I tend to lean to the right

[nick1985]

Human rights are at the minimum federal issues and protection of equal protection under the law should be considered a federal mandate.

I agree that same sex marriage SHOULD not be able to be discriminated against. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution specifying that states cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, then its a states right issues.

I urge you to contact your congressman/senators to push for an amendment.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It seems we are getting very technical, so feel free to correct me if I misuse a word. Isn't negligent any action that you take or fail to take that has a reasonably obvious negative consequence for yourself or others. Such as, I know the roof of my store is not structurally sound, and I don't fix it or close my store. If the roof caves in, would it not be my fault due to negligence because I knew it was not sound, and collapse was an obvious consequence. I would expect pregnancy to be an obvious consequence of sex without contraceptives.

If sex is a negligent act, then to whom is the resultant duty owed? And what negative consequences result for that party? Please bear in mind that the owed duties must be to parties that actually exist.

It seems to me that the result of pregnancy is so obvious, that consenting participation in sex is an acceptance of the possible consequences.

This is not the way that consent is transmitted in our legal system. Consenting to a particular act is not necessarily tantamount to consenting to all its possible consequences, and in particular consequences which involve violations to a person's bodily rights like those involved in pregnancy must be consented to explicitly. My analogy to automobile collisions is an apt one for this reason. We do not consent to automobile collisions every time we get behind the wheel, even though it is certainly a possible consequence of driving on public motorways.

Sex is also the only activity that I know of that creates a completely new entity that is capable of thought and possessing of rights, so I am not sure that there is any other examples that could be used for a precedent of obligation to a party that did not exist before the act.

Nobody has the right to occupy the body of another person, to forcibly respirate and feed off that person's metabolism, and inject that person with hormones and waste without that person's explicit consent. If I were to do you the favor of providing such life support for some time, I would still be under no strict obligation to continue to provide it against my will until you decided you were through unless I consented to it explicitly.

 

[Carmen813]

Dealing with marriage is not a congressional power, and there is no amendment dealing with marriage to the Constitution. Given this, you point to the 10th amendment. States have the power on this one. Your personal feelings disagree, but thats the way the law of the US is written. I urge you to write your congressmen to start work on an amendment to specify marriage.

The 10th amendment doesn't only give rights to states, it also specifically says that those rights can be reserved to the people. My position (and the person you responded too) is that gay marriage should be an individual rights issue. In other words, government at any level should not be involved. If government chooses to involve itself with marriage, than it should grant equal rights to all married individuals.

 

[daishi5]

If sex is a negligent act, then to whom is the resultant duty owed? And what negative consequences result for that party? Please bear in mind that the owed duties must be to parties that actually exist.


This is not the way that consent is transmitted in our legal system. Consenting to a particular act is not necessarily tantamount to consenting to all its possible consequences, and in particular consequences which involve violations to a person's bodily rights like those involved in pregnancy must be consented to explicitly. My analogy to automobile collisions is an apt one for this reason. We do not consent to automobile collisions every time we get behind the wheel, even though it is certainly a possible consequence of driving on public motorways.


Nobody has the right to occupy the body of another person, to forcibly respirate and feed off that person's metabolism, and inject that person with hormones and waste without that person's explicit consent. If I were to do you the favor of providing such life support for some time, I would still be under no strict obligation to continue to provide it against my will until you decided you were through unless I consented to it explicitly.

I am not a lawyer, so you may need to be a little more explicit with how it does work for my benefit.

Your argument seems to stem from the uniqueness of the state of pregnancy as it relates to other matters rather than any form of true precedent. And, to your automobile accident analogy, we do not consent to automobile accidents, but automobile accidents are very very rare, and not the normal outcome of driving. If I have sex every day for a year, it is almost guaranteed a pregnancy will result. If I drive every day for a year, it is still very unlikely that I will get into a car accident. The rational expectation of an outcome should be part of the consideration. I think child support might be a better comparison. I believe it would be closely related to the legal duties of a father to support the child of a mother. Is the father not legally obligated to support the child due to his consent to participate in sexual intercourse? If the father has a legal duty due to his participation in intercourse, would that not be an example of a legal duty to a party that does not yet exist?

As to the life support agreement, I think you may be wrong. Is a hospital allowed to refuse to provide life support to a patient that is brought in because they will not be able to pay their bills or they cannot prove insurance coverage? In fact, I think that if I begin to give you CPR, I cannot stop until either help arrives or I am no longer capable of providing assistance. I know they are not perfect analogies, but again this falls back to the very fact that pregnancy is a unique state.

 

[ElFenix]

sex is an intentional act and intentional acts bear far more liability than negligence (where the only duty is to act in a reasonable manner).

i'm also in disagreement that pregnancy violates a person's body. a primary biological function of a female mammal is pregnancy. you'd have to come up with some fantastically good argument that a primary biological function of the body is a violation of it.

you're off on your automobile analogy because when you get behind the wheel society does expect you to be responsible for your own negligent, knowing, or intentional behavior. that's why we have mandatory car insurance laws (though obviously your insurance company isn't going to pay up if you're found to have intentionally caused a wreck).

 

[Fern]

You are correct, it would not outlaw abortion.
But it would create a giant clusterfuck when some states outlaw it and others don't.
This type of situation is what I was trying to show where an overarching federal law/rule can keep things running more smoothly than a bunch of states acting unilaterally.

Personally, I don't see the "clusterfvck".

The states were originally designed to be little 'laboritories', differences were expected.

We already have differences among states, including but not limited to medical pot and gay marriage.

I also don't believe that if Roe v Wade were overturned we'd see the outright banning of abortion. More like some states would have more limitations (late term abortions etc). I just can't imagine women and doctors being put in jail etc.

Fern

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I am not a lawyer, so you may need to be a little more explicit with how it does work for my benefit.

When a person experiences circumstances which the result of another person's negligence, then the negligent person owes a duty to the other person to restore the status quo ante -- the affected person's circumstances before the negligence affected them. The problem using this to try to object to an abortion are numerous. 1.) a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a person, 2.) the fetus did not exist when the allegedly negligent act took place, 3.) the fetus' circumstances are only improved as a result of the sex, 4.) the status quo ante for the fetus was that it didn't exist, and abortion is in fact the perfect solution to achieve that.

Your argument seems to stem from the uniqueness of the state of pregnancy as it relates to other matters rather than any form of true precedent.

I don't know where you would get that idea, since my arguments are based upon well-established legal principles.

And, to your automobile accident analogy, we do not consent to automobile accidents, but automobile accidents are very very rare, and not the normal outcome of driving. If I have sex every day for a year, it is almost guaranteed a pregnancy will result. If I drive every day for a year, it is still very unlikely that I will get into a car accident. The rational expectation of an outcome should be part of the consideration.

This is merely a difference in degree and not a difference in principle. I would think it's easily agreeable that usually the expectation when having sex is that pregnancy will not result, and the statistics support that.

I think child support might be a better comparison. I believe it would be closely related to the legal duties of a father to support the child of a mother. Is the father not legally obligated to support the child due to his consent to participate in sexual intercourse?

No, the father is obligated to pay child support to the mother because he is the biological parent of the child. It is not a matter of consent.

If the father has a legal duty due to his participation in intercourse, would that not be an example of a legal duty to a party that does not yet exist?

Monetary child support obligations are to the mother, as a consequence of being the child's biological father, not because he consented to the intercourse, strictly speaking.

As to the life support agreement, I think you may be wrong. Is a hospital allowed to refuse to provide life support to a patient that is brought in because they will not be able to pay their bills or they cannot prove insurance coverage?

A hospital is not a natural person, compromising the very integrity of its body to supply such life support.

In fact, I think that if I begin to give you CPR, I cannot stop until either help arrives or I am no longer capable of providing assistance. I know they are not perfect analogies, but again this falls back to the very fact that pregnancy is a unique state.

I don't know that to be the case, but regardless giving CPR does not involve the same type of violations to bodily integrity that pregnancy does.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

sex is an intentional act and intentional acts bear far more liability than negligence (where the only duty is to act in a reasonable manner).

Intending to have sex is not tantamount to intending to become and remain pregnant.

i'm also in disagreement that pregnancy violates a person's body.

Then you're simply a nutter-butter.

a primary biological function of a female mammal is pregnancy. you'd have to come up with some fantastically good argument that a primary biological function of the body is a violation of it.

You don't get to decide what the "primary biological function" of other people's bodies is, but it isn't surprising to find a conservative ever so eager to throw bodily sovereignty out the window when it suits their ideological purposes.

you're off on your automobile analogy because when you get behind the wheel society does expect you to be responsible for your own negligent, knowing, or intentional behavior. that's why we have mandatory car insurance laws (though obviously your insurance company isn't going to pay up if you're found to have intentionally caused a wreck).

And.... ? You've failed to show how my analogy is incongruent.

 

[daishi5]

When a person experiences circumstances which the result of another person's negligence, then the negligent person owes a duty to the other person to restore the status quo ante -- the affected person's circumstances before the negligence affected them. The problem using this to try to object to an abortion are numerous. 1.) a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a person, 2.) the fetus did not exist when the allegedly negligent act took place, 3.) the fetus' circumstances are only improved as a result of the sex, 4.) the status quo ante for the fetus was that it didn't exist, and abortion is in fact the perfect solution to achieve that.


I don't know where you would get that idea, since my arguments are based upon well-established legal principles.


This is merely a difference in degree and not a difference in principle. I would think it's easily agreeable that usually the expectation when having sex is that pregnancy will not result, and the statistics support that.


No, the father is obligated to pay child support to the mother because he is the biological parent of the child. It is not a matter of consent.


Monetary child support obligations are to the mother, as a consequence of being the child's biological father, not because he consented to the intercourse, strictly speaking.


A hospital is not a natural person, compromising the very integrity of its body to supply such life support.


I don't know that to be the case, but regardless giving CPR does not involve the same type of violations to bodily integrity that pregnancy does.

My reference to precedent may not be the true legal definition of precedent if there is a legal precedent for parents not having any duty to care for a child. (Poor wording, I know.) The problem is, you state that you cannot have a legal obligation to an entity that does not exist. I don't think that is a valid argument because pregnancy is the only method of bringing a child into existence, and due to its uniqueness, pregnancy includes an implicit duty to the child. So, I think the only precedent you could use to say the mother has no duty to the child is a case or law that refers to child-birth pregnancy specifically, because of pregnancies unique characteristics.

I am trying to think of another action that can create a legal entity, and I can only think of incorporation. But, you cannot incorporate by accident.

It seems to me that parents do have a legal duty to care for a child, if they don't they are guilty of child abuse, or negligence. (Correct?) The child did not exist when it was conceived, at what point do they gain the legal duty to the child? I thought most states have a 3 day period in which the parents can give up the child at a hospital (we have had that happen) or fire station.

• Is the parent considered to have a duty before the 3 day period expires, or does the parent consent to the duty by not giving the child up during those days?
• Does the parent gain the duty at birth?
• Can we charge a mother for drinking a lot of alcohol during pregnancy?
• (assuming the above is correct) when did the mother begin being liable for the care of the child that she has no duty to?
• Is there a difference between the duty you refer to the mother not owing the child and a mothers duty to not harm the child?

Maybe the problem is referring to pregnancy as a result of negligence, does it have to be the result of negligence to result in a duty?

 

[Moonbeam]

daiahi, you are arguing for the sanctity of life. You have an inner feeling that life is valuable. I believe that feeling is natural and proper for intelligent social beings. But you probably also are religiously trained to regard that feeling as an absolute that issues not from your genes but from God. It then becomes an absolute that becomes an inviable law of the universe. This is a mistake, in my opinion, to go from what feels absolutely right and is a high noble truth, to the absolute certainty that this idea is a God given command.

The problem is that the right not to be forced to have a child you don't want is also an absolute truth because slavery is wrong too. When these absolutes clash and are irreconcilable they can't really be absolute inviable truth. Intelligence has to enter in and decide what takes president where and that is why we created laws. You don't want to live under my absolute beliefs and I don't want to live under yours. You can believe as you wish and me too, but we can't impose those beliefs on others no matter how deep our faith is in their universal truth. There are a million universal truths out there and some of them are truly terrible.

Remember, we are animals that evolved over billions of years. Half of us are female by accident of birth. Human females can't prevent pregnancy by volition, another accident of nature. What you want to do is force half the population that are accidentally women, a half you don't belong to, to have to give birth to a child they conceived, also beyond their will. You want to tell women they shouldn't have sex if they don't want children. You are all upside down in this. You tell yourself not to have sex and the matter of abortion will never touch you.

Your love and feeling for the sacredness of life is beautiful but it is evil if forced. Women have rights too, because nature dealt them a hand nobody asked for. You can say that it would be wonderful if all pregnant women wanted their kids and you can strive to create such a world, but you can't do it by force. You can't trade violence against women who are consciously aware for violence against an entity that does not know it exists. One violence is real and the other imagination extended into the future, a Utopian dream. Love the good but don't use it as a sword.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Gays have equal rights to marry just like the rest of us. A gay man can go out right now and marry a lesbian woman and receive every benefit offered by law.



Would you support a brother and sister having the right to marry? Two brothers? A father and a son? Just curious if you feel there should be any limitations on marriage, or open season for all.

Cubby don't hang out your secret sexual preferences in broad daylight. Leave'em in the closet.

 

[daishi5]

daiahi, you are arguing for the sanctity of life. You have an inner feeling that life is valuable. I believe that feeling is natural and proper for intelligent social beings. But you probably also are religiously trained to regard that feeling as an absolute that issues not from your genes but from God. It then becomes an absolute that becomes an inviable law of the universe. This is a mistake, in my opinion, to go from what feels absolutely right and is a high noble truth, to the absolute certainty that this idea is a God given command.

The problem is that the right not to be forced to have a child you don't want is also an absolute truth because slavery is wrong too. When these absolutes clash and are irreconcilable they can't really be absolute inviable truth. Intelligence has to enter in and decide what takes president where and that is why we created laws. You don't want to live under my absolute beliefs and I don't want to live under yours. You can believe as you wish and me too, but we can't impose those beliefs on others no matter how deep our faith is in their universal truth. There are a million universal truths out there and some of them are truly terrible.

Remember, we are animals that evolved over billions of years. Half of us are female by accident of birth. Human females can't prevent pregnancy by volition, another accident of nature. What you want to do is force half the population that are accidentally women, a half you don't belong to, to have to give birth to a child they conceived, also beyond their will. You want to tell women they shouldn't have sex if they don't want children. You are all upside down in this. You tell yourself not to have sex and the matter of abortion will never touch you.

Your love and feeling for the sacredness of life is beautiful but it is evil if forced. Women have rights too, because nature dealt them a hand nobody asked for. You can say that it would be wonderful if all pregnant women wanted their kids and you can strive to create such a world, but you can't do it by force. You can't trade violence against women who are consciously aware for violence against an entity that does not know it exists. One violence is real and the other imagination extended into the future, a Utopian dream. Love the good but don't use it as a sword.

I think you see more than I mean to place there. I see life as valuable and I was religiously raised. But, I have come to my own understanding of why I believe life is valuable, and been forced to reject most of my religious upbringing because it violates its own teachings. If there is a supreme being he will either accept me as I come or reject me. My morals are based on my own meditations and self-examination.

I do not believe that abortion should be illegal, I consider freedom to be one of the highest forms of right a person has. But, we are not arguing whether or not abortion is moral, and I am not arguing that abortion should be illegal. I don't agree with Cerpin Text's argument that a mother has no obligation or duty to the child, but I do agree with him that abortion should be legal. If I am right, that his argument is weak, it does not mean his conclusion is wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

My reference to precedent may not be the true legal definition of precedent if there is a legal precedent for parents not having any duty to care for a child. (Poor wording, I know.) The problem is, you state that you cannot have a legal obligation to an entity that does not exist. I don't think that is a valid argument because pregnancy is the only method of bringing a child into existence, and due to its uniqueness, pregnancy includes an implicit duty to the child. So, I think the only precedent you could use to say the mother has no duty to the child is a case or law that refers to child-birth pregnancy specifically, because of pregnancies unique characteristics.

I am trying to think of another action that can create a legal entity, and I can only think of incorporation. But, you cannot incorporate by accident.

It seems to me that parents do have a legal duty to care for a child, if they don't they are guilty of child abuse, or negligence. (Correct?) The child did not exist when it was conceived, at what point do they gain the legal duty to the child? I thought most states have a 3 day period in which the parents can give up the child at a hospital (we have had that happen) or fire station.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about children. Children are born. Children are persons, and children live independently of the metabolism of any other particular person. We're talking about fetuses, which are not persons, and which occupy the body of a person, feeding parasitically off of that person's metabolism and injecting that person with hormones and waste.

Maybe the problem is referring to pregnancy as a result of negligence, does it have to be the result of negligence to result in a duty?

What duty would be owed, regardless? If anything, a mother has done the zygote a favor by lending it her body for whatever time she has. How can you then claim that she must owe it additional obligations which cost her her very rights to bodily integrity? If I bought you lunch, does that mean I have to eat the feces you produce from it? Because that's essentially what you're asserting.

 

[daishi5]

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about children. Children are born. Children are persons, and children live independently of the metabolism of any other particular person. We're talking about fetuses, which are not persons, and which occupy the body of a person, feeding parasitically off of that person's metabolism and injecting that person with hormones and waste.


What duty would be owed, regardless? If anything, a mother has done the zygote a favor by lending it her body for whatever time she has. How can you then claim that she must owe it additional obligations which cost her her very rights to bodily integrity? If I bought you lunch, does that mean I have to eat the feces you produce from it? Because that's essentially what you're asserting.

So, the mothers duty to take care of the child begins at birth? Am I right in asserting that she has a legal duty to care and provide for the child, unless she gives up the child in the first 3 days? I don't think the lunch analogy applies because I do think that a mother has an obligation to provide food to a child, and to care for it and that the mother cannot just abandon that obligation.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So, the mothers duty to take care of the child begins at birth? Am I right in asserting that she has a legal duty to care and provide for the child, unless she gives up the child in the first 3 days? I don't think the lunch analogy applies because I do think that a mother has an obligation to provide food to a child, and to care for it and that the mother cannot just abandon that obligation.

What part of "I'm not talking about children. I'm talking about fetuses," is lost on you?

 

[daishi5]

What part of "I'm not talking about children. I'm talking about fetuses," is lost on you?

The fact that the two are one and the same physical object at different stages in the development. I know children have rights and the parents have obligations to the child, but you assert they have no obligations to the fetus. I am asking you exactly when the fetus suddenly changes its legal status to gain these legal obligations and protections. And of course, there are all the fun difficult questions regarding premature births and how those relate.

 

[nick1985]

This thread sucks now

 

[ElFenix]

Intending to have sex is not tantamount to intending to become and remain pregnant.


Then you're simply a nutter-butter.


You don't get to decide what the "primary biological function" of other people's bodies is, but it isn't surprising to find a conservative ever so eager to throw bodily sovereignty out the window when it suits their ideological purposes.


And.... ? You've failed to show how my analogy is incongruent.

who said i'm conservative?

millions of years of evolution decided what the function of female mammals is. not me. the primary biological function of sex is propagation of the species. because you intend the natural and foreseeable result of your actions, and pregnancy is a natural and foreseeable result of sex, it is tantamount to intending to become pregnant.

your analogy is incongruent because you've got it all backwards. pregnancy is something one does to one's self. it's not what someone does to you. the zygote/fetus certainly didn't ask. further, and again, you are responsible for your behavior on the roads, you don't just get a get out of jail free card for any act that was negligent, knowing, or intentional. for some reason you're ignoring that.


but, you know, rather than actually address the argument you come up with ad hominems and personal attacks. awesome.

 

[DT4K]

This thread was not supposed to be a debate on abortion, so I'll ignore the idiotic ramblings of the one who only speaks "irrefutable facts" that can't possibly be open for debate or interpretation by intelligent people.

The thread was supposed to be about why those on the right hold their views on abortion and gay marriage.

In both cases, I think that the majority of the views are probably based primarily on religious moral beliefs.
But in the case of abortion, it is also a matter of constitutional interpretation. Those on the right would argue that the constitutional "right to life" begins at conception (or some other time before birth occurs).

 

[nick1985]

But in the case of abortion, it is also a matter of constitutional interpretation. Those on the right would argue that the constitutional "right to life" begins at conception (or some other time before birth occurs).

Isnt that a phrase in the Declaration of Independance, NOT the Constitution?

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The fact that the two are one and the same physical object at different stages in the development.

There is a very distinctive and widly important feaature that distinguishes the two: a working umbilical cord.

I know children have rights and the parents have obligations to the child, but you assert they have no obligations to the fetus. I am asking you exactly when the fetus suddenly changes its legal status to gain these legal obligations and protections.

That should be obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size: Birth.

And of course, there are all the fun difficult questions regarding premature births and how those relate.

When a child is no longer occupying the body of the mother, forcibly respirating and extracting nutrients from her metabolism and injecting her with hormones and waste, it is no longer violating her rights. I'm not just repeating those facts for my own jollies, you know; it is because you are apparently incapable of realizing the significance of those circumstances. Take some time and use that fatty lump just north of your neckline to ruminate on it. Despite all indications to the contrary, I want to believe you have the capacity to understand the distinctions.

 

[Linflas]

Isnt that a phrase in the Declaration of Independance, NOT the Constitution?

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

"Right to life" is not granted by the Constitution (nor are any rights for that matter), it is a natural right that every human possesses at birth. As far as abortion goes that is why the argument always comes down to at what point is a fetus considered a living being? Some think from the moment of conception, others think from the point of viability outside the mother, still others think only when the baby is considered to be "born". The latter 2 cases also weigh into the whole issue of partial birth abortion. In any case once you are "live born" you have every right to live out the entire natural span of your life and the only way you can possibly lose that right is by commission of a crime for which the penalty is death. So far as I understand Roe v. Wade in my laymans mind the right to an abortion did not turn on a constitutional right to life but rather an inferred constitutional right to privacy which protects a womans right to make that choice for herself.

 

[DT4K]

Isnt that a phrase in the Declaration of Independance, NOT the Constitution?

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Yes, but many people mistakenly believe it's in the bill of rights since the phrase speaks of our "rights", so they argue it as a constitutional issue. But even without it being in the constitution, you could use it as an argument against legalizing abortion. It just depends on how you choose to decide when a human being is entitled to those "inalienable" rights that are mentioned in the declaration.

Nobody is going to argue that murder should be legal. Every sane person (so probably 80% of P&N) would agree that killing another person should be a crime. So the vast majority of people agree that people have the right to not be killed.

So the abortion issue is really quite simple.
The only difference between the pro-choice and pro-life viewpoint is the determination of when a human being becomes a "person" and gains the right to not be killed. Pro-life people believe that this right should be acquired at some point before birth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

who said i'm conservative?

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is ridiculously ignorant and misinformed like a duck, I'm gonna call it a duck. Call yourself whatever you like.

millions of years of evolution decided what the function of female mammals is. not me.

Evolution makes no such decisions. You are simply projecting.

the primary biological function of sex is propagation of the species.

Again, this is a baseless assertion, and merely a projection from your own mind. There is no "user manual" out there for the human body telling us what the certain behaviors of it are intended for. We know that the female is capable of becoming pregnant, but you have no basis for claiming any intention or purpose for those behaviors.

because you intend the natural and foreseeable result of your actions

Ridiculous. I've never intended pregnancy to result from any instance of sex in my life. The vast majoriy of people having sex do not intend pregnancy to result from any particular instance of sex. This claim is so silly and ignorant you should be embarrassed to have written it.

and pregnancy is a natural and foreseeable result of sex

How is something so statistically improbable THE natural and foreseeable result of sex? hmm? Why isn't heavy breathing and elevated heart rate resulting in no pregnancy the "natural result"? That's the more common result, to be sure. Your ignorant prejudice is showing.

it is tantamount to intending to become pregnant.

This is still as silly and ignorant as the first time you said it.

your analogy is incongruent because you've got it all backwards. pregnancy is something one does to one's self. it's not what someone does to you. the zygote/fetus certainly didn't ask.

Learn some biology, Poindexter. A zygote implants itself into the uterine wall, subverting a woman's natural immune defenses in order to accomplish it. How another agent invading your body by subverting your defenses amounts to "doing it to yourself" is only accessible to the collossally ignorant and confused minds of people like you.

further, and again, you are responsible for your behavior on the roads, you don't just get a get out of jail free card for any act that was negligent, knowing, or intentional. for some reason you're ignoring that.

You haven't shown that engaging in consensual sex is any different in principle than egaging in consensual driving. By all means, keep trying though. It's like shooting fish in a barrell.

but, you know, rather than actually address the argument you come up with ad hominems and personal attacks. awesome.

I jess calls 'em as I sees 'em.

 

[DT4K]

How is something so statistically improbable THE natural and foreseeable result of sex? hmm? Why isn't heavy breathing and elevated heart rate resulting in no pregnancy the "natural result"? That's the more common result, to be sure. Your ignorant prejudice is showing.

Nobody said pregnancy is the ONLY natural and forseeable consequence of sex.

Natural - occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature
Forseeable - being such as may be reasonably anticipated

So how exactly is getting pregnant NOT a natural and forseeable consequence of having sex?