Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I care about contraception so much.

LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:16:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

Not swimming is safer than using life vests. Where are you going with this?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 9:07:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:16:29 AM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

Not swimming is safer than using life vests. Where are you going with this?

This is a false analogy. It's clear where I'm going with this. I'm advocating for abstinence. If you think safe sex until marriage is a superior option to no sex until marriage, I'm willing to debate you on the topic.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:12:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:07:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is a false analogy. It's clear where I'm going with this. I'm advocating for abstinence. If you think safe sex until marriage is a superior option to no sex until marriage, I'm willing to debate you on the topic.

No, it isn't. People don't 'need' to swim. If people just didn't go near the water they wouldn't drown; life jackets just promote reckless behavior. The only 100% way to prevent drowning is total abstinence from swimming.

Sex before/after marriage is a wholly different topic to abstinence vs contraception.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 10:27:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 10:12:57 AM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 9:07:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
This is a false analogy. It's clear where I'm going with this. I'm advocating for abstinence. If you think safe sex until marriage is a superior option to no sex until marriage, I'm willing to debate you on the topic.

No, it isn't. People don't 'need' to swim. If people just didn't go near the water they wouldn't drown; life jackets just promote reckless behavior. The only 100% way to prevent drowning is total abstinence from swimming.

Sex before/after marriage is a wholly different topic to abstinence vs contraception.

It's the same thing, rarely anybody advocates for complete celibacy, because making love is such a good part of being alive. Swimming on the other hand is a false analogy, though I do agree with you, that staying out of the water is a good way to prevent drowning.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 1:49:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 10:27:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
It's the same thing, rarely anybody advocates for complete celibacy, because making love is such a good part of being alive. Swimming on the other hand is a false analogy, though I do agree with you, that staying out of the water is a good way to prevent drowning.

Plenty of people do; it's a bit ridiculous & demonstrates poor understanding of human psychology, but nevertheless they still do it. Waiting until marriage to have sex is not fundamentally different to only having sex with long-term monogamous partners in general.
You haven't actually explained *how* swimming is a false analogy; it seems fine to me. And just in case it wasn't clear, I'm being a bit satirical with that.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 1:52:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 1:49:59 PM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 10:27:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
It's the same thing, rarely anybody advocates for complete celibacy, because making love is such a good part of being alive. Swimming on the other hand is a false analogy, though I do agree with you, that staying out of the water is a good way to prevent drowning.

Plenty of people do; it's a bit ridiculous & demonstrates poor understanding of human psychology, but nevertheless they still do it. Waiting until marriage to have sex is not fundamentally different to only having sex with long-term monogamous partners in general.
You haven't actually explained *how* swimming is a false analogy; it seems fine to me. And just in case it wasn't clear, I'm being a bit satirical with that.

http://www.txstate.edu...
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 1:54:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 1:52:35 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:49:59 PM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 10:27:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
It's the same thing, rarely anybody advocates for complete celibacy, because making love is such a good part of being alive. Swimming on the other hand is a false analogy, though I do agree with you, that staying out of the water is a good way to prevent drowning.

Plenty of people do; it's a bit ridiculous & demonstrates poor understanding of human psychology, but nevertheless they still do it. Waiting until marriage to have sex is not fundamentally different to only having sex with long-term monogamous partners in general.
You haven't actually explained *how* swimming is a false analogy; it seems fine to me. And just in case it wasn't clear, I'm being a bit satirical with that.

http://www.txstate.edu...

From what I can tell drowning, swimming & life jackets are 'alike enough' to be a meaningful analogy to STD's/unwanted pregnancy/etc., (safe) sex & contraceptives. How, specifically, is this specific analogy not good?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 1:57:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.

Then, why, in the event contraception fails (which it is not 100% effective), would you be opposed to abortion, given your child's likelihood of medical issues?
My work here is, finally, done.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:09:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 1:54:23 PM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:52:35 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:49:59 PM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 10:27:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
It's the same thing, rarely anybody advocates for complete celibacy, because making love is such a good part of being alive. Swimming on the other hand is a false analogy, though I do agree with you, that staying out of the water is a good way to prevent drowning.

Plenty of people do; it's a bit ridiculous & demonstrates poor understanding of human psychology, but nevertheless they still do it. Waiting until marriage to have sex is not fundamentally different to only having sex with long-term monogamous partners in general.
You haven't actually explained *how* swimming is a false analogy; it seems fine to me. And just in case it wasn't clear, I'm being a bit satirical with that.

http://www.txstate.edu...

From what I can tell drowning, swimming & life jackets are 'alike enough' to be a meaningful analogy to STD's/unwanted pregnancy/etc., (safe) sex & contraceptives. How, specifically, is this specific analogy not good?

Swimming and having sex are different things. The discussion of whether abstaining from sex is superior to abstinence, is different than the decision to swim or not when trying to avoid drowning is completely different.

With sex you must examine ethical concerns that are different than with swimming. Is it ethical to reproduce at all, or in your current situation? Swimming does not have this ethical concern, because it's not a form of procreation. I guess if the only concern were for personal safety the analogy would be stronger, though still a weak analogy.

I could for example say that death by drowning is a net good, while accidentally procreating is a net negative. Bringing a child into the world increases suffering (especially an unwanted child), and it increases the amount the Earth is being destroyed, we all create an environmental impact on the world.

Another reason is that when we drown we only kill ourselves, but if we contract aids because protection isn't 100% perfect we can kill multiple people from sexual contact, if we spread aids to just one person, they can spread it to a dozen people, and each of those people could spread it to a dozen more. Drowning kills one person, unprotected sex might kill 100 people, or at least make them undesirable for future mates in other ways.

I could give at least 100 examples of ethical concerns with sex, that aren't present with swimming. It's not a comparable thing.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:10:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 1:57:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.

Then, why, in the event contraception fails (which it is not 100% effective), would you be opposed to abortion, given your child's likelihood of medical issues?

Even as a pro life person, I'd think the ethical thing for her would be to abort as early as possible.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:21:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:09:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
Swimming and having sex are different things. The discussion of whether abstaining from sex is superior to abstinence, is different than the decision to swim or not when trying to avoid drowning is completely different.

Obviously they're different things, that's why one is analogous to & being compared to the other and they aren't just literally the exact same thing.

With sex you must examine ethical concerns that are different than with swimming. Is it ethical to reproduce at all, or in your current situation? Swimming does not have this ethical concern, because it's not a form of procreation. I guess if the only concern were for personal safety the analogy would be stronger, though still a weak analogy.

Fair point, but you *could* tie some of those in as well, to a degree. "Is it unethical to only prevent genetically/physically/psychologically 'fit' people from running the risk of drowning while letting everyone else do what they want", for example. Anything which relates to human choice & runs the risk of serious harm has an ethical component. In particular, I personally had sexual health (STD's, unwanted pregnancy & so on) in mind when I decided to use the analogy, and it appears to work fairly well in that regard. Having sex runs a potential health risk, & use of contraceptives both alleviates much of that risk and, according to some, 'promotes risky behavior' (which would presumably be having sex at all), and the same could be said of swimming, using life vests to alleviate risk & also arguably run the risk of 'getting in over your depth' (hah).

I could for example say that death by drowning is a net good, while accidentally procreating is a net negative. Bringing a child into the world increases suffering (especially an unwanted child), and it increases the amount the Earth is being destroyed, we all create an environmental impact on the world.

Drowning causes a person to die, & anyone who cares about them to become distraught with grief for a significant period of time. I really don't get how there could be a net positive effect. Point on unwanted childbirth being a net negative, & I agree. However, truly comprehensive sex education, correct & consistent use of contraceptives & legal abortion really does negate that almost (if not actually, in an 'ideal' world) completely out.

Another reason is that when we drown we only kill ourselves, but if we contract aids because protection isn't 100% perfect we can kill multiple people from sexual contact, if we spread aids to just one person, they can spread it to a dozen people, and each of those people could spread it to a dozen more. Drowning kills one person, unprotected sex might kill 100 people, or at least make them undesirable for future mates in other ways.

Again,true. The analogy is not meant to be perfect, just to illustrate a point, which I still think it does just fine. Life vests *do* alleviate much of the health risk taken by swimming, and in the same 'kind' of manner as contraceptives they can be said to encourage 'risky behavior' in their relevant area.

I could give at least 100 examples of ethical concerns with sex, that aren't present with swimming. It's not a comparable thing.

See above. Again, of course it isn't '100%' the same, and it isn't meant to be. The analogy begins & ends with personal risk to the person wearing the vest/using the contraceptives. That's all it was supposed to illustrate.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:24:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:10:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:57:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.

Then, why, in the event contraception fails (which it is not 100% effective), would you be opposed to abortion, given your child's likelihood of medical issues?

Even as a pro life person, I'd think the ethical thing for her would be to abort as early as possible.

I suppose so, but for the pro-life person, it is unethical at all, and the OP's stance, hence my question.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:28:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:21:25 PM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:09:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
Swimming and having sex are different things. The discussion of whether abstaining from sex is superior to abstinence, is different than the decision to swim or not when trying to avoid drowning is completely different.

Obviously they're different things, that's why one is analogous to & being compared to the other and they aren't just literally the exact same thing.


With sex you must examine ethical concerns that are different than with swimming. Is it ethical to reproduce at all, or in your current situation? Swimming does not have this ethical concern, because it's not a form of procreation. I guess if the only concern were for personal safety the analogy would be stronger, though still a weak analogy.

Fair point, but you *could* tie some of those in as well, to a degree. "Is it unethical to only prevent genetically/physically/psychologically 'fit' people from running the risk of drowning while letting everyone else do what they want", for example. Anything which relates to human choice & runs the risk of serious harm has an ethical component. In particular, I personally had sexual health (STD's, unwanted pregnancy & so on) in mind when I decided to use the analogy, and it appears to work fairly well in that regard. Having sex runs a potential health risk, & use of contraceptives both alleviates much of that risk and, according to some, 'promotes risky behavior' (which would presumably be having sex at all), and the same could be said of swimming, using life vests to alleviate risk & also arguably run the risk of 'getting in over your depth' (hah).


I could for example say that death by drowning is a net good, while accidentally procreating is a net negative. Bringing a child into the world increases suffering (especially an unwanted child), and it increases the amount the Earth is being destroyed, we all create an environmental impact on the world.

Drowning causes a person to die, & anyone who cares about them to become distraught with grief for a significant period of time. I really don't get how there could be a net positive effect. Point on unwanted childbirth being a net negative, & I agree. However, truly comprehensive sex education, correct & consistent use of contraceptives & legal abortion really does negate that almost (if not actually, in an 'ideal' world) completely out.


Another reason is that when we drown we only kill ourselves, but if we contract aids because protection isn't 100% perfect we can kill multiple people from sexual contact, if we spread aids to just one person, they can spread it to a dozen people, and each of those people could spread it to a dozen more. Drowning kills one person, unprotected sex might kill 100 people, or at least make them undesirable for future mates in other ways.

Again,true. The analogy is not meant to be perfect, just to illustrate a point, which I still think it does just fine. Life vests *do* alleviate much of the health risk taken by swimming, and in the same 'kind' of manner as contraceptives they can be said to encourage 'risky behavior' in their relevant area.


I could give at least 100 examples of ethical concerns with sex, that aren't present with swimming. It's not a comparable thing.

See above. Again, of course it isn't '100%' the same, and it isn't meant to be. The analogy begins & ends with personal risk to the person wearing the vest/using the contraceptives. That's all it was supposed to illustrate.

It's a weak analogy, really just read through the article I linked to. Now you're just clearly wrong and still trying to defend your position. If you agree with the conclusion still, switch to a different argument, but that analogy isn't a good argument.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:29:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:24:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:10:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:57:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.

Then, why, in the event contraception fails (which it is not 100% effective), would you be opposed to abortion, given your child's likelihood of medical issues?

Even as a pro life person, I'd think the ethical thing for her would be to abort as early as possible.

I suppose so, but for the pro-life person, it is unethical at all, and the OP's stance, hence my question.

Then that would destroy the pro life position, because almost every pro lifer allows for exceptions.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:32:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:28:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:21:25 PM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:09:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
Swimming and having sex are different things. The discussion of whether abstaining from sex is superior to abstinence, is different than the decision to swim or not when trying to avoid drowning is completely different.

Obviously they're different things, that's why one is analogous to & being compared to the other and they aren't just literally the exact same thing.


With sex you must examine ethical concerns that are different than with swimming. Is it ethical to reproduce at all, or in your current situation? Swimming does not have this ethical concern, because it's not a form of procreation. I guess if the only concern were for personal safety the analogy would be stronger, though still a weak analogy.

Fair point, but you *could* tie some of those in as well, to a degree. "Is it unethical to only prevent genetically/physically/psychologically 'fit' people from running the risk of drowning while letting everyone else do what they want", for example. Anything which relates to human choice & runs the risk of serious harm has an ethical component. In particular, I personally had sexual health (STD's, unwanted pregnancy & so on) in mind when I decided to use the analogy, and it appears to work fairly well in that regard. Having sex runs a potential health risk, & use of contraceptives both alleviates much of that risk and, according to some, 'promotes risky behavior' (which would presumably be having sex at all), and the same could be said of swimming, using life vests to alleviate risk & also arguably run the risk of 'getting in over your depth' (hah).


I could for example say that death by drowning is a net good, while accidentally procreating is a net negative. Bringing a child into the world increases suffering (especially an unwanted child), and it increases the amount the Earth is being destroyed, we all create an environmental impact on the world.

Drowning causes a person to die, & anyone who cares about them to become distraught with grief for a significant period of time. I really don't get how there could be a net positive effect. Point on unwanted childbirth being a net negative, & I agree. However, truly comprehensive sex education, correct & consistent use of contraceptives & legal abortion really does negate that almost (if not actually, in an 'ideal' world) completely out.


Another reason is that when we drown we only kill ourselves, but if we contract aids because protection isn't 100% perfect we can kill multiple people from sexual contact, if we spread aids to just one person, they can spread it to a dozen people, and each of those people could spread it to a dozen more. Drowning kills one person, unprotected sex might kill 100 people, or at least make them undesirable for future mates in other ways.

Again,true. The analogy is not meant to be perfect, just to illustrate a point, which I still think it does just fine. Life vests *do* alleviate much of the health risk taken by swimming, and in the same 'kind' of manner as contraceptives they can be said to encourage 'risky behavior' in their relevant area.


I could give at least 100 examples of ethical concerns with sex, that aren't present with swimming. It's not a comparable thing.

See above. Again, of course it isn't '100%' the same, and it isn't meant to be. The analogy begins & ends with personal risk to the person wearing the vest/using the contraceptives. That's all it was supposed to illustrate.

It's a weak analogy, really just read through the article I linked to. Now you're just clearly wrong and still trying to defend your position. If you agree with the conclusion still, switch to a different argument, but that analogy isn't a good argument.

You still haven't really explained how it's a weak analogy with regard to what it's actually analogous to, though. You've made good points, but those are all with regard to things that my example is not supposed to be analogous to. With specific regard to personal risk to the person using the noted device, how does it not work, specifically?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:34:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:29:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:24:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:10:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:57:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.

Then, why, in the event contraception fails (which it is not 100% effective), would you be opposed to abortion, given your child's likelihood of medical issues?

Even as a pro life person, I'd think the ethical thing for her would be to abort as early as possible.

I suppose so, but for the pro-life person, it is unethical at all, and the OP's stance, hence my question.

Then that would destroy the pro life position, because almost every pro lifer allows for exceptions.

That is an issue with the so-called position which is hypocritical on its face given their exceptions, but, again, this particular issue of "mercy killing" is not generally accepted as an exception, and the entire reason the OP uses contraception, so I am curious how she responds.
My work here is, finally, done.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:36:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:29:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:24:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:10:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:57:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.

Then, why, in the event contraception fails (which it is not 100% effective), would you be opposed to abortion, given your child's likelihood of medical issues?

Even as a pro life person, I'd think the ethical thing for her would be to abort as early as possible.

I suppose so, but for the pro-life person, it is unethical at all, and the OP's stance, hence my question.

Then that would destroy the pro life position, because almost every pro lifer allows for exceptions.

Not really? The only reason abortion could be wrong in and of itself is if it is wrong to 'kill' the foetus. If it is 'wrong' to do this then it shouldn't matter what the specifics are unless the foetus will literally die even if the abortion doesn't happen. It would still be murder in those instances. Quite to the contrary, any exception aside from when the foetus will die anyway destroys the pro-life position, because it demonstrates that the actual reason they're against abortion is not the same as what they say it is. If abortion is murder then it should always be wrong, whether or not the pregnancy is wanted, or the woman was raped, or whatever. Any exception aside from instances where there is no chance of foetal survival either way is hypocrisy.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 5:43:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Jingram,

you made your analogy without knowing my premises. I still haven't stated my premises. I hinted at a few of my premises that don't relate to the analogy. Your argument was a counter argument, but I never stated my premises. You guessed wrong, based an analogy off of the strawman in your head, and it's been shot down. Nobody in their right mind would think that's not a false analogy after I described it to them.

I could go into more detail, but honestly if you can't recognize it as a weak analogy from what I provided, nothing will convince you, and I'm wasting my time.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 5:50:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 2:36:53 PM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:29:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:24:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 2:10:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 1:57:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.

Then, why, in the event contraception fails (which it is not 100% effective), would you be opposed to abortion, given your child's likelihood of medical issues?

Even as a pro life person, I'd think the ethical thing for her would be to abort as early as possible.

I suppose so, but for the pro-life person, it is unethical at all, and the OP's stance, hence my question.

Then that would destroy the pro life position, because almost every pro lifer allows for exceptions.

Not really? The only reason abortion could be wrong in and of itself is if it is wrong to 'kill' the foetus. If it is 'wrong' to do this then it shouldn't matter what the specifics are unless the foetus will literally die even if the abortion doesn't happen. It would still be murder in those instances. Quite to the contrary, any exception aside from when the foetus will die anyway destroys the pro-life position, because it demonstrates that the actual reason they're against abortion is not the same as what they say it is. If abortion is murder then it should always be wrong, whether or not the pregnancy is wanted, or the woman was raped, or whatever. Any exception aside from instances where there is no chance of foetal survival either way is hypocrisy.

I'd disagree. I don't think anyone actually believes all murder is wrong. We allow it in instances where people are in a vegetable like state. Having a 50% chance of an extremely unhealthy baby, is a similar situation in my opinion. Also taking into account the instances where a mother is putting herself at great physical risk, such as a life or death situation, it should be her right to choose between her life and the kid's. I'd say the same if the kid was already born.

I don't think pro life people honestly think there is no situation where murder is appropriate. In my opinion killing a fetus is murder, but I'm okay with mercy killings, like if the Op got pregnant with the risk she mentioned. I'd also think a person should not be required by law to risk their life for another person, so if a mother's life is at risk by giving birth, she should have the right to murder her child.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:21:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 1:57:39 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/12/2015 3:57:40 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
Contraception allows women to choose what to do with their bodies without harming an unborn child. Preganancy, childbirth, and related expenses are very expensive. Contraception actually saves money. For women like me who have decided not to have children due to genetic and other medical difficulties, contraception is a Godsend. If I have a child, he or she would have at least a 50% chance of severe medical problems. I do not want to pass on my medical problems, plus I am phobic of pregnancy for personal reasons. Also, if a woman is raped. the Plan B pill can prevent conception and save the victim the trauma of abortion. Contraception is a responsible act.

Then, why, in the event contraception fails (which it is not 100% effective), would you be opposed to abortion, given your child's likelihood of medical issues?
Abortion is murder. Using multiple forms of contraception is very effective.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:25:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

My body, my rught. Yiou just want to control women. What uf a woman is raped?
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:27:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:16:29 AM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

Not swimming is safer than using life vests. Where are you going with this?

Thank you. I applaud your logic. :)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:31:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:25:23 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

My body, my rught. Yiou just want to control women. What uf a woman is raped?

I love controlling women, but only the ones I'm fvcking
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:32:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 9:07:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 7:16:29 AM, Jingram994 wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

Not swimming is safer than using life vests. Where are you going with this?

This is a false analogy. It's clear where I'm going with this. I'm advocating for abstinence. If you think safe sex until marriage is a superior option to no sex until marriage, I'm willing to debate you on the topic.

No it isn't. His analagy is true.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:35:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:31:03 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 7:25:23 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

My body, my rught. Yiou just want to control women. What uf a woman is raped?

I love controlling women, but only the ones I'm fvcking

There are minors on here. Keep it clean.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:25:23 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

My body, my rught. Yiou just want to control women. What uf a woman is raped?

Are you really this dumb or just trolling? Obviously it's a personal decision whether to remain abstinent or not. I could care less what you do with your body. I'm just telling you what the better option is.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:48:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:39:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 7:25:23 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

My body, my rught. Yiou just want to control women. What uf a woman is raped?

Are you really this dumb or just trolling? Obviously it's a personal decision whether to remain abstinent or not. I could care less what you do with your body. I'm just telling you what the better option is.

Reported for abuse. Personal attacks are not allowed.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 7:58:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 7:48:10 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/12/2015 7:39:22 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/12/2015 7:25:23 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 9/12/2015 4:07:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
Abstinence is more effective.

My body, my rught. Yiou just want to control women. What uf a woman is raped?

Are you really this dumb or just trolling? Obviously it's a personal decision whether to remain abstinent or not. I could care less what you do with your body. I'm just telling you what the better option is.

Reported for abuse. Personal attacks are not allowed.

You made the ad hominem attack that I just want to control women. You can't make ad hominem attacks and then get mad when people return the favor. Also I made no personal attacks, I asked you a question.

Also Airmax has stated on numerous occasions, you should just report comments and avoid taunting people by stating that you're doing so.

How old are you? You're acting like a child right now.