A very Touchy Subject...

[Achilles]

Well I don't look at it as the time specifically, but the viability of the fetus. To me it would make more sense to attempt to recover the fetus and give it a chance at life than to say that at 23 weeks you can snuff it out even if it has developed appropriately. I really don't like the time base so much. I mean some develop much faster. I mean wasn't there just recently a baby born at 24 weeks? I know that my perfectly healthy daughter was delivered at 32 weeks. My son with CP was born at 28 weeks(the CP was not caused by the early removal BTW).

I agree the viability is probably the most rational demarcation point for determining life vs. non-life.

 

And quite frankly, if the "Pro-Abortion" crowd did limit it to fetal viability, I would never argue against them. The problem is the up to the minute it's born that some abortion advocates submit that disturbs me. To me, that is not any better than killing a newborn. It is also as silly as the "Life begins at conception" arguments. I feel that a medical professional should be able to tell the viability of a fetus, and after it reaches that point, abortion should not be an option.

I'm not going to say that these arguments don't exists, I will simply state that I have never heard any person affiliated with "pro-choice" make such an argument.

 

I do think that there are going to be rare circumstances in which a tough choice must be made after the fetus is viable. I don't understand the logic behind the argument that if it's between the mother and the fetus, then the fetus should win, every time, no questions asked. And so long as we find ourselves living in a world where these rare circumstances exist, women should have a choice as to whether or not they should get to live (keep their mental health, etc).

 

also: I don't think I've been hypocritical in my statements regarding personal responsibility. I do agree that if you are willing to do the deed, you should be willing to face up to it. There are a number of options for doing the deed that would prevent getting pregnant. Oh and vasectomy's are reversible. My sister in law works for the leading vasectomy reversal specialist in the US.

I stated the questions plainly earlier but you chose not to respond. I will repeat them here for your convenience:

 

So don't have sex unless you are trying to have children? Didn't you express the opposite sentiment just a few posts ago? Which of these opinions should accept as being what you really think?

 

You appear to be saying that one should not have sex unless one is prepared to care for a child. Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate. Which seems to contradict your earlier statement that you do not believe this to be true.

 

Yes, there are many forms of contraception available. None of them are 100% effective. Therefore there is a chance that one could take necessary precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancy and still end up pregnant anyway. What should these people do?

 

Finally, yes vasectomies are reversible. So what? Are you suggesting that young men get vasectomies as a form of birth control? Have you ever had one? Any idea how painful they are? Are you aware that most doctors will refuse the procedure unless you have already had children? Not sure where you were going with this one, but I am looking forward to learning more.

 

Thanks for explaining Achilles.

You're welcome.

 

I apologize for any confusion in my statements. The goal post is where it's always been. But you are not alone....my wife says I have a talent for converting simple things into some baffling crap.

I'm afraid that this does little to clarify for me exactly where you stand on those stats. Since you were the one that introduced them, I guess you could say that I consider this a matter of paramount interest.

 

I was simply noting that I had someone in agreement is all. Jae is no more a "gold standard" on this subject than I consider you an authority on chicken biscuits.

I'm still stuck at the "so what?" part. It sure seems as though you referenced her as some sort of authority. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I cannot conceive of any other possible motivation you could have had for mentioning her unless you were attempting to muster some form of appeal to authority.

 

Glad to hear that we are in agreement that she probably doesn't qualify though.

 

I commend you on making such a tough decision on behalf of a child. As I mentioned earlier, I just adopted my daughter. It took over a year (no comment solicited, btw).

Not sure that kudos are in order, but I do sincerely appreciate the gesture nonetheless. Thank you.

 

I imagine that most people consider an opinion without accompanying statistics to be speculation, but if it'll make you happy.

Except when it sounds as though they're trying to pass off their opinions as facts. Then people like me ask for supporting evidence.

 

Sounds as though we can move forward with the understanding that your previous statements were nothing more than your opinion and not based on any evidence? In that case, I acknowledge that this is your opinion on the matter.

 

Just used that to clarify the position of my goal post.

Ok. Sure.

[Tommycat]

I stated the questions plainly earlier but you chose not to respond. I will repeat them here for your convenience:

OK, I thought I answered this, but maybe I can try again.

So don't have sex unless you are trying to have children? Didn't you express the opposite sentiment just a few posts ago? Which of these opinions should accept as being what you really think?

Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child

 

You appear to be saying that one should not have sex unless one is prepared to care for a child. Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate. Which seems to contradict your earlier statement that you do not believe this to be true.

Nope, not at all. If you have sex, you should be WILLING to have a child. Some are quite willing to have sex, but never want children. In which case the best option is various toys, oral, and a few other good feeling but non-inseminating methods. Or they could just restrain their urges unless they are willing to take the chance that a pregnancy will occur.

 

Yes, there are many forms of contraception available. None of them are 100% effective. Therefore there is a chance that one could take necessary precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancy and still end up pregnant anyway. What should these people do?

Any time you have intercourse you should be ready for the off chance that such an occurance will happen. There are ways to have intercourse that do not involve vaginal penetration or insemination. Some of those are against some religious views, but then again when talking religion and sex, its just about procreation.

 

Finally, yes vasectomies are reversible. So what? Are you suggesting that young men get vasectomies as a form of birth control? Have you ever had one? Any idea how painful they are? Are you aware that most doctors will refuse the procedure unless you have already had children? Not sure where you were going with this one, but I am looking forward to learning more.

Now you're assuming that sex is from people who have never had a child. And the procedure is relatively painless. Even less so when you take into account painkillers and anesthesia(and yes I did, Its been great to be pretty sure that it won't happen, but I'm still ready should the off chance occur that I do get her pregnant). I suggest that men who want to have sex with little fear of getting a woman pregnant get a vasectomy, yes.

[MJ-W4]

^^ Interesting. In over twenty years of heavy use (did someone just say 'burning rubber'?), no single condom ever broke. Buying proper ones at the chemist's seems to be the solution.

[Achilles]

OK, I thought I answered this, but maybe I can try again.

By not responding to it? Gotcha.

 

Tommycat says: Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child

Achilles says: You appear to be saying that one should not have sex unless one is prepared to care for a child. Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate.

 

Same thing, no?

 

I'm glad you found the font thingy and all, but a simple "yes" would have been sufficient.

 

Some are quite willing to have sex, but never want children. In which case the best option is various toys, oral, and a few other good feeling but non-inseminating methods. Or they could just restrain their urges unless they are willing to take the chance that a pregnancy will occur.

Do you yourself live by these standards (or did you before your vasectomy)? Not hoping to pry into your personal life, just trying to get a good reading on my hypocrisy-meter.

 

Any time you have intercourse you should be ready for the off chance that such an occurance will happen. There are ways to have intercourse that do not involve vaginal penetration or insemination. Some of those are against some religious views, but then again when talking religion and sex, its just about procreation.

Very admirable public health goals.

 

Now you're assuming that sex is from people who have never had a child.

Huh?

 

And the procedure is relatively painless.

Right but the recovery involves sitting around for 2 days feeling as though you've been kicked in the groin by a horse. My apolgies for not being more specific.

 

And yes, I do understand that the experience is different for everyone. Perhaps all men in the future should be required to share your pain threshold too.

 

Even less so when you take into account painkillers and anesthesia(and yes I did, Its been great not to be pretty sure that it won't happen, but I'm still ready should the off chance that I do get her pregnant). I suggest that men who want to have sex with little fear of getting a woman pregnant get a vasectomy, yes.

Unless of course they're single with no kids (or married with no kids), because then most doctors will refuse to do the procedure, as I pointed out earlier. Still waiting to understand why vasectomy was brought up in an abortion thread.

 

^^ Interesting. In over twenty years of heavy use (did someone just say 'burning rubber'?), no single condom ever broke. Buying proper ones at the chemist's seems to be the solution.

I never had one break either, but my dad did once when I was about 16. My first (and only) first-hand experience with abortion.

[MJ-W4]

^^ When I suggested I might have a vasectomy, it was my wife (who does resemble Mira in a number of aspects) who said no. The thought of 'someone messing about with the family jewels' (her words) gave her the creeps.

[Tommycat]

By not responding to it? Gotcha.

 

Tommycat says: Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child

Achilles says: You appear to be saying that one should not have sex unless one is prepared to care for a child. Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate.

 

Same thing, no?

Nope. Being willing to accept responsibility is not anywhere near doing so ONLY for that responsibility. I thought I was the one putting words in your mouth. Let me try.... So what you're saying is that a secret service agent is only in his job to give his life for the president?

 

I'm glad you found the font thingy and all, but a simple "yes" would have been sufficient.

Perhaps you need to look up beiing willing to and wanting to. Two completely different ideas.

 

Do you yourself live by these standards (or did you before your vasectomy)? Not hoping to pry into your personal life, just trying to get a good reading on my hypocrisy-meter.

 

Well, Yes. Granted In my younger teenage times, I took precautions, and made every attempt to prevent pregnancy, however I never fooled myself into believing that I wouldn't have to be responsible for it. I was always prepared for the eventuality that I would become a father. In fact I still do live by it. I know that even still there is a 0.3% chance that I could have another mouth to feed.

 

Very admirable public health goals.

 

Huh?

Some men that want to have sex with little to no fear of a pregnancy already have kids of their own.

 

Right but the recovery involves sitting around for 2 days feeling as though you've been kicked in the groin by a horse. My apolgies for not being more specific.

Wasn't that way for me. then again, I actually know what it feels like to get kicked in the groin by a horse(worked on a farm for a long time).

 

And yes, I do understand that the experience is different for everyone. Perhaps all men in the future should be required to share your pain threshold too.

Meh I've had enough painful experiences from various incidents that I'm sure others have felt, that really its not just my threshold. But hey to each their own. If you aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions don't do it.

 

Unless of course they're single with no kids (or married with no kids), because then most doctors will refuse to do the procedure, as I pointed out earlier. Still waiting to understand why vasectomy was brought up in an abortion thread.

You brought up contraception, You make it seem that there is no alternative. That we are bound by our urges to have sex. Trying to justify abortion by claiming ineffectiveness of methods. I was pointing out one that is near 100% since you refuse to accept that the best way to prevent having kids is not to have sex.

[Achilles]

Nope. Being willing to accept responsibility is not anywhere near doing so ONLY for that responsibility.

Don't have sex unless you're willing to accept responsibility for a child, but have sex anyway? Following that to the logical conclusion would argue that one should not have sex unless one was trying to have a child. Perhaps I've simply thought your argument through a little further than you have.

 

I thought I was the one putting words in your mouth. Let me try.... So what you're saying is that a secret service agent is only in his job to give his life for the president?

No. The largest portion of the Secret Service's duties involves counterfeit money. Only a small portion of the Secret Service is responsible for security and only a small portion of those agents are assigned to the President of the United States. I hope that sufficiently clarifies my position re: the Secret Service.

 

Perhaps you need to look up beiing willing to and wanting to. Two completely different ideas.

Except I said "prepared to"...which seems very similar to "willing to".

 

Well, Yes. Granted In my younger teenage times, I took precautions, and made every attempt to prevent pregnancy, however I never fooled myself into believing that I wouldn't have to be responsible for it. I was always prepared for the eventuality that I would become a father. In fact I still do live by it. I know that even still there is a 0.3% chance that I could have another mouth to feed.

Perhaps the divide in our thinking is that you think every person should be ready to have as many children as luck deems fit to give them and I don't. In fact, if someone is making a reasonable effort not to get preganant, then they shouldn't be punished for an accident.

 

Some men that want to have sex with little to no fear of a pregnancy already have kids of their own.

Sorry, still not following the seemingly random interjection.

 

Wasn't that way for me. then again, I actually know what it feels like to get kicked in the groin by a horse(worked on a farm for a long time). Meh I've had enough painful experiences from various incidents that I'm sure others have felt, that really its not just my threshold. But hey to each their own. If you aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions don't do it.

Don't have the vasectomy? You're all over the board with this one.

 

You brought up contraception,

3 days ago!

You randomly interjected the whole vasectomy thing in post #148. Why? It wasn't being discussed AT ALL until then.

 

You make it seem that there is no alternative.

No alternative to what?

 

That we are bound by our urges to have sex.

We certainly have them. To what degree we are "bound" by them, I'm not sure and I don't believe I've posited an argument one way or another regarding the matter.

 

Trying to justify abortion by claiming ineffectiveness of methods.

I'm assuming that you mean "methods of birth control".

 

Considering that I believe that abortion would still be necessary even in a world with 100% effective means of birth control, I find it hard to believe that I've actually made that argument. Please feel free to point out where I have.

 

I was pointing out one that is near 100% since you refuse to accept that the best way to prevent having kids is not to have sex.

Condoms are nearly 100% effective too, but they don't come with the same ethical constraints as vasectomies. And I do accept that abstinence is 100% effective, however I do not agree that abstinence is a form of contraception ("prevention" vs. "avoidance" and all that).

[Tommycat]

Don't have sex unless you're willing to accept responsibility for a child, but have sex anyway? Following that to the logical conclusion would argue that one should not have sex unless one was trying to have a child. Perhaps I've simply thought your argument through a little further than you have.

No, quit trying to twist my words to fit your needs. Nowhere did I say that one should not have sex unless you are trying to have a child. I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child. IF you are not willing to accept that responsibility(in the event that it occurs) then keep it zipped.

 

Except I said "prepared to"...which seems very similar to "willing to".

and you followed it up with "Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate." and I was saying and have said and will continue to say that you can have sex if you want, however you should be willing to accept the consequences. Just as in driving a car, You can drive above the posted speed if you want, but you have to be willing to get a ticket. You can run a red light if you want, but be prepared to get a ticket, or even get in an accident. You can drive drunk if you want, but you must be prepared to accept the possibility that you will kill someone. You may not want it, but if you do it you have to accept responsibility for your actions.

 

Perhaps the divide in our thinking is that you think every person should be ready to have as many children as luck deems fit to give them and I don't. In fact, if someone is making a reasonable effort not to get preganant, then they shouldn't be punished for an accident.

A child is not a punishment. Even still everyone knows the risks. You have sex, that risk is there. IF you don't want that risk avoid the activity that increases that risk. I go rock climbing. If I don't want the risk associated with rock climbing I avoid rock climbing. You appear to say that a person should be able to go rock climbing and even though they take every precaution to prevent falling, they should never have to worry about falling.

Sorry, still not following the seemingly random interjection.

Fine. I'm done explaining it anyway.

 

Don't have the vasectomy? You're all over the board with this one.

Forget it. Basically if you don't want to deal with the risk of pregnancy avoid sex(or try an alternate lifestyle which would prevent child birth).

3 days ago!

You randomly interjected the whole vasectomy thing in post #148. Why? It wasn't being discussed AT ALL until then.

In case you hadn't noticed it was the first day I got back posting. Either way, You're right. It isn't relevant.

 

No alternative to what?

 

We certainly have them. To what degree we are "bound" by them, I'm not sure and I don't believe I've posited an argument one way or another regarding the matter.

Well in consideration of your posts regarding the desire to have sex and not risk pregnancy, It seemed pretty straight forward.

I'm assuming that you mean "methods of birth control".

Don't you mean "Contraception?" Birth control has one method that is 100% effective. Not engaging in the act that would produce the possibility of birth.

Considering that I believe that abortion would still be necessary even in a world with 100% effective means of birth control, I find it hard to believe that I've actually made that argument. Please feel free to point out where I have.

I see so now you are saying that because you didn't specifically state that, that you never argued that. Ok Never mind then. Incidentally, if you notice, I am not exactly arguing against abortion either. All I am arguing for is that people should take more responsibility for their actions. So why do you keep bringing up that no method of contraception is 100% effective?

 

Condoms are nearly 100% effective too, but they don't come with the same ethical constraints as vasectomies. And I do accept that abstinence is 100% effective, however I do not agree that abstinence is a form of contraception ("prevention" vs. "avoidance" and all that).

I believe that abstinence is a form of birth control. Avoiding the act reduces the possibility of birth to nearly 0(and that one case is not validated). You can still have other forms of sex without vaginal penetration by the penis. If you are so inclined, you can have same sex intercourse(as far as I know there haven't been any cases where that has caused a pregnancy). I'm merely offering alternatives to people who wish to reduce the risk of pregnancy to 0 or near 0 while still enjoying themselves...

[Jae Onasi]

Don't get too graphic with sexual references, folks. We have to keep it PG-13 here. Thanks.

[Achilles]

No, quit trying to twist my words to fit your needs. Nowhere did I say that one should not have sex unless you are trying to have a child. I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child. IF you are not willing to accept that responsibility(in the event that it occurs) then keep it zipped.

As I've already stated, I think it's likely that you haven't thought your argument all the way through.

 

and you followed it up with "Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate."

Right. The logical conclusion to that arguement.

 

and I was saying and have said and will continue to say that you can have sex if you want, however you should be willing to accept the consequences.

Right. And since the consequences that you are referring to is the birth of a child, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to engage in said act unless you are attempting to have a child. It really does seem as though you want to have it both ways and I just don't think that you can.

 

Just as in driving a car, You can drive above the posted speed if you want, but you have to be willing to get a ticket.

Poor analogy unless we stipulate that some people will be ticketed even if they are obeying the speed limit.

 

You can run a red light if you want, but be prepared to get a ticket, or even get in an accident.

And people that are in accidents that don't run red lights?

 

You can drive drunk if you want, but you must be prepared to accept the possibility that you will kill someone.

Driving drunk is not the only way to kill people. Perhaps your time would be better served addressing the actual argument rather than grasping at analogies.

 

You may not want it, but if you do it you have to accept responsibility for your actions.

Repeating this line isn't going to magically negate my argument.

 

A child is not a punishment.

If you're not trying for one and it is being forced upon you, then I can imagine that it would seem like one.

 

Even still everyone knows the risks. You have sex, that risk is there. IF you don't want that risk avoid the activity that increases that risk. I go rock climbing. If I don't want the risk associated with rock climbing I avoid rock climbing.

Victory through repetition? I get that this is your argument. I really do.

 

You appear to say that a person should be able to go rock climbing and even though they take every precaution to prevent falling, they should never have to worry about falling.

Never have to "worry"? No, I imagine that said climber would worry quite a bit considering that they're taking precautions against it. Seems to me that the climber that doesn't worry about falling would go up without any kind of safety gear whatsoever, don't you think?

 

Fine. I'm done explaining it anyway.

Sorry I missed the part where you started. Maybe we'll have better luck next time.

 

Forget it. Basically if you don't want to deal with the risk of pregnancy avoid sex(or try an alternate lifestyle which would prevent child birth).

That's your value judgement and you're welcome to it.

 

In case you hadn't noticed it was the first day I got back posting. Either way, You're right. It isn't relevant.

Agreed.

 

Well in consideration of your posts regarding the desire to have sex and not risk pregnancy, It seemed pretty straight forward.

Well, in that case, I acknowledge that this is how you've opted to interpret my statements.

 

Don't you mean "Contraception?"

It's not about what I mean. You said "methods". I was trying to clarify that you were referring to "methods of birth control". Sometimes it helps to read the part that I quote for context.

 

Birth control has one method that is 100% effective. Not engaging in the act that would produce the possibility of birth.

Right, just like not playing baseball would eliminate the likelihood of someone batting in a run off one of my pitches. Sure, my pitching record is pristine, but that's because I've never actually played.

 

Hence why I don't consider abstinence a form of contraception.

 

I see so now you are saying that because you didn't specifically state that, that you never argued that.

Yes, you're absolutely right. As a rule, I never take responsibility for things that I don't say or imply. Nor do I defend arguments that I don't make. Hope that helps.

 

Incidentally, if you notice, I am not exactly arguing against abortion either. All I am arguing for is that people should take more responsibility for their actions.

More responsibility than what? Having an abortion? Then it would seem that you are "exactly arguing against abortion". Is there some sort of context that I'm missing here?

 

So why do you keep bringing up that no method of contraception is 100% effective?

I think I've mentioned that precisely twice and both times when someone implied that abortion wasn't necessary because of contraception. All things being equal, I guess it's fair for me to ask why you keep bringing up contraception in an abortion thread.

 

I'm merely offering alternatives to people who wish to reduce the risk of pregnancy to 0 or near 0 while still enjoying themselves...

That might be a great starting point for a safe sex thread.

 

Take care.

[MJ-W4]

That might be a great starting point for a safe sex thread.

That would be interesting, I doubt this is a viable topic for LF, however.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child. IF you are not willing to accept that responsibility(in the event that it occurs) then keep it zipped.

Sure, realize that's the risk, and then try to reduce it as much as possible. Like flying a plane - you know there's a chance your engines will give out. When you have sex, abortion, contraception, and the morning-after pill are your parachute in the plane scenario.

 

You can run a red light if you want, but be prepared to get a ticket, or even get in an accident.

And teaching a kid how to have safe sex is like outfitting a robber with a gun for a bank robbery, right?

 

What is it with certain people and comparing sex to recklessness or crime?

[Jae Onasi]

Safe sex/contraception is a valid topic and there's a thread here on the abstinence and related topics--please read the first post in that thread before responding.

 

 

Forget it. Basically if you don't want to deal with the risk of pregnancy avoid sex(or try an alternate lifestyle which would prevent child birth).

That's your value judgement and you're welcome to it.

 

If you don't have intercourse (or other sexual activities where sperm could get to egg), you don't get pregnant, barring, obviously, artificial means. I'm not seeing a value judgment there, just a fact. You can have physical intimacy without intercourse as I'm sure you've discovered. If you want to split hairs and say intercourse is a prerequisite in contraception discussion, then fine, split the hair and throw abstinence out the window. If you're defining contraception as 'ways not to get pregnant', then abstinence does fit in as a contraceptive choice. You don't have sex, you don't get pregnant (see provisos above). Pretty simple.

 

In any case, we probably should move back towards the main topic.

[Achilles]

If you don't have intercourse (or other sexual activities where sperm could get to egg), you don't get pregnant, barring, obviously, artificial means. I'm not seeing a value judgment there, just a fact.

The value judgemet is the decision that sex should only take place if both parties are prepared to be pregnant.

 

You can have physical intimacy without intercourse as I'm sure you've discovered.

You sure can, but it's a value judgement as to whether or not you're going to limit yourself to those degrees of intimacy. I'm sure that you would agree that no person, group of people, or governement agency have the right to impose those values upon you.

 

If you want to split hairs and say intercourse is a prerequisite in contraception discussion, then fine, split the hair and throw abstinence out the window. If you're defining contraception as 'ways not to get pregnant', then abstinence does fit in as a contraceptive choice. You don't have sex, you don't get pregnant (see provisos above). Pretty simple.

See earlier baseball analogy.

 

I'm not saying that I disgree with abstinence or that I have any problem with it. I do think it can be fundamentally disqualified as a method of contraception. If it makes everyone here feel better call it splitting hairs, then let's just call it splitting hairs.

 

In any case, we probably should move back towards the main topic.

YAY!

[Totenkopf]

That probably needs to be a separate thread...

 

 

No doubt a verrrrry long one.

[Tommycat]

The value judgemet is the decision that sex should only take place if both parties are prepared to be pregnant.

You call it value judgement, I call it Risk Assessment. I would think anyone who understood business would know the difference. I can easily replace pregnancy with STD's. There are methods to lower your risk, but no method completely ensures that you will not get an STD. The only sure fire way not to is not to engage in activities that would get you that STD.

 

Baseball is not a good example. Move your own goalposts all you want, but leave mine alone thanks.

[Web Rider]

You call it value judgement, I call it Risk Assessment.

 

I would tend to agree. Any sex, protected or not, could result in pregnancy, although with most modern contraceptives we're often talking like a thousandth of a percent.

 

That doesn't however, mean that all should be done with the the idea that you WANT or ARE going to get pregnant. If she's on some form birth control and he's got a condom, we'll, I agree that abortion is still a valid option here since both parties did everything in their power NOT to get pregnant and prevent it from happening.

[Achilles]

You call it value judgement, I call it Risk Assessment.

Call it what ever you like.

 

I can easily replace pregnancy with STD's.

Indeed you can, however it doesn't change the argument.

 

There are methods to lower your risk, but no method completely ensures that you will not get an STD. The only sure fire way not to is not to engage in activities that would get you that STD.

And? Not sure what this has to do with abortion.

 

Baseball is not a good example. Move your own goalposts all you want, but leave mine alone thanks.

Sure it is but if you want to convince anyone otherwise, you'll have to do better than quoting my own stuff back to me as though it were applicable to your argument (Hint: analogies don't move goalposts).

 

Take care.

 

I would tend to agree.

You're free to do whatever you'd like, but I have to question the wisdom of agreeing with non sequitur. He hasn't argued that a value judgment hasn't taken place. He's merely given us an insight into what his thought process looks like.

 

Any sex, protected or not, could result in pregnancy, although with most modern contraceptives we're often talking like a thousandth of a percent.

Indeed. So would you choose to only have sex when trying for a baby? A value judgment will take place while you make that decision, regardless of how you answer. You can answer yes on the basis of "risk assessment" or no based on some other reason, but you've still come to that decision via your values.

 

That doesn't however, mean that all should be done with the the idea that you WANT or ARE going to get pregnant.

I would tend to agree. I suspect many others would as well. Hence why Tommycat's argument has no relation to the topic of abortion unless there is a moral argument for imposing his values on all other human beings.

 

If she's on some form birth control and he's got a condom, we'll, I agree that abortion is still a valid option here since both parties did everything in their power NOT to get pregnant and prevent it from happening.

Well said! Unfortunately, it does not appear that Tommycat agrees. If you get pregnant, you should have a baby. End of discussion.

[Tommycat]

DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!

 

Yes you moved the goal posts by shifting it from risk versus reward to statistics. That completely changes the argument and is therefore WRONG.

 

In a perfect world, nobody would need abortion. As this is not a perfect world, abortion is necessary. I believe that abortion should be legal. I happen to have a daughter by the way. That places me in a rather difficult position if I were to say abortion should be illegal. IF something happens to her and she becomes pregnant before she is ready, I am darn sure going to make sure she can get one. I just believe that people should be more responsible before hand. Take precautions, or abstain. YOU have twisted it into if you get pregnant you have to have a child. I have never said that.

 

I would keep abortion legal without the stipulation of only in the cases of rape for the sheer fact that some people will claim rape just to get the abortion.

 

My argument has been twisted from explaining my position on requesting more personal responsibility into only having sex to have a child, and now to being against abortion altogether. I do not appreciate that. Where have I stated that:

1) If you get pregnant, you should have a baby.

2) You should only have sex to have a baby.

 

Quite frankly I believe that I have stated quite often and very clearly that you can have sex without doing so to procreate. Considering that I work in the adult entertainment business, I think I can say quite equivocally that I do not agree with that. I am in fact offended by your intentional attempts to mischaracterize my statements as such.

[Achilles]

DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!

I would certainly hate to think that I've done so. Would you be so kind as to point out which of your statements you feel I've misrepresented? Thanks.

 

Yes you moved the goal posts by shifting it from risk versus reward to statistics. That completely changes the argument and is therefore WRONG.

Unfortunately, I'm not clear on what you're referring to. If that did in fact happen though, that would probably be a strawman or a red herring. If you need assistance understanding what "moving the goalpost" actually means, you can find more info here. I hope that helps.

 

In a perfect world, nobody would need abortion. As this is not a perfect world, abortion is necessary. I believe that abortion should be legal. I happen to have a daughter by the way. That places me in a rather difficult position if I were to say abortion should be illegal. IF something happens to her and she becomes pregnant before she is ready, I am darn sure going to make sure she can get one.

So abortion is ok when rape is involved but not for any other reason? Am I understanding your argument correctly?

 

I just believe that people should be more responsible before hand. Take precautions, or abstain.

And if you do take precautions (aka use contraceptives) and get pregnant anyway?

 

YOU have twisted it into if you get pregnant you have to have a child. I have never said that.

From post #148:

"I do agree that if you are willing to do the deed, you should be willing to face up to it. There are a number of options for doing the deed that would prevent getting pregnant."

 

From post #154 (emphasis yours):

"Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child" and

 

"If you have sex, you should be WILLING to have a child. Some are quite willing to have sex, but never want children. In which case the best option is various toys, oral, and a few other good feeling but non-inseminating methods. Or they could just restrain their urges unless they are willing to take the chance that a pregnancy will occur." and

 

"Any time you have intercourse you should be ready for the off chance that such an occurance will happen."

 

Again, the argument appears to be "only have sex if you are prepared (or willing if you prefer) to have a child". You've made your point quite emphatically, so I'm not sure why you're trying to distance yourself from it by accusing me of introducing strawmen.

 

PS: I'm not sure if there are more posts I can reference. I figured these would be good enough to make my point.

 

I would keep abortion legal without the stipulation of only in the cases of rape for the sheer fact that some people will claim rape just to get the abortion.

That seems fairly reasonable.

 

My argument has been twisted from explaining my position on requesting more personal responsibility into only having sex to have a child, and now to being against abortion altogether. I do not appreciate that. Where have I stated that:

1) If you get pregnant, you should have a baby.

2) You should only have sex to have a baby.

See above.

FWIW, I will admit that I was not thinking in the context of rape related pregnancies when I attempted to summarize your arguments in the earlier post. For all other instances, I'll let the quotes above speak for themselves. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

Quite frankly I believe that I have stated quite often and very clearly that you can have sex without doing so to procreate.

I think that we all know that you can. I don't think that's the point on contention here.

 

Considering that I work in the adult entertainment business, I think I can say quite equivocally that I do not agree with that. I am in fact offended by your intentional attempts to mischaracterize my statements as such.

I've repeatedly asked for clarification and you have yet to provide any. If you interpret my attempts to seek clarification as an intentional bid to mischaracterize your arguments, then that is your problem, sir, not mine. If you can show where I have posted inappropriately, I'll be more than happy to make things right. In the mean time, I will not be persuaded by hand-waving.

 

Thanks for your post.

 

ADDED BY EDIT: You know it just occurred to me that we could probably clear up a lot of misunderstanding if you operationally define what it is to "take more personal responsibility". Thanks in advance for your help.

[Tommycat]

Men in general are often unwilling to take responsibility either emotionally or financially for either a child, or the abortion of the child. This extends to emotional support to the woman who has the child or the abortion. Hence personal responsibility. Women have very little choice before the child is born on whether they support it financially emotionally or biologically as it is pretty well attached to them.

 

I say willing in the off chance that the woman carrying the child decides that they want the child. In a few cases the man wants the child and the woman does not. I tend to believe that it should be a mutual agreement between both parties as to whether to keep the child or not, but there are enough exceptions as to make this non-viable(meaning that it is ultimately the woman's body and therefore she has the final say).

 

In my earlier statements that you quoted, it had to do with acceptng the responsibility SHOULD the woman decide to keep the child, however I can see how it could be misinterpreted. I was just getting fed up with your use of ONLY for procreation comments.

 

I would consider this to be an intentional mischaracterization:

 

Well said! Unfortunately, it does not appear that Tommycat agrees. If you get pregnant, you should have a baby. End of discussion.

 

And your characterization of my statement regarding something happening to my daughter, I did not say rape. There's a good reason for that. MAYBE it could be that rape is not the only thing that could happen. The only place where I did specify rape is later, but then I did not say that should be the only way to get an abortion. In a perfect world you could choose whether you get pregnant from accidental insemination(aka condom breakage), but as I said the world ain't perfect.

 

Again, to clarify my position which you asked for and began this long tangent. I feel that if you are willing to have intercourse, you should take responsibility for that action. That responsibility could extend to paying for an abortion and giving support to the woman, or should the woman decide to keep the child, be willing to pay for that child and not attempt to pressure the woman into an abortion. IF you are not willing to take either of those actions for the woman, do not have sex with her. Maybe this is the last time I have to say this, but I fear that somehow it will be twisted yet again.

 

And nowhere did I say you should ONLY have sex to have a baby. You made that up. You produced that statement. NOT me. Where did I say you should only have sex to have a baby?

[mimartin]

Baseball is not a good example. Move your own goalposts all you want, but leave mine alone thanks.

What? Your playing a different type of baseball than I ever did. Goalpost? Foul pole? Maybe? I don't get it. Why would you move a foul pole?

[Achilles]

Men in general are often unwilling to take responsibility either emotionally or financially for either a child, or the abortion of the child. This extends to emotional support to the woman who has the child or the abortion. Hence personal responsibility. Women have very little choice before the child is born on whether they support it financially emotionally or biologically as it is pretty well attached to them.

I'm not sure how that definitions jives with statements such as these:

"I just believe that people should be more responsible before hand. Take precautions, or abstain."

 

Hopefully that at least helps you to understand why I am having so much difficulty following your arguments.

 

I say willing in the off chance that the woman carrying the child decides that they want the child. In a few cases the man wants the child and the woman does not. I tend to believe that it should be a mutual agreement between both parties as to whether to keep the child or not, but there are enough exceptions as to make this non-viable(meaning that it is ultimately the woman's body and therefore she has the final say).

I would tend to agree.

 

In my earlier statements that you quoted, it had to do with acceptng the responsibility SHOULD the woman decide to keep the child, however I can see how it could be misinterpreted. I was just getting fed up with your use of ONLY for procreation comments.

Not sure how I could have commented on post #148 before you made it, but ok.

 

I would consider this to be an intentional mischaracterization:

Well said! Unfortunately, it does not appear that Tommycat agrees. If you get pregnant, you should have a baby. End of discussion.

Again, outside the caveat that I've already acknowledged and apologized for, I wouldn't classify this as mischaracterization at all. It appears to be exactly what you are promoting, whether you've followed your own arguments to their natural conclusions or not. That's neither my fault, nor my doing.

 

1) People that have sex can get pregnant.

2) People should not have sex unless they are willing to take personal responsibility for their actions (i.e. have a baby, so far as I've been able to determine, despite multiple requests for you to clarify).

3) Therefore, people should not have sex unless they are trying for a baby (since sex can result in a baby, no matter what).

 

You stop at #2. The logical output of the argument doesn't.

 

And your characterization of my statement regarding something happening to my daughter, I did not say rape.

You're right, you didn't. Those things I wrote there - they're called questions. You get to answer them how ever you'd like. For instance: "No, you aren't understanding my argument correctly. My argument was...". I hope the helps.

 

There's a good reason for that. MAYBE it could be that rape is not the only thing that could happen. The only place where I did specify rape is later, but then I did not say that should be the only way to get an abortion. In a perfect world you could choose whether you get pregnant from accidental insemination(aka condom breakage), but as I said the world ain't perfect.

Right.

 

Again, to clarify my position which you asked for and began this long tangent. I feel that if you are willing to have intercourse, you should take responsibility for that action. That responsibility could extend to paying for an abortion and giving support to the woman, or should the woman decide to keep the child, be willing to pay for that child and not attempt to pressure the woman into an abortion. IF you are not willing to take either of those actions for the woman, do not have sex with her. Maybe this is the last time I have to say this, but I fear that somehow it will be twisted yet again.

If you aren't against abortion (as you state here), then I have to wonder what your contention has been these last 3 pages? Wouldn't abortion as you used it here, be using it to fix an "oops"? Because you state quite plainly in one of your very first posts that your problem with abortion is people using it to fix "oopses".

 

Maybe your views have changed as you've debated the subject. That's happened to me more than once. Nothing wrong with saying "Oh wow, looks like my views have changed". On the hand, trying to paint someone else as asshat for pointing out that your arguments don't jive anymore is another thing entirely.

 

FWIW, I agree with everything you say here. If you get a woman pregnant you need to "man up" and take responsibility (previously ambiguous) by offering support through the abortion, or the decision to adopt, or in some cases keep the baby. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the abortion (in the context of topic), but I agree with you nonetheless.

 

And nowhere did I say you should ONLY have sex to have a baby. You made that up. You produced that statement. NOT me. Where did I say you should only have sex to have a baby?

As I have already stated multiple times, it's the logical conclusion to your argument. This is like mixing a bunch of ingredients in bowl, smoothing them out into a pan, putting the pan into a pre-heated oven and then proclaiming "I DIDN'T MAKE ANY CAKES!" 30 minutes later. The premises are your's sir, don't begrudge me pointing out the conclusion.

 

Why would you move a foul pole?

To get to the other side!

[Tommycat]

I'm not sure how that definitions jives with statements such as these:

"I just believe that people should be more responsible before hand. Take precautions, or abstain."

perhaps you can point out where it does not? To me it makes perfect sense, and as such I cannot explain to your satisfaction the explanation of your confusion. Lets see, I would like people not to have as many abortions. That entails being proactive and taking as many precautions as possible.

 

Not sure how I could have commented on post #148 before you made it, but ok.

The general and continual use of your "logical conclusion" was the comment I was talking about.

 

Again, outside the caveat that I've already acknowledged and apologized for, I wouldn't classify this as mischaracterization at all. It appears to be exactly what you are promoting, whether you've followed your own arguments to their natural conclusions or not. That's neither my fault, nor my doing.

 

1) People that have sex can get pregnant.

2) People should not have sex unless they are willing to take personal responsibility for their actions (i.e. have a baby, so far as I've been able to determine, despite multiple requests for you to clarify).

3) Therefore, people should not have sex unless they are trying for a baby (since sex can result in a baby, no matter what).

You added that step. It is not a logical step. It is your characterization of a separate step. It would be like saying that people should only have sex to get an STD. People should only be a musician to be screwed by a club owner. Being willing to take the risk does not mean that you should do it for that purpose.

 

You stop at #2. The logical output of the argument doesn't.

It does not unless the ONLY output is that. You also miss that the output can lead to physical enjoyment without producing a child. Yes there is risk, but if you take enough precautions ahead of time, that risk is reduced to very little.

 

You're right, you didn't. Those things I wrote there - they're called questions. You get to answer them how ever you'd like. For instance: "No, you aren't understanding my argument correctly. My argument was...". I hope the helps.

A very hostile and sarchastic question.

 

If you aren't against abortion (as you state here), then I have to wonder what your contention has been these last 3 pages? Wouldn't abortion as you used it here, be using it to fix an "oops"? Because you state quite plainly in one of your very first posts that your problem with abortion is people using it to fix "oopses".

My purpose had been defending my honor as you called me a hypocrite. I was explaining for 3 pages, that my views do not conflict. As for the statement of fixing "oopses", If I said so, then I mis-stated, My problem would be in using abortion as a replacement for safer sex practices.

 

Maybe your views have changed as you've debated the subject. That's happened to me more than once. Nothing wrong with saying "Oh wow, looks like my views have changed". On the hand, trying to paint someone else as asshat for pointing out that your arguments don't jive anymore is another thing entirely.

No, but maybe my ability to more clearly define it has, because some people call me a hypocrite because of what they perceive as inconsistencies.

 

FWIW, I agree with everything you say here. If you get a woman pregnant you need to "man up" and take responsibility (previously ambiguous) by offering support through the abortion, or the decision to adopt, or in some cases keep the baby. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the abortion (in the context of topic), but I agree with you nonetheless.

I don't get it, You ask for clarification, I don't provide it, you get upset and continue demanding clarification of what I mean, then I provide that clarification, and now you are asking relevance? It was an answer to your request for clarification of my position.

 

As I have already stated multiple times, it's the logical conclusion to your argument. This is like mixing a bunch of ingredients in bowl, smoothing them out into a pan, putting the pan into a pre-heated oven and then proclaiming "I DIDN'T MAKE ANY CAKES!" 30 minutes later. The premises are your's sir, don't begrudge me pointing out the conclusion.

No, it is a logical fallacy. A slippery slope if you will. It is only the logical conclusion if you would agree that people should only have sex to get an STD. It is not the only logical conclusion, just the one you want to draw to make the statement appear false.

[Achilles]

perhaps you can point out where it does not? To me it makes perfect sense, and as such I cannot explain to your satisfaction the explanation of your confusion. Lets see, I would like people not to have as many abortions. That entails being proactive and taking as many precautions as possible.

You continually use the term "take responsibility" (or some derivative).

I ask you to operationally define the term.

You offer a definition that focuses entirely upon post-coital behavior.

Therefore usage of term in pre-coital context (like the part I quoted) + definition of term in post-coital context = me very confused about what it is you mean to say.

I hope that helps.

 

The general and continual use of your "logical conclusion" was the comment I was talking about.

No, I got that. I still don't get how you were frustrated by it before I said it.

 

See, you said something. I commented on it. You're now trying to say that your saying it was a response to my commenting on it. I'm pretty sure that violates some sort of physical law regarding the arrow of time, etc.

 

You added that step. It is not a logical step. It is your characterization of a separate step.

Yes, sir, I absolutely did. You provided the premises. I provided the conclusion. You are more than welcome to present arguments for how the conclusion is wrong, but you cannot claim that it is a strawman (or you could simply admit that the 2nd premise is flawed, then the conclusion won't apply any longer).

 

More on deductive reasoning, if you need help.

 

It would be like saying that people should only have sex to get an STD.

Indeed it would!

 

People should only be a musician to be screwed by a club owner. Being willing to take the risk does not mean that you should do it for that purpose.

It certainly is a colorful analogy, but I'm not sure how well it applies.

 

It does not unless the ONLY output is that. You also miss that the output can lead to physical enjoyment without producing a child. Yes there is risk, but if you take enough precautions ahead of time, that risk is reduced to very little.

But, sir, your comment was:

"Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child". You appear to be contradicting yourself. Again, maybe your views have changed.

 

A very hostile and sarchastic question.

Niether question was hostile or sarcastic.

 

My purpose had been defending my honor as you called me a hypocrite. I was explaining for 3 pages, that my views do not conflict. As for the statement of fixing "oopses", If I said so, then I mis-stated, My problem would be in using abortion as a replacement for safer sex practices.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

No, but maybe my ability to more clearly define it has, because some people call me a hypocrite because of what they perceive as inconsistencies.

I don't create the inconsistencies, sir. I merely point them out. At every opportunity I have pointed out the parts that don't make sense and you have been invited to show me how I am misunderstanding you. If you have opted to go on the defensive and stubbornly circle the wagons around your aruguments rather than have an open and honest dialog, then that is your right, but also your decision.

 

I don't get it, You ask for clarification, I don't provide it, you get upset and continue demanding clarification of what I mean, then I provide that clarification, and now you are asking relevance? It was an answer to your request for clarification of my position.

I question the relevance because your clarification seems to have almost nothing to do with the topic of abortion. If this is truly what you mean by "personal responsibility" then I cannot fathom how it even came up in conversation in the first place.

 

"In essence I kinda agree with web rider in that it is about personal responsibility. If you don't want kids, don't do the deed." (Post #125)

"I don't think I've been hypocritical in my statements regarding personal responsibility. I do agree that if you are willing to do the deed, you should be willing to face up to it." (Post #148)

"If you aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions don't do it." (Post #158)

"I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child. IF you are not willing to accept that responsibility(in the event that it occurs) then keep it zipped." (Post #160)

"You may not want it [pregnancy], but if you do it you have to accept responsibility for your actions." (Post #160)

 

But now you say, "personal responsibility" is about being a supportive partner after a pregnancy has occurred. Hopefully you can see how this would be confusing for me.

 

No, it is a logical fallacy.

You're more than welcome to plead your case.

 

A slippery slope if you will.

Um, no. Slippery slope doesn't apply here.

 

It is only the logical conclusion if you would agree that people should only have sex to get an STD.

That is the logical conclusion if you change "pregnancy" to "STD" in your premise. Hopefully you can see why I question the validity of the argument.

 

It is not the only logical conclusion, just the one you want to draw to make the statement appear false.

You're more than welcome to provide your own conclusion to the argument. Here are the premises again for your convenience:

 

(Premise 1) People that have sex can get pregnant.

(Premise 2) People should not have sex unless they are willing to take personal responsibility for impregnation by having the child (See posts 125, 148, 158, and 160)

(Conclusion) ?

 

I look forward to reading your response.