The Glade 4.0

If I had a government whom I would trust enough to do such things, I probably would agree to a government run thing. However since I don't I agree that it needs to be privatized and personal choice based.

I'm not sure any such government has ever existed.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It will when I gain world domination! There will be cookies for everyone!

Dare I say... sweet!

You can continue to be inflammatory and insulting, or you can actually listen to what I am saying.





This has nothing to do with purpose.




Here is your "or" definition. Clearly, the purpose of intercourse can vary.


[/quote]

And finally, this definition makes my case. "While a purpose" is not the same thing as "the only purpose".

Obviously, there can be many reasons to have sex. You can have sex during a religious ceremony. You can have sex for fun, for love, to experiment, to make babies, to explore - the possibilities are pretty vast. However, the *purpose* of sex is entirely up to the people *having* sex.

You are trying to argue that every act of sexual intercourse if procreative in nature. This is not the case. While every act of intercourse *could* lead to procreation (assuming the folks involved are fertile), it doesn't have to. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex. It is not necessarily the *purpose* of sex.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

All they are referring to is the strict biological function of sexual intercourse.

I am not arguing about the biological function of intercourse. I am arguing about "purpose" as it relates to why we have sex. Function and purpose are not the same thing.

Again, going back to the hammer example. A hammer is designed to pound nails into something. That's it's function. However, I can use that hammer to beat the hell out of my crappy fax machine. Or, imagining that I am the mighty Thor after a bottle of vodka, I can hurl it a target with a brave battle cry. I can set it up as a statement about world peace if I put it in an art display. I can hit myself in the head repeatedly with it after trying to debate things like this on the internet.

The purpose of the hammer is up to me. The function of the hammer is kind of irrelevant.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I think you have devolved into performing logic yoga via arguing semantics, and incorrectly imho.

No, the purpose of the hammer is in line with its design; driving nails. Actually, it's designed to deliver high-impulse impacts to another physical object. Driving nails might be one function, but it can easily serve other function. Its purpose is static.



This.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I disagree. I am trying to make a point about free will.

The vast majority of sex we as humans have is not intended to reproduce. We have sex for pleasure, love, closeness, etc. In fact, we often decide when to use sex for procreation on our own time. We have the ability to choose, and we choose when to get pregnant.

Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex. So are STDs. No one has sex looking for an STD, and only the most extreme religious persons would argue that STDs should not be covered by insurance, if contracted.

The same is true with pregnancy. Consenting to sex is *not* the same thing as consenting to pregnancy. Just like getting into your car is not the same thing as consenting to a head on collision.

People have the right to determine their own reproduction, and I don't think anyone has the right to force them to only use abstinence as their method of control.

Yes, that means that some people will control their reproduction after becomming pregnant via an abortion. Or, they might choose to have the child and give the child up. Or they might choose to keep the child after all.

The point is, they have a choice, and no one is forcing them to bring a pregnancy to term. No one is forcing them to abort. I find both the latter and the former to be equally oppressive.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Ignoratio elenchi fallacy.



This is a fallacy. Insurance contracts are private agreements between the insurer and the insured. Therefore, the options and features of the contract are up to both parties to agree on. Living up to the contract is an entirely different issue, but the contract can be drawn up in a way that benefits both parties.

Because STD's are typically covered in contracts does not establish why abortions should be. Nor have you established any reason why they are similiar other than they both result from sex, and to say insurance should cover both is saying insurance contracts must obey false generalization fallacies.



No, it's consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. To use your own words, false equivalence. A head-on collision does not result from getting into your car, it results from being in an accident which is not consensual. Sex is.



Except you are ignoring that people who posit an abortion constitutes a violation of rights of another individual, the unborn baby. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it has yet to be subsantiated one way or the other, if a fetus has rights or not.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

How do you figure? My argument very much speaks to the issue in question.



Insurance companies are regulated by the state, and must provide coverage for certain services, including reproductive health services. Furthermore, insurance contracts are rarely negotiated on an individual basis. They have a product, and if you work for a company, you use that product or have nothing.

.


Which was not my point, and this explains to me why you tossed out a logical fallacy that does not apply. I was showing that pregnancy, like STDs, is a possible *consequence* of sex.



No one made a false generalization. The law sees pregnancy as if it were any other illness. It is a possible consequence of having sex. Just like STDs. A possible consequence of smoking is to get cancer. A possible consequence of driving is to get into an accident. A possible consequence of playing with guns is to get shot.

Pregnancy is neither a certain outcome, or necessarily an intended outcome, of having sex. It is simply a possible outcome.



We all understand the risks, and work to mitigate those risks. When I get into my car, I accept that there are risks involved. I am not getting into my car to get into an accident. When I consent to have sex, I am not doing so in order to get pregnant, necessarily. It is simply a possible outcome.



Sex is not necessarily consensual. However, that is what we are talking about. Then again, when I get into a car, I consent to the risk of driving.





I'm not ignoring it, I am saying that a fetus does not necessarily have rights, and that a mother's rights don't just go away because she became pregnant. I do very strongly believe that there is a point during a pregnancy when a human blueprint becomes and actual human being, and that elective abortion should be ceased at that point (around the third trimester, basically). However, I believe that the mother's life and health should not be forced into danger via her pregnancy. Even late term abortions should be legal if there is a risk to the life and health of the mother, or the child is not viable.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Because it has the words about sex, doesn't mean it has to do with other issues that may involve sex. That would be a written equivocation.



If enough people chose not to buy the policies, the carriers would have to change what they offer. As it is, carriers are offering more customization than they used to.



Which doesn't substantiate why insurance carriers have any obligation to offer coverage for it under policy (other than their own benefit).



Except that still doesn't estabilsh anything about insurance carriers offering coverage. Thus there is no teneable link bewteen pregnancy and STD's, pregnancy and illness, other than it is one. That doesn't substantiate any reason for obligatory coverage.



Yes, and you buy (are forced to buy) auto insurance to mitigate the risks of driving. There is no "sex insurance" for protection against pregnancy by providing coverage for abortions, nor have you established why health insurance should act as "sex insurance". You've only been able to say that like contracting an STD, it is a possible outcome of sex.



No but consensual sex is consensual, which is what not what is being discusssed. Your analgoy is false. Driving a car is a poor analogy because it the risk of getting into an accident by driving is not the problem. Driving is consensual, being an accident is not. It is a risk of driving. The risks of being in an accident are injury and property damage.

An accurate analogy would be if two people consensually drove into each other. They would be consenting to the possibility of sustaining injury and property damage. They could mitigate the risks (i.e. contraception) by using seatbelts, wearing helmets, making it a low speed collision etc.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

What is it about the third trimester that turns a lump of fetus tissue into a human being, Montegue?

To use your own words, "when a human blueprint becomes an actual human being" -- I'll tell you what the blueprint to that human being is, it's the DNA contained in a fertilized egg. That's when the blueprint is finalized, and the human being those blueprints describe starts being constructed. That construction lasts upwards of 15 years in most humans. Why is it that we consider the first 6 months different from the last 14.5+ years?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The ability to survive outside of the womb is a good starting point. (Although that's significantly earlier than the third trimester.) My rationale is this: if a baby is born premature, and you take a hammer to its head in the incubator, you'd get charged for murder. Therefore, it should not matter if the baby has been born yet--if any child has ever survived being born at that stage of pregnancy, to be consistent one should disallow abortion from that point forward. (I think 21 weeks is the record? I forget.)

Now, that said, if the prematurely-born baby dies while in incubation of natural causes, it's not considered murder. Therefore, again for consistency, a mother really should be allowed to have labor induced at any point of the pregnancy, with the understanding that the medical staff will try to keep the baby alive.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yup, Taly I seem to recall that when you first came out with this opinion, I was more than satisfied by its rationality, and we haven't crossed words about abortion since. If I didn't say it then, kudos.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

As science moves forward, the ability to call a fetus viable outside the womb expands, blurring the ability to use that as a delineation.

Not really. If you can successfully grow a human being from conception in a lab incubator, abortion itself would become illegal. You could still induce labor at any point, but abortion would no longer be an option.

Basically, methods of removing the pregnancy from the womb that do not kill it first would remain legal.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So then you agree that a fertilized human egg is a human?

Morality defined by current technology is not a morality.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmarnieh:

Can you enter into a legally binding contract with a non-existent entity?

_________________

I don't know. I am merely speaking on the consistency of legal matters. If one allows abortions at 25 weeks, for example, then to be consistent one would need to allow post-birth abortions at the same time. Whether it's in or out of utero makes no difference in regard to what it is. Since that's not going to happen, abortion really shouldn't be legal at that stage either.

I suspect if we started growing people in vats, there would be a legal termination stage determined for that technology, too. I suppose it would make sense for the abortion limit to be set at that stage. It just makes sense to be consistent.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

...

So much wrong with this. Adaptability to a change in environments is required for something to be alive? Using that definition, one could argue that earth contains nothing that is living. There are MANY creatures that are extremely vulnerable to changes in environement. I hope you can see how this would be an incredibly bad way to define life.

An egg is a living cell of a female. Sperm is the living cell of a male. At the moment of conception, it becomes a genetically separate entity. The term for that entity is human. The stage of development for that human is zygote. At that point it is a living human being. This has nothing to do with religion or faith or anything other than scientific fact.

Now if you want to make the argument that a human being in the zygote stage of development has no rights, and therefore there is nothing wrong with abortion at that stage, then that is a perfectly logical argument. Not one I necessarily agree with, but it is logical. Saying that a zygote is not living, and not a human being, is not logical. If you deny that a zygote is living, then you are saying that MANY other organisms that we currently consider to be alive, are not in fact alive. If you deny that a zygote is of the human species, then you need to say what species it is, and provide evidnece, and then explain how it is possible for one species to transform into another species.

You can enter into a legally binding contract with a currently non-existing entity yes.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmarnieh:

Really? Show me a precedent under Current U.S. Law.

_________________