It seems to be as though you are more intent on complaining about women being irresponsible for having sex without a desire for having babies than you are about discussing abortion as a whole.
Let me clarify this. (apologies in advance, Jeeves.)
Jeeves posited an argument of the form "perhaps they should have thought of this before doing..."
I simply cautioned Jeeves that "they should have thought of it beforehand" had far-reaching application.
Maybe [X] should have thought about that before [Y] sex, knowing the potential outcome of such an endeavour.
Careful with that one. That argument applies as much to the goose as the gander.
I had not intended to raise it as a primary argument, I was attempting to show where that kind of thinking led.
And you keep ignoring the fact that the child in the scuba diving hypothetical is not residing inside the woman's body.
How does that make a
functional difference to her freedom?
If she is restricted from doing things because she is breast-feeding, then she essentially doesn't have the right to do whatever she wishes with her body.
I find it interesting that you fail to clarify or respond to the chunks of quotes I posted from you in this thread and then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Why do you do that?
It is impossible in practice to address every comment in a discussion of this level of activity. Each of us does what they can.
I have no idea how you link that to putting words in people's mouths. That's a separate issue, whereby you reinterpret something I said in your words, as if that's what I'm saying.
I also find it interesting that you seem to have veered to my sex life and asking me if I feel ashamed,
It is very apparent that shame is a huge issue with you. You have attempted to steer the topic that way several times.
It is interfering with your objective discussion of issue-at-hand.
I would point out that
you tabled the issue of your personal sex life. Do you want that as part of the discussion or not?
after you repeatedly shamed women who have sex for reasons other than procreation, by going on and on about their irresponsibility and "what was she thinking would happen???"..
I have not done this.
Again. You have an axe to grind. Grind it somewhere else.
I also find it interesting that you repeatedly assert that she loses rights over her body when she decides to have consensual sex because of the risk of pregnancy and the "life" that could result from said pregnancy, but you consistently and refuse to answer any questions about issues that pertain to pregnancies that stem from sexual assault, incest or sexual coercion, as though the "life" that is formed in those assaults, matter less, than if the woman "gasp" had consensual sex and got pregnant.
That's definitely a practical issue. I am arguing what I see as a more fundamental issue that is not getting the attention it may need: the actual life or death of a possible person.
It is not my intent to solve every problem at once.
That's called the
Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Because pretty much the majority of your posts in this thread, have focused on the irresponsibility of women who have sex without any intention of having children.
Pregnancy is an issue that affects both men and women. In both cases they are being irresponsible if they did not consider the consequences.
I have an issue with anyone who wishes to control the bodies of women based on their own sexist views.
Oh, I do too. It's totally fallacious.
Because, whether you wish to admit it or not, your views are deeply sexist.
As are yours.
The idea that women must curtail their desires because they might get pregnant and then possibly face the prospect of an abortion, is sexist.
Men must have the same discussion, even if their consequences aren't as severe.
The very idea that you believe that women waive or forfeit their rights over their bodies because they might fall pregnant, is deeply sexist.
The fact that women
have uteruses is not sexist.
Sexism occurs when someone is considered based on their gender
when gender is not a relevant factor.
The gender here, because of the particulars
is a factor.
You have spent pages shaming women
Baseless assertion. Rejected.
who have consensual sex without any intention of having kids
Men and women both have a responsibility.
. You have gone on and on about how they are irresponsible for doing so
In the face of an abortion, which you continually trivialize.
and how their rights should be curtailed or forfeited if they fall pregnant
Not curtailed - are freely waived. A woman - or a man - who engaged in child care makes a
choice to give up certain freedoms willingly.
I am simply broadening the applicability.
You are literally shaming sexually active women who do not plan or wish to have children.
I am not. I have engaging in a discussion where actions and consequences are being civilly discussed.
That is what I have an issue with Dave, as I have made clear, repeatedly. Your attempts to turn this on me, says a lot about you, really.
This is luscious. Your attempt to make this apersonal issue for you, and then blame me for it is ironic.
You have inserted yourself into the discussion.
I don't think you do understand why this issue is important to me personally.
You can't insert you personal story, and then accuse me of making this about you.
If I were a lesser person, I'd invoke the word
hypocrisy.
Tell you what. If you'd like to agree that this is a wholly academic issue, no personal anecdotes, I am in full agreement.
Your personal agenda appears to be reminding women of their place,
... aaaaaaaaaaand your pet agenda.
I counter by saying your personal agenda appears to be eating kittens.
Where did that come from?
Oh, I just pulled it out of my head and applied it to you. See how silly it looks when you read it on the page?
It is important to me personally because abortion is a private and personal matter,
This is a "begging the question" fallacy. you're using your conclusion as the premise.
For the sake of the discussion (not for your personal circumstance) it is not a valid premise that a growing fetus is a "private matter". That's the very premise I am debating.
My primary argument is that there are two lives involved.
which can and should do without the input of individuals such as yourself. Why? Because you do not bear any responsibility, nor can your rights over your body be curtailed or forfeited or waived. The woman's, on the other hand, does.
This is an ad hom. The status of the arguer has no bearing on the argument.
You don't have children; you have no business concerning yourself with their welfare.
You're not visually impaired; you have no business speaking about blindness.
You don't own a car; you have no business being involved in automobile policy.
Now
that is sexist.
And
deeply derogatory.
Bells, there is no limit to which you won't go to reduce a thoughtful, if animated, discussion to a schoolyard poo-flinging round. It's your go-to tactic.