Why do you keep repeating ""Abstinence works 100% of the time""" ?? You can't learn to use the quote function so I can't expect you to understand anything else.....
"Human nature" includes a strong drive to engage in sexual intercourse. Suggesting that people should not engage in sexual intercourse is claiming that people can change their own human natures. While some people can deny their own human natural drives, at least for a while, others may have stronger drives or the situation may discourage that denial. In searching for a method of reducing unwanted pregnancies, it is unrealistic to suggest that people just deny their human natures.
And pro-lifers just want the prospective biological parents to accept the small risk that comes with that nature.
And Pro-choicers feel it's the person who is pregnant who gets to decide how "small" that risk is. ....NOT Bigger Government like Anti-Choicers want.
Except that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The best you can hope for is implied or informed consent both of which become moot when a person, by word or action, explicitly says NO. Nope, once the trigger is pulled you have no influence on what happens, where as there is plenty of influence a person can have on a pregnancy, and neither is the fetus innocent, it cannot be guilty or innocent, it simply is. To posses a level of guilt or innocences requires a level of mens rea which a fetus does not have .. however, that does not mean it is free to impose itself at will onto another person. - - - Updated - - - Hmm.. so you advocate your right to self-defence being removed in order to save another persons life even if that person is causing non-consented injuries to you .. good to know. - - - Updated - - - Which are nothing more than protecting the choice of the woman to consent to what happens to her pregnancy .. unless you can find a single conviction of a third person where the fetus died when the woman had given her consent . .can you? - - - Updated - - - Correct and it makes perfect sense.
Yep it is and for the purpose ONLY of UVVA type laws the fetus is a judicial person, just as the law deems a company as a judicial person and yet a company does not have the same rights as you or me. Furthermore even IF a fetus were to be deemed a fully fledged person with all the protections that status has it would also mean that the fetus would have to abide by the restrictions of that status ergo as a separate individual person it MUST gain separate consent to impose pregnancy onto the woman, without that consent it is legally causing injury and a woman has every right to defend herself from those non-consented injuries, furthermore the state has an obligation to help her in that defence.
As it currently stands a legal person becomes such upon birth as per your constitution - 14th Amendment Section 1. - however there are various definitions of personhood. Your constitution defines what person hood is as far a legal means are concerned,
Really doesn't matter, there are lots of things that don't "just happen" by your logic every person should have no recourse to change that. Sexual intercourse does nothing but create a risk of pregnancy (a very low risk at that) and no person is expected to suffer injury due to a risk taken. Legally just because a person consents to a risk does not mean they consent to the injuries incurred by that risk. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 I think you are being disingenuous, unless of course you are also totally pro-life ie no wars, no executions, no self-defence, no sending kids back to countries where they have a high probability of dying .. The fact of the matter is you know very well in what context pro-choice is used or is the correct terminology for pro-life really pro-forced birth? Really doesn't matter what reason is given, in fact no reason should be required. She made the choice to have sex, which has nothing to do with the choice of being pregnant, unless of course by you choosing to drive a car means you choose to accept any injuries incurred should you crash. - - - Updated - - - Utter BS as usual. - - - Updated - - - Gosnell was a criminal who violated already existing laws or are you not familiar with born alive legislation. - - - Updated - - - So what? - - - Updated - - - For you perhaps not especially with your stance of killing disabled newborns.
WoW! That's a stretch! - - - Updated - - - False, the woman is pregnant by her own actions. Liberals do not want to take responsibility for their actions, as usual.
You have no room to talk. You have stated that it is okay - even preferrable, IIRC - to kill born handicapped infants.
Ya, only Liberals have abortions... You're going to need more than bumper sticker philosophy in here ....
No, in that thread to which you referred to, I merely asked the question, the same question you just quoted me here asking. The only difference was in that thread it was specifically dealing with the handicapped.
How? I suggest you read up on pregnancy, perhaps you can then explain how a woman makes the sperm and ova unite, does she by sheer force of her mind guide the sperm to the ova? By your logic you get injured in sports by your own actions and as such you have no remit to any medical care. I'm not a liberal. I am for people having the freedom to consent to what others do to them . .you apparently want to allow the state to force people to allow others to injure them.
Did she have consensual sex? Rape victims who get pregnant are in the minority, still, the child is innocent. Isn't it interesting that everyone who is FOR abortion is already born. Now there's a bumper sticker for you.
And like most bumper stickers it makes no sense at all......but it's not the first time that old saw has been brought up by desperate Anti-Choicers .
not even relevant to the discussion as consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, at best you can go for implied or informed consent but both become moot the moment a person, by word or action, explicitly says no. you could say that consent to sex is consent to the risk of pregnancy but consenting to a risk does not imply consenting to the resulting effects, that is already established in law. If every single act of sexual intercourse resulted in a pregnancy then you would have a far stronger case for saying consent to sex = consent to pregnancy, it doesn't and you don't. eg. If you go mountain climbing you consent to the risk of falling and being injured, that does not mean should you fall that you consented to the actually injuries. You are still given medical treatment .. by your logic you should be refused. I assume that you regard the fetus as a person with all the protections that status implies, if you are then you must also accept that the status of personhood also carries restrictions one of which is that one person cannot force another person to sustain their life, in order to do so consent must be received. Consent cannot be transferred between people unless the person who gave the consent agrees to do so. The facts of the matter are that consent to one person (the man) for one act (sexual intercourse) is not proxy consent for a separate person (the fetus) for a separate act (pregnancy) and as it is not the man or woman that turns a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one (that can only be achieved by the implantation of a fertilized ovum which you consider a separate person and as such is held to the restrictions of that status) A woman must have the right to consent to the way in which a man necessarily intrudes upon her body and liberty when he has a sexual relationship with her, and so, too, must she have a comparable right to consent to how a fetus necessarily intrudes on her body and liberty when it has a pregnancy relationship with her, and while people may hold philosophical and religious views that connect consent to sexual relationships with consent to pregnancy relationships such beliefs do not alter the reality that each of these relationships involves different private parties, men and fetuses, respectively. For this reason, women must consent to two relationships, not one, that are involved in their experience of reproduction. Which is not relevant to the debate, unless of course you can provide statements from the unborn showing they are not for abortion, can you?
BS. I have numerous references where you advocate killing handicapped newborns. - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/246283-discussion-regarding-abortion-cases-birth-defects.html Post#10 - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/284855-late-term-abortion-lazy-women-desperately-sad-3.html - Post#27 - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/284855-late-term-abortion-lazy-women-desperately-sad-4.html - Post#38
I wrote that comment a year ago so I don't even remember the article. Why was this zombie thread resurrected?
