Sex strike

[Shad]

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

This isn't part of the medical procedure. I do not respond to what I see as fantasy.

 

[Shad]

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

You are misplacing what object was invited in. It was the penis.

 

[crossfire]

This isn't part of the medical procedure. I do not respond to what I see as fantasy.

Yes, it actually is part of the procedure. If too many blastocytes attach, the excess are frozen off. The goal is to have a successful pregancy with the birth of a healthy child. Too many at once may not result in a healthy child.

 

[Polymath257]

You are misplacing what object was invited in. It was the penis.

Yes, and most definitely not the fertilized egg.

Giving permission for a penis to be inside doesn't give permission to have a baby.

 

[Shad]

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

What if the only way is to kill the fetus?

In abortion context it would make abortion illegal

 

[Shad]

Yes, it actually is part of the procedure. If too many blastocytes attach, the excess are frozen off.

Source.

 

[Polymath257]

What if the only way is to kill the fetus?

In abortion context it would make abortion illegal

If the only way is to kill the fetus, then yes, kill the fetus. Once again, that fetus is embedded in someone else's body. If that person wants the fetus out, they have the absolute right to have it out.

If I was embedded in another person's body and they wanted me out and the only way to get me out was to kill me, they would *still* have the right to get me out.

Yes, even if I was previously invited in.

 

[Shad]

Yes, and most definitely not the fertilized egg.

The fertilized egg is the result of interaction between the house guest and the homeowner.

Giving permission for a penis to be inside doesn't give permission to have a baby.

The penis has a specific primary function ergo they consent to the possibility a child will be the result. Do not want a child, do not have sex.

 

[Shad]

If the only way is to kill the fetus, then yes, kill the fetus. Once again, that fetus is embedded in someone else's body. If that person wants the fetus out, they have the absolute right to have it out.

Disagree.

Do note you set no age limit outside the term itself

 

[Polymath257]

The egg is the result of interaction between the house guest and the homeowner.

So? If the house owner wants it out, they have the right to have it removed.

The penis has a specific primary function ergo they consent to the possibility a child will be the result. Do not want a child, do not have sex.

Wrong. They did NOT give consent. They specifically used BC to avoid giving exactly that consent.

 

[Shad]

So? If the house owner wants it out, they have the right to have it removed.

The hoome owner still must deal with the result of their interactions with the guest and not merely kill the result because a probably result occurred.

Wrong. They did NOT give consent.

Yes they did via the definition of sex

They specifically used BC to avoid giving exactly that consent.

Wrong as BC is not guaranteed ergo they misplace consent with accepting a lower probability of a result. It's not my problem they do not understand that.

 

[Polymath257]

This is getting repetitive. I'm out. Nothing new here.

 

[crossfire]

The hoome owner still must deal with the result of their interactions with the guest and not merely kill the result because a probably result occurred.

Who are you to tell the homeowner they can't clean up up their house after messy guests? That is the homeowner's decision. If a guest brings fleas into the house with them, then the homeowner certainly has the right to flea bomb the house after the guest has left.

 

[Koldo]

Also newborn adoptions have large waiting lists for those looking to adopt.



Simple. They have abortions as they are not ready, responsibility factor, to have children but take part in the only act that produces children thus are irresponsible. They want to do X but not the results of X. BC has little to no warranty for use ergo BC is not as reliable as people think as the companies won't back their products. This makes them unaware.

What do you mean by not being ready to have children ? I am not exactly ready to be run over by a car while I am walking to the market to buy ice cream either, does that make me irresponsible ? Surely I do try to prevent it from happening in the best way I can but the risk is there and I am not really prepared to face the consequences when/if it happens. If that makes me irresponsible, I think it is fair to say that pretty much the entire human race is irresponsible.

 

[Koldo]

Yes ... and?

Why would i need to provide a refutation for my own post

I am not misusing biology, genetics is a biological subject,

Read again.
I didn't ask for a refutation to your own post. I asked for a refutation to what you quoted in your post.

You are misusing biology because you can't derive an ought from how things are. Fishes die if taken out of water. Does that say anything about what we should do with fishes ? No.

 

[crossfire]

Also newborn adoptions have large waiting lists for those looking to adopt.

Compelling women who don't want to give birth into giving birth in order to fulfill orders for adoption amounts to human trafficking.

 

[ChristineM]

Read again.
I didn't ask for a refutation to your own post. I asked for a refutation to what you quoted in your post.

You are misusing biology because you can't derive an ought from how things are. Fishes die if taken out of water. Does that say anything about what we should do with fishes ? No.

Your precise words were
"My gripe is that you haven't provided an actual refutation to what you quoted in your post #160."

I say again, why should i refute my own post.

Strawmen dont earn points, neither does totally irrelevant bull. If you have nothing constructive to add then we are done

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Actually, yes they do. When they are 'brain dead', they are dead and lose all rights. If we looks for that same level of brain activity that distinguishes living from dead, but in the fetus, that starts to happen about the 6th month of pregnancy.

 

[Koldo]

Your precise words were
"My gripe is that you haven't provided an actual refutation to what you quoted in your post #160."

I say again, why should i refute my own post.

Strawmen dont earn points, neither does totally irrelevant bull. If you have nothing constructive to add then we are done

Those were my precise words, yes.

I did say: "My gripe is that you haven't provided an actual refutation to what you quoted in your post #160."

Take note that I have NOT said: My gripe is that you haven't provided an actual refutation to your post #160.

Now, what did you quote in your post #160 ? Part of post #154. Check post #160 again now and notice there is a quote to someone else's post in there. I am saying you didn't refute that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Women have excess embryos removed during fertility treatments when too many embryos have implanted and therefore some of them will not have a chance to grow and develop into a baby.

This is way I don't want men and any other people who have no idea how my body works or what medical choices may be involved, making my decisions about my own body for me. Like that genius politician who said that our bodies turn off the pregnancy process when we are getting raped. Thanks anyway. That kind of stuff needs to stay between my doctor and I.