If people into your house, you can give them tea and allow them to warm up. This does not change the fact that they are trespassers, and can be asked to leave at any time. The fact that you have been nice does not obligate you to continue to be nice.
I made no such assertion. I claimed no voluntary action of the woman will ensure a pregnancy; they will only increase the likelihood. Even in-vitro fertilization is a gamble.
I already did. I asked, long ago, if one could legitimately throw trespassers overboard. You said yes. I agreed. That’s the boat scenario.
Then you started talking about involuntary invitations and something being designed without a designer, and you lost me.
Now then, Max: I’m hoping that you’ll actually back your claims. Start off by demonstrating that the woman invites the not-yet-extant. We’ll leave out the special case of in vitro fertilization, since it’s not actually germane. After all: the vast majority of pregnancies do not occur that way. Nor does it have any bearing upon a woman being able to revoke “invitation”. So: are you willing to back your claims now? Or are you going to pout and throw vile smears? If the latter–I gotta tell you that probably won’t be looked upon as something you should be doing.
The whole point of you defining your position on whether a person invites a guest has any obligation to the guest was to see if invitations matter. What you ahve just said is that for you the invitation is irrelevant so it doesn’t matter what the circumstances are for you. What would be the point of continuing the discussion?
If a woman can have an abortion at any time including 10 minutes before giving birth because she has no responsibility to the other person why do you want to discuss if the baby is invited?
For you to justify your position. YOU are the one making the claim that the woman is to be enjoined from doing with her body what by right she can do. So it is up to YOU to defend that. I want to see you do it. I don’t want to see whining. I don’t want to see evasions. I don’t want to see vile smears. I want to see a justification of your position THAT DOES NOT rely upon you thinking that merely asserting will mean that you’ve justified it.
If you can’t do that–please at least stop entering discussions on such topics which you are incapable of justifying your stance.
The same question to you…if being invited is treated no different than being invited what is there to discuss? You see no difference between the invited guest and the trespasser so we have no common ground upon which to discuss anything. It is really that simple.
Thank you finally after 300 some posts for finally being willing to state your idiotic position. Its absurd on the face of it but there you are.
That’s not the basis of our disagreement. I do, in fact, see a difference between invited guests and trespassers. I have no idea what I could possibly have written to give you an impression otherwise. However, you are equating an involuntary act, implantation, with a voluntary act, invitation. I agree completely with your logic. I disagree completely with your premise.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I actually spelled it out a few times. Since we’re pointing out idiotic positions that are absurd on their faces
An involuntary action is voluntary.
Something can be designed or have a purpose without a designer.
A woman has the ability to invite a fertilized egg to be implanted.
Please don’t equate increasing the likelihood with inviting. She could walk around alone, drunk, after dark, in an area with a known rapist on the prowl. This will increase her chances of being raped. There’s no sound way to argue that she wants to be raped, though. Rape, by definition, is unwanted.
I know. As I stated, I was pointing out a person that would corrupt the truth of such terms. As I said I agreed with what you said, but somebody may have potentially in a terrible, tragic, and false way equated the term inviting with involuntary, unwanted action.
I have repeatedly stated my position and my justification for it. Your contribution to this thread is “not it isnt because I say so” . When asked for your counter arguement you have nothing. You assert without proof that people can do whatever they want with their body without consequences, I disagree. What is their left to discuss? You are coward who does not have the courage of his own convictions sufficient enough to even state his position.
Stop boring us with your veiled threats and pointless posts.
Let me summarize YOUR position for you since you are unwillingly to do so. Under no circumstances can a pregnant woman ever be considered to have invited the pregnancy. A pregnant woman can uninvite the trespasser baby at anytime regardless of consequence to the child because they are a trespasser. So by your logic it is implied that invitation would somehow alter this arrangement.
You have not stated how treatment is different between the invited guest and the trespasser specifically regarding the boat scenario. Notice that this does not involve pregnant women.
You assert that a woman trying to get pregnant has no responsibility for getting pregnant. This is like saying if I try to run you over with a car that I am not responsible for hitting you with a car because the outcome is not guaranteed. Your logic in fact makes all consequences of human action involuntary and disconnected from the intial action because outcomes can not be guaranteed.
The person who sets in motion a series of events with a reasonable likely outcome is responsible for that outcome. This includes pregnancy and every other human action.
No, you’ve only done the former and believed that the former is the latter. You are the coward who does not have the courage of his own convictions to justify his stance. You only assert.
Stop boring us with your blatant assertions, Max. It’s time for you to learn how to debate. If you can’t–don’t engage in these discussions.