Text 5987, 246 rader
Skriven 2008-01-19 07:34:00 av TIM RICHARDSON
     Kommentar till en text av DANIEL PRATHER
Ärende: Pro-Choice
==================
On 01-18-08, DANIEL PRATHER said to TIM RICHARDSON:

DP>Re: Pro-Choice
DP>By: TIM RICHARDSON to DAN CEPPA on Fri Jan 18 2008 06:48 pm


> The mother has already made a choice. In fact.....the mother has already
> made `several' choices:


> 1. To have....or `not' to have sexual relations that could result in
> pregnancy?  The mother chose `to have'.


DP>If the woman was complicit in the sexual act,


Not each and every sexual act a woman engages in is `rape'. Right at the very
beginning, a woman has a choice: The choices are; Yes.....or No! She chose
Yes!


DP>It doesn't mean she
DP>has to endure whatever consequences result "just because".


She went into the act knowing full well that without proper precautions and
responsible measures to prevent it....a pregnancy could result from what she
was doing.


She was responsible enough to make the decision to engage in sexual activity
she `knew' could result in a pregnancy.


> 2. To use one of `several' pregnancy-preventing methods available to her: A
> daily birth control pill; a post-relations pill; a diaphram; making her
> partner use a condom. The mother chose `none of the above'.


DP>This isn't true.  Birth control can fail, condoms can break, diaphragms
DP>can not fit properly, etc.  It's true that the only 100% method of birth
DP>control is not having sex.  It's also completely unrealistic.


There are over 48 million abortions recorded since 1973. So.....looking at
your paragraph above, and extrapolating it out over the years since 1973 to
the present day, one has to wonder why a birth control industry even exists
since obviously (using your position) it doesn't work!


(Even the Edsel and the Delorean saw the futility of continuing with
failure!)


Getting back to the real world..........birth control really `does' work. And
the only ones who know for absolute certainty whether or not a birth control
method was used and used properly...are the two individuals who engaged in
the sex act that resulted in a pregnancy.


Birth control methods fail many times because the people trying to use them
aren't using them properly. More often than not....the method would work `if'
it were used at all. In many cases the claim that a birth control device was
used but failed isn't always necessarily the truth. People `do' lie about
sex, as we have seen many times in the news.


DP>also vindictive men who sabotage birth control.


Oh yeah! Its all the fault of those vindictive men! Those terrible vindictive
men!


Anything but make the mother to be responsible for her own carelessness.


> So now.......the mother wasn't responsible enough to make positive
> pregnancy prevention decisions in order to prevent a pregnancy to begin
> with....what makes anyone think:


DP>No, you're just setting up a scenario where your denying a woman the right
DP>to control her own body seems "morally" right.


I set up nothing. Any more than I was the one who set up the scenario of an
armed robber committing the robbery that sent them to prison.


The woman has all the rights in the world over her own body. Nobody is
denying her that, least of all me.


But along with rights......comes responsibility. If you get a license to
carry a gun.......you have the responsibility to see that you do so safely
and without endangering others.


If you drive a car......you have the responsibility to do so without
endangering other people.


Rights come with responsibilities built into them. And so far....I haven't
even *mentioned* the word "morally". *You* brought that up. Not me.


> 1. The mother is now suddenly responsible enough to make the decision to
> kill her baby?


DP>People have ultimate control over their bodies.


Without due process of law.......people don't have the right to just willy
nilly make a decision that costs the life of another person.


DP>If men had babies, I'd
DP>argue for the same rights for men.  But, saying "baby" is a point of
DP>contention.  At which point is it a "baby"?


You have taken this argument over a pretty wide spectrum:


You've tried to set aside the woman's responsibilities that come along with
her right of control over her body.


You've tried to shun it all off on those terrible birth control manufacturers
for defective products.


You've tried to push the `rape' scenario.


You've tried to excuse it as something the woman shouldn't have to endure.


You've even pushed the blame all onto those terrible, vindictive men!
(Disgusting creatures!)


> 2. The baby has to pay with its life because the mother is irresponsible,
> and too stupid for words?


DP>Again, at which point is it a "baby?"  At which point do you justify
DP>superceding the rights of one person, who is living, alive, a productive
DP>and participating member in society, with the mutually exclusive rights of
DP>something that could be as few as two cells?


And now you come up with the old tried and true method of *when is it a baby?
....when is it alive?*. That argument plays well at a lesbian convention.


In the real world.......when a man and woman (two humans of opposite sex)
engage in sexual activity, and the woman becomes pregnant, the result is
going to be another human being. There's no way to change that. Its a
biological fact.


DP>Secondly, you've excluded every other possibility for pregnancy, and put
DP>everything on the shoulders of the mother.  Perhaps the father should've
DP>kept his dick in his pants and left the woman alone, but in a world where
DP>abortion is forbidden, it's always the woman's fault that she's pregnant,
DP>and she should always pay the price.


In the real world.....women (`or' men) don't seem to learn from the many many
years of physical example.......un-controlled sex activity *can* result in
pregnancy!


Nobody is trying to `put everything on the shoulders of the mother', here,
except `you'. I'm not the one who brought that in.....you did.


I pointed out that the woman has responsibilities in the act that resulted in
a pregnancy.....and abortion should *not* be a method of birth control. A
birth control method used properly and responsibly, makes an abortion
unnecessary.


DP>This type of stuff just pisses me off.


That too bad. Did you think everybody in the whole country was going to fall
in line with the idea that abortion was a real neat (although a bit
expensive) birth control method?


DP>I don't know your age, nor whether
DP>or not you have kids, but with that type of attitude I'd declare your
DP>reproductive rights to be dangerous to society.


Unfortunately for you..........that power isn't within your grasp. However,
some people who thought just like you do tried that road back in the late
thirties and early forties of last century. It didn't turn out too well, as
most of them ended up being tried and executed for their ....uh.....little
experiments of controlling who does and does `not' get to reproduce (so to
speak).


I'm in my sixties, old enough to be retired and drawing Social Security,
although I'm not, and I don't.


I have two sons who are both in their forties, and a step-son who is in his
mid thirties.


I also have two grandsons and three (count `em.....three!) granddaughters.


DP>Does that mean I have the
DP>right to request your balls be removed?  Or, is that different because
DP>it's YOUR body that's being violated rather than some stupid woman's?


Now.........you have taken this conversation into the realm of stupidity.


We were talking about responsibilities and rights exercised in a way that
doesn't cost the life of another person.....and now you've degenerated the
conversation into you wanting to deny me the right to reproduce....and having
my balls cut off.


So.......out the window went intelligent exchange of opinion.


This conversation is now ended.






---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)