|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:52 pm
Many choicers like to argue that, even if the sex is consentual, since women don't control their ovulation and pregnancy, then they are not responsible for giving birth. Basically, no one should be held responsible for their involuntary actions. However, unborn only violate BD through involuntary actions. Therefore, by the choicer's logic, an unborn should not be held responsivle for violating BD.
This argument probably needs some work. What do you think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:59 pm
I never thought of that!
But they would reply with "Well, you wouldn't have to give a part of your body to someone who was in a coma and didn't know what was wrong or what was going on."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:03 pm
If consenting to sex does not consent to pregnancy, then consenting to pulling the trigger of a gun does not consent to killing someone. The act of bullet passing through flesh is involuntary, an act of simple physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:08 pm
Lorysa I never thought of that!
But they would reply with "Well, you wouldn't have to give a part of your body to someone who was in a coma and didn't know what was wrong or what was going on." I can actually see that happening. But I would just reply with "Name me a situation where it's the coma victim's own actions, involuntary or not, that takes someone else's body part."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:14 pm
divineseraph If consenting to sex does not consent to pregnancy, then consenting to pulling the trigger of a gun does not consent to killing someone. The act of bullet passing through flesh is involuntary, an act of simple physics. What if someone where to argue that protected sex is like shooting someone with a bullet-proof vest, and was part of a friendly but dangerous game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:27 pm
If the person was killed, would it not still be considered manslaughter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:51 pm
Yes it would. But to my understanding manslaughter is accidental, not consented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:24 pm
pro-choice bimbo: "omg! i know i wanted to have sex but it's not my fault i got pregnant! i can't control my ovulation!"
that's a load of Crap! It's called brith control morons or a condom works too! it's their choice not to use either therefore it's their fault!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:01 pm
But manslaughter is still punishable. It is still a crime. Point being, even if it was comparable to a bullet-proof vest, abortion would still be as illegal as killing someone through a bullet proof vest. or something. it's late. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:06 pm
Conren Many choicers like to argue that, even if the sex is consentual, since women don't control their ovulation and pregnancy, then they are not responsible for giving birth. Basically, no one should be held responsible for their involuntary actions. However, unborn only violate BD through involuntary actions. Therefore, by the choicer's logic, an unborn should not be held responsivle for violating BD. This argument probably needs some work. What do you think? I agree that the argument needs alot of work. They might not want to get pregancy, they know that it's always a possiblity. It's not like they didn't know it could happen or the baby just shows up out of nowhere (it takes two people to create a baby). Besides birth control can help control it (that's what it for) also condoms help too and when using both there should be a really low change of pregnancies. But still can happen and they know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:20 pm
It's a good argument logically, except it relies on the legality of abortion resting on responsibility.
Like Lorysa pointed out, it doesn't. It rests on bodily integrity. You can be as irresponsible as you want, and admittedly so. You can have sex with the intention of getting pregnant and having an abortion, and that's legal. Abortion isn't there because women had no control over getting pregnant. It's there because no matter how that baby got there...voluntary or involuntary on the part of the parents...it's her body and she should be able to remove it whenever she wants, using whatever means necessary.
Abortion: Ending Pregnancy
By Whatever Means Necessary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
