pre-persons

[Fairy]

Uh, not quite true. Most fatal ski accidents are one person skiing into a tree, etc. But there are collision with another skier accidents resulting in that person being the one killed.

Most skiers don’t venture on a skiing experience with the intention of colliding with a tree, resulting in their own death. Nor do skiers venture on a skiing experience with the intention of colliding with another skier, resulting in the other skiers death.

If they did the former, it would be likened to deliberately choosing to suicide, and the latter would be likened to deliberately choosing to murder another skier.

But a pregnant woman can and often will deliberately choose to terminate another life that’s already been actualised into being from the moment of its conception. That choice is intention to murder a life that didn’t belong to her, it wasn’t her life to take. The conceived child’s mother has terminated another life on behalf of her own conscious choosing to not allow what is already manifest to be so.

I personally don’t agree that anyone has the right to make the decision to end someone else’s life. But we live in a human society that legalises murder, and that seems to be acceptable by definition. And that’s what makes it sick. It’s a sick society when other people are murdered on the behalf of someone else’s decision. Life belongs to God, not women, or men.

[Immanuel Can]

Uh, not quite true. Most fatal ski accidents are one person skiing into a tree, etc. But there are collision with another skier accidents resulting in that person being the one killed.

Most skiers don’t venture on a skiing experience with the intention of colliding with a tree, resulting in their own death. Nor do skiers venture on a skiing experience with the intention of colliding with another skier, resulting in the other skiers death.

If they did the former, it would be likened to deliberately choosing to suicide, and the latter would be likened to deliberately choosing to murder another skier.

But a pregnant woman can and often will deliberately choose to terminate another life that’s already been actualised into being from the moment of its conception. That choice is intention to murder a life that didn’t belong to her, it wasn’t her life to take. The conceived child’s mother has terminated another life on behalf of her own conscious choosing to not allow what is already manifest to be so.

I personally don’t agree that anyone has the right to make the decision to end someone else’s life. But we live in a human society that legalises murder, and that seems to be acceptable by definition. And that’s what makes it sick. It’s a sick society when other people are murdered on the behalf of someone else’s decision. Life belongs to God, not women, or men.

Again, well said.

[Fairy]

Uh, not quite true. Most fatal ski accidents are one person skiing into a tree, etc. But there are collision with another skier accidents resulting in that person being the one killed.

Most skiers don’t venture on a skiing experience with the intention of colliding with a tree, resulting in their own death. Nor do skiers venture on a skiing experience with the intention of colliding with another skier, resulting in the other skiers death.

If they did the former, it would be likened to deliberately choosing to suicide, and the latter would be likened to deliberately choosing to murder another skier.

But a pregnant woman can and often will deliberately choose to terminate another life that’s already been actualised into being from the moment of its conception. That choice is intention to murder a life that didn’t belong to her, it wasn’t her life to take. The conceived child’s mother has terminated another life on behalf of her own conscious choosing to not allow what is already manifest to be so.

I personally don’t agree that anyone has the right to make the decision to end someone else’s life. But we live in a human society that legalises murder, and that seems to be acceptable by definition. And that’s what makes it sick. It’s a sick society when other people are murdered on the behalf of someone else’s decision. Life belongs to God, not women, or men.

Again, well said.

Yes, nobody can stop what God is about to do in your life.
As God reflects his nature as and through the living flesh, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walks to direct his steps. No reflection of God’s nature is ever in control of beating the heart or breathing the breath of life. Reflections have no mind to receive or grasp that image, because it’s only God’s image, and God’s alone.

All mistaken identities must release control of what they never had to begin with. Man must relinquish their illusory control and give it back to its original creator, author.

I’m so sure the moment when I was born.
God had already written my story. The author and perfecter of our life knows and writes our best stories. The story is real because God is real. It’s the greatest story ever written.

No need to rewrite what’s already written.

[Fairy]

Reflective natures of the natural do not know they are God. Forgive them for they know not what they do.

God is natural, the only true authentic real artist. His creations are artificial representations of his original work already here always here. Man cannot remake himself, for he is already made. For he is both the marble and the sculpture.

[MikeNovack]

But a pregnant woman can and often will deliberately choose to terminate another life that’s already been actualised into being from the moment of its conception.

STOP -- that was NOT the choice supposedly being discussed.

A claim was made that choosing to have sex was equivalent to choosing the outcome of becoming pregnant. This had been given as another reason why she should not then have the choice of abortion. First part first please.

I was challenging that first part on the basis f comparing to other activities with risk. I had a good reason for picking the example going skiing (risk 0.2%-0.3%) because:
a)I believed that most of us here would consider choosing to go skiing NOT equivalent to choosing to be injured.
b) The 0.2%-0.3% will be a useful risk level when talking abut sex/pregnancy.

Consider "Russian roulette" --- with a 17% of death we DO consider playing choosing death.

RANDOM unprotected sex has about a 3% chance of pregnancy (random relative to the woman's ovulation, about 25% if exactly right/wrong timing but there are a lot of days in the month

The risk of condom failure is about 2% but failure would be random relative to cycle so 0.02 x0.03 = 0.0006 or 0.06% That is less tha half as risky as the low estimate for skiing.

So if you say "choosing to have sex using a condom is equivalent to choosing pregnancy" WHY do you say that? (if you answered not a choice for skiing).

[Immanuel Can]

But a pregnant woman can and often will deliberately choose to terminate another life that’s already been actualised into being from the moment of its conception.

STOP -- that was NOT the choice supposedly being discussed.

Actually, it is.

A claim was made that choosing to have sex was equivalent to choosing the outcome of becoming pregnant.

Quote the passage whee you allege this happened. You'll find it did not.

What "was made" was that the person who has sex, particularly unprotected sex and with a person they consider unfit for parenting, knows full well that pregnancy is an outcome they're courting. And with that, comes the very real possibility that they will be faced with a dilemma of whether to take responsibility or commit murder.

[MikeNovack]

What "was made" was that the person who has sex, particularly unprotected sex and with a person they consider unfit for parenting, knows full well that pregnancy is an outcome they're courting. And with that, comes the very real possibility that they will be faced with a dilemma of whether to take responsibility or commit murder.

But since you would likely consider abortion of a pregnancy resulting from sex with a condom the same, I was challenging the notion "thought of a very real possibility". Because in THAT case the risk percentage less than when we discuss other activities << low enough risk that we do not consider it courting possibility >>

OR OF COURSE -- you could stick with your statement with regard to "the person who has sex, particularly unprotected sex and with a person they consider unfit for parenting, knows full well that pregnancy is an outcome they're courting." if you say:
a) This would not be the case if they were using a condom.
OR
b) That they were courting pregnancy irrelevant to the abortion question.

I rather think that you will opt for the latter, which was the reason I was attacking your "pregnant by their choice"

And BTW --- I accept that you consider abortion to be murder, but you need to remember you do not have agreement on that (and this is NOT a religion vs secular matter as some religions differ on if/when abortion is allowable)

[Immanuel Can]

What "was made" was that the person who has sex, particularly unprotected sex and with a person they consider unfit for parenting, knows full well that pregnancy is an outcome they're courting. And with that, comes the very real possibility that they will be faced with a dilemma of whether to take responsibility or commit murder.

But since you would likely consider abortion of a pregnancy resulting from sex with a condom the same, I was challenging the notion "thought of a very real possibility".

You should ask, not just assume, of course. But even with a condom, there remains a risk...smaller, but not zero. Condoms don't always work. Is it the same? Not quite. You're at least TRYING to be more responsible, even if you fail. But if you fail, and if you make a second bad choice, the outcome would be the same: a dead baby.

The point I made, though was about it being a choice. It's a choice to have sex. One can refrain until one has a suitable mate. And if you do, you won't have to kill anybody. That's what good "choice" is really all about.

[MikeNovack]

You should ask, not just assume, of course. But even with a condom, there remains a risk...smaller, but not zero. Condoms don't always work. Is it the same? Not quite. You're at least TRYING to be more responsible, even if you fail. But if you fail, and if you make a second bad choice, the outcome would be the same: a dead baby.

The point I made, though was about it being a choice. It's a choice to have sex. One can refrain until one has a suitable mate. And if you do, you won't have to kill anybody. That's what good "choice" is really all about.

Now we are getting somewhere.

I picked skiing precisely because I knew (in advance) that the risk percentage of injury was greater than the risk percentage of pregnancy from sex using a condom. And in the case of skiing you were likely to say "unwanted outcome not by choice" but you don't want to treat the activity "sex"the same way.

So agreed you'll drop "by choice" as being relevant? Leave it out? Was a "red herring" in your argument. OR, are you saying (as you seem to seem to toward the end, thinking abut sex differently because you consider it (in humans) just for reproduction << that for us, like our bonobo relative, sex has evolved to serve social purposes only indirectly related to reproduction (for example, pair bonding >>

[Immanuel Can]

You should ask, not just assume, of course. But even with a condom, there remains a risk...smaller, but not zero. Condoms don't always work. Is it the same? Not quite. You're at least TRYING to be more responsible, even if you fail. But if you fail, and if you make a second bad choice, the outcome would be the same: a dead baby.

The point I made, though was about it being a choice. It's a choice to have sex. One can refrain until one has a suitable mate. And if you do, you won't have to kill anybody. That's what good "choice" is really all about.

Now we are getting somewhere.

I picked skiing ...

Yeah, it was a bad analogy. I'm not agreeing to it, at all. Nor should you.

So agreed you'll drop "by choice" as being relevant?

Why? Choice is involved all the way through. The woman chooses to have sex with an unsuitable partner. She chooses not to accept the consequences of that sort of decision. Then she chooses to murder her child. Choice is the whole issue: she's making terrible choices from beginning to end -- how can we "drop" it?

[MikeNovack]

I picked skiing ...

Yeah, it was a bad analogy. I'm not agreeing to it, at all. Nor should you.

<< You don't agree with the risk percentages? NOT analogous in terms of type of activity but analogous in risk percentages >>

Why? Choice is involved all the way through. The woman chooses to have sex with an unsuitable partner. She chooses not to accept the consequences of that sort of decision. Then she chooses to murder her child. Choice is the whole issue: she's making terrible choices from beginning to end -- how can we "drop" it?

Might I slightly rewrite that.
A) A woman chooses to do an activity with risk of unwanted outcome 0.2% to 0.3%. That means she chose the bad outcome?
B) A woman chooses to do another activity with risk of unwanted outcome 0.1%. That means she chose the bad outcome?

I see you answering NO to the first but yes to the second. WHY? Or at least try to explain why. To me that says you consider the level of risk irrelevant when deciding whether the unwanted outcome can be considered a choice.

We can LATER discuss whether she is choosing to "murder her child". Later she is choosing an action that YOU consider to be murdering her child. You have no (good) reason to suppose she believes that.

If you had the least bit of ability to stay on topic point by point things would go better. I think there is a lot to be discussed, especially under the "Abortion -- what is and what isn't in the Applied section.
**** For example, a human zygote (either egg or sperm) is alive but it can only remain alive if allowed to come into contact with and merge with its counterpart. So is preventing that "murder"? Not really where I wanted to start things. Rather
**** If you believe "life begins at conception" (the merging of egg and sperm) when do you think PREGNANCY begins. Remember, that frtilized egg will die if it does not manage to implant itself in the proper place. That it will manage to do so is only around 25% << the likelihood of a woman getting PREGNANT from unprotected sex with a fertile partner when she ovulates. The egg likely got fertilized but filed to attach.
NOW -- the "would it be abortion question" --- suppose we had a drug that if taken by a woman would make her uterus unreceptive for a week or to. The fertilized egg isn't being killed so much as not being given a place to live (again, 3 out of 4 fail to attach in any case)

[MikeNovack]

I picked skiing ...

Yeah, it was a bad analogy. I'm not agreeing to it, at all. Nor should you.

<< You don't agree with the risk percentages? NOT analogous in terms of type of activity but analogous in risk percentages >>

Why? Choice is involved all the way through. The woman chooses to have sex with an unsuitable partner. She chooses not to accept the consequences of that sort of decision. Then she chooses to murder her child. Choice is the whole issue: she's making terrible choices from beginning to end -- how can we "drop" it?

Might I slightly rewrite that.
A) A woman chooses to do an activity with risk of unwanted outcome 0.2% to 0.3%. That means she chose the bad outcome?
B) A woman chooses to do another activity with risk of unwanted outcome 0.1%. That means she chose the bad outcome?

I see you answering NO to the first but yes to the second. WHY? Or at least try to explain why. To me that says you consider the level of risk irrelevant when deciding whether the unwanted outcome can be considered a choice.

We can LATER discuss whether she is choosing to "murder her child". Later she is choosing an action that YOU consider to be murdering her child. You have no (good) reason to suppose she believes that.

If you had the least bit of ability to stay on topic point by point things would go better. I think there is a lot to be discussed, especially under the "Abortion -- what is and what isn't in the Applied section.
**** For example, a human zygote (either egg or sperm) is alive but it can only remain alive if allowed to come into contact with and merge with its counterpart. So is preventing that "murder"? Not really where I wanted to start things. Rather
**** If you believe "life begins at conception" (the merging of egg and sperm) when do you think PREGNANCY begins. Remember, that frtilized egg will die if it does not manage to implant itself in the proper place. That it will manage to do so is only around 25% << the likelihood of a woman getting PREGNANT from unprotected sex with a fertile partner when she ovulates. The egg likely got fertilized but filed to attach.
NOW -- the "would it be abortion question" --- suppose we had a drug that if taken by a woman would make her uterus unreceptive for a week or to. The fertilized egg isn't being killed so much as not being given a place to live (again, 3 out of 4 fail to attach in any case)

[Immanuel Can]

I picked skiing ...

Yeah, it was a bad analogy. I'm not agreeing to it, at all. Nor should you.

<< You don't agree with the risk percentages? NOT analogous in terms of type of activity but analogous in risk percentages >>

Why? Choice is involved all the way through. The woman chooses to have sex with an unsuitable partner. She chooses not to accept the consequences of that sort of decision. Then she chooses to murder her child. Choice is the whole issue: she's making terrible choices from beginning to end -- how can we "drop" it?

Might I slightly rewrite that.

Not necessary. There's nothing wrong with it.

[MikeNovack]

Not necessary. There's nothing wrong with it.

IC my rewriting was not "correcting" but generalizing to an unspecified activity.

When you object to that you ARE n a way answering the question. You will insist that sex/pregnancy are different from other activities, that when deciding "it was a choice" (to do the activity in spite of the risk percentage) you will not go by risk percentage in this special case.

Perfectly OK for you to take that position as long as you don't use it in argument without justifying WHY sex/pregnancy should be treated differently than other activity/outcome where we usually decide "outcome was by choice" by risk percentage. I think you do have a clear reason why but unfair not to disclose so we can counter.

I believe you consider the activities different because you hold sex/pregnancy involves purpose while going skiing/skiing accident does not.

[Immanuel Can]

Not necessary. There's nothing wrong with it.

You will insist...

You don't know what I "will insist."

Maybe you should ask, rather than assuming it.