Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I didn't say pointing out facts was disingenuous. I said that pointing out the fact that men can't get pregnant without also mentioning how women can't get pregnant in the absence of a man was disingenuous, as it attempts to make reference to the biological actuality which suits your argument while ignoring the biological actuality which doesn't suit your argument.
|
You missed the point of what I said. I don't think anyone for a minute forgot that sperm is necessary for the conception of a child. The point I was making was that men can't carry a pregnancy to term, and that because of this biological fact, there can fundamentally be no "equality" or "fairness" to be found on the subject of male input into a woman's decision to carry a child to term.
Quote:
|
So... You're arguing against the meaning of the word "elective", which has an actual medical definition, that of which is an abortion not done to protect the mother's health, or are you taking offense to the word "purely", which is used to distinguish between an elective and therapeutic abortion? Tell me now so I'll know how to respond.
|
It's not that simple, but I could see why you'd like it to be. "Fetal defects" don't necessarily affect the mother's physical health, so I'm not sure why you'd include those in your definition of "purely elective", since, you know, you're an expert on the medical definition of the term "elective" . Post partum depression can have ridiculously severe effects on a woman's mental and physical health. Does that mean that the prospect of PPD is sufficient to nudge that abortion into the nonelective category?
I'm sure the words "purely elective" mean something, but in the context of what you said, they don't amount to much more than an attempt to sound more authoritative. And in any case, I doubt you'd find a medical professional who used the term with the casual certainty you displayed. I bet more than a couple lawyers have made a pretty penny arguing different sides of the definition of "elective."
Quote:
Well, please show me where I claimed that any method of birth control was 100% effective? Please show me where I claimed that everyone who gets pregnant wasn't on birth control. In fact, please show me where I made reference to birth control at all, because I'm obviously dumb and can't remember the things I wrote out. Go ahead. Tell me. Show me. Do something.
...But, see, you can't find such a claim because I never made such a claim to begin with. Everyone knows that birth control isn't 100% effective. Everyone. This is why I made no reference to birth control, because no one made any claims regarding the use or non-use of birth control.
God, I hate straw men.
But, since you didn't seem to understand the first time, even though I know I've said this before on other threads on the same subject, I'll say it again. First and most importantly, sex exists as a means by which to propagate the species. Everything else takes the proverbial backseat to this fact. Pleasure is merely the mechanism by which nature "coerces" humans into engaging in sex more often. The more often one has sex, the greater the chance of pregnancy occurring. This is important since, unlike most species, humans do not have a specific mating seasons and are capable of becoming pregnant year-round in rapid succession. Of course, other species also have sex for pleasure, but they are incapable of becoming pregnant year round and in rapid succession, to my knowledge, and have specific mating seasons. We all like the pleasure and closeness involved in sex, but these are not the end all be all reasons for sex existing. Yes, we might like to fool ourselves into believe that we're somehow acting above nature, but we aren't. Much like anything else, we're bound to it.
But, anyway, the point being? Everyone knows that sex can result in pregnancy. Continuously engaging in an action of which you are unwilling to accept the consequences of (Pregnancy) is irresponsible. Extinguishing a human life because it conveniences you is irresponsible. Extinguishing a human life two, three, four, or five times because it conveniences you is grossly irresponsible. If you don't want to become pregnant and can't accept taking care of a child, then you should either stick to oral or anal or give up sex all together. Killing another human simply because you want to be free of the, as most people today would call it, "burden" of caring for it is the epitome of irresponsibility. Personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past.
|
Calm down. You didn't directly reference birth control. What you did do is attempt to tie instances of repeat abortion to some sort of nebulously defined notion of "irresponsibility." I'm not sure why, given the fact that you clearly think that all abortions are irresponsible.
I think that you got so caught up in trying to dress your emotional and completely subjective opinion on the irresponsible nature of all abortions in pretty numbers and technical lingo that you forgot that your perspective exists completely independently of anything other than emotionally charged, pedantic notions of human biology.
Your notions of irresponsibility have nothing to do with how many times a person gets an abortion. Clearly, the vast majority, if not all, abortions are irresponsible as far as you're concerned. In light of this fact, I understand how you thought I was straw-manning you.
I guess I was confused by the fact that in your previous post you seemed to try to base this position on statistical data. I responded as if your perspective was based on something other than a completely self-serving, trivial interpretation of the data. Your reference to repeat abortions threw me off, since the only statistic you were actually concerned with was the one confirming that the abortion rate is greater than zero. Mea culpa.
If you really do hate straw men, I suggest that you quit attempting to frame your ideas in disingenuous ways. In doing so, you will make it easier for people to respond to what you actually think.
Quote:
|
Obviously, abortion can't be that hard of a decision if there are 1.2M+ of them per year with hundreds of thousands of them being repeat abortions.
|
I agree. I also think that choosing to remove a loved one from life support obviously can't be that hard a decision to make either, since that occurs with such incredible frequency... Why, I know people who have had to do it twice!!! I bet they laughed the whole time.