies to women who are having sex continually with the intent of getting pregnant. Our discussion deals with those that get pregnant without the intent, so, legally, we have to judge them by the likelihood that the specific action (specific incident of intercourse) could be seen to result in pregnancy.

Why would you think that the likelihood of a couple getting pregnant after a year of regular intercourse while not on birth control.

Also, what about women who get pregnant while using contraceptives?

 

[catch22]

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

How would the act of intercourse fit into this?

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 that this isn't the way people approach this in our society. I don't deny it. I'm just asking why.

Because if I drove drunk and killed someone with my car, I'm an a-hole for drinking, then driving, then killing someone as a result.

So why is it cool to have sex, knowing pregnancy results but not caring, then getting an abortion to clean up the mess, NOT dictated in a similar fashion?

The crux is this: You COULD have sex with the intent to have an abortion, do that, and never be prosecuted for it. Even if you went to the police and told them about it. You win this argument no matter what. Cuz law, that's why. Don't think I don't know that.

Where bodily autonomy is concerned though, the above bolded goes to show it's self defeating in its nature where abortion is concerned. It's not a valid argument because it violates the child in the process. Since as you said earlier, the right of the mother trumps the child. Why isn't it considered second degree murder or any such thing? I can't answer that, but to me, that's what it looks like, which refutes the whole position to begin with.

Mental construct. Fallacy. Why not just call it what it is rather than trying to slip out of the whole ordeal by using an otherwise fairly righteous idea?

 

[leibowde84]

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 against and attempting to minimize. As if answering or manipulating the chance of pregnancy changes the fact unwanted pregnancy happens all the time. To the point where it's considered a problem worth addressing.

That is a straw man, by the way. So stop, apparently I'm the only one who can partake in straw men.

The statistic is irrelevant because it doesn't speak to the likelihood of pregnancy when a woman has sex. It adds the requirement of 1. Not using BC, and 2. Repeated intercourse over a year.

So, let's say a couple has sex 100 times over that year. The likelihood of pregnancy per instance of intercourse would be .85% each time. That is far less than what I suggested.

In short, if you are going to attach consent to pregnancy each time a woman has sex, you MUST use the probability of pregnancy (average) each time the woman has sex. One for one is the only valid way of looking at it.

You aren't suggesting that consent be attached only after a years worth of sex with one person, are you? Of course not.

 

[catch22]

"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."

- this is why the statistic you provided is irrelevant. Since the likelihood changes from instance to instance, we must use the average. It is only fair to look at the average likelihood of pregnancy when attempting to make general restrictions on abortion rights while acknowledging implicit consent.

Your statistic only applies to women who are having sex continually with the intent of getting pregnant. Our discussion deals with those that get pregnant without the intent, so, legally, we have to judge them by the likelihood that the specific action (specific incident of intercourse) could be seen to result in pregnancy.

Why would you think that the likelihood of a couple getting pregnant after a year of regular intercourse while not on birth control.

Also, what about women who get pregnant while using contraceptives?

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 place for many people is for THIS reason.... I mean, really? Let's get caught up in the chance? Come on.

 

[leibowde84]

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 that this isn't the way people approach this in our society. I don't deny it. I'm just asking why.

Because if I drove drunk and killed someone with my car, I'm an a-hole for drinking, then driving, then killing someone as a result.

So why is it cool to have sex, knowing pregnancy results but not caring, then getting an abortion to clean up the mess, NOT dictated in a similar fashion?

The crux is this: You COULD have sex with the intent to have an abortion, do that, and never be prosecuted for it. Even if you went to the police and told them about it. You win this argument no matter what. Cuz law, that's why. Don't think I don't know that.

Where bodily autonomy is concerned though, the above bolded goes to show it's self defeating in its nature where abortion is concerned. It's not a valid argument because it violates the child in the process. Since as you said earlier, the right of the mother trumps the child. Why isn't it considered second degree murder or any such thing? I can't answer that, but to me, that's what it looks like, which refutes the whole position to begin with.

Mental construct. Fallacy. Why not just call it what it is rather than trying to slip out of the whole ordeal by using an otherwise fairly righteous idea?

The mother is allowed to refuse the use of her body to another living thing. The fetus has that same right, arguably, but that in no way means that the fetus has the right to use the mothers body against her will. Huge difference.

 

[leibowde84]

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 place for many people is for THIS reason.... I mean, really? Let's get caught up in the chance? Come on.

I'm not providing an explanation for why abortions take place. Nevwr claimed that i was.

I am explaining my argument for why the right to choose cannot be taken away legally in the US legal system.