rat mothers

To be fair, rr, what you said was equally silly.

Silly. Of course life begins when it begin, its quite tautalogical. All you are implying here is that I'd respect pro choicers, if they'd agree with me. Which is silly. Highly silly. You make the mistake of putting in people's minds the stereotype image of the pro-lifer. Self-righteous in their morality they want to laud it over those immoral sluts who should 'suffer' (presumably their child should also suffer) for their indescretions, and abortion isn't suffering enough.What's the good in being holier-than-thou if you don't get to rub your hands in glee at those poor misguided souls that can't control their biological urges, unlike us pro-lifers who can.It's very very silly to put that vision in your opponents heads because they aren't going to be persuaded by any of your rational arguments if they think that your real motivation behind being pro-life is to punish the lascivious.Its kind of like slamming your brakes on when you have a tailgater, so that they can suffer the consequences of bad driving. Wouldn't it be far more productive (and less silly) to try and talk drivers in general around to a better understanding of road safety? Perhaps you might call it life - but then so is bacteria, which we regularly slay for our own convenience. Oops, I was careless and I cut myself with a rusty nail. Should I be made to suffer the consequences? After all I have now provided a veritable 'womb'/wound for a whole colony of bacteria to dwell. That bacteria might one day evolve into intelligent life, so I have a dilemma, suffer with an infection or kill the bacteria.This kind of thing is the at the root of the debate, and you talk as if the matter were settled in your favour and everyone should simply see that. Why is it obvious that it is a precious moment? Are you just going to assert that it is so and that should be enough? Its plainly obvious that the world was created 3.14159265 billion years ago be the Thetans and that abortion is sanctioned by W'Fvet of Kraal. Have you paid attention to the pro-choicers at all, or have you simply been arguing past them? This appears to be very silly. Of course it is regrettable to abort a baby, on a number of levels. I'm sure there are some out there that don't give it a second thought, but I've met none. Even those that don't 'regret' having an abortion generally regret that the decision had to be made at all.Personally, I think it is a lot less silly to try and understand the opinions of your opponents in such debates, and try to come to an understanding with them. I lost interest in the abortion debate a long while back because I understood the other side's position, decided it had no merit (once peeled back, it was mainly appeals to emotion) and that was the end of it.If you are going down the path I think you are going down, you are going to have to show some logic behind the concept of life in and of itself is precious (but only in humans). You'll have to show why a unique sequence of chemicals is something special. Simply making emotive assertions about how plainly obvious it is is not going to persuade anyone, and telling people that you would respect them more if only they would agree with you...is silly

Thanks for responding with a sequence of one sentence replies. I'm sure to understand your position better now. That's what you said rr, and my response was the same as yours. Life begins at inception literally means 'life begins when it begins'. It is unspecific and it is safe. Its tautalogical. That was my point. I think what you meant to say was 'I was making no implication, I meant precisely what I said'. huh? I make no such assumption, I don't even know who everyone is, EVERYONE?? I certainly made no such comment. You said that women want abortions so they don't have to suffer for what they did. That gives many the image of someone who wants women to suffer for their indiscretions. What on earth do you mean by my making assumptions about everyone suffering? It makes no sense in context of what I was actually saying! I think I understand this peculiar comment. The woman is most certainly alive, and her suffering certainly happens in many cases. Its a painful, emotional and invasive piece of surgery that a large section of society tries to make the woman feel guilty for having. I urge you to read what I was actually trying to communicate. I never said it had anything to do with God, I said

quote:

---

You make the mistake of putting in people's minds the stereotype image...

---

before outlining that image. It probably makes more sense if you read it that way We are? What a strange idea. That was my point. In saying what you said, in the way that you said it 'women should suffer for their mistakes' you are going to turn people off listening to you. The point is, quite straightforward. Bacteria multiply by cell division, the same as happens when an egg and sperm meet. At some point that cell division begins to form an entity that is independent of the mother.1: mitosis is life
2: if mitosis will eventually result in a human it is wrong to prevent the mitosis from completion
3: The reason is that human life is preciousConclusion: Killing mitosis when a precious life would result is wrong.1: life evolves
2: non precious life has the potential to evolve into precious life after a long sequence of mitosis
3: bacteria engage in a long sequence of mitosisconclusion: it is potentially wrong to kill bacteriaThe question - how much certainty is required before it is definitely immoral/wrong?The core of the debate of course revolves around whether or not cells undergoing mitosis which will almost certainly become precious after time are precious now. The point is that pro-choicers agree that mitosis in the womb is fundamentally no different than the mitosis of bacteria, just a different recipe book is being used. No, getting pregnant is (or rather it is in context of the debate, obviously its not always). So you believe the debate you are having doesn't revolve around the precious/non-precious nature of the resultant cell division of a sperm/egg meeting? More tautalogy. Obviously whatever 'it' is, 'it' is most certainly 'it'. I am not jusifying anything, I'm merely discussing the nature of the debate. I gave a couple of examples up above. I think when a persons instincts and persons intellects clash, there will be suffering. I think I also made it clear that it is not necessarily the abortion itself which is the regrettable part, its the having to go through an unpleasant personal operation which may conflict with your hormones/instinct.

---

I trust you now realize that I am not debating the rightness or wrongness of abortion, I am merely urging you to try to communicate with your opponents and not set them against you by talking about how women should suffer for their mistakes. It gives people the (hopefully) wrong idea about your motivations, and puts a barrier between you which can only increase the difficulty you face when trying to persuade others.This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 19-April-2006 04:54 PM

If I crash my car after intentionally driving it fast, it was still an accident, no matter how reckless or stupid you might think I was. I'm saying that the maternal instinct can, in some cases, be strong enough to cause internal conflict, both before and after any abortive procedure. I'm just glad that, whilst we may not agree with one another, we might understand each other a bit better

So you're saying we should stop calling them road traffic accidents? What should we call them? Road Traffic Purposes? If the accident was caused by driver error, it was an accident. The driver did not intend to crash, but did. We generally call that an accident, and that is the way I was using the word. It is an evidence that women have a maternal instinct. If you think it is evidence of anything else, you'll have to develop the argument.This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 21-April-2006 06:56 AM

Are you referring to speeding being a jailable offense or driving without due care and attention? Or are you talking about any crime? Crimes which are the result of negligence have lesser punishments than crimes which are the result of deliberate malice/whatever.But I'm not talking about crimes (unless unintentionally getting pregnant is a crime?), I'm talking about accidents. If I shunt somebody it is because I was driving too close. An accident, not a purpose.I am talking about risk assesment type affairs. You wanted to know how getting pregnant after intentional sex can be considered an accident. My response was an analogy, a more specific response is that of risk assesment. Whenever I do an activity that entails some risk, I have to consider if I am comfortable with those risks. For example, I risk crashing into a car, or I risk dropping one of the chainsaws I was juggling and cutting off my arm. In these scenarios the risk that could happen is a result of an accident.You might say that I shouldn't juggle chainsaws, and if I do I should have insurance (or be prepared to pay the medical bills myself), but sex is a different creature. It is a natural drive of all mammals (including rats and humans), and trying to stop people having sex is harder than parting the red sea - its not going to happen unless God wills it, and God isn't going to will away someones freewill.As such, as a society, we have to decide how we are going to deal with the inevitable consequences of this situation. On the one hand we could say "We aren't going to treat your STDs because you had sex, so you should suffer the consequences", or we could instead decide to treat STDs and educate the population to try and help reduce the chances of someone contracting the STDs in the first place.The same decisions apply to pregancy, and that leads us nicely to the debate we now find ourselves in. One doesn't need to have a maternal instinct to be a mother. It generally comes with the package of being a woman.

---

Technically of course, this is all off topic. I was participating here because I was primarily pointing out the nature of the abortion debate and the strange declarations you made that were supposedly clear or obvious, which aren't clear and obvious, that is what causes the debate in the first place.

The speeding wasn't accidental any more than the sex was. The speeding was a risk, the accident was the consequence of that risk being realized. Speeding is risky, it can lead to you accidentally crashing. Sex is risky, it can lead to you accidentally getting pregant. Which is out of scope for the discussion. That would be like saying if you have sex with the intent of getting pregnant, or were raped by someone who intended you to get pregnant, then the conception is not accidental. As I said, not all pregnancies are accidental, but some are. I suggest you go back to where this started and find out what I said the first time you brought this up. Message 136 should suffice: Here is how I apply the dictionary you provided, to getting unintentionally pregnant after sex...'Lack of intention'. Your first definition covers several things which can happen that lead to pregnancy which would be accidental, ie birth control failure. And driving leads to crashes, it is a known fact. Yep, and you can crash even whilst wearing a seatbelt and driving within the speed limit. I'm not sure I fully understand. All I was saying is that pregnancy can be an accident. It doesn't matter whether an accident ends with somebody dying, yourself getting hurt, or a process of cell division that will, if not interupted, one day become an entity able to vote, it's still an accident.You asked how pregnancy can be an accident, I have explained the context now and I trust you understand. I'd recommend turning down your God-sensitivity. I wasn't involving God at all, I was just using a metaphor for something that is basically impossible (viz stopping people having sex is more difficult than performing a miracle). Perhaps you should look at the context that I was doing this. I was listing some inevitable consequences of having sex, in that context we can get both STDs and pregnant. I went on to say that as a society we need to decide how to deal with STDs and we also need to decide how to deal with unintentional pregnancies. I went on to highlight the differences between STDs and pregnancy by pointing out that the latter problem leads us to the debate we now find ourselves. That's fine, but since I'm not debating abortion with you, that doesn't apply. The point is that some people do not consider cell replication of a zygote a human life, so from their point of view they aren't comparing human life to anything, they are comparing cell division of one thing, with cell division of another thing. Its probably important that you appreciate this distinction, and on a personal note, appreciate that I certainly wasn't trying to draw any comparison between either human life and STDs beyond the fact that sex is involved. It depends on the woman, the man, and how often she has sex, when she has sex and so on and so forth. What relevance has this got to do with the fact that society needs to decide how to deal with STDs and unwanted pregnancy? That doesn't make any sense to me at all, let me explain. My girlfriend has a maternal instinct, she looks after me and she gets broody around babies, as a child she had dollies. Arguably her desire to have a permanent kitten is related to her maternal instinct. What is she being the mother to? My girlfriend is not a mother to anything, but she biologically geared towards having babies, including a psychological drive in built.The answer to your question is that one can have a maternal instinct and not be a mother to anything. Why is that avoiding the question?

I was explaining to you how I was using the term accident, its how the word is used in normal language. You want to use a different version of the word accident so that accidents never happen. That's fine. Let me advise you, as someone who deals with motor insurance accident claims, that somebody is always liable for the damage done - does that mean that I don't work in Road Traffic Accidents? According to my definition (which you asked about), getting pregnant can be accidental. According to your definition having intercourse and getting pregnant is not more accidental than driving and crashing, standing up and knocking drinks over, walking with shoelaces untied and tripping over...Rest assured, I was using the word in its more common usage, not your usage which seems to exclude just about everything. That's an accident? Surely the person who put the genetically engineered supersperm in there is liable for leaving it there in such a careless manner? And I think you are confused about risks, but it doesn't really matter. It is just a word, and I'm bored of the back and forth semantics issue. You asked me about the word accident. I told you I was using it in the sense of RTAs, the way the law uses the word. You provided a dictionary definition of the word, and I showed you how my usage of the word is consistent. If you still aren't happy then you'll have to deal with it somehow. I will also refer you to your own word usage 'mistake'. If that word is better for you, by all means replace my word accident with 'by mistake'. I mean it in fundamentally the same way. Yes, the death was an accident (but the injury might not be). Without intent to kill I'd be charged with vehicular manslaughter and dangerous driving (or some such thing, I say 'I' because I'm referring to UK Law, IANAL YMMV etc). Of course, that assumes I don't get declared insane for enjoying running people over.The same applies for someone who has unprotected sex and ejaculates in the female. Its highly risky, and irresponsible. No, hitting the ground is inevitable (assuming no bungee/parachute etc). You might accidentally get seriously hurt, the way that stuntment get hurt in tragic accidents. Yep. You are 100% liable for the injuries and death caused to others or yourself in your examples. Something not happening is difficult to describe as an accident, I suppose it could be done, but its stretching the usage of the word quite a bit. Accidents are events that happen as a result of a risk being realized. If an event doesn't happen, it would be unusual to refer to that as an accident. One could try and get into pedantic semantics and try and class 'not getting pregnant' as an event, but then you'll find yourself in lingual hell. And as earlier, it is no accident that you may or may not have a car crash...according to you. If you intentionally take a risk, and that risk is realized, its still an accident. Its only not an accident if you intended for the outcome to come about. That's how I am using the word - hopefully you now recognize how I am using the word and what I mean when I use the word. Hopefully that should be end of it. So road traffic accidents aren't an inevitable consequence of million of people driving? You should open an motor insurers - its risk free! I can only assume you mean something other than what you are implying with these three words. You cannot seriously suggest you can't crash a car as long as you wear a seatbelt and stay within the speed limit. Most accidents happen within 10mph, and very few speed limits are below 10mph. That seems closer to your own position than mine - after all women should suffer the consequences of getting pregnant, even if it is by accident (my definition not yours). That still doesn't make any sense. All I said was that STDs are an inevitable consequence of a sexually active population. We have to learn to deal with them. That is ALL I was saying. Are you trying to say that I am wrong and that:
a) STDs don't exist
b) STDs aren't a problem
c) contracting STDs isn't a possible consequence of having sex?I'm not comparing apples and oranges (or rather I am, but only to say they are both fruits). All I am saying is that they are both a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. I trust you now agree that this is so? Funny, I've not once put an argument forward FOR abortion or AGAINST abortion. Unusual debate that isn't it? You are debating abortion, and I'm not and I think that is what is causing your unnecessary confusion. It's more of a meta-debate than anything. See my actual points I raised in Message 128 to find out what I am actually debating.I think the confusion came in, when you responded with a bunch of one-liners (Message 130) which kind of blurred the context in which I said the things I was saying. These things were brought up for reasons.
Car accidents: to explain my usage of the word 'accident'
Living cells: to highlight the differences in the debate.
STDs: are a consequence of sex, like pregnancy. There is justification for it, you just don't agree that the justification is valid/applicable. My advice is you try your best to understand it though, otherwise you'll never understand your opponents and you will be forever debating it until you get frustrated with the whole thing and write your opponents off as crazy/stupid etc. I don't debate abortion because I now understand my opponents, its highly liberating. This was not being discussed in these contexts, maternal instinct was being discussed in the contexts of emotional issues that arise as a result of having an abortion (ie, one of the causes of suffering already felt, countering the concept that women should suffer (they already do)). I'd imagine they'd call it a paternal instinct. Its thought to be weaker than the maternal instinct, but your mileage may vary. If your paternal instinct is strong, it might be part of the reason you felt wretched after your own abortion incident. Yup. She is a DNA vehicle who is driven towards propagating said DNA. But more relevantly, what point were you trying to convey with these two words? The maternal instinct is to have babies. That means she might start to feel 'broody' and want to have kids. She eventually starts to feel the 'biological clock' and becomes aware that she has to have kids soon. Obviously it depends on the strength of the instinct. She has a maternal instinct whether or not there is a zygote to begin with. Once she has a zygote it notches up a gear into 'protect zygote mode'. Like anytime that we have to make an intellectual decision that goes against our instincts, it can cause emotional turmoil.Example, we are social animals and as such we (as a general rule) find murder reprehensible. If we found ourselves in a position where we had to kill an innocent little child in order to save a thousand innocent children, it can cause us severe mental trauma.Likewise, our instinctual drive is to have babies, but our intellectual reasoning might be that if we get pregnant it would cause more suffering to bring a child in the world than the suffering caused by aborting the pregnancy. It still causes problems because it is an emotional clash. Emotions vs logic. We can try and justify something to ourselves, but we cannot escape our built-in instincts.And hey, the maternal instinct is damned strong. I was born because I come from an unbroken line of unaborted pregnancies. Even if evolution was false, (but microevolution is true), we would expect to see the maternal instinct strengthen until it reached a sort of equilibrium.Just remember, the maternal instinct is not dependent on being pregnant, though it is often strengthened at this time (hormones are wonderful things). One can have a maternal instinct towards a non-human thing (dolls, puppies, kittens, my little ponies etc), so trying to use the argument 'because we have maternal instinct, the zygote must be a human life', is not going to get you anywhere I'm afraid.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 24-April-2006 12:46 PM

Heh - I was being silly in the "F's" thread. Because that's what people call them, and that is how language works. I was only saying that either getting pregnant can be an accident or driving and crashing isn't an accident. Since the latter is false (it is an accident) so the former is true (since it is either/or). My point was that there is very little that is accidental under your definition. Normally I know when I am leaving sperm about the place. If I wasn't aware, then the fault would be my body's - ironically called an act of god. It seems you (and hence the irony) are saying that only acts of god are true accidents.And that's fine, if you want to hold that as your definition I'm entirely cool with that. Now, I'm fairly sure I have explained my usage of the word and what I mean by it quite clearly now. If you go back to the posts where this started and look at what I said, and apply the meaning as I meant it, you should be able to understand what I was trying to communicate. If something happens as the result of a mistake, it can be said to be accidental. That mistake might be in thinking the condom will protect against pregnancy. It could any number of a whole host of possible mistakes, that result in the pregnancy. You think that the having sex is the mistake in all (or rather mostly all) cases. Personally I prefer to look at what seperates one situation from another. I could have sex a thousand times and not got anyone pregnant. Then I put the condom on wrong, it burst and someone gets pregnant. In this hypothetical situation I would consider the causative factor to be the condom application, since that is what seperates it from every other time. In this case she got pregnant due to an accident.Either way sex is inevitable, and we have to decide how to deal with its consequences. The crime is irrelevant really. I was assuming the courts had perfect knowledge. No, I was assuming the intention of jumping was to hit the ground. I covered the following: By using parenthesis (assuming no bungee, parachute etc), the implication was, that unless something stops you from hitting ground, your hitting the ground is inevitable. If you intended to not hit the ground and you did, then it was an accident, hence stuntmen. I never said that the participants in sex are not liable for the consequences of that sex. But driving within the letter of the law is not something that is possible because of human error (ie you discount errors of perception which could lead us to not drive within the law even if we think we are). And I am talking about a nationwide effect here. One individual can drive lots but never have an accident (one can have sex lots and never impregnate/get pregnant), but once you start looking at many many people driving (or having sex) the risks associated with them start to become an inevitability.To deal with car accident inevitability we could make it legal for 16 year olds to drive, but encourage them not to until they are able to pay for a crash. We can threaten the 16 year olds that if they crash they suffer the consequences (after all they were told not to drive) and have to pay up.It is one solution, but would it work? Another act of god. Such things are inevitably going to happen, and they wouldn't happen if you didn't drive. Should we tell people to not drive unless they deal with consequences, or should we work out an alternative system for dealing with this fact of life? Yup, insurance might not pay out (they certainly wouldn't if they knew you knew the bridge would certainly collapse, unless you had no other choice (ie in an emergency)). Likewise, if you had a high frequency of unprotected sex then the getting pregnant part might be accidental (and highly irresponsible), but if you did it with the intent of getting her pregnant (for the analogy, insurance fraud), then it wasn't an accident. Damn straight I do. The fact that liability exists yet they are still called accidents was something I brought up. As I said, it depends how you use the word accident. I was using it one way, you thought I meant it to mean something else. With that cleared up, my original comments should be clear to you. I wasn't being technical in the "F's" thread, I was being silly. I even stuck my tongue out.

The word incident has the same effect, so it seems unlikely. It is the definition you were using, not the definition you own, I was using a different definition, so it was convenience to use 'your' and 'my'. I don't need to, normally there are signals to indicate when sperm has left my body. I didn't use the word God. I used the insurance phrase acts of god. It means an event where the liable party is not suable (ie is not a person)...I thought I made that clear so my apologies if you still misunderstood. That's fine. You can fight against language evolution and scream as loud as you want about the 'true meaning' of a word, but it will do you no good. Even if you think your definition of the word accident should be the only definition used, you are going to have to get used to the fact that it isn't, otherwise you'll end up having epic debates about words (oh, wait...) True, and sometimes older and less accurate words are maintained due to naming traditions. It doesn't matter though, since everyday language is more flexible than scientific language since the need to be precise is not there. As long as the person knows what I mean, its fine. I trust you know what I mean now when I use the word accident. I'm not trying to justify abortion by using the word accident. That's just silly. You can't win on this point though, words have more than one meaning and you really need to get used to it. Its not so much using the wrong terms that becomes a problem (though if you use a term that has a specific meaning incorrectly you can get into trouble, because you aren't communicating well), its equivocation you need to look out for. Words may have different meanings, and if you are unsure of the way someone is using a word, just ask. You did, and I explained, then you disputed with me on the word, and now you are accusing me of equivocation to justify abortion (despite the fact I'm not debating abortion).You need to get over this, the way the word was being used should be clear to you now. Replace it with another word that fits better if it makes it easier. Right, and so it would be a mistake to think that you are the exception and that everything will be fine. Humans are good at that kind of erroneous thinking. So what mistake should people suffer for (remembering what started all this)? Yep. Did you read what I said? hehehe. That's a load of crap, of course. Even where (and when) abortion is not possible people will still have sex. OK, that's fine - but we still are face with the fact that sex is still going to be inevitable and we still need to deal with that. That's all I was saying. I never said it did. I said if you jump off a bridge, intend to not hit the ground and do, you've had a (probably nasty) accident. Of course, according to the definition you are using he intended to jump off the bridge knowing the risks so it was no accident that he got hurt. Still using different definitions. I ask you to stop using yours, and try to understand what I am communicating rather than what you think the words I say mean. If a million people have sex a million times, it is inevitable that some will become pregnant. If a million people drive a million miles, it is inevitable that some will have accidents. Once again , if you don't think accidents are an inevitable consequence of driving, there's not much help I can give you.I haven't a clue how many times I have had sex (but it probably outweighs the number of times I've driven by a hell of a lot). Not one pregnancy - but two crashes. It seems pregnancy isn't a direct consequence of having sex, otherwise I'd be a father many times over. Wouldn't dream of thinking otherwise. Likewise, unless you are doing it in a particular way there is nothing you can do whilst having sex that will cause 500,000 worth of damage and kill eight people. I wasn't saying that driving and having sex were the same things with the same consequences. I was saying that the both have consequences that we need to work out a way of dealing with. I highlighted one solution to the driving issue (legally allow teens to drive, but encourage them not to, and force them to pay for any damage they do as a result of an accident (it comes to something where I have to stress that I am using the normal everyday English definition of the word accident, not the specific definition accident that means that there is no liability) At best you have demonstrated we should not allow abortions in the cases where a couple intended to get pregnant. Since the entire conversation we've been having has been about unintentional pregnancy, its not much of a victory.

---

Please please please, stop this madness! You know how I was using the word accident, just go back and apply it. Any further questions can be put as a reply to my original comments.

Thanks rR,
Way back to Message 120 and beyond rR brought a few things up. He said that pro-choicers should admit that the reason they want abortions legal Which I highlighted as a good way to turn the opposition against listening. I also showed that people still suffer for their mistakes with abortion. Which I pointed out is simply asserting one's position to be right, and I made a minor digression which was meant to highlight that life isn't inherently precious (by someone hurting themselves on a nail and getting infected), but which span off with rR saying I advised rR that it was pregnancy that was accidental (in some cases), and he challenged me to show that pregnancy can be an accident. I showed him what I meant. I suppose I should have hearkened back to the nail type of accident. If I am doing carpentry without gloves (or gloves that are not 100% protective) and I cut my hand on a rusty nail, that would considered an accident (it was rR that thought that cutting yourself on a nail should be considered an accident). So given this kind of accident, I thought the use of accident apparant.Unfortunately after explaining about accidents for a while it transpired that rR had, for want of a better phrase, moved the goalposts. rR decided an accident was an 'act of god', an event where nobody can be held liable. Since sex is an intentional act, he seemed to have defined his way to victory.Unfortunately the kind of event he described as an accident (the nail wound) is most often the liability of the person handling the rusty nails. He knew the risks of handling nails. If rR does not consider this an accident, then his comment inferring that I was saying sex is an accident is non sequitur.I think we have a simple case of equivocation without intent. It happens sometimes, especially when you lose track of a thread. Its no problem and I tried to urge rR to go back and look at the way in which the word accident was being used at the start of the subthread. Unfortunately he either didn't do it, or didn't see the definition switch that happened.I'll close off with some Macbeth, warning those who would commit such equivocations deliberately (which I stress I don't think rR is guilty of such intent):

quote:

---

Faith, here's an equivocator, that could
swear in both the scales against either scale;
who committed treason enough for God's sake,
yet could not equivocate to heaven:

---

Perhaps, but in all fairness the rusty nail thing was the first thought on the topic rather than a new one. Why ask, the answer is fairly apparant. I have a feeling I know where you are going with it, so just go ahead and go there if that's what you want to do.

and Thanks. This seems like a good place to call this subthread to its close. I did enjoy chatting and appreciate you spending the time to express your ideas to me.

You're the one that brought up accidents rR. I brought up rusty nails for an entirely different reason to which you thought I was saying 'sex is an accident'. I assured you that was not what I was talking about, but that pregnancy could be considered accidental.I clarified (to death) what I meant by the word accident when I said it. An unintended event occuring as the result of a known or unknown risk coming about. You want to consider sexually active premarital couples as a moral hazard, but I argued that this is an unfair position because people are going to have sex either way (as opposed to say arson which people are not going to do either way), and its not like anyone benefits from having an abortion.Now you are either trying to continue pushing the 'acts of god are the only type of accident' or the 'in a deterministic world nothing is an accident' argument. I'm not sure how much clearer I need to be: I don't care how you define accident. You wanted to know how I was using the word. I know you aren't pig-thick so I know that you know how I was using the word.Let me clear it up once and for all.If I do a thing that has a risk associated with it (for example parachuting). Let's say that we know that one in 10,000 times the parachute won't open and I'll die. The parachute opens, and we call it a tragic accident. This is how I was using the word 'accident'. You can argue that this isn't an accurate use of the word all you like, but you cannot argue that according to my definition that isn't an accident.Probably the best word that's been used is 'unintentional'. If something happens that wasn't the intent of those participating (even if there was always a risk that it could happen), then I call it an accident.I'm not going to equivocate on my terms; I understand that the word accident can be used in different ways in different contexts. All you have to do is understand how I was using my words, and you'll understand what I was saying, and its very simple.'I accidentally got pregnant'is synonymous with'I unintentionally got pregnant'If you want that in contexts of the nail analogy we could look at it like this:'I accidentally got an infected wound'If your argument rests heavily on the word accident, you are probably arguing semantics. This thread doesn't need this constant repetition. If you have a point make it, if you want me to tell you how I was using the word 'accident' I'm not going to do it again. Look back at the thread to understand, I've spent literally hours underlining it already.

I know how you are using the word, you know how I was using the word. Is there anything else that needs to be added? As I said in my last post:

quote:

---

If your argument rests heavily on the word accident, you are probably arguing semantics...If you have a point make it...

---

I answered the question wrt the nail analogy:

quote:

---

If you want that in contexts of the nail analogy we could look at it like this:

​

'I accidentally got an infected wound'

---

I also addressed your meaning of the word several times. If you want to consider an accident an event which occurs where there is nobody liable then, Message 184:

quote:

---

I never said that the participants in sex are not liable for the consequences of that sex.

---

I agree with you. However, it was you that asked me to justify my use of the word accident when it came to pregnancy, which I did. It was also you that considered cutting yourself on a rusty nail as an accident, despite the fact that someone was liable for it. See Message 191This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 29-April-2006 05:28 PM