Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Of course, the woman in question is clearly someone who should have a Scarlet A branded on her forehead for even suggesting an abortion. That's the joy of living in a place where theocracy is just below the surface.

---

Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so. That this is disdained as 'theocracy' is merely name calling, as our values have got to have some basis; it was 'obvious' to previous generations that blacks and Jews didn't deserve equal treatment with other humans but unborn babies did - now we've reversed that position. And they call it progress.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

---

You can believe whatever you like, free country and all of that. But elected officials have no business making laws that force a doctor to perform a procedure that is not medically necessary, in order for the patient to obtain another (legal) medical procedure. I'm sorry that it went through in Texas. One of the difficulties for the law in Virginia is that State law has a clear definition of rape to include vaginal penetration with an object against the will of the woman. There were legal opinions saying that could lead doctors to being prosecuted for rape.

The other controversial bill that was passing through the Virginia Senate at the same time was the Personhood bill, that would have defined "personhood" at the point of fertilisation. This Bill was also, thankfully, placed on hold for the moment.

In both cases, it appears that reason and science briefly prevailed, in Virginia's case because McDonnell didn't like the attention from Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. It appears the Vagina Republic party will have to find another way of legislating for their social agenda for now.

And now we've been moved to Dead Horses I can add - why do people who hold such strong anti-abortion views try such badly thought through laws in order to try and restrict it?

I mean, defining a fertilised egg as a person? Roughly 50% of fertilised eggs never implant anyway, does that make many women guilty of murder by neglect? What of women who sadly miscarry? And a nightmare for IVF clinics. If parents die during the treatment process, who looks after the "orphans"? Would the IVF clinic have to manage the parent's estate on behalf of the "children"? And of course, the stonking great elephant in the room - abortion could then be legally defined in murder, in the many messy court cases that would follow such a personhood bill becoming law.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

---

quote:

---

That this is disdained as 'theocracy' is merely name calling, as our values have got to have some basis; it was 'obvious' to previous generations that blacks and Jews didn't deserve equal treatment with other humans but unborn babies did - now we've reversed that position. And they call it progress.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On the wider historic context, it's worth remembering that the Hippocratic Oath has an explicit element promising not to aim at an abortion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
What's the stated purpose of this law? I'm assuming that the ultrasound scan is to 'inform' women seeking abortion of the full facts before they make the decision (with the message "this is your baby, are you sure you want to kill it?"), but is there more to it than that?

Is there are purportedly good reason for a vaginal ultrasound to be specified?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue of abortions on the grounds of gender has caused feminists to struggle: they have the challenge of defending a woman's right to choose for any reason except the sex of the child. You couldn't make it up: either the right is absolute, or it's not.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellowroom:
Yes, it was to image the foetus, although it was not mandatory for the woman to view the image, but it would remain on her medical file for 7 years.

As I understand it, to get a good image of the foetus in the first trimester, a vaginal ultrasound is required as an abdominal ultrasound doesn't return a satisfactory image as the foetus is so small. Hence the bill specifically required a vaginal ultrasound. The bill was modified to remove this aspect in an attempt at compromise, ie abdominal ultrasound was still mandatory if after 12 weeks, but vaginal ultrasound not mandatory up to 12 weeks.

---

quote:

---

I spend a lot of my time at work writing standard operating procedures, and at some point you always try and "break" it with a load of "what if" situations. Don't law writers also do this?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
What's the stated purpose of this law? I'm assuming that the ultrasound scan is to 'inform' women seeking abortion of the full facts before they make the decision (with the message "this is your baby, are you sure you want to kill it?"), but is there more to it than that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
On the wider historic context, it's worth remembering that the Hippocratic Oath has an explicit element promising not to aim at an abortion.

---

No. It mentions a specific method of abortion. Pessaries (which would be the approximate equivalent of a coathanger abortion). It says nothing about e.g. Pennyroyal or other medical methods of abortion. In context it might mean no abortions - but then it is highly unlikely that it would mention the one specific method unless the Greeks knew no others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellowroom:
As I understand it, to get a good image of the foetus in the first trimester, a vaginal ultrasound is required as an abdominal ultrasound doesn't return a satisfactory image as the foetus is so small. Hence the bill specifically required a vaginal ultrasound. The bill was modified to remove this aspect in an attempt at compromise, ie abdominal ultrasound was still mandatory if after 12 weeks, but vaginal ultrasound not mandatory up to 12 weeks.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
ToujoursDan

You may be interested in this. I appreciate that it is a Catholic comment on the opinion of Bishop Richard Harries - and therefore a fair way removed from what we might consider mainstream evangelical thought, but it does provide some kind of historical information about what Richard Harries suggests is "an alternative Western tradition". Apart from a book I read in the early 1970s by an evangelical who was also a practising medical man (title and author escape me), all the books written to reflect evangelical views which I've ever read are uniformly conservative on the matter.

Look at Chapter 2 in the Didache. The Didache would not be authoritative for Evangelicals but it generally gets a "good press" in Evangelical writings. The "speculative" considerations of the early Church Fathers re soul infusion? Not so much, of course, particularly if they are seen as "adding" to the scriptures, rather than interpreting them.

But I'm sure you know that already.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
ToujoursDan

You may be interested in this. I appreciate that it is a Catholic comment on the opinion of Bishop Richard Harries - and therefore a fair way removed from what we might consider mainstream evangelical thought, but it does provide some kind of historical information about what Richard Harries suggests is "an alternative Western tradition". Apart from a book I read in the early 1970s by an evangelical who was also a practising medical man (title and author escape me), all the books written to reflect evangelical views which I've ever read are uniformly conservative on the matter.

Look at Chapter 2 in the Didache. The Didache would not be authoritative for Evangelicals but it generally gets a "good press" in Evangelical writings. The "speculative" considerations of the early Church Fathers re soul infusion? Not so much, of course, particularly if they are seen as "adding" to the scriptures, rather than interpreting them.

But I'm sure you know that already.

---

quote:

---

The earliest reference to contraception and abortion is in the Didache, a document from the second half of the first century or early second century. Didache reads: “You shall not practice birth control, you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill what is begotten” (2).

Many translations read “practice sorcery” because the Greek word sometimes has that meaning (see Wisdom 12:4, Galatians 5:20, Revelation 18:23). However, it also means practice medicine or use poison, and the term may refer to contraceptive measures, as is the case in a number of the following texts...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Can't speak to the Texas statute, but the Virginia bill didn't specifically require a transvaginal ultrasound, it just specified an ultrasound reading that, prior to at least twelve weeks pregnancy, could only be made transvaginally. It seems more like a case of a legislator trying to be "tough" on an issue he had no medical understanding of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I heard an interview with the original sponsor of Virginia's bill, and he couldn't even bring himself to say the word "vagina" when asked about this.

---

Heh, let not discuss lady parts. Difficult to distinguish between satire and real life at the moment.

But seriously, how can a grown man not bring himself to say vagina? Is it the word that's so horrible or the part of the body itself? Because I'm are wondering! How can you have any debate, let alone constructive, if people can't even bring themselves to use standard anatomical terms?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellowroom:
I spend a lot of my time at work writing standard operating procedures, and at some point you always try and "break" it with a load of "what if" situations. Don't law writers also do this?

---

They'd better, because lawyers in private practice certainly do.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Does anyone else have the feeling that this legislation is not so much about preventing abortions as about making sure that women who have them are punished for their decision?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And similarly, the way that the legislatures concerned have chosen a highly invasive procedure as the way to obtain the ultra-sound photo is problematic. Again I reacted positively to the idea of their being required to get an ultrasound, without realising the extremities this involved. The core problem of course is that there is a severe disconnect between the views of the local people and those being imposed from Washington. The inevitable result of this is that the local legislature will try to impose its view, with the result there will be ructions as the two forces face off, and people will get ground down in the middle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There will always be victims in these sorts of issues; the question is who is the most appropriate person to suffer. In the abortion debate, that comes down to a fight between the mother and the unborn child; if you believe the unborn child is worthy of being treated as a human, it's entirely rational to argue that a child has a greater claim to protection than an adult.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The economy has started to improve. The unemployment rate is falling. Obama has been a squeaky clean president so far - no real scandals. The only thing left are social issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And similarly, the way that the legislatures concerned have chosen a highly invasive procedure as the way to obtain the ultra-sound photo is problematic. Again I reacted positively to the idea of their being required to get an ultrasound, without realising the extremities this involved. The core problem of course is that there is a severe disconnect between the views of the local people and those being imposed from Washington. The inevitable result of this is that the local legislature will try to impose its view, with the result there will be ructions as the two forces face off, and people will get ground down in the middle.

---

As noted above, the state legislatures in question didn't choose a highly invasive procedure. They were, like you, just completely indifferent to any suffering their ignorance would cause. Even now you can't seem to bring yourself to describe the issue in honest terms, inventing a conflict between "Washington" (by which I assume you mean the U.S. federal government) and the state government. "Washington" was never involved, and this wasn't a conflict between state and federal governments. This was a conflict between the state government and individual liberty. You seem to be under the impression that there was a conspiracy by some federal agency somewhere to convince women that they didn't like being raped with a large medical wand, apparently on the premise that they're either too stupid to realize this for themselves or not really citizens in the sense of being able to complain about unfair treatment by their local government. Once again, the idea that women are people who have rights and opinions seems alien to abortion opponents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There will always be victims in these sorts of issues; the question is who is the most appropriate person to suffer. In the abortion debate, that comes down to a fight between the mother and the unborn child; if you believe the unborn child is worthy of being treated as a human, it's entirely rational to argue that a child has a greater claim to protection than an adult.

---

Once again, how does raping women before they can get an abortion protect children? The rationality of that position escapes me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow
Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

---

"Let us do evil that good may result?" Really? Well, all I can say about such a position is that, per St. Paul, it is antichristian.

---

Whoops - anyone would think I'm a newbie given the number of simplistic statements I'm letting slip through Fair response MT. What I was suggesting was any legitimate measure; the debate comes down to what is legitimate. For example, given that it is legitimate to use force to protect my own family, why is it illegitimate to fire bomb abortion clinics, if in doing so there is a good chance I would save the life of a baby. But that's a different debate.

My own understanding is that when sex occurs, both partners can be expected to accept the consequences of their action (let's ignore rape for the moment). If you argue that teenagers can't be held to account for their action, then they should never be charged with a criminal offence. And if they are adults, then it's a an entirely reasonable expectation they should be deemed responsible. If that is so, then it is reasonable that the state (in the political science definition, not component of the USA sense) should take measures to enforce that responsibility on those who have voluntarily chosen to enter into that action with its consequences. We enforce the requirement to have insurance to drive. We punish people who act irresponsibly by drinking and driving. We enforce a requirement on parents to feed and educate children. It is a philosophically consistent model to impose a requirement on a woman to accept that the consequence of her having sex is that she may have to carry the baby to term, and that if she chooses not to put the child up for adoption, the man will be responsible for the child for until they reach adulthood.

Now that is a consistent model, based on the assumption that unborn children have human rights, and that men and women are capable of rational choices. So the debate becomes all about whether the baby IS eligible for human rights before birth, and whether men and women can be held responsible for their actions.

[Let's see if I'm doing better at being precise enough]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's not rape on the strict definition as there will be consent - even if that consent is coerced as a means to obtain the end result of having permission to murder her child (we can both stretch language to make our points here...). If as a result of seeing the ultrascan result the woman chooses not to have an abortion, then that would be a legitimate result.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My own understanding is that when sex occurs, both partners can be expected to accept the consequences of their action (let's ignore rape for the moment). If you argue that teenagers can't be held to account for their action, then they should never be charged with a criminal offence. And if they are adults, then it's a an entirely reasonable expectation they should be deemed responsible.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't believe that the foetus in early pregnancy is a human person with rights. But even if I did, I wouldn't be in favour of this legislation, because it makes absolutely no sense from that point of view either. If a foetus *does* have a right not to be aborted, it doesn't make any sense to show the mother the foetus and then still give her the option. It would be like a man walking into a police station and saying he wants to murder a stranger, and the police saying "Okay, but we're going to follow you and make sure you get a really good look at the stranger's face first. Then if you can handle it, you go ahead."

---

That's exactly why it's a bad law. There's no possible principled defence for it. No one thinks it's OK to kill someone but only if you first allow an image to be made of them using a camera poked into your genitals. The State of Texas is not going to acquit you of murdering Rick Perry if you plead that you took a picture of him with your cockcam, and satisfied yourself that although he may well have had a physical resemblence to a human being, you were quite sure that he had not been endowed with a soul.

I think an argument could be made that some decisions, while ultimately a matter of individual choice, are so grave that there is a public interest to be served in ensuring that they are made well. A law which mandates a cooling-off period before finalising a divorce, or allows a person to contract out of certain legal rights only if they have taken advice from a lawyer, or allows for the legal consumption of a rcreational drug only after a certain age, could sensibly be defended. What would mark them out as reasonable conditions for the exercise of freedom would be a principled commitment to the welfare and autonomy of the person making the decision. The law cannot force people to decide things after careful and conscientious deliberation, but it can (and possibly sometimes should) promote conditions favourable to careful and conscientious deliberation. A law which says (as this one does) "we don't think you should be doing X, but constitutionally we have no power to prevent you, so we are going to make X as difficult and traumatic as possible so as to deter you" does not respect the welfare and autonomy of the decision maker. It is not about ensuring that controversial decisions are made well. It is using the law to bully people.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My own understanding is that when sex occurs, both partners can be expected to accept the consequences of their action (let's ignore rape for the moment). If you argue that teenagers can't be held to account for their action, then they should never be charged with a criminal offence. And if they are adults, then it's a an entirely reasonable expectation they should be deemed responsible.

---

The logical conclusion of this is that the age of consent should be fixed at the same level as the age of criminal responsibility. In the UK that would mean at 10 years. Good news for paedophiles but not too welcome otherwise, I would have thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Of course if you believe that a woman who is about to have an abortion is going to commit an act of murder, then it is entirely appropriate to take whatever measure you can to try to stop her from doing so.

---

Really? WHATEVER measures necessary?

If you sincerely believe that women who seek abortions are conspiring to commit murder, why aren't you campaigning to have them locked up? That's the standard punishment for conspiracy to murder. Getting enough proof to obtain a conviction shouldn't be a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

If you believe abortions should be prevented by ANY means necessary, you should be in favour of:

- Free access to contraception, to prevent unwanted pregnancies
- Sex education that requires students to consider the possible consequences of having sex, for boys as well as girls
- Generous welfare provision for parents of small children, so that having a baby need not be catastrophic
- Free childcare for everyone
- Universally available healthcare (the medical expenses and health risks associated with having a baby are considerably higher than those for having an abortion, which is probably a consideration for many women in the US)
- Funding research into artificial wombs and transplanting foetuses

When it becomes technically possible to remove the unwanted foetus from the mother's body and transfer it to someone else's for the remainder of the pregnancy I shall expect to see a long queue of anti-abortion activists offering themselves as human incubators. After all, they are only interested in the rights of the unborn child, not in humiliating the mother and attempting to control her behaviour.

---

No - you are making the assumption that someone other than the participants in the sexual act have responsibility for those people's behaviour. Apart possibly from the parents - who should be responsible enough for the sex education of their children - it's the individuals who are responsible for their own actions. Or is sex a special case? Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong? Bringing up children is hard. So you shouldn't act in a way that means you might have to accept that responsibility if you aren't able to.

[Yes I know there are hard cases - but I'm talking about the ordinary straight forward cases here.]

What's so difficult about this concept? We don't generally regard it as a good thing that people don't have to accept the consequences of their action. Or is it actually that you are arguing that women are too stupid to think about it properly? Or can't be bothered? Or do we just blame the parents...

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[Yes I know there are hard cases - but I'm talking about the ordinary straight forward cases here.]

---

Which ones are those?

Also, Eliab, part of your previous post is noted in the Quotes File.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Or is sex a special case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Didache translation point is very interesting - hadn't come across that before. "Witchcraft" or "sorcery" is the translation I was used to.

---

quote:

---

If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellowroom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Or is sex a special case?

---

Yes, sex is a special case. ... I can't think of any other every day common activity with such a disproportionate potential after-effect. ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellowroom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Or is sex a special case?

---

Yes, sex is a special case. When you talk about being responsible for your actions, we're not talking about driving while drunk. We're talking about an activity driven by fundamental urges and feelings that most adults will experience, an essential part of a relationship for many people. For some it's as essential as eating and drinking.

---

quote:

---

For some it's as essential as eating and drinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yellowroom:

And the consequences we are talking about involve 9 months of high risk change to body culminating in a dangerous labour for the woman, and a major emotional and financial commitment for both participants for at least 18 years and emotionally for life. I can't think of any other every day common activity with such a disproportionate potential after-effect.

If you follow the logic of "you did it, you deal with it", and don't offer any alternative then if that couple's way of dealing with it is to terminate the pregancy then you have to accept that and have no say in that decision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong?

---

I'm pretty sure Jane's point was that if we get it right as a taxpayer, then we drastically reduce the number of times it goes wrong, because either the pregnancy never happens, or there is a realistic alternative for the woman/couple to consider. And it can go wrong even for "responsible married couples" - very few methods of contraception are 100 % reliable.

Currently, abortion is the least worst choice in more situations that necessary. Being in the UK, you may not realise, for example, that the cost for a straightforward, vaginal delivery in hospital is typically in the range of $5 - 6,000 in the US. That doesn't include any checkups during pregnancy or ante-natal care. The sky is the limit if you need a caesarean, or baby needs time in hospital afterwards. By your logic, we'd be saying that you can only have sex if you have good insurance and don't lose your job in the next nine months, because otherwise you can't afford the consequences of your actions.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

If you believe abortions should be prevented by ANY means necessary, you should be in favour of:

- Free access to contraception, to prevent unwanted pregnancies
- Sex education that requires students to consider the possible consequences of having sex, for boys as well as girls
- Generous welfare provision for parents of small children, so that having a baby need not be catastrophic
- Free childcare for everyone
- Universally available healthcare (the medical expenses and health risks associated with having a baby are considerably higher than those for having an abortion, which is probably a consideration for many women in the US)
- Funding research into artificial wombs and transplanting foetuses

When it becomes technically possible to remove the unwanted foetus from the mother's body and transfer it to someone else's for the remainder of the pregnancy I shall expect to see a long queue of anti-abortion activists offering themselves as human incubators. After all, they are only interested in the rights of the unborn child, not in humiliating the mother and attempting to control her behaviour.

---

No - you are making the assumption that someone other than the participants in the sexual act have responsibility for those people's behaviour. Apart possibly from the parents - who should be responsible enough for the sex education of their children - it's the individuals who are responsible for their own actions. Or is sex a special case? Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong? Bringing up children is hard. So you shouldn't act in a way that means you might have to accept that responsibility if you aren't able to.

---

quote:

---

Yes I know there are hard cases - but I'm talking about the ordinary straight forward cases here.]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
. . . but most of the abortions seem to be the result of carelessness . . .

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
To return to a traditional patriarchal perspective for a moment - why should a foetus be removed because its progenitors may be ill-equipped or abusive or victimized or unwilling to be parents?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My own understanding is that when sex occurs, both partners can be expected to accept the consequences of their action (let's ignore rape for the moment).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
If that is so, then it is reasonable that the state (in the political science definition, not component of the USA sense) should take measures to enforce that responsibility on those who have voluntarily chosen to enter into that action with its consequences. We enforce the requirement to have insurance to drive. We punish people who act irresponsibly by drinking and driving. We enforce a requirement on parents to feed and educate children.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's only when sex is involved (and usually only sex for women) that this ultra-punitive attitude is considered acceptable

---

Yes; you will have noted that only the mothers were careless.

Posted                       

quote:

---

You are arguing that just because something might go wrong people should be prevented from (a) learning what the genuine risks are and (b) being able to minimise those risks.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Do people have a right to sex, and taxpayers have a duty to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong? Bringing up children is hard. So you shouldn't act in a way that means you might have to accept that responsibility if you aren't able to.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Excuse me. Let me see if I read that right:

quote:

---

For some it's as essential as eating and drinking.

---

Yes, YR did say that. WTF. So if they can't get it - what are they supposed to do? A spot of rape? Or just indulge in the local prostitute?

...

Sex is not as necessary as eating and drinking, and surely masturbation is an adequate solution otherwise. And certainly this is no basis for a serious argument...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
If you are seriously that sex driven and male - get a vasectomy. You're obviously out of control and would make a dreadful father. And if you're female, make sure he gets one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
given the shortage of healthy babies to adopt, I would be prepared to suggest that someone who's responsible but unlucky with contraception should go down that road.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
why should a baby be killed because his mother was careless?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's try again: IF we accept the concept that the unborn baby has the status of a human being, with the human rights associated with that status, a number of things start to fall into place. Specifically the role of the governing authority is to ensure the rights of that unborn baby in the same way as it does any other citizen. If you reject that position, then of course you are free to argue any utilitarian logic that you feel like.

---