| |
Anaiira Paramedico Anaiira Paramedico Anaiira Paramedico
Bacteria are not the same as a human being. A human is never anything but that: a human. Even at different stages of development, even when they exist as only a single growing cell, they're just a human. And, because I have heard this argument before, I will tell you now that a developing fetus is not the same as, say, a random human cell because a single human cell, left alone, will not develop into a full human being; a fetus will, even when they are just a single cell.
Pregnancy is not permanently nor excessively harmful to the woman; it's a natural biological process that is well intended by the body--and the body does not generally do itself great harm by intent. By your logic, a parent should be allowed to kill their children for harming them; such as if a child hits a parent in the face with a hard toy.
Secondly, no, not all sex is consensual. But for some reason, violence in response to violence never quite seems like a very effective solution. Most pregnancies are not the result of rape, and for those that are, my heart goes out to the victim, but I still do not believe that killing anyone is ever acceptable for any reason. Sorry. Bad example. It was that the fetus can't feel pain, and can't think. Why should there be inflicted pain unto a person that can feel pain and can think? A fetus can become an adult. So can a sperm cell. So we should ban male masturbation because it causes sperm cells to die, right?
Pregnancy itself is a biological process, and isn't entirely harmful to the woman. However, it does take time to occur. Carrying a baby takes time out of work, sleep, and deprives a woman of her rights to live her life as she wants to. It may disrupt her work, her education, and inflict social stigma upon her. Put that on top of pregnancy. A woman may be sacrificing her future because the law dictates that she can't have an abortion. Even after the pregnancy itself, if she chooses to keep her baby, instead of leaving it to adoption, there's more time and money required for a baby that was unwanted.
I'll concede that violence shouldn't beget violence. However, is there any other alternatives (in case of rape) if the woman really doesn't want the baby? I mean, yes, there's always adoption, but that still requires time on the part of the woman to carry the baby. Time that she might might not necessarily be able to afford.
http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif
You're mixing apples and oranges. A sperm cell, left by itself, will not become a human being; a developing fetus will.
Pregnancy is, for the most part, a choice. Even if that choice isn't recognized by the participants. You make a choice to have sex, you make a choice knowing the risks. Weigh the risks and the benefits, decide if the potential risk of pregnancy is outweighed by the benefit of not risking an unwanted pregnancy while you're working or in school.
Adoption is an option, abstinence is an option. The choice is the woman's. A fetus can't become a human without the woman. Just like a sperm can't become a fetus without the egg.
Pregnancy, is not, for the most part, a choice. You can't chose for a sperm to fertilize an egg. You can choose to have sex, but you can't choose to become pregnant or not. You can do things to try to mitigate the chances, but you can't choose to become pregnant.
The choice is the woman's? What happened to the man? A woman can become pregnant all by herself now? I've heard of primogenesis in sharks and chickens, but now it can happen to humans too?
http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif
You're right, a fetus can't become a human without the mother, but unlike sperm and egg, there is already existent life; just like you or I require food and water to continue our lives.
Pregnancy is, for the most part, a choice. You can't control the finer mechanics, but you can very much choose for a sperm to fertilize an egg--by having sex. It's not a sured consequence, but it's a sured risk. You may not be able to choose to become pregnant, but barring rape, you can choose to not become pregnant.
While men definitely play an equal role as women in fertilization, ultimately a man cannot force a woman to have sex with him against her will (excepting rape). I encourage both men and women to abstain from sex if they are not willing to accept the risks that come with it. They both have an equal responsibility to be conscious of those risks, and understand that both of their lives will be affected by pregnancy; wanted or unwanted. Well. Okay. All living things require food/water. However, a fetus also requires a mother to live on top of food and water. A fetus provides nothing for the mother but a potential offspring AFTER the fetus is grown and becomes a baby. In essence, the fetus is a parasite that happens to be of the same species as the host. "Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host."
:T I feel like going NUH UH now. Pregnancy is so not a choice. Like on the SATs. If you guess, there's a one in five chance that you get it wrong. And you get a penalty if you get it wrong. You know that there's risk with guessing, but you did not choose to get the question wrong, neither did you choose to incur the penalty.
A man can walk away from a fetus. A woman can only do that by having an abortion.
http://tinyurl.com/yebf5lh/.gif
A fetus, however, does not benefit at the expense of the host. When speaking of parasites, the "at the expense of the host" comes with the connotation of biologically injuring the host; which fetuses do not generally do, nor are biologically intended to do.
You can say pregnancy isn't a choice, but sex is; and since sex is the cause of pregnancy, we can correlate the two by saying if you have a choice to have sex or not, and pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex, then by having sex you are accepting the risk of pregnancy.
Here's an analogy for that: say a person is injured, and they need to have a breathing tube put into their trachea. The person inserting the tube knows that it carries a risk of slowing their heart rate down to dangerous levels. And if that happens, it was by their choosing to insert that airway that the patient's heart slowed to dangerous levels. It was a risk they were aware of, and still took. Hmm, maybe that's not the best example. Either way, my point is if you choose to take an action knowing it carries risks, you are accepting those risks and choosing to roll your dice and risk them as well and should be ready for the consequences.
Going back to your analogy, if you choose to answer, knowing you could be right, you're also accepting the risk that you might be wrong. If you don't want to be wrong, the best option is not to answer the question at all. I think I like that analogy better, actually.
You're right, unfortunately, a man can walk away from their child much more easily than a woman can. And it's part of the unfortunate, unfair world we live in. But I still encourage people, men and women alike, not to do that. It seems like the more we attain the ability to control our lives the more we want to control them, and expect them to bow to our demands. But this universe is not, and never will be, fully under our control. It's an unfair life, you didn't come into this world and given a golden crown but slapped on the a** and whisked away to be poked and prodded while your mother lay in recover. We have to accept that things are not and never will be perfect, and work to control our own actions instead of expecting the world to undo the calculated risks we took that have come to pass.
That's my view, anyway.
|
 |
