How would pro-choicers respond to this?

[Psychic Missile]

It is still a not uncommon result.

In a society yes, individually no.

[Roy]

It's obviously hyperbole! From my perspective. Should I have made things even clearer?

I think "yes".

Your statement may be hyperbole, and obvious to you, but how can it be distinguished from similar statements by others that are not hyperbole?

[Kristian Joensen]

How is pregnancy anything but a perfectly predictable result of sex?

Abstinence does not violate the laws of physics.

[Teallaura]

Having sex doesn't result in pregnancy 100% of the time or even, if proper use of contraception is involved, most of the time. For your average person in a first-world country, pregnancy is an abnormal result. Also, the fact that people have sex without the goal of pregnancy shows that there are other things that act was "designed" to do.

No, it only shows that people like doing it - not that sex isn't designed to result in pregnancy in most instances. Doesn't need to be 100% - it simply is not an 'accident' when getting pregnant by normal means, that is, having sex. Being stupid enough to expect not to get pregnant or cause pregnancy when having sex doesn't make the pregnancy 'accidental', either. Use of contraception is proof that you know full well pregnancy can result and therefore it is also NOT AN ACCIDENT. Unintentional is not accidental. Responsibility follows the act, which includes responsibility for unintentional but fully foreseeable consequences.

[Psychic Missile]

How is pregnancy anything but a perfectly predictable result of sex?

Abstinence does not violate the laws of physics.

I think you're misunderstanding the discussion. Pregnancy is a possible result of sex, but it is not an expected result since it is an uncommon occurrence for a couple using birth control.

[Psychic Missile]

No, it only shows that people like doing it - not that sex isn't designed to result in pregnancy in most instances. Doesn't need to be 100% - it simply is not an 'accident' when getting pregnant by normal means, that is, having sex. Being stupid enough to expect not to get pregnant or cause pregnancy when having sex doesn't make the pregnancy 'accidental', either. Use of contraception is proof that you know full well pregnancy can result and therefore it is also NOT AN ACCIDENT. Unintentional is not accidental. Responsibility follows the act, which includes responsibility for unintentional but fully foreseeable consequences.

People like having sex because sex is used for purposes besides pregnancy, and it is "designed" this way just as much as it is "designed" to result in pregnancy. Use of contraception is proof that people have sex with the expectation that pregnancy will not result. This is a reasonable expectation since, if contraception is used correctly, pregnancy is very, very rare. You're trying to argue semantics over the word "accident", and I don't find that useful. It really doesn't matter whether pregnancy is "accidental" or "unintended" or whatever word you want to use, the result is the same: a woman is deciding not to let someone else harm them.

[One Bad Pig]

People like having sex because sex is used for purposes besides pregnancy, and it is "designed" this way just as much as it is "designed" to result in pregnancy. Use of contraception is proof that people have sex with the expectation that pregnancy will not result. This is a reasonable expectation since, if contraception is used correctly, pregnancy is very, very rare.

No.

People like having sex because having sex is fun. People use contraception because they want to have fun without dealing with the natural consequence of sex. I would think this is rather obvious, whether or not it is 'useful' to further your narrative.

[Psychic Missile]

No.

People like having sex because having sex is fun. People use contraception because they want to have fun without dealing with the natural consequence of sex. I would think this is rather obvious, whether or not it is 'useful' to further your narrative.

I don't see how this is incompatible with what I said. I agree with you.

[Teallaura]

I don't see how this is incompatible with what I said. I agree with you.

Fun is not a consequence and therefore unlikely to be the design function. Pregnancy is a consequence - the most common one - and is therefore undoubtedly a design function.

You just ceded any legit claim to the 'accident' argument. Pregnancy that results from consensual sex is NEVER an accident. Since it cannot be an accident, the responsibility follows the consenting parties. The woman is therefore responsible for the pregnancy, regardless of her intentions. Ditto the man.

Your argument that the child is not tacitly invited by the act is now disproven. You ceded the only point that could have (had it been true, which it wasn't) supported your theory.

[Jichard]

Some pro-choicers make this argument:

Suppose that you are in need of a kidney transplant in order to survive, and that your mother is the only person who can provide you with a kidney and hence preserve your life. Do you have a right to use your mother's kidney? The answer is "No." Since you do not have the right to use your mother's kidney, a fetus would not have the right to use his or her mother's uterus. Hence, it would be morally permissible for the mother to get an abortion.

Some pro-lifers respond by saying:

The analogy between the person needing a kidney and pregnancy is not a good analogy. The uterus exists for another person's body. The womb was designed to provide nourishment for another human being. A particular kidney was designed for the particular person who has the kidney. It was not designed for anyone except for the person who has it.

How would pro-choicers respond to the response of the pro-lifers?

First, there's not a shred of evidence that any part of the human bod is a result of divine design.

Second, even if the human body was a result of divine design, that would not provide us with a justified reason to legally limit what people do with their bodies. For example, suppose that human hands were divinely designed for a purpose other than masturbation. Does that give us a reason for making masturbation illegal? No. Similarly, suppose that human hands were designed for a purpose, where that purpose would be frustrated by doing X (ex: X involves making obscene gestures meant to insult God). Does that give us a reason for making X illegal? No. In secular democracies / secular republics, we do not make laws based on what some people think counts as a divine design; otherwise, we'd be theocracies, not secular democracies / secular republics. Similar point for abortion; claims about divine design do not provide one with a justified reason to limit women's ability to get abortions.

Third, suppose one means "design" in the sense of natural selection, such that (roughly) one thinks "having a womb" was selected for due to the benefits the womb yields for offspring. This still would not provide one with a justified reason for legally limiting what people do with respect to abortion. For example, suppose that human hands were selected for a function that was not about using hands to make art. Does that give us a reason to make it illegal for humans to make art using their hands? No. Furthermore, suppose humans hands were selected for certain function Y, where Y could not be realized if one destroyed one hands to do something else (such as destroying one's hands in order to save someone else's life, or in order to defend oneself against someone else). Does that provide us with a reason to make it illegal to destroy our hands in this way? No. What evolution selects for does not act as a guide for what counts as legal or moral, as recognized by most sensible naturalistic atheists, regardless of the strawmen erected by some creationist Christians. Same point applies to abortion; claiming that abortion frustrates some selected for function, does not provide one with a justified reason to limit women's ability to get abortions.

Fourth, it's likely that what you call the "womb" (or at least parts of what you call the womb) have evolutionary functions that are for the mother, and are not just for the developing fetus. This parallels how other tissues/organs in a woman can perform functions that are for the mother and for the fetus. For example, when a fetus is developing in a woman, the woman's digestive tract extracts nutrients that are used not only by the mother, but are also used by the fetus. Similarly, the women's kidneys are helping to expel waste/toxins that might be harmful to both the woman and the host. Thus the kidneys help both the woman and the fetus. This means that it would be incorrect "needing a kidney and pregnancy is not a good analogy" since "[a] particular kidney was designed for the particular person who has the kidney [...] It was not designed for anyone except for the person who has it."; since both the kidney and the womb have benefits for both the mother and the developing fetus.



To recap: my first and fourth points reject the factual presuppositions behind the defense given in the OP, while my second and third point show that even if I grant you some the factual presupposition of your disanalogy, the disanalogy does not lead to morally or legally significant disanlogy between the two cases.

[Psychic Missile]

Fun is not a consequence and therefore unlikely to be the design function. Pregnancy is a consequence - the most common one - and is therefore undoubtedly a design function.

You just ceded any legit claim to the 'accident' argument. Pregnancy that results from consensual sex is NEVER an accident. Since it cannot be an accident, the responsibility follows the consenting parties. The woman is therefore responsible for the pregnancy, regardless of her intentions. Ditto the man.

Your argument that the child is not tacitly invited by the act is now disproven. You ceded the only point that could have (had it been true, which it wasn't) supported your theory.

How is fun not a consequence?

You're arguing semantics again. Under what definition of "accident" does unintended pregnancy not qualify? My argument is very simple. If a woman does not have consensual sex with the aim of getting pregnant, she is not "inviting" a child. You can only "invite" people intentionally.

[Roy]

If pregnancy due to contraceptive failure is not an accident, then death due to parachute or bungee-cord failure is not an accident.

[Teallaura]

How is fun not a consequence?

You're arguing semantics again. Under what definition of "accident" does unintended pregnancy not qualify? My argument is very simple. If a woman does not have consensual sex with the aim of getting pregnant, she is not "inviting" a child. You can only "invite" people intentionally.

Claiming semantics is the same as sending up a white flag - accident and unintentional are sufficiently different in meaning that the implications of one are different from those of the other.

Pregnancy resultant from consensual fits no definition of 'accident'.

Let's try the kiddie version first:

accident
: a sudden event (such as a crash) that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury, an event that is not planned or intended
: an event that occurs by chance

Since pregnancy results from sex, like travel results from driving, it cannot be argued to be 'unplanned' - the act carries the necessary result.

Grown up version:

1

a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>

2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident>
c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
d
3
: a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

In this case, 2c is the definition that best fits your argument. Responsibility, which you are arguing is absent, would not be present if no fault or misconduct were present. But fault IS present - the act has fully foreseeable and expected consequences. To assume otherwise is a fault, even if measures have been taken since the very presence of such measures prove that the consequence was indeed foreseen.

Accident implies lack of responsibility but that cannot be the case in consensual sex.


And since you asked:

Full Definition of CONSEQUENCE[/h]1
: a conclusion derived through logic : inference

2
: something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions <the economicconsequences of the war>

3
a : importance with respect to power to produce an effect <a mistake of no consequence>
b : social importance

4
: the appearance of importance; especially : self-importance
in consequence: as a result

Again, 2 is the one we're looking at. Fun is not a necessary result. Pleasant effect, but not a consequence.

Linguistic precision: not just for breakfast anymore.

[Teallaura]

If pregnancy due to contraceptive failure is not an accident, then death due to parachute or bungee-cord failure is not an accident.

Yep - those are both examples of death by misadventure. Jumping intentionally from lethal heights is necessarily not an accident. It is a misadventure, however.

Contraceptive failure, given its ridiculously high failure rates, is not a good comparison, however. Those misadventures you named are relatively rare; contraceptive failure is a daily occurrence making it not only foreseeable but quite possibly inevitable (failure can occur without resulting in pregnancy so it's quite possible that all women using contraceptives experience one or more failures without knowing it. I doubt a parachute or bungee failure, even survived, would likely go unnoticed.).

[Adam]

(I was trying to find a "Popcorn" smilie (unsuccessfully) when I noticed the screen was dim. So not daring to "escape" or "go back" I just pushed "submit"--and my reply VANISHED! Moral:don't ever try to add smilies.)
Teal,
I would think his preferred choice would be 1B.
And why did you make it so easy for him by high-lighting (blue) the key word "Chance"?
And as I tried to put in symbolic notation,
POPCORN, I'm following with interest.