and you can reverse it later. I have always thought that would be a GREAT going away to college present, and then a reversal as a college graduation gift.
I dont recall taking pen to paper myself. Yes it is an original way of looking at it, or at least, I never heard anyone else say it. People have different ideas about how they wish to deal with their responsibilities. A person who takes action-with-consequences is often enough held legally responsible. This is an action with consequences for which many do not wish to be held accountable, and, which the law is not very uniform in dealing with it.
The consequences are always based on the effect of your action on others. There are no "others" in abortion. The pregnancy is contained entirely within the woman's body making it her decision and her's alone. I don't disagree that pregnancy is a consequence of having sex, but I do disagree with the idea that because some consider that "consequence" sacred that the law should be used to enforce a person's subjective bias on the matter. Let each person make those decisions for themselves. I find it shocking that there are people who have no problem using the law to regulate the inside of another person's body but are up in arms because the NSA is spying on their Farmville game. Being forced to let the government inside your body and letting it control you in that manner is far more invasive and totalitarian than spying ever could be. - - - Updated - - - My response considered both the literal and metaphorical implications of his statement about a "contract" being signed. No contract, written or implied, is agreed to when a person has sex.
Yeah, I'm not seeing that very many are "safe and happy" following your plan. In fact, not many at all.
Organized society, we can see, clearly causes problems where reproduction is concerned. Other animals have a much more relaxed time of it. They screw, they have kids, they raise them as best they can, life goes on. Humans, however, squabble endlessly over parentage, finances and other silly matters. We're so bad off that we're killing our potential offspring in massive quantities and trying to find ways to fulfill our natural urges to reproduce without actually reproducing. Just seems kind of crazy to me at the moment.
Arguably we see a lot of infanticide among the animal world as well especially when animals know that they cannot survive with their offspring or that there offspring will not survive, which they will then leave them for dead, which we as humans have deemed completely unacceptable. If you kill your born child because you could not care for it then that is murder, if you neglect your child's needs and allow it to die naturally you will more than likely be charged with some form of neglectful homicide. So yeah, the animal kingdom screws and breeds but killing their offspring or neglecting their offspring depending on the situation is also a regular thing and I have yet to see wild animals be charged with homicide for their natural instinctual behavior. Humans, although we are animals, we have a different level of intelligence than other animals and clearly a different set of rules for our standards of life and functioning in human society. Do you really want to go down the slippery slope of comparing human morals and behaviors to other animals?
That's not a slippery slope. I find that it's a good way to gain insight, as evidenced by your response here
I think it's a slippery slope to say that humans should behave the same as animals. You showed animals as always doing positive things in nature, basically breeding and then 'taking responsibility' if you will for their offspring. That's really not the case at all though because sometimes they instinctively kill/neglect their offspring, thus the slippery slope here. Humans should be expected to take responsibility for their actions as other animals do...and therefore also instinctively kill their offspring if they feel the circumstances deem it necessary? I don't think so. Once a child is born parents have a legal responsibility to ensure their child's well being, even if that means giving it up for adoption if they cannot care for it.
We do behave the same as animals in many fundamental respects, actually, but I for one am not making recommendations that we purposely emulate them. Though there are instances where this can be beneficial.. I only meant to draw a comparison as I had a little moment of reverie about it. But see, it's interesting that we have laws in place to try and ensure that children get proper care, and have laws to protect adults. The ideas behind these laws are now running into a conflict - we want to protect adults' rights on the one hand, but we want to protect the rights of children on the other. This is normally not in conflict, but with the issue of abortion it does become a conflict. I guess it's also a uniquely human problem, since no other species has a way of performing abortions, at least as far as I'm aware. So, how do we resolve this conflict? The best approach seems to me to be determining when the rights of a child begin. I see this 'moment of conception' view as extreme and unrealistic, just as I see late-term abortions as extreme, unnecessary and hypocritical.. Hypocritical because we are protective of infants once they've left the womb, yet some people will treat an unborn child that is practically an infant as something that can ethically and legally be snuffed out, just as long as its *head* does not leave the birth canal. That doesn't work for me.. So, the best solution is somewhere in the middle, and that is already the solution we see present in most places. Since babies develop in a very gradual and analogue fashion, we have to determine a point arbitrarily where we go from treating the growing baby as something other than a human life to regarding it as a life to be protected the same as a human already born. I for one am not an expert in how humans develop in the womb, so I wouldn't be qualified to make that call.. There are others who can, however. The central issue seems to be brain development and the ability of the foetus (I believe it's during the stage when it's called foetus, rather than an embryo, that this occurs) to have something resembling a mind and the ability suffer. Before that time, there is not much practical difference between an abortion and a simple contraceptive, whether that contraceptive prevents a fertilised egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus or prevents fertilisation altogether..
There is no forced fatherhood, unless the (*)(*)(*)(*) is forced into the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). I would guess that happens VERY,VERY,VERY rarely!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are 100%%%%%% right. When I started having sex on a regular basis and I knew I did not want children, I went and got a vasectomy. It was incredibly simple and painless.
Some species of animals when they are pregnant will produce hormones that will cause a spontaneous abortion when they know they cannot care for their potential offspring. (Lack of food/water. Dangerous predators nearby, etc.) Or in this case a new male arrives among a group of females and they spontaneously abort their pregnancies. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...eys-abort-when-new-males-arrive/#.UmxCH3B6buE We also see this in lions, but rather than spontaneous abortion we see them kill the young to induce the lionesses into heat so that they may produce their own offspring. I've also read online that armadillos, rabbits and hippos can induce their own abortions/miscarriages but I have no verification for those. I will have to look into it further.
That is terribly interesting. Natural abortions! Of course, it sounds like they're not a conscious decision like ours tend to be. Naturally, that's another part of what makes it such a big issue for us. The kinds of abortion you've mentioned about the animal kingdom would probably be considered "Acts of God" (funnily enough ) in our legal system.
I think it is done through instinct more than conscious thought obviously. lol I wouldn't be surprised if an animal aborts it's pregnancy to leave the carcass as a food distraction for predators sometimes too. Animals are just weird...
Well, I don't know about that one. I would expect a naturally aborted animal foetus to be simply reabsorbed by the momma's body, though admittedly I'm just not that familiar with how it all plays out.
More than likely it will be expelled vaginally along with the placenta, if we're talking about mammals that is.
Interesting idea, but as I think about it, it probably would take too long for it to do much good as an escape plan.
