Not at all. Such pregnancies happen do to lack of education (like you have to take the birth control pill for a few weeks before it is "effective"). What causes this lack of knowledge? It's certainly not this mindset that people should accept nebulous parameters of responsibility so why have sex-ed class because the responsible thing to do is to go against your nature and abstain from sex (as a point of order, I don't think anyone here holds this idea in its entirety).Rawedge Rim wrote:and exactly how does this happen? Let's see, the woman just happened to be fertile on that day, the birth control pill she was taking happened to fail, as did the condom she insisted that her partner wear failed.Orlion wrote:
I've bolded the point that I believe is being forced. The plain and simple matter is that pregnancies can happen, even if you follow steps to try to prevent them.
What's the likelihood?
No, what happens is that the steps necessary to prevent pregnancy as a result of copulation were not followed, thus there was an abdication of responsibility by the mother (and probably the father).....therefore, the innocent party here, the fetus, get's the ultimate penalty for the parents irresponsibility.
{sarcasm}sounds like a plan to me. {/sarcasm}
We talk about responsibility, but then we talk about liberty, and then we run around and contradict ourselves. Is it responsible for a sixteen year old to raise a child? Does that matter if she wants to exercise her liberty to do so? Should responsibility factor into law making?
Some say it should if it harms somebody. But an embryo or fetus is not a somebody, it is a something. It doesn't have hopes, dreams, or personality in of itself that we come to expect from somebodies. On the other hand, forcing the pregnancy through terms does interfere with one's hopes, dreams, and personality. It's a form of coercion, and is not based on anything substantial. "Better safe then sorry" arguments have no realm in the political sphere, otherwise we ought to support exporting anyone of Muslim faith because, hey, they may not be terrorists but it's better safe then sorry. And thus, tyranny is institutionalized and given the holy baptism of law. In fact, wouldn't you want to "be safe" and preserve people's liberties rather then "be sorry" that you've enslaved the population in the name of an organism with dubious humanity? You'd say such an argument is fallacious, and rightfully so. In that same spirit, I deny that it is "better safe then sorry" because there is nothing that points to a fetus as being a human being, there is no reason to think that it is alive in any meaningful way, and is therefore not murder. In cases like these, erring on the side of caution seems too much for me.