Abortion dystopia #5823: Women deliberately conceiving and then aborting.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, I'm not trying to tell anyone what kind of sex life they should be having. My only point is that if you don't want to get pregnant, there are ways to prevent it, the most significant being to avoid sex completely.

That's it. A post was made earlier in the thread that seemed to suggest that women should be allowed to have abortions because they are the "victims" of pregnancy. As if women have absolutely no control over getting pregnant. My point was that is untrue, outside of rape, they have full control over avoiding pregnancy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You misunderstand. I am not placing the blame solely on the woman. I am simply pointing out that they do have options. Outside of rape, pregnancy is completely avoidable if they choose to take measures to avoid it (The same is true of men, but since men are not involved in abortions the point was never relevant). My only point in bringing this up is to remove the implication that women are "victims" of circumstances outside of their control.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Only to the extent that I have "full control" over car accidents; I can avoid them by never crossing the street for the rest of my life. Obviously, i'm going to have to do it at some point.

Again, this is a very flawed framework to look at things from. A baseball player can avoid injuries if he stops playing. A steeplejack can avoid falls if he goes and works as "McDonalds". Obviously, abortions are only relevant if you are sexually active in the first place.

Your examples don't quite match up with pregnancy, though. Crossing the street is a necessary thing. It just about HAS to be done at some point in your life. The same is not true for sex.

Furthermore, depending on the injury you are talking about, it is not necessarily related to the act of playing baseball at all. It isn't the game of baseball that is injuring him, it's someone's mistake, either his or someone else.

A better example would be:

If a baseball player knew that, just by playing the game of baseball, there was a chance his leg would break during the game. Not by some injury caused by another player, just by playing the game his leg has a chance of magically breaking. He decides to play anyway. If his leg breaks, would we consider him a victim of circumstances outside of his control?

It's the same with pregnancy. And again, I'm not trying to tell anyone to never have sex. I'm saying they are not helpless victims and should not be treated as such.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Your examples don't quite match up with pregnancy, though. Crossing the street is a necessary thing. It just about HAS to be done at some point in your life. The same is not true for sex.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Furthermore, depending on the injury you are talking about, it is not necessarily related to the act of playing baseball at all. It isn't the game of baseball that is injuring him, it's someone's mistake, either his or someone else.

A better example would be:

If a baseball player knew that, just by playing the game of baseball, there was a chance his leg would break during the game. Not by some injury caused by another player, just by playing the game his leg has a chance of magically breaking. He decides to play anyway. If his leg breaks, would we consider him a victim of circumstances outside of his control?

Do you think Mary would have had a right to an abortion? She never asked to be pregnant, it was non-consensual. She avoided sex just like you suggest. So it was literally no fault of her own. If she lived in the modern day would you say abortion was a valid option in this case? (If your argument is going to be "you can't abort the son of god!", it could be a space alien or whatever).

Originally posted by TacDavey
It's the same with pregnancy. And again, I'm not trying to tell anyone to never have sex. I'm saying they are not helpless victims and should not be treated as such.

Why don't the "anti-abortionists" use better arguments like:

"As soon as a unique human life is created, we have a moral responsibility to ensure it is given the best chance AT life."

That concept should not stop at fertilization, either.

"We have a moral responsibility to human life, ensuring it has the best chance AT life."

Yes, that means we should be more responsible to our homeless, poor, and sick.

But the anti-abortion thing should not be absolute. Just because "humane" concepts exist, does not mean they are the end all be all.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would say that for the vast majority of people, sex is something they HAVE to do at some point in their life. Unless you're entering the priesthood this is a singularly important part of most people's existence.

No, I think sex is something most people WANT to do in their life. And again, I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying it's in their control.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually, my original metaphor was way closer to the real situation. There is nothing "magical" about getting pregnant, it follows a biological process. Its funny because by removing the other players you again are showing that fundamental sexism I discussed earlier; unless you're the virgin Mary, your pregnancy came from another "pitcher" so to speak. So its hardly a comparable case.

Actually, no it wasn't. Your analogy did not have the injury taking place because of the action. It happened because of outside actions. Let me break it down.

In your example, the action (baseball) was not the direct cause of the event (injury). In fact, the injury would come about from other people's, or his own, mistakes. Not because he played baseball. But the same can be said of any activity. Which is why it is so ridiculous to consider stopping baseball to avoid the injury.

It isn't the same with pregnancy, and my hypothetical bridged the gap much better. In my example, the action (baseball/sex) was the direct cause of the event (injury/pregnancy).

By having baseball itself be the cause of the potential injury, it was a much better representation of sex and pregnancy. The simple act of having sex leads to the possibility of pregnancy. The simple act of playing baseball leads to the possibility of a broken leg.

So again, in my hypothetical, would you consider the baseball player a helpless victims of circumstances outside of his control?

And again, I am not being sexist at all. I whole heatedly think it's a man's fault as much as it is a woman's. That isn't relevant to my point, however.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you think Mary would have had a right to an abortion? She never asked to be pregnant, it was non-consensual. She avoided sex just like you suggest. So it was literally no fault of her own. If she lived in the modern day would you say abortion was a valid option in this case? (If your argument is going to be "you can't abort the son of god!", it could be a space alien or whatever).

No. Mary fully agreed to have the baby.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If you think they should have sex, seems like you're just being an enabler to me.

I'm not saying they should have sex either. I'm not saying either way.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, no it wasn't. Your analogy did not have the injury taking place because of the action. It happened because of outside actions. Let me break it down.

In your example, the action (baseball) was not the direct cause of the event (injury). In fact, the injury would come about from other people's, or his own, mistakes. Not because he played baseball. But the same can be said of any activity. Which is why it is so ridiculous to consider stopping baseball to avoid the injury.

It isn't the same with pregnancy, and my hypothetical bridged the gap much better. In my example, the action (baseball/sex) was the direct cause of the event (injury/pregnancy).

By having baseball itself be the cause of the potential injury, it was a much better representation of sex and pregnancy. The simple act of having sex leads to the possibility of pregnancy. The simple act of playing baseball leads to the possibility of a broken leg.

So again, in my hypothetical, would you consider the baseball player a helpless victims of circumstances outside of his control?

And again, I am not being sexist at all. I whole heatedly think it's a man's fault as much as it is a woman's. That isn't relevant to my point, however.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No. Mary fully agreed to have the baby.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not saying they should have sex either. I'm not saying either way.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I wouldn't consider him a "helpless victim of circumstances". My point is that its foolish to say you shouldn't do something unless you are 100% safe.

I don't disagree. My point was simply that women (and men) shouldn't be treated like "helpless victims of circumstances."

Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually what I said was correct. Find me anywhere where God asks Mary if she wants to be pregnant. He simply told her that it would be so, and it was so. Anyway you are avoiding my question. What if someone literally was pregnant through no fault of their own (miracle birth w/e). Would you allow an abortion there?

And Mary never said, "I don't want to." He chose Mary because He knew she would agree to it.

Personally, I would still find abortion wrong even in that case.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you are saying they shouldn't have sex if they don't want a child. So you definitely are saying it that way.

I'm saying that's a perfectly viable option available to them.

So you are saying that no matter what the circumstance, even if the woman WAS a "helpless victim", you would still not support abortion. So now we are at the core of your beliefs, and all that other stuff you said was a complete smokescreen - utterly meaningless. Whether it was the person's own fault or not, you actually don't care; it has no bearing on your end judgment. Please, don't waste my time on these side issues that actually don't matter to you in the least.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you are saying that no matter what the circumstance, even if the woman WAS a "helpless victim", you would still not support abortion. So now we are at the core of your beliefs, and all that other stuff you said was a complete smokescreen - utterly meaningless. Whether it was the person's own fault or not, you actually don't care; it has no bearing on your end judgment. Please, don't waste my time on these side issues that actually don't matter to you in the least.

I was never attempting to assert my own personal stance on abortion with the topic I was discussing. I never even brought up my views on abortion until you asked. I even allowed for the fact that rape didn't fall into the area that I was discussing. I made that clear from the very start.

It was you who turned the discussion towards abortion in general, not me. I was responding to the "helpless victim" label that tends to get placed where it doesn't belong. Nothing more.

women are stupid to have any kids, they should let the human race die out!

Originally posted by alltoomany
women are stupid to have any kids, they should let the human race die out!

You should lead by example and kill yourself if you think that poorly of the human race.

Isn't ATM a woman?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Isn't ATM a woman?

A Caucasian looking one, so calm down.

Caucasian looking?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Caucasian looking?

Yes, as in looks Caucasian. But I have no proof besides appearances.

Originally posted by Robtard
A Caucasian looking one, so calm down.

😂

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, this is about personhood, not life. There is no identity, no "I", no mind comparable to even what a cow or a chicken might have.

On a sidenote: are you a vegetarian?

No I am not why do you ask?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No I am not why do you ask?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
is alive thing...It bleeds!

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, as in looks Caucasian. But I have no proof besides appearances.

Racist 😐

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Racist 😐

Socialist. 😐