CPAC: Consevatives Vote for Ron Paul

Remove all ads!

By voluntarily performing an act that had a strong possibility of giving her one. Again, the 'drunk driving' example applies. A person drinks. They get drunk. They have keys and a car. All of the above is voluntary. They (while drunk and not capable of legal 'choice') get in the car and drive off. The police pull them over and charge them with drunk driving, and any damage they may have done. They didn't choose to drive drunk (at least, in a legal sense), but they voluntarily put themselves in a situation where that was distinctly possible. As a result, they're held responsable for it.

Similarly, a woman chooses to have unprotected sex. That woman get's pregnant. She may not have chosen that specific outcome, but she put herself in the position where it was distinctly possible.

 

Honestly, there is really no excuse anymore for getting pregnant if you didn't want to. Even if you have unprotected sex, you can buy the morning after pill for about $20, no presciption required. I have no idea how much it costs to have an abortion, but I imagine it's a heck of a lot more. (Of course, you have to be a bit more proactive with the morning after pill, as it only works for a few day after having unprotected sex.)

 

No, it doesn't. It's idiotic that you believe it applies (but I don't believe you even believe it does). Quit the double-talk and talk to the issue at hand, which is the woman's right to chose. In other words, if you can't speak directly to the issue, then don't waste my time, with dumb analogies, rather than speaking to the fact that you are stealing the use of a woman's body for 9 months.

In your dreams. No, she didn't. THEY (you can stop the biased nonsense that the woman only had sex with herself) agreed to have sex. She never agreed the use of her body for nine months afterwards. And the other partner never made it a requirement. If they sign a contract that they are having sex for a specific purpose then one of the partners can take the other to court to hold that person to the contract. Maybe that person will have a case.

 

Chandos,

Loath as I am to say it, I have to agree with Nog on this one. Whenever we choose to do anything, there are often unintended consequences to those chosen actions. I think the point Nog is trying to get across with the "drunk driving" analogy is that a person getting behind the wheel while intoxicated is taking a risk of wrapping their car around a tree, even though their intent was only to drive somewhere. Getting drunk is a conscious (and often fun) choice, but had the person taken responsible measures (i.e., getting a designated driver), the risk of wrapping one's car around a tree is eliminated.

To wit: If two people choose to have sex, usually making that choice because they want to enjoy themselves, they are taking a risk of (specifically, but not limited to) becoming pregnant. Everyone over the age of 12 is acutely aware of this mechanic: have sex, make baby. Assuming her having sex is a conscious choice, had she taken a responsible precaution (i.e., insisted the man wear a condom), she would have eliminated the risk of becoming pregnant. If she does become pregnant, however, it's because she chose to forgo that preventative measure. Hence, she is responsible for the consequence (getting pregnant) of her decision (to have unprotected sex), despite her not choosing to carry a child for 9 months. The way I see it, it is no more an imposition on her body to ask that she take responsibility for the consequences of her actions (spending 9 months carrying the child to term) than it is to ask a drunk driver to take responsibility for wrecking a car (and spend 9 months in jail...or whatever).

That's my 2 cents.

 

Come on, Chandos -- if you dance to the music you've got to pay the piper. 99% of people know that sex can very likely result in pregnancy. It's why we encourage responsible attitudes toward sex in our society. No one* can voluntarily have sex and then, when a pregnancy results, say "oh, my! I had no idea this could possibly happen!" They may not have wanted a pregnancy to result, but it often does. The question then is "does this person have the moral fibre to accept the consequences of having had reckless sex?"

Now in the case of a woman who voluntarily has sex with a guy and gets pregnant, I want to emphasize the voluntary part -- no one forced her to commit the act that resulted in getting pregnant. Therefore, the idea that requiring her to have the baby is "involuntary servitude" seems to me to be complete and utter crap.

Now there may be other arguments about rights that weigh against making her have the baby, but the idea that having a baby is the equivalent of slavery is nonsense.

*barring severe mental retardation, but of course in that case the woman cannot form consent anyway and so the sex is never consensual and always rape.

 

Unless she had a disagreement with Dick Cheney.

But you're missing the entire point of Chandos' argument here. He isn't arguing that the woman in question does not realize there is a possibility of her getting pregnant. It seems that DR has missed this too...

This is where Chandos is making a point - and to me it's not a particularly nuanced one. The woman's ability to chose is what removes the involuntary servitude part.

However, it appears I'm the only one here who is reading Chandos' post the way he inteded - so maybe he and I are the screwed up ones here...

 

I understand Chandos' point perfectly -- I just don't agree with it -- the right to choose to abort the fetus is not the only factor that stops this situation from being one of involuntary servitude. Even if a government deniers her an abortion, she is not being forced into servitude because she was an active agent in getting pregnant. So was the father, before the accusations of sexism rear their ugly heads.

To me, involuntary servitude conjures up weird images of women being abducted and forcibly impregnated against their will, never having had the chance to say "no" to the sex or other impregnation technique. Most women had the chance to say "no, thanks, I don't want sex because I'm responsible enough to know that I'm not ready to deal with the possible consequences of sex -- to wit, pregnancy."

 

Oh I certainly get this point. It's just that, to me, she already made her "choice" when she chose to have unprotected sex, period. As far as I'm concerned, the right to choose - when we're talking about consensual sex - begins and ends with choosing to protect yourself from pregnancy, which, let's be honest, takes the bare minimum of effort. There are two ways to do this - wear a condom, or just don't have sex. As in anything, we invite risk when we refuse to take precautions. By not terminating the unwanted pregnancy, she is not forced into "involuntary servitude," but rather, accepting the responsibility of her own poor choice. An abortion is, in my view, a rather tragic skirting of one's responsibility for their actions.

Now, many women have unprotected sex and still don't get pregnant. Some people are just lucky. Doesn't make them any more of a responsible citizen than the drunk who drives home without incident.

 

LKD - More specific, it is a way we control SEX in our society. And that's what I was trying to force NOG to say. This is really about SEX (and attitudes) as you rightly point out, LKD. More to the point, the way we control a woman's attitude towards sex. And to be more specific, it means that if she has sex and gets pregnant as a result, she has a "societal responsibility" to have a baby. Really, the phony analogy was pointless. In some ways, this about how a woman gets to shape her attitudes towards sex and her own sexuality. If you can control someone's attitudes towards something as basic and private as their sexuality, then it is easier to control other aspects of their liberties. Church dogma has always reflected this very notion throughout history.

 

Obviously. But if you didn't use birth control (or it failed - condoms can break you know), then abortion is a sure-fire remedy. (Or preferably and easier, the morning after pill.)

OK, but only injecting a hefty dose of hyperbole into what Chandos was saying could lead you to that conclusion. I never thought he was talking about that. I read it as not wanting to go through 9 months of being pregnant and then raising the child after it.

As I said earlier, there are many ways birth control can fail. In the case of condoms, it's if the condom breaks. (Which by no means happens frequently from my experience - I've broken exactly two in the god knows how many dozens I've used in my lifetime.)

If she is not in any position to care for a child, why do you feel that way?

 

I guess I just don't understand how this absolves the woman from employing the use of a condom. She can still enjoy all the benefits of her own sexual liberation while still observing this simple, inexpensive and proven method of pregnancy prevention. Am I missing something?

Of course. Seat belts can also break. Nothing is foolproof. Still, having unprotected sex is as reckless as bolting down the freeway without buckling up. Sure, you have a good chance of going out of it alright, but if you end up getting pregnant (or into a 5-car pileup and permanently injure yourself), you have no one to blame but yourself. At least by taking preventative measures (condom / buckling up) you're making the best effort you can to protect yourself and others from a harmful outcome.

Well, she should have thought of that before having unsafe sex, for starters. But beyond that, there are thousands of infertile couples in the U.S. jumping at the chance to adopt. Not to beat an analogy to death, but a drunk driver is often "in no position" to go to prison for drunk driving (family to support, etc.), but that's the consequence of his bad decision. I just think he should have to face it.

 

In other words, women can't have sex strictly for pleasure?

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later... ----------

I feel I'm the one missing something. Are you saying that if a woman has "safe sex" and something goes wrong and she ends up PG that she CAN have an abortion? Or is she just plain out of luck in any case and has to give up the use of her body for 9 months?

 

Not necessarily, no. By having safe sex, she's already acting responsibly. But accidents do happen. If something goes wrong - say, the rare event that a condom breaks - she can, almost anywhere in America, get a morning after pill. That would be her continuing to act responsibly. If for some reason she's not able to acquire one, I personally feel she should carry out the pregnancy, yes. Even with a condom, you're still actively taking a risk (albeit an almost completely reduced one) of pregnancy. However, in a situation like this, I believe a woman would probably be justified in wanting an abortion. She did everything right and still got screwed (no pun intended). Having said that, this is a situation which takes into account a lot of "ifs," and I think we can all agree is highly unlikely, comparatively speaking.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. (And Aldeth, science guy, please correct any faulty assumptions below).

Let's say we have a woman - we'll call her Jane - who is a single, responsible, perfectly healthy young adult. She makes the decision to be sexually active, but doesn't want to get married and/or have children. Jane protects herself from pregnancy by carrying condoms with her and insisting that any partner she chooses use one. Studies show that when used properly, condoms are over 98% effective. At this point, she's reduced her chances of getting pregnant to less than 2% (and the 2% accounts for breakage, slippage, and manufacturer defects in the condom).

Now, obviously, unprotected sex doesn't have a 100% pregnancy rate. Fertile couples can actively try to get pregnant for months before succeeding. If I were to guess, all things being equal, I'd say without a condom there's about a 1 in 4 shot of fertilization every time you have sex. Statistically speaking (and bare with me, it's been a while since I was in statistics), this reduces Jane's chances to about half of 1%. That's pretty good odds. Now let's factor in her likelyhood, in the event of condom breakage, of acquiring a morning after pill (which is available over the counter) within 72 hours. Even if she has to drive to another state, she could pretty easily acquire a Plan B in that time frame. So failure here is pretty minimal, further reducing that half of 1% to next to nothing. I don't know the success rate of the morning after pill (as I'm sure it's not 100% effective, either) but I'm sure this would be a factor as well. Now, if Jane went to ALL that trouble and amazingly still got pregnant, for having the worst luck in the world this is one instance where I wouldn't have an issue with Jane having an abortion. But that's one hell of a bullseye she just hit, don't you think?

If an extremely unlucky woman still takes even basic modern precautions, and STILL ends up pregnant, I contend that it is due to her own carelessness. And as I said, I believe people should be held to account for their carelessness, even liberated young women like Jane. She could have chosen, after all, to abstain. I'm not saying she SHOULD abstain, just that she assumes her own risk, no matter how small. Sure this is unfair, as men can't get pregnant. But that's nature's failing, not society's.

 

I find myself pretty deep in the ProLife side of this discussion.

I think if the woman tried to have safe sex, was on the pill, and the guy even told her he couldn't have kids an abortion on those grounds shouldn't be granted.

There is an argument that your freedom ends at my nose (you can do whatever you want until it impacts someone else).

For me the balance of the impact on the woman vs impact on the child is just to strongly on the child's end for me to support abortion in most cases. In those where the life of the mother is at stake then the potential impact is much more balanced and the mother should be given the option of an abortion.

The discussion about if a woman chooses to have safe sex or not strikes me as too focused on the intent of the woman rather than the potential impact of the decision that follows afterwards.

If I kill someone in a car accident I probably didn't mean to kill that person (no intent to) but the impact itself is so large that I could end up being sued by the victims family for everything I own, being put in prison, or both.

And that is on top of the point that an unwed pregnant woman today still faces less stigma than in the past and at least as many option in putting a child up for adoption now as in the prior decades with some states making hospitals and some emergency services buildings (police and fire) drop off points.

 

So, let's put aside all the "safe sex" stuff and just say that if a woman has sex for any reason (other than rape) and she becomes PG, she has a obligation to have a child and become a mother. So, the safe sex stuff is really beside the point (but it's a responsible act to avoid the varied consquences of not having safe sex). Am I clear? Maybe not.

So say a couple has sex, like many do, and the female half is on the pill and for some reason the pill fails, or say an IUD, (it does happen believe it or not) then that is OK in your world for an abortion? Is that correct?

The grounds for this argument is on a Constitutional level. This thread is not for either Pro Choice or Pro Life; as I have commented we have plenty of those - feel free to argue the general abortion issue on one of those threads. I'm not trying to be hard about that, only that this thread is looking at the politics of the conservative movement and the Constitution, and if Ron Paul is closer to Republicans (with a big "R"), since many Libertarians are pro-choice, because they are for the greatest amount of liberty that can be afforded by the Constitution.

This is the Libertarian argument:

So I suppose we could argue the whole "point of conception" thing. But really we do have a thread for that. I really wanted to look at this inside the framework of the Constitution. My own personal views on abortion are largely Libertarian.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion

 

Ok, looking at this arguement, I see two possibilities:
1.) a woman can have an abortion (thus choosing not to have a child after conception) and a man can ignore the child if the woman wants it (including legal action, thus choosing not to 'have' a child after conception)
2.) neither man nor woman can choose not to 'have' the child after conception. The man is on the hook for child support/joint custody and the woman is on the hook for 9 months of pregnancy.

The first results in a society that kills unborn children (whether you call that killing a human or preventing an imminent human life, it's not nice) and leaves single mothers to deal with things on their own. The second preserves the children and forces the fathers to take some responsability for them. I prefer the second.

As for the Supreme Court ruling, though, the issue (or one of them at least) seems to be this 'involuntary servitude' BS. I'm sorry, but if you have any informed choice at any point, the results are not 'involuntary' on your part. Unintended, maybe, but not involuntary. As for your 'contract to use her body for 9 months', yes, they did 'sign' it. The act of having sex is signing a 'contract' that may potentially make use of the woman's body for 9 months and may potentially make use of the man's income for 18 years. Abortion is breaking that 'contract'. It's a 'contract' called "consequences".

Because she's killing a child that someone else could take care of. Remember, adoptions work.

Sure they can! It's called 'protection'. And, by the way, it protects the guy just as much as it does the girl.

 

Essentially, yes. She doesn't have to become a mother (again, adoption), but she has to be prepared for such an eventuality. As adults, we have to face the consequences of our actions. If becoming pregnant is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a woman (in her view), then she shouldn't be having sex, for any reason. But if she wants to have sex, as is her right, and is bright enough to realize that a pregnancy may result, then she tacitly accepts as a consequence the possibility, however remote, of her conceiving. Just as I tacitly accept as a consequence the possibility, however remote, that I may be killed in a head-on collision when I choose to drive my car every day. (knock on wood)

I don't know all the factors of this hypothetical - the specifics of this woman's relationship, etc. - to make a very useful judgment, here. But assuming pregnancy is the absolute last thing she wants, if all she was doing to prevent pregnancy was the pill, then she wasn't doing enough. If she's on the pill, surely her gynocologist would have informed her of this. She is accepting a greatly-reduced risk of pregnancy, not a guarantee. Considering this choice, I would say the woman in your hypothetical would view an unexpected pregnancy as inconvenient timing, not the end of the world. Otherwise she'd use a form of contraception in addition to the pill.

Really, there's no need to get pissy. All I am doing is stating my opinion here, not telling you yours is wrong. Chill.

 

I didn't mean that to get "pissy." Next time I'll be sure to be more formal towards you in my replies. Peace.

I'm only arguing this from the point of individual rights. In other words, I don't see this from the point of the government passing judgments on people's relationships, their sexual habits, how "convenient" a pregnancy would be, what happens between a patient and a doctor, etc. My interest is from the standpoint of whose body is it, when does the govenment get dibs on it.

But I am trying to figure out how far those of you on the other side of this issue, believe the government should be able to intrude into our private, sexual and medical lives when "granting" liberties and rights to women - or couples. Because of how some of this is framed I'm not sure if the male is even an active player. I realize that we are discussing the woman's body and who has rights to her body, but in the actual sex act it seems as if the male has not been mentioned much.

She would be a "mother" in the sense that she would have a child. And adoption would be after the 9 months are up. So the state would still have the use of the woman's body for the 9 months.

It's "called" protection is not 100 percent.

You can spare me the "killing babies" part of your rant. I won't waste my time on that. And REMEMBER adoptions don't always work. There have been instances of mothers actually going and taking the child back after some years have passed, which screws over almost everyone involved, including the child.

---------- Added 0 hours, 44 minutes and 8 seconds later... ----------

I respect church dogma as far as it goes, and I have nothing against it. And different members within my own church have similar views to your religious beliefs as well and I respect theirs. Some of them actually share mine and are for individual rights and the Constitution on the issue of abortion. However, for myself, I was arguing the 13th Amendment from the standpoint of the Constitution. If you can show me any of your rant in the Constitution, I would be glad to take a look at it. My rant is based on the actual wording of the 13th Amendment, and not my pastor's.

I thought that we could argue this from a Constitutional perspective and not really generalize on the "morality" of abortion, since we already have several threads on it. And we have different threads on the subject of what "society" should or should not be like: For instance, we have a health care thread that deals with the issue of a society that "kills" 45,000 sick people a year by denying them health care. However, that's a separate issue.

Ron Paul, btw, is not pro-choice, so in that sense he is a better fit as a Republican than he is as a Libertarian. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, social conservatives don't "necessarily" follow what's in the Constitution, and the abortion portion of this thread is pretty good evidence of that.

 

No need. I see now you didn't mean it that way. We're good.

Ah yes. This is the angle my viewpoint is lacking, I admit. Mine is more one of personal ethics and morality. I really find the "her body, her choice" argument lacking, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is my contention that she already made her "choice" by having unprotected sex. I don't see the government as forcing her to keep the child so much as outlawing the safety of the medical procedure that would terminate the pregnancy. It for this reason, even though I dislike abortion, that I support keeping abortions legal, safe, and rare. If a woman wants an abortion bad enough, she'll still get one, though through much more dangerous means. Backalley doctors, coat hangers, a kick to the stomach, etc. Better they remain legal, IMO. At the end of the day, my agenda is to do everything in my power to prevent abortion from becoming a get-out-of-jail-free card for irresponsible women.

There's more of your argument I'd like to address and explore, but I've had one mean b*tch of a week and need to unwind. So I'll leave it here for now. Later, Chan.

 

No, really, she didn't, DR. She agreed to have sex; that's all she agreed to. As I said, the govenment has little to say in the matter of sex between two consenting adults. Now, I will agree that abortion is a terrible method for birth control, and not very responsible, but the other side of that is to give the government the use of someone's body for 9 months against her will. Don't think for a minute it will stop there. And before you roll your eyes, look at the Terry Schiavo case:

The social conservatives don't care about the Due Process of Law, nor the Constitution; they care about imposing their version of morality upon the rest of us.

The woman's right to her own body is "self-evident" in my opinion, just as the right is for the rest of us to be masters of our own destinies, which includes the self-possession of our bodies, minds and souls. To punish and enslave adult women because they don't practice or behave sexually in the way in which the State approves, or dictates, is tyranny.