Pregnancy is a Choice

@livinglava,

No. Pregnancy is not a choice. Ask any Catholic.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Pregnancy is a choice, except in cases of rape.

Says you.

livinglava wrote:

Women have the choice not to become pregnant when they are not raped,

No. Sometimes birth control fails, sometimes women are careless.

livinglava wrote:

therefore they can be required to carry the pregnancy to term,

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not necessarily follow from your premise.

livinglava wrote:

the same way a man who accepts a babysitting job is required to stay with the child until they can be safely transferred to another responsible adult's custody.

This is a false analogy.

livinglava wrote:

You can't just abandon a child, so why should you be able to abandon a fetus?

Because fetuses and children are not equivalent.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

This is a dumb argument. There are arguments against abortion that aren't idiotic. This isn't one of them.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because...
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Thanks for my good laugh for today. I understand laughter is good for my health, and every little bit helps.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

No. Pregnancy is not a choice. Ask any Catholic.

Catholics are required to have sex? If so, that's only if they are married; i.e. because St. Paul says in Romans that you shouldn't withhold sex from your spouse, except for a time for spiritual reasons. Catholics are allowed to use the rhythm method, though, I believe, which involves abstaining during ovulation. If you are extra careful at abstaining for as long as possible during the ovulation window, you won't get pregnant very often; but of course you don't mind getting pregnant if you are Catholic and truly believe that the purpose of sexuality is to procreate.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
Women have the choice not to become pregnant when they are not raped,

No. Sometimes birth control fails, sometimes women are careless.

When you choose to have sex that requires birth control, you are choosing to take the risk of pregnancy because birth control isn't 100%. Carelessness is a choice because abstinence is a choice.

Quote:

livinglava wrote:
therefore they can be required to carry the pregnancy to term,

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not necessarily follow from your premise.

If you are raped, then your choice to abstain was overridden by your attacker. Otherwise you have the choice to abstain, so if you choose not to abstain, then you have chosen to get pregnant, so you can be required to carry the pregnancy to term; i.e. because that's what you chose.

In other words, abortion and birth control unnaturally separate sex from pregnancy and pregnancy from childbirth. It would be like having a law that parents can euthanize their children when they get to an age where they don't find them cute anymore. Once you have a child, you are responsible for it until it is either a legal adult or until someone else takes over guardianship. You can't just abandon a child without having someone else to take responsibility in your absence. That's neglect. Abortion is fetal neglect.

Quote:

livinglava wrote:
the same way a man who accepts a babysitting job is required to stay with the child until they can be safely transferred to another responsible adult's custody.

This is a false analogy.

livinglava wrote:
You can't just abandon a child, so why should you be able to abandon a fetus?

Because fetuses and children are not equivalent.

Fetuses are living, developing human beings.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Comparing babysitting for a limited time to a pregnancy of nine months is utterly ludicrous. For starters, accepting a babysitting job means a deliberate choice is made. Pregnancy, especially the unwanted variety, is more often than not an unexpected consequence, rather than a deliberate choice.

Also, the consequences of carrying a child to term are life altering, even if you give it up for adoption once it is born. The same is not true for babysitting.

A more apt analogy would be if the man accepted the babysitting job, only to find that the adult giving him the baby had gone to ground and disappeared, and the child has no other relatives: is this man now stuck having to actually take care of the baby indefinitely?

2 Replies

@najmelliw,

najmelliw wrote:

Comparing babysitting for a limited time to a pregnancy of nine months is utterly ludicrous. For starters, accepting a babysitting job means a deliberate choice is made. Pregnancy, especially the unwanted variety, is more often than not an unexpected consequence, rather than a deliberate choice.

Everyone knows that sex causes pregnancy by the time they are capable of doing it.

Quote:

Also, the consequences of carrying a child to term are life altering, even if you give it up for adoption once it is born. The same is not true for babysitting.

Then don't get pregnant. Abstain.

Quote:

A more apt analogy would be if the man accepted the babysitting job, only to find that the adult giving him the baby had gone to ground and disappeared, and the child has no other relatives: is this man now stuck having to actually take care of the baby indefinitely?

No, he can seek a foster family, etc. Until someone agrees to take the child off his hands, though, he is indeed stuck with it. You can't just abandon a child that's not capable of taking care of himself or herself.

3 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Everyone knows that sex causes pregnancy by the time they are capable of doing it.

Not everyone. You seem to have forgotten those young pre-teens (and even many teens) who are just doing things which lead to sex. One or the other might have an idea that this is how babies are made or maybe neither does. Years ago, I knew someone who thought a person had to be married to have a child. They were already in their teens at the time. Teen pregnancies did exist, as did pregnancy of unwed women.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
Women have the choice not to become pregnant when they are not raped,

No. Sometimes birth control fails, sometimes women are careless.

When you choose to have sex that requires birth control, you are choosing to take the risk of pregnancy because birth control isn't 100%. Carelessness is a choice because abstinence is a choice.

Quote:
livinglava wrote:
therefore they can be required to carry the pregnancy to term,

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not necessarily follow from your premise.

If you are raped, then your choice to abstain was overridden by your attacker. Otherwise you have the choice to abstain, so if you choose not to abstain, then you have chosen to get pregnant, so you can be required to carry the pregnancy to term; i.e. because that's what you chose.

In other words, abortion and birth control unnaturally separate sex from pregnancy and pregnancy from childbirth. It would be like having a law that parents can euthanize their children when they get to an age where they don't find them cute anymore. Once you have a child, you are responsible for it until it is either a legal adult or until someone else takes over guardianship. You can't just abandon a child without having someone else to take responsibility in your absence. That's neglect. Abortion is fetal neglect.

You don't consider adoption in your argument.

You're not Pro-Life. You're anti-consensual, non-procreant sex.

livinglava wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
livinglava wrote:
the same way a man who accepts a babysitting job is required to stay with the child until they can be safely transferred to another responsible adult's custody.

This is a false analogy.

livinglava wrote:
You can't just abandon a child, so why should you be able to abandon a fetus?

Because fetuses and children are not equivalent.

Fetuses are living, developing human beings.

This does not negate the fact that fetuses, developing human beings, and children, developed human beings, are not equivalent.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Everyone knows that sex causes pregnancy by the time they are capable of doing it.

Even apart from the valid point Sturgis makes, there is also the fact that IF people are aware of the chance of pregnancy by the time they have sex, they are ALSO aware of ways to prevent a pregnancy from happening, namely, contraceptives.

Since you seem to be fond of analogies, here's another one: Everyone knows that people can die in car crashes if they opt to either drive one, or are passengers. Does this mean they should then not make use of a car? I mean, sure, there are ways to minimize the risk of dying, such as obeying the rules of traffic and wearing seat belts and the like, but that still leaves a chance you can die. So these persons should then not use a car, or if they do, accept the risk it implies and thusly take the blame if they wind up dead?

"Well, I know that truck plowed into the car from the side, killing the driver, but hey, he knew there was a chance he could die if he drove a car, so it's really his fault for driving regardless."

Quote:

A more apt analogy would be if the man accepted the babysitting job, only to find that the adult giving him the baby had gone to ground and disappeared, and the child has no other relatives: is this man now stuck having to actually take care of the baby indefinitely?

livinglava wrote:

No, he can seek a foster family, etc. Until someone agrees to take the child off his hands, though, he is indeed stuck with it. You can't just abandon a child that's not capable of taking care of himself or herself.

But is that fair to the man? He didn't agree to this situation, it was forced upon him. And now, rather than being paid for a job, he has to infer additional costs himself?

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Quote:
Everyone knows that sex causes pregnancy by the time they are capable of doing it.

Not everyone. You seem to have forgotten those young pre-teens (and even many teens) who are just doing things which lead to sex. One or the other might have an idea that this is how babies are made or maybe neither does. Years ago, I knew someone who thought a person had to be married to have a child. They were already in their teens at the time. Teen pregnancies did exist, as did pregnancy of unwed women.

Many people play innocent/ignorant. That's why "ignorantia non excusat" exists.

If a teenager accepts a babysitting job and the parent doesn't return on time, is the teen justified in abandoning the child and going home or do they have to find someone else to take over custody of the child?

With pregnancy it's the same: if you find yourself "with child," you wait until you can give birth to it and give it up for adoption, if you can't or won't keep and raise it yourself.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

CLUE: There is no relationship between pregnancy and baby-sitting.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

You don't consider adoption in your argument.

Adoption happens after the baby is born.

Quote:

You're not Pro-Life. You're anti-consensual, non-procreant sex.

There's no such thing as sex without risk of pregnancy so you have to be prepared to accept pregnancy if it happens. That doesn't mean you have to be having sex with the intent of getting pregnant, just that you have to be receptive to the possibility of having a child by the person you're having sex with, and carrying it to term, if you get pregnant by accident, for example.

InfraBlue wrote:

This does not negate the fact that fetuses, developing human beings, and children, developed human beings, are not equivalent.

No, because a child can survive outside the womb. A fetus has to remain inside the womb to survive until it is born, and then it can survive outside the womb. That's why you have to keep carrying it inside the womb until it's born.

2 Replies

@najmelliw,

najmelliw wrote:

Everyone knows that people can die in car crashes if they opt to either drive one, or are passengers. Does this mean they should then not make use of a car?

There are many reasons to avoid motor-vehicles, but you name a very good one. So, yes, I would say that if you can avoid taking the risks of driving in a motor-vehicle by taking some other mode of transportation that's less risky, that would be the best course of action. Why would you take unnecessary risk? If something goes wrong, you have to bear the consequences. You can't just murder someone if you run into them with your car. You have to help them, pay their hospital bills, etc. It's the same with pregnancy. You can't just kill the fetus, or at least you shouldn't be able to.

Quote:

"Well, I know that truck plowed into the car from the side, killing the driver, but hey, he knew there was a chance he could die if he drove a car, so it's really his fault for driving regardless."

When the other person is at fault in the crash, that is akin to rape. If someone rapes you, you can claim the pregnancy isn't your fault. At the time of Roe v Wade, Texas law said a woman could legally abort a pregnancy if she filed a police report of rape.

Quote:

A more apt analogy would be if the man accepted the babysitting job, only to find that the adult giving him the baby had gone to ground and disappeared, and the child has no other relatives: is this man now stuck having to actually take care of the baby indefinitely?

Biological mothers can give their children up for adoption if they can't or won't raise them.

Quote:

But is that fair to the man? He didn't agree to this situation, it was forced upon him. And now, rather than being paid for a job, he has to infer additional costs himself?

If you don't want the risk of someone abandoning their child or pet while you are babysitting or pet-sitting, don't take the job; because if you do you are going to be stuck with that child/animal until the person comes and gets them or until you take them to some organization that agrees to take over custody.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

CLUE: There is no relationship between pregnancy and baby-sitting.

In both cases, people should be responsible for the fetus/child until they can safely transfer custody to someone else. Otherwise they are abandoning and endangering the child/fetus. Abortion results in fetal death the same way child abandonment can result in a child dying if it fails to find adequate means to survive on its own.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Your understanding of women and pregnancy needs much education. Also, on the topic of "right to life."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your understanding of women and pregnancy needs much education. Also, on the topic of "right to life."

Don't post things like this. All this post does is assert superiority over me. I have explained my reasoning in detail and it is valid. If you had better reasoning, you would post it. You don't, though. All you have is layer upon layer of pro-choice brainwashing that's been generated through decades of liberal control over birth control, which has allowed an enormous culture of sexual abuse and exploitation to form.

0 Replies

Pregnancy is a Choice

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know