Dui/dwi, Conception & Chance.

[velvett]

If you drink and drive it would be by chance that you happen to take a road and get pulled over by a Police Officer or stopped at a road block.

and

If you have sex without a condom and you happen to ejaculate into a woman during her post- ovulation phase of her cycle and by chance succesfully producing a fertilzed egg.





Don't worry I won't even bring up the contrast and comparison of killing someone while driving drunk and ending the potential of life via abortion.


Even though it sure would prove to be interesting, no?

 

[mdd]

hmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[plornive]

I don't get it.

 

[velvett]

apples & oranges

Please elaborate.

Both are preventable with a bit of basic responsibility.

Don't drink and drive.
Don't have sex without a condom.

I would imagine having sex with a condom to be the easier of the two tasks.

I could of course be missing something - care to share fruit?

 

[Pikaia]

Please elaborate.

Both are preventable with a bit of basic responsibility.

Don't drink and drive.
Don't have sex without a condom.

I would imagine having sex with a condom to be the easier of the two tasks.

I could of course be missing something - care to share fruit?

Well, you're comparing two different scenarios that have different moral fibers.

When you drink and drive, you endanger yourself and others around you. You have a great potential to kill yourself and/or others.

When you have sex with a woman, and get her pregnant, where's the danger?


Yes, both of these are preventable with basic responsibility

You were originally talking about Chance, correct? Chance is everywhere, so I guess I just found it weird that you brought up two different scenarios and chance... And to be honest, I am still confused by your topic, can you please provide a direct question after your examples? That would be good so we can answer your question more specifically.

 

[plornive]

Are you saying that people should assume that women will get abortions in some situations, thus making the act of impregnation a contribution to a potential abortion?

If so, then I agree with you in a way.

But to play devil's advocate, let me make another analogy. I am protecting my luggage on a street corner by pointing a gun at them. Anyone who sees my luggage will know that I might kill him/her if he/she tries to steal my luggage. He/she would be killing him/her self by attempting to steal my luggage.

However, according to the law, a thieve's rights are protected regardless of the situation at hand. I cannot legally kill an unarmed thief regardless of any prior understanding. Likewise, atlantabiolab made the point that a fetus has rights. If you want to prove him wrong, you must prove that a fetus does not have rights.

The rights of a pregnent woman should be considered, just as the luggage holder's rights should be considered. But this is not as strong as the potential/supposed right to life that a fetus might have, or the right to life that an unarmed theif on the street has.

I am pro-choice, by the way.

 

[big_bad_buff]

nice velvett

 

[velvett]

Are you saying that people should assume that women will get abortions in some situations, thus making the act of impregnation a contribution to a potential abortion?

If so, then I agree with you in a way.

But to play devil's advocate, let me make another analogy. I am protecting my luggage on a street corner by pointing a gun at them. Anyone who sees my luggage will know that I might kill him/her if he/she tries to steal my luggage. He/she would be killing him/her self by attempting to steal my luggage.

However, according to the law, a thieve's rights are protected regardless of the situation at hand. I cannot legally kill an unarmed thief regardless of any prior understanding. Likewise, atlantabiolab made the point that a fetus has rights. If you want to prove him wrong, you must prove that a fetus does not have rights.

The rights of a pregnent woman should be considered, just as the luggage holder's rights should be considered. But this is not as strong as the potential/supposed right to life that a fetus might have, or the right to life that an unarmed theif on the street has.

I am pro-choice, by the way.

Now that is post that's got me thinking.

Hmmm - so you're comparing the theif and the fetus as one and the gun holder and the mother as one? Did I understand that correctly?

Do fetus's have rights?
Seriously? I wasn't aware that they did.
A fetus doesn't have a social security number, you don't seem to exist without one. No to be a wiseass but if there really is documentation that fetus's have rights I'd love to read it.

Hmm.

 

[WarriorPL]

yes ma'am

 

[velvett]

You were originally talking about Chance, correct? Chance is everywhere, so I guess I just found it weird that you brought up two different scenarios and chance... And to be honest, I am still confused by your topic, can you please provide a direct question after your examples? That would be good so we can answer your question more specifically.

I totally agree with what you have said and yes it is a rather abstract comparision but both have - no can have similiar consequence.

Would you say that both scenarios are examples of chance?
Chance oddly enough usually has consequence as does any choice we may or may not make.

It was seeing the Pro-choice thread and the drunk driver threads.

Both easily prevented, both with potential bad consequences are out of bad choices and would or should a drunk driver that kills someone (or a family) be held accountable the very same way as someone that choose to abort their fetus. I suppose with that statement the verse could be true as well.

I'm just thinking out loud really.

 

[Jimsbbc]

It's like the unborn child that would have lived would sure as hell have something to say about the irresponsiblity in it's conception and the pain it went through in abortion and the life it was denied, likewise the family of 5 incinerated by an overturned semi that burst into flames would sure as hell have something to say about their lives being taken away by some drunk ass that was irresponsibly drinking on the job.

But who cares about the fucking victims! Their dead, and they can't talk so forget about their rights - their already wasted. But, oh wait, the perpetrator is still alive and has rights, lets go lenient on him and try to rehabilitate, let him out to go do it again. After all, he is still alive and has rights. He should be able to have his life back after a couple years in jail, he's real sorry and didn't mean to do it.

 

[plornive]

Do fetus's have rights?
Seriously? I wasn't aware that they did.
A fetus doesn't have a social security number, you don't seem to exist without one. No to be a wiseass but if there really is documentation that fetus's have rights I'd love to read it.

Hmm.

I don't believe fetuses/feti have the rights that a baby has. But I believe they have some rights, just like animals have rights.

Pregnant women also have rights.

Atlantabiolab would argue that fetuses basically have the unconditional right to life. I would imagine that if he didn't believe that, he would not be pro-life/anti-abortion (perhaps I am wrong).

I think a baby born secretly, outside of a hospital (without documentation), has the unconditional right to life. Atlantabiolab might argue that a baby and fetus are from the same distinct continuum.

 

[velvett]

I don't believe fetuses/feti have the rights that a baby has. But I believe they have some rights, just like animals have rights..

People have rights. Does a fetus have rights?

Throughout the world, the legal status of fetuses is generally subordinated to that of pregnant women. In most countries, the legal status of the fetus is bolstered as gestation progresses. Viability signifies a change in its legal status. Still, although the human fetus has the potential for personhood, this does not imply that it is a person or that it has rights. So long as the fetus is attached to the pregnant woman, her body maintains its life, and bars access to it.

US courts have ruled that a child has a legal right to begin life with a sound body and mind. Such a right may create a legal duty, on the part of a pregnant woman, to protect the health of her fetus. Failure to fulfill that duty could subject her to charges of fetal abuse, or render her liable for consequent damage to her child. Pregnant women's refusals of hospitalization, intrauterine transfusion, or surgical delivery have been legally challenged on the grounds of an obligation to the fetus.

http://eduserv.hscer.washington.edu/bioethics/topics/matern.html



Would be interesting to compare that information to the rights of the surviving family members of someone killed by drunk driver.

Or an over tired driver or a driver not of sound mind (the Santa Monica driver for example that killed was it 9 people?)

 

[plornive]

Would be interesting to compare that information to the rights of the surviving family members of someone killed by drunk driver.

Or an over tired driver or a driver not in sound mind (the Santa Monica driver for example that killed was it 9 people?)

I really don't understand what you are getting at. I don't see much correlation. Perhaps you could explain why this analogy should define the ethics of the pertinent issue.

 

[Pikaia]

Would you say that both scenarios are examples of chance?

Yes, they are both examples of chance.

In the case of an abortion, the fetus is destroyed by the woman's choice. But she also has the choice to keep the fetus too.

In the case of the drunk driver, s/he has the choice to possibly end a life, but also has the choice to not drive. Also remember, a drunk driver's judgment is impaired greatly, whereas in most cases, the women's judgment is not.


In both of the scenarios, the victims have no say in what's going to happen to their futures.

 

[velvett]

I really don't understand what you are getting at. I don't see much correlation. Perhaps you could explain why this analogy should define the ethics of the pertinent issue.

I don't yet either.

LOL (at me)

I have to research it first.
There may ne no correlation what so ever.

I was just look for more info on Russell Weller the old man that killed the 9 people in Santa Monica. Which got me thinking about how outraged people must be at this man killing all these people. If I remember he had his preist make a statement - oddly enough religion makes it way into everything.

Maybe I was just trying to understand why people are do outraged at a woman choosing not bring life into the world.

Maybe I'm tired and just rambling.

 

[velvett]

Yes, they are both examples of chance.

In the case of an abortion, the fetus is destroyed by the woman's choice. But she also has the choice to keep the fetus too.

In the case of the drunk driver, s/he has the choice to possibly end a life, but also has the choice to not drive. Also remember, a drunk driver's judgment is impaired greatly, whereas in most cases, the women's judgment is not.


In both of the scenarios, the victims have no say in what's going to happen to their futures.

At least I'm not the only who sees it this way.



Thanks for fruit as it were.

 

[plornive]

I don't yet either.

LOL (at me)

I have to research it first.
There may ne no correlation what so ever.

I was just look for more info on Russell Weller the old man that killed the 9 people in Santa Monica. Which got me thinking about how outraged people must be at this man killing all these people. If I remember he had his preist make a statement - oddly enough religion makes it way into everything.

Maybe I was just trying to understand why people are do outraged at a woman choosing not bring life into the world.

Maybe I'm tired and just rambling.

I think I get it. I can see some correlation in some contexts.

I just thought you had some intricate devious plan of debate up your sleeve (or skirt) to correlate the analogy with the legality of abortion. Fair enough.

 

[velvett]

I think I get it. I can see some correlation in some contexts.

I just thought you had some intricate devious plan of debate up your sleeve (or skirt) to correlate the analogy with the legality of abortion. Fair enough.

Thanks for making me think.

 

[Pikaia]

At least I'm not the only who sees it this way.



Thanks for fruit as it were.

Here's some dicta for you to add to the scenario:

The finality of ending a life in an abortion is 100%, whereas it's a 1-99% chance in the drunk driving scenario

Most sex is rationally done, same with drinking, the difference is "impairment of judgment in future choice" with the drinking scenario.




Hey, what do you think about this scenario:

A drunk driver kills a woman and her unborn 8 1/2 month old baby.

What should happen to the drunk driver?


Personally, I think penalties should be graduated in severity, in relation to the age of the baby.

I think it's unfortunate that most drunk drivers who kill a person, get away with very light sentences.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

DO I have anything to do with this thread? It's not apples and oranges. It's apples and water buffalo.

Would you compare car accidents in general with abortions? I'd like to think not, although after your last dozen posts or so, one never knows...DUI fatalities are just car accidents - in fact, the number by percentage is roughly equal to speeding related fatalities. If we changed DUI to speeding, would you still make this point?

Is the chance of a car accident the same as the chance of conception? if you have a 3rd grade education I suppose you might think that way. Or is it a question of "is everything a matter of chance?" This is a good viewpoint if your life sux.

For the back of the room:

99.999% of people arrested for DUI don't cause a fatality. (About 1.4 million are arrested for it annually).

Intent is pretty much out the window in car accidents, whereas it pretty much runs the show in the abortion clinic.

Let's all send velvett some karma.

 

[gotmilk]

99.999% of people arrested for DUI don't cause a fatality. (About 1.4 million are arrested for it annually).

yeah...mine didn't hurt anyone but myself. I wonder what her opinion of a leaky condom is?

Is this now a Karma Thread?

 

[sk*]

Do fetus's have rights?

I didn't read the whole thread, but yes it does. Its rights have been brought up in court on various occasions.

One law that shows this is that the mom has the right to act with deadly force on whomever she believes is a threat to the fetus. (This is true even in the begining of pregnancy, not just the third trimester)

-sk

 

[velvett]

DO I have anything to do with this thread? It's not apples and oranges. It's apples and water buffalo.

Would you compare car accidents in general with abortions? I'd like to think not, although after your last dozen posts or so, one never knows...DUI fatalities are just car accidents - in fact, the number by percentage is roughly equal to speeding related fatalities. If we changed DUI to speeding, would you still make this point?

Is the chance of a car accident the same as the chance of conception? if you have a 3rd grade education I suppose you might think that way. Or is it a question of "is everything a matter of chance?" This is a good viewpoint if your life sux.

For the back of the room:

99.999% of people arrested for DUI don't cause a fatality. (About 1.4 million are arrested for it annually).

Intent is pretty much out the window in car accidents, whereas it pretty much runs the show in the abortion clinic.

Let's all send velvett some karma.

Gee Matt was that an emotional response or just an insulting one?

If abortion were to become illegal or the thought that women that get abortions and the doctors that do the procedure are murders then by the same logic a drunk driver that hit another car with a pregnant woman as a driver or passenger and the unborn fetus dies do to impact while the mother survives won’t the drunk driver too be a murderer?

If we want to say that a fetus has rights from conception then the unborn and now dead fetus could be represented by lawyers to sue the drunk driver for loss of life.

I guess it’s really all about consistency and the concept that when we choose to create law or stand by our beliefs then they should apply to all situations.


Why don't you take a second to step off you superior emporer's chair and read some of your posts.


I proved my point that conception IS by chance as is getting caught driving drunk.



SUCKA

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Why don't you take a second to step off you superior emporer's chair and read some of your posts.

I proved my point that conception IS by chance as is getting caught driving drunk.

SUCKA

I'm on the emperor-in-training's chair. One more step.

As to your post...I would be laughing except that I truly believe you are serious an that you believe you have made a pointof some consequence.

Let;s examine this proof. If we use it on any other real world examples, chance applies to

Getting hit by lightning.
Playing the lottery.
Meeting someone at a bar.

And so on ad infinitum

Devastating!

(FYI it is what happens after the chance event where the cosequences come in)

That was really cute though. You've shown me that you are willing to look for, or if necessary, invent out of thin air, some kind of connective stream of thoughts to try and justify your opinions.

Know what that means? Your ideas are just like almost everyone else's: provincial and self-serving. I guess if you've convinced yourself than the battle is half over.

None of this even makes a dent in the "Golden Rule" perspective of "do unto others...." as the reason why abortion is illogical.

 

[toga22]

I am in full agreement with MattTheSkywalker on this one...

First off with the new drinking legal limits...a person my size would be considered "legally drunk" after consuming 2 alcoholic beverages. (The new limit in WI is .08)

Secondly, when the police sit outside local bars and pull over everyone that drives a car, with the assumption that they will be able to issue a ticket, it is not a "chance act" it is entrapment. I live in a town of @ 50,000...and the local police force brag that on an average night they issue 50 DUI tickets. PLUS, they are allowed to run any plates and if they have already had 1 DUI they can legally pull a person over, even if there is no evidence that the driver might be intoxicated. So basically I feel that there is a lot of injustice when issuing out DUI tickets...maybe 2% of these tickets are actually issued to people that would be causing a threat. Basically it is a money making scheme...

And I am not even going to touch the abortion issue...except for stating that it is a choice, decided upon by the individual. Not forced onto them...Actually, do I believe that a person should be condemed if they fall into either of these categories? No...Bad things happen to good people...that is life.

 

[Testosterone boy]

I'm on the emperor-in-training's chair. One more step.

Careful bro, the right people could still squash you like a bug.

 

[velvett]

Secondly, when the police sit outside local bars and pull over everyone that drives a car, with the assumption that they will be able to issue a ticket, it is not a "chance act" it is entrapment.

And I am not even going to touch the abortion issue...except for stating that it is a choice, decided upon by the individual

It is entrapment and I agree with you - however - have a designated driver or take a cab home and the problem will not exist.

I live in small town too - and if you read the police blotter you'd probably know most of the people arrested. A chronic drunk driver was a builder I worked with and to date he has killed two people in 4 years. He is finally in jail.

In regard to your comment about choice is decided by the individual - that is something I've been saying all along. (different thread)

 

[velvett]

For the back of the room:

99.999% of people arrested for DUI don't cause a fatality. (About 1.4 million are arrested for it annually).

And men are 4 times more likely to drive drunk then women.


Aren't you just making up excuses and making DUI/DWI in less of an issue because driving intoxicated IS something you have done and may still do?

Just like woman who wishes to protects her rights you wish to make DUI "not a big deal" and without "intent".

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

And men are 4 times more likely to drive drunk then women.


Aren't you just making up excuses and making DUI/DWI in less of an issue because driving intoxicated IS something you have done and may still do?

Just like woman who wishes to protects her rights you wish to make DUI "not a big deal" and without "intent".

DUI accidents are a HUGE deal and I support appropriate jail sentences for them. The state of Florida ls leading the way there.

DUI itself is a traffic violation that has been metamorphosized into the "end of the world" by MADD, a group with an agenda.

Sadly, according to NHTSA, the percentage of alcohol related fatalities was actually HIGHER the last three years than the 3 years before MADD was created. The laws aren't working, but the number of arrests goes up up up. Isn't that bad? For many people, it ruins their lives (conviction, expense, job loss) and they have done nothing to anyone.

 

[DeepZenPill]

I didn't read the whole thread, but yes it does. Its rights have been brought up in court on various occasions.

One law that shows this is that the mom has the right to act with deadly force on whomever she believes is a threat to the fetus. (This is true even in the begining of pregnancy, not just the third trimester)

-sk

Exactly. Our modern abortion law is just a matriarchal adaptation of patriarchal supremacy in ancient Roman law. The father had the right to kill any of his children, even if his son were emperor. If someone killed one of his children, he had the right to avenge the death.

Now the power is in the mother's hands, concerning her fetus. If the fetus is wanted by the mother, somehow it adopts the rights of a human and its termination by anyone else is illegal. Laci Peterson's child for example. But some die-hards will argue the second murder charge is wrong.

If the fetus is unwanted, it has no right to life, despite what the father may want. The will of the mother decides the rights of the child.

 

[Testosterone boy]

DUI accidents are a HUGE deal and I support appropriate jail sentences for them. The state of Florida ls leading the way there.

DUI itself is a traffic violation that has been metamorphosized into the "end of the world" by MADD, a group with an agenda.

Sadly, according to NHTSA, the percentage of alcohol related fatalities was actually HIGHER the last three years than the 3 years before MADD was created. The laws aren't working, but the number of arrests goes up up up. Isn't that bad? For many people, it ruins their lives (conviction, expense, job loss) and they have done nothing to anyone.

Alcohol is selling extremely well because it is a coping mechansim for troubled
times.

 

[toga22]

In regard to your comment about choice is decided by the individual - that is something I've been saying all along. (different thread)

I guess my point was, when comparing the 2. When a person is "legally drunk" and driving there are grey areas...as compared to being pregnant.

Meaning a person can say, I got pulled over and got a DUI when I BAC of .081...as compared to .300 or whatever. One these people are truely drunk and shouldn't be driving, because they are a threat...the other most likely not.

But you don't hear a woman being able to say, I am only 1% pregnant...It was only a 2 stroker... You are either pregnant or your not...no grey areas.

And the idea of taking a cab home or having a DD doesn't fit into your comparison. The comparison was driving after drinking or having unprotected sex....

 

[DeepZenPill]

Meaning a person can say, I got pulled over and got a DUI when I BAC of .081...as compared to .300 or whatever. One these people are truely drunk and shouldn't be driving, because they are a threat...the other most likely not.

They are both against the law. Police enforce the law.

Police have all the right in the world to pull over people driving away from bars. People go to bars to get drunk. These people should not be driving.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

They are both against the law. Police enforce the law.

Police have all the right in the world to pull over people driving away from bars. People go to bars to get drunk. These people should not be driving.

DZP is Big Brother.

How can you explain that the overwhelming number of DUI drivers arrested for DUI do not have an accident?

Police only catch a tiny tiny percentage of DUI drivers, so the percentage having accidents is really really tiny.

How does your statement make sense?