She chose to engage in the activity that causes pregnancy knowing that she could become pregnant regardless of the precautions she took. How many women know that taking certain antibiotics can reduce the effectiveness of the pill? I know of at least one that found out the hard way.

 

As far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of accepting the consequesces of your actions.

 

If you truly choose not to get pregnant then you will choose not to have sex.

 

And before it starts sounding like I place all of the responsibility at the woman's feet please know that I fully support very stringent enforcement of child support rulings and find dead beat dads to be among the lowest forms of human life. It takes two and both of them chose to engage in the activity. Umfortunately biology places a greater toll on the woman for making that choice.

And if it placed an equal toll on men, I'm pretty sure the morning after pill would be available for a quarter in gas station bathrooms.

A man was hungry.

 

The Democrat suggested that society provide the man with a fish each day for the rest of his life.

 

The Republican suggested that society teach the man to fish so that he could provide for himself.

 

Simple but still a good and telling analogy of the philosophies of the parties.

 

Good stuff.:thumb:

At the moment of conception, it doesn't even qualify as a blob of tissue. I understand that to you there is a spiritual argument that this is a person at that point, but there is no ground to stand on beyond that.

 

So, like I said, since upwards of 40% of ALL PREGNANCIES end in miscarriage early in the first trimester, about half occuring so early and inconspicuously that the woman never knows, should we react to this DAILY occurence as if a child had died?

 

If it's the same as a baby you can hold in your arms, or even the same as a fetus at 16 weeks, it seems that you would have to. To me, that cheapens life.

I am sorry we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. How in the world can you compare miscarriages (where the woman did not make the choice to kill her baby) with willing murder? I really don't follow. Miscarriage is a terrible loss to the parents . . . it is their personal grief . . . it is not the same as the outrage over murder of the unborn.:confused:

And if it placed an equal toll on men, I'm pretty sure the morning after pill would be available for a quarter in gas station bathrooms.

And IMVHO this statement is not in any way germane to the discussion at hand. In fact if anything it's just another excuse for poor behavior.

Incorrect.

 

So when a woman uses birth control and still catches, has she chosen to be pregnant?

 

 

Not incorrect at all. If she exposes herself to the possibility of pregnancy, then she should responsibly live with the consequences. If I speed, I expose myself to the possibility of a speeding ticket. In the law, it is called "assumption of the risk". She assumed the risk. She is not a victim. The developing child should not be the victim.

 

You may think my analogy is not realistic. I agree. If I get caught speeding and receive a speeding ticket, it will only cost me some money. However, if she gets pregnant and aborts the baby she has taken another life. Twist it all however you choose but that is the bottom line.

And if it placed an equal toll on men, I'm pretty sure the morning after pill would be available for a quarter in gas station bathrooms.

 

Pitiful argument. The "mother" has a moral responsibility to carry the child and to bring it to term. The "father" has a moral responsibility to support the child. There is plenty of responsibility for both. If they aren't willing to assume the risk that responsibility will result, they should keep their pants on.

Not incorrect at all. If she exposes herself to the possibility of pregnancy, then she should responsibly live with the consequences. If I speed, I expose myself to the possibility of a speeding ticket. In the law, it is called "assumption of the risk". She assumed the risk. She is not a victim. The developing child should not be the victim.

 

You may think my analogy is not realistic. I agree. If I get caught speeding and receive a speeding ticket, it will only cost me some money. However, if she gets pregnant and aborts the baby she has taken another life. Twist it all however you choose but that is the bottom line.

Look at what I bolded. That's what's incorrect.

Pitiful argument. The "mother" has a moral responsibility to carry the child and to bring it to term. The "father" has a moral responsibility to support the child. There is plenty of responsibility for both. If they aren't willing to assume the risk that responsibility will result, they should keep their pants on.

The man carries no risk to his physical person. That's what I was talking about. If it put a man's body in danger I have absolutely no doubt that the morning after pill would be available on demand. If it altered his reproductive organ, it would be 100% covered by insurance. Probably 100% covered by the government.

The man carries no risk to his physical person. That's what I was talking about. If it put a man's body in danger I have absolutely no doubt that the morning after pill would be available on demand. If it altered his reproductive organ, it would be 100% covered by insurance. Probably 100% covered by the government.

And I have absolutely no doubt that you are really reaching when pure speculation becomes your argumrnt.

 

I have no doubt that if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's butt when it hops.

 

If a woman doesn't want to face the "physical risks" of pregnancy then she souldn't get pregnant, as simple as that. And if she doesn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have sex. Even simpler.

Are you really advocating a Lysistrata solution to women taking control of their bodies?

 

I would personally consider that quite disasterous. But then I'm young.

In any case, I've said all I care to on this subject. You guys can keep playing, but I'm moving on. I will leave you with the observation that it's ironic that this is exactly the kind of discussion that I alluded to earlier. You can't tell me that most Americans are ever going to identifty a single cell zygote at conception as a child. Being the practical people they are, the American public is personally opposed to abortion and wants the use reduced, but wants it kept legal. The people are already pointing out the third way:

 

Only a minority of Americans actually hold strict pro-life or pro-choice views, and there is relatively little difference in attitudes between men and women on this issue. For much of the public, time and circumstance appear to be the important factors.

 

 

Polls find that two-thirds of Americans say abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but that drops to 8 percent in the third trimester. When the woman's health or life is endangered, or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, more than three-quarters of the public favors the option of abortion. But support falls to 34 percent when the reasons for having an abortion are economic (for example, if a family cannot afford more children). There is broad support for laws that require waiting periods, or that require parental consent for minors.

 

 

Over half of Americans say they personally consider abortion to be wrong. But nearly six out of 10 say Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, and a majority say the government should not get involved in the abortion issue. What's more, a Public Agenda survey found more than half say deeply religious politicians who have to vote on the issue should be willing to compromise.

Are you really advocating a Lysistrata solution to women taking control of their bodies?

 

I would personally consider that quite disasterous. But then I'm young.

If that means that women who don't want to risk pregnancy should refrain from sex, then yes that's what I'm advocating. And as I recall the story of Lysistrata they used sex as a weapon to get what they wanted rather then as a way to control reproduction. BTW I'm no prude, I can't say I've never sweated out waiting for a GF's time of month that was a little late BUT I have always been willing to accept my responsibility for those actions up to and including paying 100% of the costs associated with having a baby and taking custody of the child if she didn't want it.

 

And FWIW my view has always been that abortion is a morally repugnant act and that those that use it as a means of birth control simply because they refuse to accept the responsibility that comes with their actions are reprehensible. While I don't like abortion I have never been staunchly pro-life. I have never actively protested Roe v. Wade nor would I protest if it was overturned. Abortion is also not a litmus test for me with a candidate.

 

I guess my bottom line with abortion is that it is just another example of what people will do to avoid responsibility for ther actions.

Incorrect.

 

So when a woman uses birth control and still catches, has she chosen to be pregnant?

Is this question assuming that the woman doesn't know what causes pregnancy?:confused: The only 100% method of birth control is not having sex. IMO, abortion for birth control in homocide plain and simple.

No litmus test here either.

Let's get back on topic. This is NOT an abortion debate thread.