No more circumcision in SF?

[Scat]

what about in cases of rape?

or a failure of birth control device or method?

Hence the portion of my comment "In most cases". Even with birth control failure that child is there because of the mother's consent. No BC is 100% effective. She consented to have sex knowing that there was a 1% or better chance she could get pregnant.

 

[LogGrad98]

In most cases the child is in the mother's womb because of her consent.

what about in cases of rape?

or a failure of birth control device or method?

Hence the portion of my comment "In most cases". Even with birth control failure that child is there because of the mother's consent. No BC is 100% effective. She consented to have sex knowing that there was a 1% or better chance she could get pregnant.

The assertion that the child has no right to use the mother's womb is ludicrous in the extreme. The child would not be there in the first place if the mother had not engaged in activity that is DESIGNED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE ACT to put a child there. The child had no choice to be in a womb, or that womb, or to exist at all. So if I lock you in a room against your will, I should then have the choice to kill you because I do not want you using that room since it belongs to me? Insane.

Of course this always leads to the discussion about when life begins. For me it is mostly one of accountability for your actions. I am reasonably certain that most everyone who willfully engages in sexual intercourse have some inkling what could happen as a result. If they are adult enough to engage in the act they should be adult enough to deal with the consequences without needing to potentially destroy another life-form simply because it is "inconvenient". As was stated previously, adoption is always an option. I know that there is a shortage of babies available for adoption, so it isn't like it would not be possible to find willing parents.

(In cases like Moe pointed out I think then it falls into another realm. My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

 

[moevillini]

Hence the portion of my comment "In most cases". Even with birth control failure that child is there because of the mother's consent. No BC is 100% effective. She consented to have sex knowing that there was a 1% or better chance she could get pregnant.

The assertion that the child has no right to use the mother's womb is ludicrous in the extreme. The child would not be there in the first place if the mother had not engaged in activity that is DESIGNED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE ACT to put a child there...

(In cases like Moe pointed out I think then it falls into another realm. My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

This gets back to the entire debate we've had ad nauseum about whether or not the only purpose of sexual activity/intercourse is for procreation.

Some people believe this to be the case - - others have different ideas about this. If you're of the belief that procreation is a byproduct of sexual intercourse, rather than the primary goal, then that might change your point of view.

 

[Chucky Smith]

This gets back to the entire debate we've had ad nauseum about whether or not the only purpose of sexual activity/intercourse is for procreation.

Some people believe this to be the case - - others have different ideas about this. If you're of the belief that procreation is a byproduct of sexual intercourse, rather than the primary goal, then that might change your point of view.

This seems a specious argument at best. If I speed I don't intend to crash but it is a very real possibility. If you have sex it is a very real possibility that you'll get pregnant. It doesn't matter whether it is the primary reason or a by-product. It still happens.

 

[One Brow]

In most cases the child is in the mother's womb because of her consent.

You can't grant consent to a child that does not yet exist.

 

[One Brow]

The assertion that the child has no right to use the mother's womb is ludicrous in the extreme. The child would not be there in the first place if the mother had not engaged in activity that is DESIGNED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE ACT to put a child there. The child had no choice to be in a womb, or that womb, or to exist at all. So if I lock you in a room against your will, I should then have the choice to kill you because I do not want you using that room since it belongs to me? Insane.

Yes, your analogy is insane, I agree. At the time of intercourse, there is no child to be locked in a room. A better analogy would be that you leave a door open, and a squatter comes inside to live. YOu can't get rid of the squatter because they'll die if they go back on the street. Of course, you might be the sort of liberal socialist commie pinko who says that every homeowner should be forced let any squatter who is on their property stay there, and has to feed them and take care of them. I'm a real American who thinks a person should be able to control who does and does not use their property (and their womb). You liberal socialist commie pinkos and your squatters-rights movements are trying to destroy America.

Of course this always leads to the discussion about when life begins.

Liberal socialist commie pinkos always worry about the squatter and how alive they are, never about the property owner and her rights to say who uses her territory.

For me it is mostly one of accountability for your actions. I am reasonably certain that most everyone who willfully engages in sexual intercourse have some inkling what could happen as a result.

Those wimmen get the notion to fool around, they gots to pay the price! At the end, that's what the anti-abortion forces always come back to, controlling women.

(In cases like Moe pointed out I think then it falls into another realm. My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

So, your interest is arguably a smaller percentage of the population than those that are raped?

 

[Agoxlea]

How picky? Do they have to be a certain color, intellect, gender, age, or class to have the right to life? or have the government protect that right?

All I meant was that I thought we would disagree when life began. My only requirement for those rights was being a living human being, and I made the assumption that we'd disagree on what that meant/when that was. I didn't mean that I'm picky about certain individuals, just that they are in fact individuals.

 

[LogGrad98]

This gets back to the entire debate we've had ad nauseum about whether or not the only purpose of sexual activity/intercourse is for procreation.

Some people believe this to be the case - - others have different ideas about this. If you're of the belief that procreation is a byproduct of sexual intercourse, rather than the primary goal, then that might change your point of view.

I do not argue that there are multiple results and purposes of intercourse, that is the nature of it for human beings. I do think of it in terms kind of like the choice to carry a firearm (concealed carry). The purpose may be for protection or recreation, but the outcomes can be far different, and anyone who does carry a firearm, regardless of their intent, are responsible for any outcomes that may occur. Just because they didn't mean to hit a bystander does not mean they are not liable for it.

I think the same goes for sexual activity. Sure it is completely legitimate to be use for recreation, but that does not absolve one of the responsibility for the outcome. If you engage in an activity that by its very nature can have a (perceived) negatvie outcome, you need to be prepared to deal with that outcome, whatever it may be. Be it disease, emotional scarring, or a baby, if you engage in recreational sexual activity as many of us do, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Unfortunately things like the lady who sued McDonald's over hot coffee and won have changed how we view personal accountability. She should have known that putting a flimsy cup of very hot liquid between your legs while driving could potentially have a negative outcome, and she should have accepted responsibility for the outcome. Instead she gets rewarded for stupidity and she is in no way held accountable for the choice that caused the issue to begin with.

I know there are many many layers to this debate, but for me the core of it is that we are intelligent beings that should have some understanding of choice and consequence. If you do not want, or will not accept responsibility for a potential outcome to a behavior, then you should not engage in that behavior. To me that is the core of being a productive member of a society.

As well as what separates intelligent people from the dumbasses out there. =)

 

[PearlWatson]

I love DoI/Constitution thumpers like you. You're the equivalent of those nut ball Bible thumpers down south.

Now you love me. Make up your bloody mind.

If espousing the principles this country was founded is nut ball then I'm a proud one.

 

[sirkickyass]

Hence the portion of my comment "In most cases". Even with birth control failure that child is there because of the mother's consent. No BC is 100% effective. She consented to have sex knowing that there was a 1% or better chance she could get pregnant.

You're not extreme enough for me. Life beings at erection.

 

[colton]

The assertion that the child has no right to use the mother's womb is ludicrous in the extreme. The child would not be there in the first place if the mother had not engaged in activity that is DESIGNED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE ACT to put a child there. The child had no choice to be in a womb, or that womb, or to exist at all. So if I lock you in a room against your will, I should then have the choice to kill you because I do not want you using that room since it belongs to me? Insane.

Of course this always leads to the discussion about when life begins. For me it is mostly one of accountability for your actions. I am reasonably certain that most everyone who willfully engages in sexual intercourse have some inkling what could happen as a result. If they are adult enough to engage in the act they should be adult enough to deal with the consequences without needing to potentially destroy another life-form simply because it is "inconvenient". As was stated previously, adoption is always an option. I know that there is a shortage of babies available for adoption, so it isn't like it would not be possible to find willing parents.

(In cases like Moe pointed out I think then it falls into another realm. My biggest issue is with "recreational abortion" as a form of birth control when a couple choose not to use any kind of birth control, and then afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act.)

I agree with just about everything LogGrad wrote here.

 

[colton]

Yes, your analogy is insane, I agree. At the time of intercourse, there is no child to be locked in a room. A better analogy would be that you leave a door open, and a squatter comes inside to live. YOu can't get rid of the squatter because they'll die if they go back on the street. Of course, you might be the sort of liberal socialist commie pinko who says that every homeowner should be forced let any squatter who is on their property stay there, and has to feed them and take care of them. I'm a real American who thinks a person should be able to control who does and does not use their property (and their womb). You liberal socialist commie pinkos and your squatters-rights movements are trying to destroy America.

That's a horrible analogy. A child doesn't just wander into a womb. The mother had SOMETHING to do with it, don't you think? (Again, let's say like LoganGrad did that cases such as rape are a different situation.)