Quite simply false. Negligence is the breach of an duty owed. What duty is breached by having sex? To whom is that duty owed?
If we're debating abortion as it relates to tort law, then, you're correct, we'd have to establish the duty owed, how it was breached, etc. However, we're speaking in the general vernacular of "negligence" to mean (from M-W) "failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances."
Having unprotected sex versus protected sex is negligent in that it drastically increases the odds of pregnancy. Should someone not desire that outcome, they would be negligent by not taking care to avoid it.
I wouldn't call that a "high probability."
In a single day, no. However, 85% of women who use no contraceptives throughout the course of a year while having sex will become pregnant.
http://www.healthcenter.vt.edu/resources/shc-online-docs/information-sheets/contra-fail-rate.pdf
I would call that "high probability."
Would it be my fault if I got hit?
I didn't ask if you'd be at fault. I asked if you'd be negligent (in the common sense of the word) to which you replied:
Again, at what degree of probability could we consider your actions "negligent?"
Actually, probability has nothing to do with it at all. Individuals are only culpable for consequences of negligence. In other words, you are responsible for the duties you owe to the people around you, and when you breach those duties you are culpable for the consequences. When you have not breached any duties, you have no responsibility.
I think I'm talking about the responsibility to one's self, not to others. The fetus is not a person so one cannot be negligent to the fetus. But if person does not desire pregnancy yet knowingly engages in activities that present a high risk towards that outcomes, they're only hurting themselves and could only be considered negligent unto themselves.
It's the personal responsibility aspect that I'm driving at.
Restating your thesis after it has been refuted does not re-establish any truth to it.
Yes, you said that once before. Thank you.
But it isn't "If A, then B." I've personally had tons of A and never resulted in B.
Was the "A" unprotected?
You clearly do not know what that word means.
Really? Did you consult its user manual to find this out, or are you just talking out of your ass some more?
You contend that the female body is not designed through natural selection to bear children? I doubt you and I would be here if that were not the case.
Pregnancy is a direct result of a fertilized ovum implanting itself in a uterine wall -- not sex.
Literally speaking, yes. That fertilization can occur without sex.
However, in the context of our discussion, I was referring to the act of having unprotected sex leading to the consequence of pregnancy. I'm sure you'll agree a causality exists there.
Simple: It does not breach any duty. Please educate yourself.
See above.
But the company owes a duty to its employees. You are clearly out of your depth here.
Poor analogy on my part since the only "duty" the woman owes would be to herself should she not desire to become pregnant.
The zygote induces the production of EPF, an immunosuppressant, in the mother.
"Subvert" would seemingly imply intent on the fetus' part, which I doubt you mean. The production of EPF is a product of evolution since it is difficult to spread our DNA if our offspring are destroyed by our immune systems.
I think a woman herself will decide what purpose her own body serves, not you.
I did not say what her body's purpose is, only what it is designed to do via evolution.
One may say a car is designed to go fast, but the owner deems the purpose of the vehicle (it may be to look at, a daily commuter, etc.).
You're putting words into my mouth.
Unwelcome intruders are unwelcome intruders. Even inviting someone into your house does not confer to him your permission to begin eating the things in your refrigerator (even though, gasp!, its a possibility). People have the right to remove those unwelcome intruders from their premises.
I agree. Every woman has the right to choose. I've never disputed that, only your terminology and position that a woman who doesn't want to become pregnant yet has unprotected sex cannot be called "negligent." Perhaps "irresponsible" would do better?
I think it's quite clear who actually knows the facts here, and who does not.
What is clear here is that you take every opportunity to hurl thinly veiled insults my direction because I objected your terminology. I think we can have a civil discussion without them.
If you'd like to discuss things further I welcome it. If you'd like to continue to try to beat me over the head with your perceived mental superiority, I think we're finished speaking on this subject.
