"If My Vagina Were A Gun"

yes you did;

now how about addressing the question.

 

Well obviously she cannot do what ever she wants with her vagina, for example pro-lifers don't want her to be able to allow a doctor to dilate her vagina and remove the unconsented "person" living in there that is causing her injury.

 

not if it were self-defence.

Your right you comment is an epic fail.

 

for a start you are making your own "pre-concieved notion fallacy" by assuming that people (who ever people are) are saying abortion is a right. The right is privacy, not abortion - abortion just happens to fall under the right of privacy and of course is not the only thing that stands in the way of the pro-forced birth crowd.

 

LOL absolute comedy. The unconsented person. SO which is it? Before you guys said it wasn't a person, now it is a person. Its good you understand that now. (Its a start)
If she didn't want an unconsented person living inside her then perhaps she shouldn't have chosen to put her vagina over a penis.
Again, she can do whatever she wants with her vagina just not the fetus. It was noted how you had to add that to your argument. She can dilate her vagina if she wants, no one is stopping her. She just cant harm the fetus.

 

Thus PFers contribute to the sum total edification of all of humanity a little bit at a time. An opportunity taken is an opportunity that has not been (wait for it) . . . muffocated . . .

 

Yep that's true most of what you post is.

Notice those little marks at the start and end of the word person, do you know what they mean .. here let me help you out, Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase other than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony. so no I am not stating the fetus is a person, that is just your projection.

what has having sex got to do with it, you do realise that consent to one thing is not consent to another don't you .. probably not.

she can do what ever she wants with the fetus as well as no person, in civil law, is legally obliged to allow the use of their body in order to sustain another.

also noted is your need to misrepresent what I wrote.

 

That depends on how you interpret the right to privacy.

 

Would that be unconsented only under rape or virgin pregnancy? Unconsented would mean that the sex was not consensual, consensual sex that leads to birth I guess would be a consented real human then? Broken condoms, birth control that does not work doesn't count, you know going in that they can fail so therefore the baby that results is made consensually between two adults.

 

What could be more private than a person's own internal organs? Every person has the right to determine what happens to his own body.

 

The legal interpretation as used by SCOTUS, what other interpretation is there legally.

 

I see you are trying to equate consenting to sex to consenting to pregnancy, to date I have not seen a compelling or convincing argument for that.

They are linked but separate actions and if you adhere to the pro-life idea of a person at conception then the consent given to one person (the man) for one act (sexual intercourse) cannot be seen to be consent given to a separate person (the zef) for a separate act (implantation), in order for consent to be transferred to a third party it requires the affirmation of the one who gave the original consent. Add to that-that consent can be withdrawn by word or action that explicitly says "no" .. unless it is contractual consent which requires an authorised signature, and even then that is not binding IF the consent given would result in injury to that person as per McFall vs Shimp.

 

Was the intent to create an image in the reader's mind of Confederate Soldiers filling her rusty old vagina with rocks, dirt, nails, and miscellaneous sundries, packing that big bore in good and tight with an old boat oar, and then hiding as a big cloud of dust came flying out, killing nobody but making everybody within 50 yards look like they had rolled in tuna salad and fallen into a pit of cats? If so, well done on the author's part.

 

. . . awesome! I thought I was capable of making the English tongue (ha!) beg for mercy as I use it to lick thoughts into shape but clearly I am but a dilettante in that regard in comparison to Smevin's incredible virtuosity. I . . . am . . . impressed.

As to the OP itself, the comparison of the right of gun ownership to human rights in regard to a vagina simply does not work as an analogy. It was a bad analogy by a bad poet in a failed attempt to 'create' an element of viability for an ideologically-based point. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. But do note that Smevin's post was incredible!

 

Only for those with a more than average interest in horse-(*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

Yes please do move along as you have nothing of worth while to add to the topic.

 

Sam,. you've often said you want to control women (then deny it and say "only evil women")....okay, WHO would do the "controlling"? The Government, right? Which in our democracy is "the public".

So you can deny it all you like, but you DO want "some" women to be "public property".....you just don't like it when people phrase it that way.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're an "evil woman"...who tries to do something with her internal organs that Sam doesn't like.....you have no rights. The State needs to control you.

 

Mcfall v. Shimp isn't binding anywhere but Allegheny County, PA

 

Except in Minnesota and Vermont.

Every mother in the US owes a special fiduciary relationship to her children and is prohibited from killing their children; whether it be purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, so how do you reconcile these differences?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably because that doesn't make any sense.

 

Sam contradicting himself...no, it doesn't make any sense. Of course he's only a teenager and has given very little actual thought to what he has been indoctrinated into believing.

He has in succession said-

A. He doesn't mind being labelled as someone who wants to control women.

B. Pro-lifers DO want to control women (and he has often said he is "pro-life").

C. Pro-lifers only want to control "some" women.

D. Abortion restriction laws DO control women but only "evil women"

E. Again, said that he does NOT want to control anybody

F. Again, saying pro-lifers support laws that control women and he supports those laws.

G. That it is "false" to claim that pro-lifers want to control women.

H. That "So what if abortion laws control women?"

and I. That if a woman does what he wants, he will not "want to control her".


(BTW, Yes....I can provide quotes and links to all of that)

 

SCOTUS had a preconceived notion that abortion is a woman's right, and thus the government has no right to intervene in people's private affairs.

 

guns don't give birth to human beings.. go figure... and it's only when she is pregnant that this is even an issue and it isn't her vagina that is the issue, it is the unborn human inside her.

 

Well the heart starts beating at week 3.
I agree with your exception on danger to the mother, and also I would add danger to the unborn, or if the unborn is already dead

 

Many pro lifers argue that abortion is acceptable if the baby was conceived through rape or incest, because in those situations, the woman had no control in how she got pregnant.

 

The woman has no control in how she gets pregnant, in the situations of rape or incest.