Would you force someone to do something to save someone else?

[charlie sc]

But not baby?

A few months of a parasitic stage is part of being a human. Everybody does it.
Tom

Sure.

 

[columbus]

Sure.

So why would you compare a human being to a leech? What's your point?

The difference between a leech and a baby is that a leech has no potential for sentience. It's that potential that matters.
Sometimes babies don't make it either. But they have the potential, and leeches do not. So, I don't think leeches are at all relevant.
Tom

 

[charlie sc]

So why would you compare a human being to a leech? What's your point?

The difference between a leech and a baby is that a leech has no potential for sentience. It's that potential that matters.
Sometimes babies don't make it either. But they have the potential, and leeches do not. So, I don't think leeches are at all relevant.
Tom

There are other differences. Leeches don't portray human characteristics, but say, a kitten would. We are neurologically inclined to protect when we see features similar to ours. It's been a while but from what I recall, studies that measure brain activity in baby and certain pet behaviours light up maternal and protective parts of the brain. So, the design of the leech analogy is to remove as much bias as possible to understand the reasoning behind this behaviour. The analogy is to understand killing vs not-killing but the thing in question dies anyway.

 

[columbus]

I believe in "human rights".
As time has gone on, and morals have become more sophisticated, more and more humans are being included.
Here in the US, human rights didn't used to include women or black people or indigenous peoples or queers. The unborn weren't even really considered.
Things are changing and improving. I believe that extending some rights to the unborn is next on the agenda, now that queers have some.
Tom

 

[columbus]

There are other differences. Leeches don't portray human characteristics, but say, a kitten would. We are neurologically inclined to protect features similar to ours. It's been a while but from what I recall, studies that measure brain activity in baby and certain pet behaviours light up maternal and protective parts of the brain. So, the design of the leech analogy is to remove as much bias as possible to understand the reasoning behind this behaviour. The analogy is to understand killing vs not-killing but the thing in question dies anyway.

BS.
I think you compared young humans to leeches because nobody has much sympathy for slimy parasitic creatures who will never cry on camera.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

At some point a parent will take responsibility for that child. I'd assume at birth.

Why then do most parents who have children assume responsibility for the child from the moment they realized she was pregnant? They do not wait until the child is born to go in for prenatal care.

 

[charlie sc]

Why then do most parents who have children assume responsibility for the child from the moment they realized she was pregnant?

Yes, some do and some desire that responsibility. However, some don't and some did not plan for it and even took precautions to avoid this. Nevertheless, they may find they're pregnant at some point and refuse to take responsibility. Therefore, they'll want an abortion. According to you, they would not be able to get one.

hey do not wait until the child is born to go in for prenatal care.

I don't see why responsibility can't be taken before hand.

 

[charlie sc]

Why then do most parents who have children assume responsibility for the child from the moment they realized she was pregnant? They do not wait until the child is born to go in for prenatal care.

Do you think the act of sex implies responsibility to a possible child and fetus?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, some do and some desire that responsibility. However, some don't and some did not plan for it and even took precautions to avoid this. Nevertheless, they may find they're pregnant at some point and refuse to take responsibility. Therefore, they'll want an abortion. According to you, they would not be able to get one.

Nobody can stop them if they really want an abortion. They could get one illegally in the U.S. or go to another country. There is no reason why health insurance should pay for abortions.

I don't see why responsibility can't be taken before hand.

Responsibility to not get pregnant should have been taken beforehand.
The only way to 100% ensure you won't get pregnant is not to have sex.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime. Sex is not necessary to live.

 

[Watchmen]

If you answered no to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

Side note: this is about abortion Pro-life vs pro-choice *edited

When I read the title, I thought, “It depends on who I’m asking, what I’m asking them to do, and who I’m saving.”

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you think the act of sex implies responsibility to a possible child and fetus?

Absolutely, because there is almost always a chance for pregnancy.

Hello.

Welcome to this forum.
There is nothing called 100% effective in medical science. Vasectomy is almost 100% effective in males. But you have to know two facts about it.
1. It is an irreversible procedure.
2. There is a need for abstinence or use of condoms for first 6 weeks to clear up the sperms remaining in the upper vas.
Hope I can address your query. Please visit your doctor if there is any further confusion as without a clinical examination it is not possible to opine through an online medical forum.

100% Effective Birth Control ? | Birth Control Forum | Womens Health​

 

[charlie sc]

They could get one illegally in the U.S. or go to another country. There is no reason why health insurance should pay for abortions.

Actually, there are.

"According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for at least 8% of maternal deaths. Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe. The British Medical Bulletin reported in 2003 that 70,000 women a year die from unsafe abortion." Unsafe abortion - Wikipedia

Responsibility to not get pregnant should have been taken beforehand.
The only way to 100% ensure you won't get pregnant is not to have sex.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime. Sex is not necessary to live.

Interesting and extreme perspective. Under your regime, you'd remove nearly all recreational sex.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually, there are.

"According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for at least 8% of maternal deaths. Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe. The British Medical Bulletin reported in 2003 that 70,000 women a year die from unsafe abortion." Unsafe abortion - Wikipedia

It would be safe if they just had the child. That is what health insurance should pay for.
Back in my day as a teen, in the late 1960s, my best friend got pregnant and her parents sent her "away" to have the child. There was not even any talk about abortion. they were not a religious family.

Interesting and extreme perspective. Under your regime, you'd remove nearly all recreational sex.

You are right, under the Baha'i regime, there would be no recreational sex for anyone who is not married.

Please note that the following was written prior to 1957.

'The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.'

"In response to another letter enquiring if there were any legitimate way in which a person could express the sex instinct if, for some reason, he were unable to marry or if outer circumstances such as economic factors were to cause him to delay marriage, the Guardian's secretary wrote on his behalf:

'Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage: According to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse...........

"In another letter on the Guardian's behalf, also to an individual believer, the secretary writes:

'Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex...'

"This indicates how the whole matter of sex and the problems related to it have assumed far too great an importance in the thinking of present-day society.

Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

 

[columbus]

Do you think the act of sex implies responsibility to a possible child and fetus?

Choosing potentially fertile sex?
Yes, definitely.

Similarly, putting your car in gear implies taking responsibility if you injure a pedestrian. Doesn't matter if you didn't do it on purpose, if you're driving a car you have taken on the legal responsibility.

The legal term is "implied consent".
If you hit a pedestrian with your car you are responsible. You can't leave the scene until the police say you can. You owe the victim everything from transport to hospital, to doctoring, to coverage at work. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to, or how inconvenient it is to take responsibility, you're morally and legally obligated.

Of course, pregnancy is unique. Nobody expects a motorist to actually set bones or cover the victim at work. Other people can do it better, the motorist just has to pay them to do it. Nobody can take over the responsibility of a pregnant parent.
But the concept is the same. Driving carries risks and certain forms of sex carries risks and it isn't moral to UnChoose a Choice by killing another human being that happens to interfere with what you meant to do.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

Choosing potentially fertile sex?
Yes, definitely.

Similarly, putting your car in gear implies taking responsibility if you injure a pedestrian. Doesn't matter if you didn't do it on purpose, if you're driving a car you have taken on the legal responsibility.

The legal term is "implied consent".
If you hit a pedestrian with your car you are responsible. You can't leave the scene until the police say you can. You owe the victim everything from transport to hospital, to doctoring, to coverage at work. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to, or how inconvenient it is to take responsibility, you're morally and legally obligated.

Of course, pregnancy is unique. Nobody expects a motorist to actually set bones or cover the victim at work. Other people can do it better, the motorist just has to pay them to do it. Nobody can take over the responsibility of a pregnant parent.
But the concept is the same. Driving carries risks and certain forms of sex carries risks and it isn't moral to UnChoose a Choice by killing another human being that happens to interfere with what you meant to do.
Tom

Sorry I cannot give you more than a Winner because you deserve more.
What a great analogy and so well written too.

 

[charlie sc]

It would be safe if they just had the child. That is what health insurance should pay for.
Back in my day as a teen, in the late 1960s, my best friend got pregnant and her parents sent her "away" to have the child. There was not even any talk about abortion. they were not a religious family.

Ok, I don't know if that's true but I'll take it as true. However, that still does not change the fact that people will still have unsafe abortions if they're illegal and can't afford them nor does that change the fact that many females do not want to have a child, give birth or continue to be pregnant.

You are right, under the Baha'i regime, there would be no recreational sex for anyone who is not married.

Please note that the following was written prior to 1957.

'The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.'

"In response to another letter enquiring if there were any legitimate way in which a person could express the sex instinct if, for some reason, he were unable to marry or if outer circumstances such as economic factors were to cause him to delay marriage, the Guardian's secretary wrote on his behalf:

'Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage: According to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse...........

"In another letter on the Guardian's behalf, also to an individual believer, the secretary writes:

'Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex...'

"This indicates how the whole matter of sex and the problems related to it have assumed far too great an importance in the thinking of present-day society.

Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

Thanks but not my cup of tea

 

[columbus]

Sex is not necessary to live.

It's not even sex exactly.
Somebody could have sex everyday and not risk a pregnancy. It's one particular kind of sex.
It's very popular, the penis/vagina thing. But trust me when I say, it's not the only way to have sex.
I won't explain that any further unless you want me to.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not even sex exactly.
Somebody could have sex everyday and not risk a pregnancy. It's one particular kind of sex.
It's very popular, the penis/vagina thing. But trust me when I say, it's not the only way to have sex.
I won't explain that any further unless you want me to.
Tom

No need to explain, I know what you are talking about.
I had a fair amount of it in my day.

 

[charlie sc]

Choosing potentially fertile sex?
Yes, definitely.

Similarly, putting your car in gear implies taking responsibility if you injure a pedestrian. Doesn't matter if you didn't do it on purpose, if you're driving a car you have taken on the legal responsibility.

The legal term is "implied consent".
If you hit a pedestrian with your car you are responsible. You can't leave the scene until the police say you can. You owe the victim everything from transport to hospital, to doctoring, to coverage at work. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to, or how inconvenient it is to take responsibility, you're morally and legally obligated.

Of course, pregnancy is unique. Nobody expects a motorist to actually set bones or cover the victim at work. Other people can do it better, the motorist just has to pay them to do it. Nobody can take over the responsibility of a pregnant parent.
But the concept is the same. Driving carries risks and certain forms of sex carries risks and it isn't moral to UnChoose a Choice by killing another human being that happens to interfere with what you meant to do.
Tom

This is an interesting argument but I'm not sure how much it applies to pregnancy, fertilisation and sex. There are few problems with this argument, because the fetus is a potential person, not a person yet. There's also the rights of the female's body. However, I'd like to focus on killing vs not-killing, because it's much more simpler and fun to discuss

First, I'd argue that implied consent is, at minimum, only given once the fetus has a good chance to survive outside the womb and, second, implied consent is not given if precautions were taken or pregnancy occurred by accident, forceful, etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok, I don't know if that's true but I'll take it as true. However, that still does not change the fact that people will still have unsafe abortions if they're illegal and can't afford them nor does that change the fact that many females do not want to have a child, give birth or continue to be pregnant.

I did not want to get pregnant, give birth, or have a child, even after I got married. I used a good form of birth control which is considered about 96% effective, but I knew there was always some risk of getting pregnant. When once I told my doctor I thought I might be pregnant, he said I would do okay if I had to raise a child. You see, I did not want children because I was emotionally abandoned as a child and I did not think I could ever raise a child because of my own childhood. My husband had the same kind of childhood, so we both knew that having children would not be a wise choice.

But as luck and predestination would have it, I never got pregnant. Now I have no children and it is too late to have any. But it must have been the Will of God that I never got pregnant with as many times as I put myself at risk.

My older sister who was also emotionally abandoned as a child never wanted children either but she had to promise her second husband that would have at least one child, and she did when she was about 40 years old. That child was the love of her life and she never regretted it for one minute. Unfortunately, my sister died of cervical cancer when she was only 53 years old, but her husband and daughter were very close so she was well cared for.

When my sister was 17 years old, before she became a Baha'i, she accidentally got pregnant and had an abortion. That was a decision she regretted for the rest of her life. The doctors said she got cervical cancer because of the HPV virus she contracted when she had sex as a teen.

Thanks but not my cup of tea

It isn't for most. Most people do not like the restrictions but I never had any problem with them. I would never have sex out of wedlock even if I was not a Baha'i.