Let me say something about abort…Raj, Smh?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Pro-choicers aren’t really pushing the “where life begins” argument nearly as much anymore.
From what I’ve seen, the focus has shifted to pushing the bodily rights argument.
Basically, even if the fetus is a person it’s irrelevant- the fetus has no right to use the woman’s body and the woman deserves full control of her body.
I find this a weird rationalization for killing someone, or at the very least letting someone die. [/quote]
So, a person now becomes a piece of property (from his/her origin), and are subject to another person’s choice to treat them as a disposable piece of property or elevate them to status of bona fide human being.
Pretty sure we fought a Civil War that dispensed with that way of thinking.
I’ve often thought abortion was a complicated issue, but that (incredibly creepy) way of thinking makes it far less complicated, to the detriment of the pro-choicers.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Basically, even if the fetus is a person it’s irrelevant- the fetus has no right to use the woman’s body and the woman deserves full control of her body.
[/quote]
The fetus has every right to use the woman’s body because its state of dependency is entirely the result of choices made by the woman. If someone places their life in your unwilling hands under such conditions that would require considerable sacrifice–sacrifice to the point that the future course of your life will certainly be permanently changed–on your part in order for that life to be spared, and you refuse to make that sacrifice, you may be selfish but you are not committing murder. But if you yourself create the circumstances by which the continuation of a life is contingent upon your willingness to sustain it–either intentionally or out of negligence or through willing engagement in an activity foreknown to carry these particular risks–and then refuse to do so, then yes, you are responsible for a human being’s death.
Regarding rights over the body, the woman HAS exercised full control of her body and she has decided to use it in such a way that has resulted in pregnancy.
Note: I know you’re just stating what their case is and don’t necessarily believe in this argument. Also, note that my arguments do not apply in cases of rape, which I believe demand the freedom of choice.[/quote]
Is the disciplined use of contraceptives a reasonable precaution? Or is abstinence alone satisfactory for you?
[quote]swhole milk wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Basically, even if the fetus is a person it’s irrelevant- the fetus has no right to use the woman’s body and the woman deserves full control of her body.
[/quote]
The fetus has every right to use the woman’s body because its state of dependency is entirely the result of choices made by the woman. If someone places their life in your unwilling hands under such conditions that would require considerable sacrifice–sacrifice to the point that the future course of your life will certainly be permanently changed–on your part in order for that life to be spared, and you refuse to make that sacrifice, you may be selfish but you are not committing murder. But if you yourself create the circumstances by which the continuation of a life is contingent upon your willingness to sustain it–either intentionally or out of negligence or through willing engagement in an activity foreknown to carry these particular risks–and then refuse to do so, then yes, you are responsible for a human being’s death.
Regarding rights over the body, the woman HAS exercised full control of her body and she has decided to use it in such a way that has resulted in pregnancy.
Note: I know you’re just stating what their case is and don’t necessarily believe in this argument. Also, note that my arguments do not apply in cases of rape, which I believe demand the freedom of choice.[/quote]
Is the disciplined use of contraceptives a reasonable precaution? Or is abstinence alone satisfactory for you?
[/quote]
It is indeed a reasonable precaution and it has kept me from being a father for almost a decade now.
I understand that both condoms and the pill can fail. But the real problem of unwanted pregnancy is not broken rubbers. The arguments I laid out are more philosophical than practical, intended to address this notion of a fetus having “no right” to take advantage of its host.
Believe it or not the cause for most unwanted pregnancies are not using contraception or improperly using it.
Contraception failure is much lower on the list.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]swhole milk wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Basically, even if the fetus is a person it’s irrelevant- the fetus has no right to use the woman’s body and the woman deserves full control of her body.
[/quote]
The fetus has every right to use the woman’s body because its state of dependency is entirely the result of choices made by the woman. If someone places their life in your unwilling hands under such conditions that would require considerable sacrifice–sacrifice to the point that the future course of your life will certainly be permanently changed–on your part in order for that life to be spared, and you refuse to make that sacrifice, you may be selfish but you are not committing murder. But if you yourself create the circumstances by which the continuation of a life is contingent upon your willingness to sustain it–either intentionally or out of negligence or through willing engagement in an activity foreknown to carry these particular risks–and then refuse to do so, then yes, you are responsible for a human being’s death.
Regarding rights over the body, the woman HAS exercised full control of her body and she has decided to use it in such a way that has resulted in pregnancy.
Note: I know you’re just stating what their case is and don’t necessarily believe in this argument. Also, note that my arguments do not apply in cases of rape, which I believe demand the freedom of choice.[/quote]
Is the disciplined use of contraceptives a reasonable precaution? Or is abstinence alone satisfactory for you?
[/quote]
It is indeed a reasonable precaution and it has kept me from being a father for almost a decade now.
I understand that both condoms and the pill can fail. But the real problem of unwanted pregnancy is not broken rubbers. The arguments I laid out are more philosophical than practical, intended to address this notion of a fetus having “no right” to take advantage of its host.[/quote]
I disagree about your categorization of the “real problem”. The implication of a reasonable precaution is that if that precautions fails despite disciplined use, abortion is permissible. Therefore, the reality of failed contraceptives is quite relevant, philosophically and practically.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Believe it or not the cause for most unwanted pregnancies are not using contraception or improperly using it.
Contraception failure is much lower on the list. [/quote]
This is true, but a close look at the numbers yields an interesting analysis:
The perfect-use failure rate of a latex condom (breaks/leaks not caused by user incompetence) is around 2%. The average probability that a man will contract HIV after a single act of unprotected vaginal sex with a woman known to be HIV positive is around .04%. That’s 1/50 vs. 1/2500.
Now, this is a simplistic version of the math (a number of factors cause HIV transmission rates to vary greatly), but the point stands that if you consider unprotected vaginal sex with an HIV-positive woman to be a “risky” behavior in terms of the chances of contracting HIV, then you should probably treat protected sex (if condoms are the only form of birth control used) as a reasonable pregnancy risk also.
[quote]swhole milk wrote:
I disagree about your categorization of the “real problem”. The implication of a reasonable precaution is that if that precautions fails despite disciplined use, abortion is permissible. Therefore, the reality of failed contraceptives is quite relevant, philosophically and practically.
[/quote]
See my post above re: HIV transmission rates. Risky activity is risky activity.
Do you have statistics regarding the number of pregnancies each year that result from birth control failure?
And again: my intention is to address the specific argument that a fetus has “no right” to its own survival, not to argue that abortion should be criminalized. My own feelings on abortion are as conflicted as they can be, but certain arguments are nonsense and that one is one of them.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]swhole milk wrote:
I disagree about your categorization of the “real problem”. The implication of a reasonable precaution is that if that precautions fails despite disciplined use, abortion is permissible. Therefore, the reality of failed contraceptives is quite relevant, philosophically and practically.
[/quote]
See my post above re: HIV transmission rates. Risky activity is risky activity.
Do you have statistics regarding the number of pregnancies each year that result from birth control failure?
And again: my intention is to address the specific argument that a fetus has “no right” to its own survival, not to argue that abortion should be criminalized. My own feelings on abortion are as conflicted as they can be, but certain arguments are nonsense and that one is one of them.[/quote]
Thank you for the truism; no I don’t have statistics on hand, nor do I see the relevance: if the value is greater than zero it is a relevant contingency.
I don’t know to which argument you refer, but If there is an argument that suggests that the fetus has no right to life, well, that would be too entrenched in moral skepticism for my tastes. As you noted, for this topic, the better arguments have less reliance on metaethics, for better or for worse.
Since you have revealed your intentions, I shall reveal mine: I had hoped to discuss the more interesting and complex aspects of the abortion debate. The points you made are a suitable segue into those ideas.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Believe it or not the cause for most unwanted pregnancies are not using contraception or improperly using it.
Contraception failure is much lower on the list. [/quote]
This is true, but a close look at the numbers yields an interesting analysis:
The perfect-use failure rate of a latex condom (breaks/leaks not caused by user incompetence) is around 2%. The average probability that a man will contract HIV after a single act of unprotected vaginal sex with a woman known to be HIV positive is around .04%. That’s 1/50 vs. 1/2500.
Now, this is a simplistic version of the math (a number of factors cause HIV transmission rates to vary greatly), but the point stands that if you consider unprotected vaginal sex with an HIV-positive woman to be a “risky” behavior in terms of the chances of contracting HIV, then you should probably treat protected sex (if condoms are the only form of birth control used) as a reasonable pregnancy risk also.[/quote]
This is really dumb, HIV has little to no presence in the heterosexual community with respect to sex.
If you use an STI that actually effects heterosexuals like herpes your argument is invalid. You’ve chosen an example that suits your argument instead of a realistic one.
On top of that HIV and pregnancy aren’t in the same ballpark when it comes to risky behaviour
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Believe it or not the cause for most unwanted pregnancies are not using contraception or improperly using it.
Contraception failure is much lower on the list. [/quote]
This is true, but a close look at the numbers yields an interesting analysis:
The perfect-use failure rate of a latex condom (breaks/leaks not caused by user incompetence) is around 2%. The average probability that a man will contract HIV after a single act of unprotected vaginal sex with a woman known to be HIV positive is around .04%. That’s 1/50 vs. 1/2500.
Now, this is a simplistic version of the math (a number of factors cause HIV transmission rates to vary greatly), but the point stands that if you consider unprotected vaginal sex with an HIV-positive woman to be a “risky” behavior in terms of the chances of contracting HIV, then you should probably treat protected sex (if condoms are the only form of birth control used) as a reasonable pregnancy risk also.[/quote]
This is really dumb, HIV has little to no presence in the heterosexual community with respect to sex.
If you use an STI that actually effects heterosexuals like herpes your argument is invalid. You’ve chosen an example that suits your argument instead of a realistic one.[/quote]
Penile-vaginal intercourse is the leading cause of new seroconversions worldwide. Heterosexual sex caused 12,000 new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2010 (out of about 48,000). Heterosexuals in the rich world are far less likely to contract HIV than are homosexuals, but the idea that HIV has “little to no presence in the heterosexual community” is a) meaningless because your subjective definition of “little to no presence” means nothing to me or anyone else and b) assuming we use a reasonable definition of “little to no presence,” egregiously false.
Furthermore, you seemed to have entirely missed my point. The statistics I provided were meant to provide context and related specifically to sex with someone who is CERTAIN to be seropositive, so whether or not HIV is substantially prevalent in the heterosexual community has literally no relevance.
I’ll try again:
If you have sex with an HIV-positive woman, you have a .04% chance of contracting the virus.
If you have sex with a latex condom, there is a 2% chance that it will fail, assuming that you use it properly.
You’re a smart guy, and I know you understand the point that I’m making–condom use is a fantastic method of birth control, but its rate of failure puts it in a category that many people would consider to be “risky.”
If I had unprotected sex with a woman and then discovered her to be HIV positive, I would be extremely worried. It’s reasonable to assume that this is true of most guys around here (and anywhere, really).
Now consider that the chances that I would have seroconverted after an act of unprotected vaginal intercourse with an HIV positive woman are MUCH smaller than the chance that a given condom will fail during sex.
The point being that condom failure is a very real risk and it is not entirely unreasonable to argue that as a standalone method of birth control, condom use is somewhat risky.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Penile-vaginal intercourse is the leading cause of new seroconversions worldwide.[/quote]
So what?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Heterosexual sex caused 12,000 new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2010 (out of about 48,000). Heterosexuals in the rich world are far less likely to contract HIV than are homosexuals, but the idea that HIV has “little to no presence in the heterosexual community” is a) meaningless because your subjective definition of “little to no presence” means nothing to me or anyone else and b) assuming we use a reasonable definition of “little to no presence,” egregiously false. [/quote]
You just need clarification of what I mean. Relative to other STIs effecting heterosexuals, HIV risk is minuscule. Something like 1 in 6 Americans have herpes for instance.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ll try again:
If you have sex with an HIV-positive woman, you have a .04% chance of contracting the virus.
If you have sex with a latex condom, there is a 2% chance that it will fail, assuming that you use it properly.
You’re a smart guy, and I know you understand the point that I’m making–condom use is a fantastic method of birth control, but its rate of failure puts it in a category that many people would consider to be “risky.”
If I had unprotected sex with a woman and then discovered her to be HIV positive, I would be extremely worried. It’s reasonable to assume that this is true of most guys around here (and anywhere, really).
Now consider that the chances that I would have seroconverted after an act of unprotected vaginal intercourse with an HIV positive woman are MUCH smaller than the chance that a given condom will fail during sex. [/quote]
You’ve falsely put the risk of contracting HIV and an unintended pregnancy on the same level. While HIV contraction rates are only a fraction of condom failure rates, the consequences are much different. You will not die a slow and painful death if you accidentally impregnate a woman. It’s not just about the level of risk but also the type of risk to consider.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The point being that condom failure is a very real risk and it is not entirely unreasonable to argue that as a standalone method of birth control, condom use is somewhat risky.[/quote]
No it’s not. in the event of a failed condom, there are still options like emergency birth control and abortion in the event of an unintended pregnancy. Conversely, if you contract HIV there is nothing you can do to cure yourself.
I hope I don’t have to present a study for this because it SHOULD be common sense but : most men would take a 2% pregnancy risk over a 0.4% HIV risk to have sex.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
No it’s not. in the event of a failed condom, there are still options like emergency birth control and abortion in the event of an unintended pregnancy. Conversely, if you contract HIV there is nothing you can do to cure yourself.
[/quote]
Hence the term “standalone” in my last post.
And you still aren’t understanding me. I’m not equating pregnancy with HIV contraction, and I’m not sure I believe you’re thick enough to miss that.
I’m simply juxtaposing two probabilities. The probability of HIV contraction is lower than that of condom failure. That is not an attempt to link HIV contraction with condom failure; it’s a statement of fact meant to contextualize the 2 percent of condoms which fail even under conditions of perfect use.
The point being that AS A STANDALONE METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL latex condoms fall into a category that many would deem somewhat “risky.” My girlfriend and I, for example, consider a 2% risk of failure to be not a terribly comforting statistic, so she takes the pill.
I know you get this.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The point being that AS A STANDALONE METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL latex condoms fall into a category that many would deem somewhat “risky.” [/quote]
No.
I highly doubt the average guy deems using a condom during sex “risky” when used correctly. I still think you’re wrong.
I know you get this
The only people who consider condom use “risky” are poorly informed teens. Just look at hookup culture, people go around fucking random individuals without worry.
The aversion to condom use has to do with feel not with risk factor.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The point being that AS A STANDALONE METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL latex condoms fall into a category that many would deem somewhat “risky.” [/quote]
No.
[/quote]
I normally don’t respond to this kind of argumentation by blind assertion, because it tends to mean I’ve won and my collocutor is too thick-headed to yield. But here it is a final time:
In the end: “risky” is a subjective term. I say 2% is a substantial risk. Let’s say I have sex 5 times a week, which is 260 times per year. That’s five failed condoms per year. There is some risk there. I agree with you that it isn’t terrifying to a prohibitive degree–God knows I’ve had sex with only a latex condom between me and fatherhood–but there is a real chance of failure to speak of and it translates to real pregnancies every day. The analogy with HIV transmission rates is simply meant to contextualize the risk (serving much the same purpose as do statistics like the chance of being struck by lightening, which is commonly cited for context in these kinds of discussions).
smh you have a fine argument, but in reality you have no idea what the risk actually is. Here’s how the data for that goes:
Some dude is having sex, just a bit before he goes off he stops and puts on the condom that’s been in his wallet for over a year and then finishes up. The chick gets pregnant, and obviously he’s not going to admit he used the thing incorrectly. He’s gonna say the condom was in perfect shape, no reason to have any holes, hadn’t been in his wallet for ages, was brand new, and he had been using it the whole time, and he’s going to want some kind of recompense for the product failing him.
They just skew the numbers. If the risk were really even as high as 2% I’d probably be a daddy right now, and so would a bunch of other dudes.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The only people who consider condom use “risky” are poorly informed teens. Just look at hookup culture, people go around fucking random individuals without worry.
The aversion to condom use has to do with feel not with risk factor. [/quote]
This is so true. I distinctly remember being lied to multiple times about many things in high school. The biggest culprit was sex “education”. I swear to God, when I was in high school after being talked to about this shit by people the school brought in to give sex ed talks, I honestly believed condoms had at best a 70% chance of working.