Does a woman's right to sex outweigh the right of a fetus?

Well, ya , but some folks are still in the 19th century...

 

THANK YOU! That's another GREAT reason abortion should remain legal !!!!

 

No, women can have sex without having an abortion...

 

It's asinine comments like that that make me wonder why I even bother engaging in any debate with you.


If she could have sex without having an abortion, then there is no reason she should have to get one.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, women can have sex without having an abortion...

It's a statement of fact....is that why you think it's asinine ?

Now we have an asinine statement.....

 

You say things that could be true in one sense, but on the face of it those statements seem to imply something else.

Are you aware that you frequently do that?

In logical debate, I believe this type of thing would fall under the category of equivocation fallacies. That's where someone makes an ambiguous statement that could mean two different things. One of those things is true, but the person uses the statement to imply another meaning which is not actually true, to try to support their argument.

 

,
My statement is true in all senses "FoxHastings said: ↑
No, women can have sex without having an abortion..."

NO, it doesn't imply anything, it states a fact.

Frequently? No, I state facts all the time.

Is that double speak for " I can't prove that statement wrong" ?

 

So you are under a belief then that there is some magical transformation as a baby exits out through a c section or the birthing canal? abortion is fine up until it's actually born?

lol. ya. wanna talk to me again about morality?

 

Yes, it's called b-r-e-a-t-h-i-n-g! And yes, it is quite magical, but a scientific fact, no woo-woo needed.

God is the biggest abortionist of all. Ask him!

Talk is cheap. I'd rather you live what you proclaim to believe in.

 

I mean if you could murder that which has no rights, then I guess anyone can just kill anyone else's fetus, ya? If someone is pregnant and I punch them in the gut and it ends with a miscarriage...I can't be charged with murder...right?

Basically just assault. I punched someone in the gut, whoopa dee doo!

Right?!

 

but do you make her have a baby and become a parent herself

 

yep, and abortion is another option when those methods fail, you are aware of that right?

 

she has the right to abort her own uterus, yes, you can choose what you do with your own

 

You're totally ignoring the underlying reasons WHY she has the right to abort what's in her uterus.

What you're actually doing, the fallacy you are creating, is resorting to piecemeal logic.

Your whole pro-choice argument boils down to "She has the right to have sex and not have anything grow in her uterus."
If she didn't have the right to have sex, then she can "not have anything grow in her uterus" through abstinence; she can exercise her "right" not to have to be pregnant through those means. Abortion is no longer necessary for her to exercise her right.

What you really believe is that a woman has the right to abortion because there is no other way for her, no other way to exercise her other two rights, both the right to have sex and the right not to be pregnant.

At this point, you are probably agreeing with me.
Okay, now ask yourself how this is different from the analogy in the opening post.

 

If she had the right not to be pregnant, but not the right to have sex, then that still would not mean she had the right to abortion here.

THAT is why the issue of her actually having to be pregnant can be logically irrelevant in my analogy (the story in the opening post).

If you want to argue that my analogy is not valid, then you'll have to argue that a woman still has the right to kill her fetus to avoid pregnancy, even though there was another way for her.

You want an analogy for that? We all know it's not okay for a police officer to shoot a suspect unless there are no other options available to eliminate the threat.

Now imagine a police officer who really does not like the suspect, so he sets everything up in advance so he will be put in a position where he has no other choice than to use his gun. I think we would call that murder.

 

Being pregnant does NOT stop a woman from being able to have sex, so your "thought experiment," could have used a bit more thought. Also, if there was the option of allowing their fetus to grow in a glass tank somewhere, instead of in their body, there would no doubt be some that would take that option, instead of abortion, and give up the child for adoption, when it was "done." So, instead of flawed thought experiments, your time would be better spent, designing your proposed tank.

As for the effects pregnancy & childbirth have on the body, I cannot speak from experience; but, clearly, it can cause discomfort, morning sickness, hormonal fluctuations-- all of which will vary in severity, from one woman to another-- plus the stress of the actual delivery, in some cases requiring Cesarian section. But one near universal symptom, in the woman who goes through the whole shebang, is an attachment to the newborn, that generally makes it emotionally difficult, to give it up. Therefore, your thought experiment is leaving out all the considerations of a woman who is unable, after sharing a body for 9 months, to break that bond. Obviously, adding a child to one's life, makes a rather big difference, even if someone is in a stable marriage, and already has children. But for a single woman, or girl, life as a new mother, is also an end to their old life, a need to come up with a whole new life plan. Again, this is a more serious consideration, than merely 9 months of abstinence, as you depict it (which, again, is not even close to a requirement of pregnancy).

 

I'm sorry, I don't see the point to what you said.

If being pregnant does not stop a woman from having sex, then wouldn't pregnancy ultimately be irrelevant in the argument to you? Then it would seem my "thought experiment" should be revelant.

Maybe your statement is just not the most clear, so I am not exactly sure what the meaning is of what you are trying to say here.

 

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be the woman is trapped in that resort for the rest of her life? And every year, if she wants to have access to a man, she has to kill another fetus in a tank.

 

It will only become a full grown human being under the right circumstances. Furthermore, rights are not based on what might or what will be, they are based on what is. A 5 year old will become 18, however they are not which is why they, among other thibngs, cannot vote or consent to sex.

Also, simply being alive does not grant rights either. Animals, plants and viruses are a live too. Do they have rights? Your hair, organs and teeth are human, do they have rights?

Nope, nope, nope.

It is alive, but again, that is not what makes rights possible.

Personhood, objectively, begins at birth.

I can and will when I am back from work and don't have to type on my phone.

 

Ah, I now see, your "analogy" was just poorly done. You cannot see, from your OP, and title, how one could get the impression that you were suggesting that women have abortions, so that they can have sex? Read yourself, again, with that in mind, and tell me why that is not a reasonable interpretation:

Does a woman's right to sex outweigh the right of a fetus?

Because you have the fetus pre-existing, in your scenario, it appears that this is what is preventing her having sex; which, in your opinion, it should, but you would be talking about the potential creation of a child, after having sex, which is not at all the hypothetical situation you presented. You are pre-ordaining "the right of a fetus," that does not even, yet, exist. But now I understand what you were thinking. So all my reasons a woman might want to have an abortion, you are discounting, because it all comes down to having sex? Does that go for married couples, too? What about if the husband doesn't agree with your philosophy? The woman should just end her marriage?

You are somehow unaware of the importance of sex, in human relationships, to one's physiological well- being, for one's emotional health, self- confidence, and lust for life? Pleasure is not merely a luxury, but an essential ingredient of life.

You are also neglecting the VERY IMPORTANT FACT, that not everyone who has sex, becomes pregnant. Some people actually have trouble getting pregnant, and go to specialists, to help them. So your initial assumption is that every woman should think of any sexual encounter, even while using birth control, as if it will lead to a pregnancy-- even though most will not-- because there is a slight chance of that; and if the woman is not ready to start a family, or at least go through pregnancy, to give up the child, that woman should completely abstain from sex?

You do realize, that sex is not always planned, and human beings, not being robots, have frequently been known to fail in their efforts at self- control?
Also, you seem to have left out the third option-- to force sterilization on any girl who did not either pledge abstinence, or that she would be ready to become a mother to the child of any man she ever had sex with.

The one thing that I notice your "argument" lacks, is a reason, why a woman should not avail herself of abortion, if need be, rather than close off that part of her romantic life. Terminating a fetus, is considered by most to be a mother's right, at least to a certain point in her pregnancy. I mean, if we are just going to assume something, without an argument, it should be the view of the law and the overwhelming majority of the population, shouldn't it?

 

What is perplexing to many of us is that sexual satisfaction can be had without risk of disease or pregnancy. It is the insistence on one form of satisfaction that entails all the problems.

 

Okay, I see what you are saying now.

That is exactly what this analogy is suggesting. How is that not accurate?

If women don't get abortions so they can have sex, then they can avoid pregnancy by not having sex, so why would they need abortions then?

 

Of course you know what I am actually trying to say: that she should accept any pregnancy that happens to come along.

But when you try to argue she has the right to get an abortion because she has the absolute right to avoid having to be pregnant, that is when I will question whether she has the right to sex.

 

If she can have sex and not become pregnant, then she ultimately has no excuse to get an abortion.

I think what you are actually saying is that it's a risk, not a certainty.

That still doesn't really fundamentally change my argument.

But I can discuss that more, if you feel that's an important point.

 

So your argument is one of diminished responsibility.

What if the woman desperately wants sex and "can't control herself"? Why doesn't the analogy in the opening post still hold?

What if a man was brought to her and she was told if she had sex with him that later a gun would be held against her head and she'd be forced to kill the fetus. Would it be okay then?

Your argument seems to be somehow if she gives into temptation first, and then commits the bad act to get out of something else bad that she knew would be caused by her giving into temptation, it's okay; but if she commits the bad act first, in order to achieve her temptation, then that's somehow obviously much worse and not okay.

What if the temptation wasn't sex but a shopping addiction? Would it be okay then?