Sex strike

[Shad]

Why do you think I was just talking about America.

As the OP is about America.

In the USA there are people perfectly able to pay for their own Terminations
And there are charities that have been perfectly willing to pay for the poor.

Ergo government aid is not required at all.

Proportion wise probably as many rich people have abortions as do the poor anyway... they just tend to keep quiet about it.

Which makes them even worse people than the poor in my view as they can afford to have a child to begin with.

And why not?
It is their business not anyone else's.

As the criteria is still arbitrary.

 

[Polymath257]

Outside of medical reasons, rape and incest all other reasons are arbitary.

She let the penis in her body, she knew what could happen. She consented to the result by having sex. Tough ****. Deal with the results of the act of sex.

So I can go and shoot an adult in such a state with no repressions? Adults do not lose their rights in such a state yet your deny it to the unborn by the same standard. Hilarious.

Let me put it this way. If I connected myself to another person in such a way that my removal would kill me, would the person I attached myself to have the right to remove me? Absolutely. And yes, even if they originally said it was OK to attach to them.

A person does NOT consent to have a child merely by reason of having sex. That is, after all, the whole point of birth control. That is an *active* denial of consent.

And again, even that is irrelevant. If she wants to remove someone who has attached themselves to her body, she has that absolute right.

Yup.

Well, I advocate a bit of a nicer society that takes care of people that make mistakes.

Wrong as they could of easily considered why they are not ready for a child and avoided having sex to begin with. Short term pleasure vs long term goals.

And if they use BC and it fails, that *is* being responsible. Sometimes BC fails and you 't want children.

No it isn't as BC is not guaranteed even by the manufactures ergo a false assumption on the part of the user about reliability of the product.

Yup so unlucky they tripped and fell on a penis right?

Nope. So unlucky that they got pregnant even while using BC.

 

[Shad]

Let me put it this way. If I connected myself to another person in such a way that my removal would kill me, would the person I attached myself to have the right to remove me?

The baby didn't have a choice nor is attaching itself to anyone. False comparison.

A person does NOT consent to have a child merely by reason of having sex.

Wrong. Reproduction is a result of sex. By having sex they have consented to that result.

That is, after all, the whole point of birth control. That is an *active* denial of consent.

It is a mulligan, nothing more. Do not want a child, do not have sex. Works 99% of the time

And again, even that is irrelevant. If she wants to remove someone who has attached themselves to her body, she has that absolute right.

I disagree. Does a Siamese twin have a right to kill it's sibling due to being attached?

Well, I advocate a bit of a nicer society that takes care of people that make mistakes.

I rather have a society which teaches people to not make mistakes which are very easy to avoid.

And if they use BC and it fails, that *is* being responsible. Sometimes BC fails and you 't want children.

Do not have sex then.

Nope. So unlucky that they got pregnant even while using BC.

That has nothing to do with luck.

 

[crossfire]

The baby didn't have a choice nor is attaching itself to anyone.

It doesn't have a choice since it is not capable of making any choices at this point--it isn't even a baby yet.

 

[Shad]

It doesn't have a choice since it is not capable of making any choices at this point--it isn't even a baby yet.

Yes hence the comparison is false.

Baby is subjective. Talk to one pregnant woman, it's a baby. Talk to someone else, it isn't. Which goes back to my point about arbitrary criteria.

 

[crossfire]

<...>


Wrong. Reproduction is a result of sex. By having sex they have consented to that result.

Actually, reproduction has several steps: beginning with a union of gametes. This union of gametes can be accomplished without sex in vitro. Next, the resulting zygoat must develop into a blastocyte. This also can occur in vitro without sex. The blastocyte must then emplant within a uterine wall, develop a placenta, and parasitically feed through the placenta, and develop and grow. Again, this can also occur without sex and is done in fertility clinics. In the case of fertility clinics, several blastocytes are usually introduced in order to increase the chances of one successfully developing a placenta in the proper place. If too many attach, then the excess are often frozen with liquid nitrogen and removed.

Now, what is wrong with a woman chosing to remove excess embryos from her uterus at a fertility clinic? It didn't involve sex. Is that what makes it ok?

If a woman can choose to have excess embryos removed from her uterus in a fertility clinic, then why can't she choose to have excess embryos removed from her uterus outside of a fertility clinic?

 

[crossfire]

Yes hence the comparison is false.

Baby is subjective. Talk to one pregnant woman, it's a baby. Talk to someone else, it isn't. Which goes back to my point about arbitrary criteria.

One generally has the right to determine who is a welcomed guest in your home and who is an uninvited intruder.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong. Reproduction is a result of sex. By having sex they have consented to that result.

No, they have not. That is part of the point. By using BC (and it failing), they have specifically denied consent.

Suppose someone feeds you bad food and you get sick. Did you give consent merely because you accepted the food? Suppose you also looked a bit, but mistakenly thought it was fine, did you then give your consent?

It is a mulligan, nothing more. Do not want a child, do not have sex. Works 99% of the time

Even that isn't 100%. But, if you don't want children, use birth control. And yes, have abortion as a backup if ordinary BC fails.

I rather have a society which teaches people to not make mistakes which are very easy to avoid.

And, evidently to force them to pay for those mistakes even if there are easy ways to avoid that.

Do not have sex then.

Not an option. Sex is one of the joys of life. Yes, you need to be careful. But not having sex isn't an option for a healthy adult.

That has nothing to do with luck.

Getting pregnant in spite of using BC isn't bad luck? Wow.

 

[Shad]

Now, what is wrong with a woman chosing to remove excess embryos from her uterus at a fertility clinic? It didn't involve sex. Is that what makes it ok?

A woman that purposely use medical technology to become pregnant changes her mind?

No it is still not okay. It is actually a worse example.

If a woman can choose to have excess embryos removed from her uterus in a fertility clinic, then why can't she choose to have excess embryos removed from her uterus outside of a fertility clinic?

No to both.

Keep in mind what an embryo is.

 

[Polymath257]

A woman that purposely use medical technology to become pregnant changes her mind?

No it is still not okay. It is actually a worse example.

No to both.

Keep in mind what an embryo is.

That's what we are doing.

 

[Shad]

No, they have not. That is part of the point. By using BC (and it failing), they have specifically denied consent.

Nope as BC is not guaranteed. They have accepted a lower probability of becoming pregnant.

Suppose someone feeds you bad food and you get sick. Did you give consent merely because you accepted the food?

As a business or private life?

Suppose you also looked a bit, but mistakenly thought it was fine, did you then give your consent?

See above.

Even that isn't 100%. But, if you don't want children, use birth control. And yes, have abortion as a backup if ordinary BC fails.

I would rather see children being taught self-control, foresight and planning.

And, evidently to force them to pay for those mistakes even if there are easy ways to avoid that.

Acts have consequences.

Not an option. Sex is one of the joys of life. Yes, you need to be careful. But not having sex isn't an option for a healthy adult.

Planning is an option. Also keep in mind how long a life of an adult is on average.

Getting pregnant in spite of using BC isn't bad luck? Wow.

No its probability. Picking 11 or 7 vs pick snake-eyes or 12. If I pick one of the latter why should be surprised if I lose?

 

[Shad]

That's what we are doing.

Read the comment I was replying to.

 

[Shad]

One generally has the right to determine who is a welcomed guest in your home and who is an uninvited intruder.

As are laws about inviting someone in then killing them under the pretext of an home invasion.

 

[Polymath257]

As are laws about inviting someone in then killing them under the pretext of an home invasion.

Using birth control means they were NOT invited in: a barricaded door means you're not welcome.

 

[crossfire]

A woman that purposely use medical technology to become pregnant changes her mind?

No it is still not okay. It is actually a worse example.



No to both.

Keep in mind what an embryo is.

So if 12 blasocytes implant, it's not ok to remove 10 or 11 of them?

 

[crossfire]

As are laws about inviting someone in then killing them under the pretext of an home invasion.

Putting a door on your house is not an invitation, especially if the door has a lock. Bypassing a lock is breaking and entering.

 

[Shad]

Using birth control means they were NOT invited in: a barricaded door means you're not welcome.

They invited the penis. They invited the sperm. You can not invite that which does not exist.

 

[Shad]

Putting a door on your house is not an invitation, especially if the door has a lock. Bypassing a lock is breaking and entering.

Except my point was about invitation and changing consent after the fact while removal is by death only. The child is not committing a B&E as the child does not exist. The child is the result of letting something else in the home and the home owner not wanting to deal with a house guess they know can cause issues.

 

[Polymath257]

They invited the penis. They invited the sperm. You can not invite that which does not exist.

No, that is sort of the whole point of contraception: to deny that invite.

 

[Polymath257]

Except my point was about invitation and changing consent after the fact while remove is by death only.

If you can remove the fetus and not kill it, then do so.