Real questions about pro choice

[CallMeIshmael]

OP,

(to note, I havent read the thread so this might be a repeat)


Lets assume there is some library in your area. If I offered you $5, would you be willing to run through it wearing no clothing, with just a mask on your face? No? OK, I accept that. What if Bill Gates offered you $1 billion dollars. Yes. Hmmm. What is the exact dollar amount that gets you to say yes? Hmmm... cant pinpoint it?


Now, I use this example not to make any point about abortion, per se, but just to illustrate that this common pro-life argument is flawed.

Just because you cant identify the number between 5 and 1 billion dollars that makes you switch doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Similarily, just because a person cant identify the point between 1 day and 9 months at which a fetus can no longer be morally aborted doesnt, by itself, mean that it doesnt exist.


EDIT: in response the obvious counter to my statements, I will add in ahead of time:

define the legal limit on abortion at some time that is safely and certainly below the limit.

ie. "I dont know where the switch occurs, but Im certain it is below $50" or "I dont know where the switch occurs, but Im certain it is below 1 month"

[godBoy]

txag007,

with respect, you said you would 'explain why in a second' then all you did was talk about your own personal religious conviction. So you didn't have anything to offer except your convictions.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you are getting caught up in a moot point.
My argument here is not that a zygote has the potential to become a baby.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, the response about potentiality is to those who use the absurd potentiality argument.

[ QUOTE ]
For a zygote to be created - a choice has been made prior to it that has taken a sperm and egg and joined them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Choice have been made that lead to the zygote but no choice to create a zygote has neccesarily been take. In any case a zygote doesn't suffer and so cannot be harmed.

[ QUOTE ]
My final point about the zygote is that it is clearly already on it's way to becoming a baby because of a choice that a person has made.
When and if Science can create life from a hair cell by another intentional choice then they too will have no right to kill or abuse that life.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you value zygotes but that's up to you. I've put forward a view similar in some ways to yours but based on the idea of a contract, implied by choices taken, not to harm something that can suffer.

So w've agreed its not potentiality or naturalness which just leaves harm which I think we agree on, and your notion of 'on its way to being a baby'. I can't see any moral case for this 'on its way' argument, seems totally irrelevent to me but please explain why it matters.

chez

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quick Google search on "pregnancy risk condom" to find the stats I had heard before: Best case scenario with condoms, risk of preg = 3%, but that is with perfect use; standard use risk is actually 12-15% . Risk with perfect use of birth control pills is also around 3%.

Do you think you have a 12% risk of being struck with a meteor? Even a 3% risk? Or is it possible your presumption is wrong there?

[/ QUOTE ]
Over how many couplings do the risk figures you cite apply?

I'm quite certain that having sex while wearing a condom results in less than a 3% risk of pregnancy. I also suspect (albeit with less confidence) that having sex without wearing a condom and without pulling out, results in less than a 3% risk of pregnancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you can be "quite certain" all you like, but you'd still be incorrect here.

Fact: Sperm are viable inside the vaginal vault for at least 24 hours, up to 48 with proper conditions.
Fact: Ovulation occurs about once every 28 days
Fact: The egg is viable for up to 72 hours, meaning it can be fertilized if sperm are present anytime in the next 3 days...
Fact: MOST women have a general idea but will tell you they can't be sure when they ovulate
Fact: MOST teenagers have an irregular cycle, and don't have the foggiest idea when they ovulate.
Fact: missing 2-3 consecutive pills often induces a very light menstrual period, but may or may not completely alter the ovulation cycle. If you miss a few pills, to be back on track, you must complete a period, then start a new pack and take the pills for 30 days *before* your next intercourse.

Many couples rely on the pill to keep from getting pregnant, but it does not take much inquisition to find someone who was on the pill but it failed for them. If you need one example, my wife and I will stand in for you.
Condoms are the method of choice in the teenage years, when consistent use is even less likely but ironically, so much more important.

So, given all of that, I would say that anyone who thinks they should have a less than 1% chance of getting pregnant, better not have sex at all.

Pregnancy is a very possible consequence of having sex, no matter the preparation ahead of time.

[godBoy]

Good post Lestat,

A couple of points though,
[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes think that those opposed to abortion even at the earliest stages should sign up to take care of, and financially support all these unwanted children.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not very reasonable to me, If I am opposed to abortion I don't think I should have some responsibility for others who wish to throw away their baby's. It doesn't seem like a logical step to me.

[ QUOTE ]
The goal shouldn't be on the abortion clinics, or the doctors who perform them, it should be on education in birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies. Attack the problem at its source.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that you are right - The creation of unwanted life should have a very strong place in education.
So I agree, but I think that you need to attack the problem at both ends. If there is a law that allows people to act unthinkingly then there will be some who act unthinkingly.
There will be some who take the issue of conception so lightly that they will have sex - because it's fun - and tackle the problem of conception later, because the law enables them to.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember these types of stats in my high school sex ed classes..

am I crazy or are these absolutely absurd?..I can't imagine that condoms fail even 3% [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't crazy. Even if condoms fail 3%, this rather obviously does not translate into anything like a 3% pregnancy risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Took me about 20 seconds to find this on the Brown University website. It says that breakage of the condom is rare, but the "failure" rate is actually a marker of pregnancy despite condom use. Pretty black and white.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Service...sc/condoms.htm

"How effective are condoms in preventing pregnancy and STIs?
When condoms are used perfectly for vaginal intercourse--this means every time a couple has intercourse and used correctly every time--the chance of becoming pregnant is less than 3%. This rate is in line with birth control pills. But, not every couple who uses condoms uses them every time and not every couple uses them correctly, so the average risk of becoming pregnant is 12%.

If you are concerned about the strength of your condom, a Consumer Reports study found that actual condom breakage is rare: 1 in 165 during vaginal sex and 1 in 105 during anal sex. When you take human error into account, failure rates would be higher. Using a condom correctly will decrease the chance of breakage."

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,

(to note, I havent read the thread so this might be a repeat)


Lets assume there is some library in your area. If I offered you $5, would you be willing to run through it wearing no clothing, with just a mask on your face? No? OK, I accept that. What if Bill Gates offered you $1 billion dollars. Yes. Hmmm. What is the exact dollar amount that gets you to say yes? Hmmm... cant pinpoint it?


Now, I use this example not to make any point about abortion, per se, but just to illustrate that this common pro-life argument is flawed.

Just because you cant identify the number between 5 and 1 billion dollars that makes you switch doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Similarily, just because a person cant identify the point between 1 day and 9 months at which a fetus can no longer be morally aborted doesnt, by itself, mean that it doesnt exist.


EDIT: in response the obvious counter to my statements, I will add in ahead of time:

define the legal limit on abortion at some time that is safely and certainly below the limit.

ie. "I dont know where the switch occurs, but Im certain it is below $50" or "I dont know where the switch occurs, but Im certain it is below 1 month"

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting argument, but your first premise is that there MUST be a point in there somewhere that abortion is OK, just as there MUST be a dollar amount for which you would run through. This is the where we diverge.

I maintain that there is NOT a point at which it "makes sense" to abort. I challenged everyone here to explain when that point was for them, and why. So far, no poster has offered up x weeks due to x reason.

Interestingly, I have come across some who have indicated that at ANY point in the pregnancy a woman can choose to abort, until the actual delivery. Morbid, and luckily an unpopular opinion, but still...

Again, this is for the woman who chooses to abort for convenience or other non-health related reason. I am prepared to allow exceptions for rape/incest, though I would personally not advocate this due to my morals. This will (hopefully) dissuade those who are caught up in the "attached viloinist" argument, noted earlier in the thread, which is obviously a corollary to the rape scenario.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember these types of stats in my high school sex ed classes..

am I crazy or are these absolutely absurd?..I can't imagine that condoms fail even 3% [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't crazy. Even if condoms fail 3%, this rather obviously does not translate into anything like a 3% pregnancy risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Took me about 20 seconds to find this on the Brown University website. It says that breakage of the condom is rare, but the "failure" rate is actually a marker of pregnancy despite condom use. Pretty black and white.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Service...sc/condoms.htm

"How effective are condoms in preventing pregnancy and STIs?
When condoms are used perfectly for vaginal intercourse--this means every time a couple has intercourse and used correctly every time--the chance of becoming pregnant is less than 3%. This rate is in line with birth control pills. But, not every couple who uses condoms uses them every time and not every couple uses them correctly, so the average risk of becoming pregnant is 12%.

If you are concerned about the strength of your condom, a Consumer Reports study found that actual condom breakage is rare: 1 in 165 during vaginal sex and 1 in 105 during anal sex. When you take human error into account, failure rates would be higher. Using a condom correctly will decrease the chance of breakage."

[/ QUOTE ]

so let me get this straight..if I have sex one time with a condom and use it perfectly..there is about a 3% chance that the chick will become pregnant?

this still seems way to high to me.

and that 12% figure means that if 100 couples have sex using a condom..about 12 of them will become pregnant?

it made more sense when we considered 12% FAILURE rate..then the pregnancy rate tacked on to that for a very low pregnancy rate when using a condom...but it doesn't seem like that is what you are saying.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember these types of stats in my high school sex ed classes..

am I crazy or are these absolutely absurd?..I can't imagine that condoms fail even 3% [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't crazy. Even if condoms fail 3%, this rather obviously does not translate into anything like a 3% pregnancy risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Took me about 20 seconds to find this on the Brown University website. It says that breakage of the condom is rare, but the "failure" rate is actually a marker of pregnancy despite condom use. Pretty black and white.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Service...sc/condoms.htm

"How effective are condoms in preventing pregnancy and STIs?
When condoms are used perfectly for vaginal intercourse--this means every time a couple has intercourse and used correctly every time--the chance of becoming pregnant is less than 3%. This rate is in line with birth control pills. But, not every couple who uses condoms uses them every time and not every couple uses them correctly, so the average risk of becoming pregnant is 12%.

If you are concerned about the strength of your condom, a Consumer Reports study found that actual condom breakage is rare: 1 in 165 during vaginal sex and 1 in 105 during anal sex. When you take human error into account, failure rates would be higher. Using a condom correctly will decrease the chance of breakage."

[/ QUOTE ]

so let me get this straight..if I have sex one time with a condom and use it perfectly..there is about a 3% chance that the chick will become pregnant?

this still seems way to high to me.

and that 12% figure means that if 100 couples have sex using a condom..about 12 of them will become pregnant?

it made more sense when we considered 12% FAILURE rate..then the pregnancy rate tacked on to that for a very low pregnancy rate when using a condom...but it doesn't seem like that is what you are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's always trouble when people throw a statistic into a discussion. Perhaps they mean 12 % of "people who use condoms" eventually have an accidental pregnancy. Perhaps they really mean 12 out of 100 episodes of sex with condoms result in pregnancy. I dunno.

Regardless, the point is that it should not be considered an infinitesimally small chance that use of a condom might actually result in a surprise pregnancy. Same for getting an STD. STD's spread by fluid transfer, and not just semen. Using a condom is helpful to prevent this, sure, but think about all the fluids and all the sweat and all the friction and movement, and...OK, that's a bit graphic, but the point is, if you take an STD home to your wife after using a condom, you are not somehow less responsible.

This is why the viloinist attachment is patently ridiculous. Except for rape/incest, you choose to have sex = you choose to risk pregnancy.

Say there is a roller coaster ride, with 100 people on it at a time. it goes around every few minutes, and you can tell it will be fun. Funny thing is, you can get pregnant or get an STD by riding it. Even as you watch, it goes around twice, and 2 people end up pregnant. 2 others finish the ride with an STD. 195 people just had a good time, no ill effects. It goes around 5 more times, you don't see anyone get an STD, but 3 more are pregnant.
In my book, the consequences may be rare, but they are what they are. The woman does have the right to choose...she can choose not to get on the ride until she is willing to handle the consequences.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">That's not very reasonable to me, If I am opposed to abortion I don't think I should have some responsibility for others who wish to throw away their baby's. It doesn't seem like a logical step to me.
</font>

What seems illogical about it? You're the one demanding that a teenage girl who can't come close to financially supporting a kid (let alone nurture it and give it a good life), keep the child! So if it's really that important to you, why not take the kid yourself?

Of course, when I say "you", I mean everyone who would demand this teenager not abort a week-old fetus, because she couldn't afford the pill, or she was date raped, or the guy had a defective prophylactic.

<font color="blue"> If there is a law that allows people to act unthinkingly then there will be some who act unthinkingly.
There will be some who take the issue of conception so lightly that they will have sex - because it's fun - and tackle the problem of conception later, because the law enables them to. </font>

I agree with you here. But again, I don't think outlawing all abortions is the best solution.