Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Sounds rather dubious. By the time you are in a position to do it it will have been a while. Bear in mind that the woman will have been in contact with the fluids from the first moment (and not only in the uterus, for that matter).

Hmmm, there seems to be a severe contradiction in information that cannot be resolved except to say one or both sources are mistaken in their information.

Real life often presents these contradictions with the soul intent to spite me.

[Jude]

I get all that dude, but what I'm saying is that under the law, I can't really see my way to prosecuting the woman for doing it. How can you retroactively apply the rights that someone has now, to back before they (legally) existed? How can you punish a person for something that was not a crime, but somehow BECAME a crime in the intermediate time?

Again, I'm not taking a stance, just pointing out issues with the laws.

Ergh. I addressed that already.

You're not retroactively applying rights to the fetus. That would be like saying "What you did to that fetus at one month was a crime, retroactively". That's not what's happening.

You're applying rights to the being which DOES have rights. You're saying "What you did to that fetus at one month affected the fetus later in development, and that's a crime".

You are applying rights to the thing which has rights, now, not retroactively. The situation you created involved an organism which had no rights, sure, but that's immaterial. The fact still remains that you created a situation which eventually harmed a person with rights. It doesn't matter how you do that. You don't have to retroactively apply anything to anything.

So creating a situation that may harm someone in the future should be a crime? But aborting a fetus now, when it has no rights, prevents it from ever gaining its rights. Doesn't that make it also a crime to abort the fetus since that harms its future self in the sense that it's denied existence?

[Leafsnail]

Ignoring ways to prevent pregnancy after a rape (Which you do to avoid STDs)

Wait, what? Emergency contraception doesn't affect whether or not you caught Syphilis off of some lowlife. They both can be stopped PRE-intercourse with a condom, but after the event, it's a little different.

There is ONE Thing you can do afterwords to prevent an STD... MIND YOU, it isn't a simple proceedure.

Basically you pump a woman's stuff out. Your supposed to get one after a rape.

What.  The.  Fuck.  Comon... that's not how diseases work at all.  Christ, getting your stomach pumped isn't going to cure a cold, is it?

So creating a situation that may harm someone in the future should be a crime? But aborting a fetus now, when it has no rights, prevents it from ever gaining its rights. Doesn't that make it also a crime to abort the fetus since that harms its future self in the sense that it's denied existence?

But then again, if we apply that logic, wearing a condom denies a future childs existance.  So does masturbation.  So does abstinence.  So does resisting rape.  And so on.

[Jreengus]

I get all that dude, but what I'm saying is that under the law, I can't really see my way to prosecuting the woman for doing it. How can you retroactively apply the rights that someone has now, to back before they (legally) existed? How can you punish a person for something that was not a crime, but somehow BECAME a crime in the intermediate time?

Again, I'm not taking a stance, just pointing out issues with the laws.

Ergh. I addressed that already.

You're not retroactively applying rights to the fetus. That would be like saying "What you did to that fetus at one month was a crime, retroactively". That's not what's happening.

You're applying rights to the being which DOES have rights. You're saying "What you did to that fetus at one month affected the fetus later in development, and that's a crime".

You are applying rights to the thing which has rights, now, not retroactively. The situation you created involved an organism which had no rights, sure, but that's immaterial. The fact still remains that you created a situation which eventually harmed a person with rights. It doesn't matter how you do that. You don't have to retroactively apply anything to anything.

So creating a situation that may harm someone in the future should be a crime? But aborting a fetus now, when it has no rights, prevents it from ever gaining its rights. Doesn't that make it also a crime to abort the fetus since that harms its future self in the sense that it's denied existence?

No because it never exists. It's the difference between me say planting a bomb on a site to blow up a town that will be built ther ein 10 years and never building the town.
/terrible analogy

Otherwise any form of contraception is denying a future childs right to exist.

[G-Flex]

I get all that dude, but what I'm saying is that under the law, I can't really see my way to prosecuting the woman for doing it. How can you retroactively apply the rights that someone has now, to back before they (legally) existed? How can you punish a person for something that was not a crime, but somehow BECAME a crime in the intermediate time?

Again, I'm not taking a stance, just pointing out issues with the laws.

Ergh. I addressed that already.

You're not retroactively applying rights to the fetus. That would be like saying "What you did to that fetus at one month was a crime, retroactively". That's not what's happening.

You're applying rights to the being which DOES have rights. You're saying "What you did to that fetus at one month affected the fetus later in development, and that's a crime".

You are applying rights to the thing which has rights, now, not retroactively. The situation you created involved an organism which had no rights, sure, but that's immaterial. The fact still remains that you created a situation which eventually harmed a person with rights. It doesn't matter how you do that. You don't have to retroactively apply anything to anything.

So creating a situation that may harm someone in the future should be a crime?

No, only if it does.

If you drink your ass off during your first seven weeks of pregnancy, then get an abortion immediately after, you have not harmed anyone and no one will be harmed.

If you drink your ass off during your first seven weeks of pregnancy, then allow the baby to come to term, you have harmed that baby by creating a terrible developmental situation for it and allowing it to develop anyway.

[Earthquake Damage]

Otherwise any form of contraception is denying a future childs right to exist.

Mandatory pregnancy for everyone!

Also, given your reasoning (i.e. any action that later results in what could be construed as a crime is itself a crime) and applying the butterfly hypothesis, as silly as it is, we can accuse anyone of any number of crimes.

[Lord Dakoth]

Also teen pregnancy most often happens in the lower class. Let's punish already poor people by making them have to pay for a very expensive baby because they couldn't abort it, and adoption agencies/orphanages are already full enough!

Again, you've already defined the unborn... fetus, embryo, blastocyst, child, whatever... as a mere liability. Let's at least consider, hypothetically, that it just might be human, despite being unborn as of yet.

"haha you took part in normal human behavior and took the necessary precautions, but the tools intended to prevent pregnancy didn't work! that's your fault, live with it!"

So if the pregnancy isn't the parents' fault, whose is it? They both are aware that there is a chance that even "safe sex" will result in a pregnancy. If you play with fire, don't be surprised if you get burned.

"You need to eat to survive, well maybe you should take the consequences yourself instead of pass them on to an innocent individual like a cow or a chicken!"

Bad analogy. A cow or a chicken does not equal a human... even an unborn one. Also, eating is necessary for an individual to survive, sex isn't.

[Leafsnail]

So, Lord Dakoth, I suppose you've never had and never intend to have any form of sex?

[Lord Dakoth]

So, Lord Dakoth, I suppose you've never had and never intend to have any form of sex?

No I haven't, and I don't plan to until I'm married.

[LegoLord]

So, Lord Dakoth, I suppose you've never had and never intend to have any form of sex?

Well there's this thing called marriage, it's what you get into when you decide you'll want to have kids  (among other things).

There are also studies that show pre-marital sex can cause problems with marriages (mostly when it's with the person you marry).

[G-Flex]

Also teen pregnancy most often happens in the lower class. Let's punish already poor people by making them have to pay for a very expensive baby because they couldn't abort it, and adoption agencies/orphanages are already full enough!

Again, you've already defined the unborn... fetus, embryo, blastocyst, child, whatever... as a mere liability. Let's at least consider, hypothetically, that it just might be human, despite being unborn as of yet.

I won't, because it's not.

I will not consider the possibility that a dozen or so undifferentiated cells compose a human life any more than I'll consider the possibility that a small chunk of wood is a barn with a hay loft, a pitchfork, and an owl's nest inside.

[Leafsnail]

So, Lord Dakoth, I suppose you've never had and never intend to have any form of sex?

Well there's this thing called marriage, it's what you get into when you decide you'll want to have kids  (among other things).

There are also studies that show pre-marital sex can cause problems with marriages (mostly when it's with the person you marry).

My parents are not married.

They have been together for 24 years, and are still together today.

[Chutney]

"You need to eat to survive, well maybe you should take the consequences yourself instead of pass them on to an innocent individual like a cow or a chicken!"

Bad analogy. A cow or a chicken does not equal a human... even an unborn one. Also, eating is necessary for an individual to survive, sex isn't.

how does a cow or chicken have less rights than a human, even an unborn one?
PS: Eating cows and chickens aren't necessary for an individual to survive either. Ever hear of a vegetarian? At least with that it's part of what you're consumings natural life cycle to be eaten.

"haha you took part in normal human behavior and took the necessary precautions, but the tools intended to prevent pregnancy didn't work! that's your fault, live with it!"

So if the pregnancy isn't the parents' fault, whose is it? They both are aware that there is a chance that even "safe sex" will result in a pregnancy. If you play with fire, don't be surprised if you get burned.

It would be God's fault for creating humans to have an urge to mate. Thus to make him take responsibility for his actions, we send the baby to heaven, where he can care for it.

[sneakey pete]

Fact of the matter is that there's already too dam many people on earth right now.

[Leafsnail]

Fact of the matter is that there's already too dam many people on earth right now.

So I suppose you'll do the honourable thing then?