California Democrats say YES to gender selection abortion

1. So, if the doctor SAYS it's "life threatening"....you'd agree to the woman having an abortion?

2. You can't present ANY way that you can provide evidence that a woman had an abortion for "gender selection". In fact, you just created a way for the doctor (or the woman) to present CONTRADICTORY evidence....they can claim it was not "gender selection", but "life threatening".

Banning "gender selection" is merely a DISHONEST "pro-life" way to backdoor in a total ban. Because they know they can't do a full ban openly...they come up with LIES like "we'll JUST ban it for gender selection"....and then come back later "for more".

The fact "pro-lifers" have to lie about their agenda....shows THEY know...it's not the majority view.

 

1. Yep life threatening is one of the things I agree with
2. Sure if they want to be dishonest they can
3. The fact is pro-life is the majority. fact is a vast majority support a ban on gender selection abortions. No lies, only facts

 

1. You've just agreed to allow doctors to sign off on ANY abortion as "life-threatening" if they wish. How will that reduce the number of abortions if you made "all but some" abortions illegal???

2. You just admitted that it is IMPOSSIBLE to collect "evidence" to prosecute somebody for violating a "no gender selection abortions" law.

3. No, the majority are PERSONALLY "pro-life" (by a slight majority)....but a majority do NOT support banning abortion. "Gender selection" is a way for "pro-lifers" to get "something" and as I said "come back for more"....

and as you just admitted it is unenforceable....you also admit that the next move AFTER "no gender selection"...would be to further restrict abortion, right? Which the majority do NOT agree with, so you are using "gender selection" for a dishonest way to get "some" of your agenda....and hope you can get "all of it" later.

THAT is a lie.

 

Right then, now we move onto implied consent.

The law recognizes the idea of implied consent as involving "an inference arising from a course of conduct or relationship between the parties, in which there is a mutual acquiescence or a lack of objection under circumstances signifying assent" - Source : Allstate Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. : Page 713 - If a woman does not explicitly say no to sexual intercourse, for example, her lack of objection can signify her implicit consent to sexual intercourse. So, too, with pregnancy. If a woman acquiesces to the way in which a fetus makes her pregnant and expresses no objection, one can infer her implicit consent to that pregnancy relationship.
Yet once a woman does say no to sexual intercourse, it is no longer possible to infer her implicit consent - Source : Prosser v Keeton Page 114 - Once people indicate their lack of consent, even when on might reasonably infer consent, the law no longer recognizes consent as being present. Once a woman indicates her lack of consent to engage in a sexual relationship with a man, one can no longer infer from her behavior an implicit consent to do so. Even though a "continued course of practical joking" between people, for example, "may permit the inference that there is leave to continue it further ... once notice is given that all such conduct will no longer be tolerated," people are "no longer free to assume consent." - Source : Prosser v Keeton : Page 114 - To the contrary "no means no" and at that point a man imposing sexual intercourse on her is committing the felony of rape. So, too, with pregnancy. A woman who seeks and abortion by definition is seeking the termination of the pregnant condition imposed on her body by the fetus. Such a woman explicitly is saying no to pregnancy; she does not consent to be made pregnant by a fertilized ovum, and just as "no means no" in relation to sexual intercourse, so, too, does "no mean no" in relation to a pregnancy. - Source : The law recognizes that "conditional or limited consent is no consent at all beyond the terms of the condition or the boundries indicated" : Rolland M. Perkins and Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed. Page 1076
As there are two relationships, the sexual relationship with the man and the pregnancy relationship with the fetus, consent to one does not stand for consent to the other - Source : Consent to one thing does not necessarily signify implied consent to a "different or additional thing," for this reason, "consent to prolonged kissing and hugging is not consent to sexual intercourse," particularly when a woman explicitly indicates her lack of consent, "If a man forces sex upon an unwilling female, it is no defense to rape that she did not object to his lesser advances." : Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law Pages 1076-1077, citing as an example State v Myers, holding that a woman who engaged in "necking" with the defendant before he raped her did not "consent" to the rape. - Each relationship requires a woman's specific consent; the woman must explicitly consent to engage in sexual intercourse with a man, and she must explicitly consent to engage in pregnancy with the fertilized ovum. A woman's consent to pregnancy means she agrees to allow the fetus to invade her interests as represented by her body and liberty, a woman who seeks an abortion gives explicit notice that she does not consent to engage in a pregnancy relationship with a fetus. By seeking an abortion, she is actively expressing her explicit objection, not her implicit assent. Once a woman objects to a relationship with the fetus, there is no longer any grounds for inferring from her conduct that she implicitly consents to that relationship. Quite the opposite is true; her conduct explicitly asserts that she dos not consent to a pregnancy relationship with the fetus.

 

1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Wrong, especially after week 13. The rest of this response is the only lie I see. You Gorn are being ridiculous. Now if you want to stick to my actual position and the pro-lifes actual agenda we can continue talking, otherwise consider this conversation over

 

Might as well give up.... he will NEVER admit to anything when cornered even if you show his actual words that he posted. he'll just say you're wrong with no back up evidence EVER......I went around with him for fun...so if it's fun you're after with no real debate...have at it...

No anti-choicer has ever shown or explained how upholding illegal abortion works...they just gloss it over with , "oh, just like any other crime"....but nail them to specifics like HOW do you suspect someone of having an abortion and how is it investigated and they fold

 

I agree that consent to sex is implied consent to pregnancy. Now onto the cases you cited.
1. The first one I believe concerns if you do not say no to an act it can be implied as saying yes. This is wrong, as not saying no does not mean you are saying yes. A person can still be charged with rape, if he/she engages in sexual intercourse and the other person says I never said he could. Now this would not apply in implied consent of pregnancy. If you are consenting to to sex, you are implying consent for the consequences of sex. When that consequence results in the creation of a new human, which is the case of pregnancy, then she should not be allowed to teminate/kill that new unique human life, except to save her own life, or there is a problem with the unborn that would result in a painful and quick death after birth, or the unborn is already dead.

2. This one is concerning no means no. Now I agree no means no. Meaning if she is raped she is not consenting to the sex and can not therefore be implied to consent to the pregnancy, or giving birth. I agree no consent is given in this circumstance. Now in cases where she consents to sex, she is also consenting to pregnancy and giving birth. Now you can argue well consent can be retracted at any point. Right she can remove consent of being pregnant right up until she actually gets pregnant. after pregnant she can't remove consent, because the action has already occured. Now you can argue well OK but she can remove consent for giving birth. Well now there is another human life to consider. You can argue well a person can not be forced to give a part of her body to sustain the life of another. she is not giving up anything that belongs to her. In the shared relationship between fetus and woman their shared relationship it is needed for survival, but the unborn never actually takes it, it actually lives inside it. Her body parts are still intact and after the baby is born, they remain with the woman. Also you and I have gotten into this discussion about oxygen and nutrients I believe. That it is hers and hers alone is what you say. I argue that the oxygen and the nutrients are not hers, until her body uses them to sustain her. As you said a shared relationship between fetus and woman, so those nutrients and oxygen actually belong to both until the woman's body takes it for itself.

3. Now back to the first part of number two in cases of rape. Now I agree she never consented to the pregnancy, however I will continue to argue that now there is another unique life present, who had no say in how it got there either. Why should the unborn be condemned to death for an action it did not do? You can argue well why should the woman be condemned to pregnancy for an act she never consented to? This is where you weigh what is more important the life of the unborn, or the risks a woman is put under during pregnancy. I will argue that in this scenario the unborn life is more important.

4. Now I will also argue the woman should be able to save her own life. So if a life threatening complication occurs, then the risks the woman is put under override the life of the unborn in this scenario.

5. Bottom line consent is not one of my main arguments I argue in the abortion debate, but in cases where she consents to sex she is clearly implying consent to pregnancy and giving birth. Rape/incest has been a touchy subject with me and I used to support rape/incest abortions for the reason of consent. Over the years I have changed my stance as I believe protecting life is more important then the consent.

6. Can you think of any time where a person shares a body part temporarily, outside of pregnancy to save a life? I tried looking and couldn't come up with anything. Only thing I can see on sharing parts is conjoined twins and chimera twins(which is actually one person with two sets of DNA on certain body parts as it is a single organism), but that is permanent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension I found this, but ti talks about replacement not sharing parts.

 

You are right I wont admit to anything I did not do. And when you are wrong, I will call you out. I'm backed up by the posts.
I bet it was more fun for me, then for you. It hasn't been about debate with you for a long time. You do nothing but this crap all the time.
How other crimes work is exactly how it will work. It will be investigated the same way too.
No such thing as an anti-choicer, it's a lying propaganda tool used by the pro-choice movement, just like the war on women is also a big ole lie. So chalk it up as more garbage in your court

 

As we have already gone over the fact that it is not sexual intercourse that legally causes pregnancy, the legal cause of pregnancy is when the fertilized ovum implants into the uterine wall, then it is impossible to say that the consent to sex is implied consent to pregnancy. Furthermore legally there are two relationships present, the sexual relationship with the man and the pregnancy relationship with the fetus, and as the fetus would legally be seen as a mentally incompetent person it still has to gain separate consent to impose itself onto another person .. if it does not then legally it is causing injury, and even though it has no intent to cause injury and therefore can not be found guilty of any crime that does not give it the right to impose itself onto another person, just as a mentally incompetent born person cannot impose themselves onto another without consent.

You are still equating two separate relationships as a single relationship which sex and pregnancy are not, there is the sexual relationship with the man and the pregnancy relationship with the fetus, what you are advocating is a woman giving consent to sex to one person and as such she implying consent to another person to also have sex with her. The law is very clear on this, each individual person must gain individual consent for an action that invades another persons life and liberty .. if the fetus is a person, all be it a mentally incompetent one, it must still gain separate consent for its actions intended or not.
As to the resources being used, they are wholly hers, it is her that inhales the air, it is her lungs that process the oxygen from that air, it is her blood that carries the oxygen around her body and her heart the provides the pump to do so, without any of these actions the fetus would cease to live. The reality is that the fetus taps into these resources by invading the uterine wall, suppressing the local immunity and forcing the woman's oxygenated blood to give up is cargo. All of which, if not consented to are legally seen as injuries.
If you want the fertilized ovum to be legally recognized as a person then it must abide by the laws that govern that status, including the requirement for consent for its actions.
I purposely asked you if there was anything in my previous posts that you did not agree with, too which you replied there was not, so you must agree that there are two separate relationships involved and that consent is non transferable without the agreement of the person who gave the original consent ergo it cannot be implied that a woman who consents to sex with a man (one consent, to one person for one act) is also consenting to the fertilized ovum implanting into the uterine wall (a seperate person inflicting a separate act).

The how it got there isn't legally relevant, a mentally incompetent person may not have a say in how they got to a certain position or place, that still does not allow them to invade another persons life and liberty. A mentally incompetent person is also another life, and again, that does not allow them to invade another persons life and liberty.

Life threats are not the only justification for the use of deadly force in self defense.

Consent is THE main argument in abortion debates, and I wait for you to give the legal evidence to show that consent to sex is implied consent to pregnancy. I have clearly stated my evidence, with sources, now I request you do the same.

Consent is the corner stone of your country and it's laws.

There are documented cases of people sharing blood .. but that was done with the consent of the person who is doing the sharing.

The chimera twins issue is something I have already covered in another topic, but not wishing to move away from what we are discussing I'll not respond. The topic here is consent.

 

He was comparing the two situations to illustrate the concept of consent. He wasn't directly comparing the relationships themselves.

To support your opinion, give an example of that.

 

Then you reading comprehension is lacking, re-read Steve's reply and kindly show me where his is comparing the two situations of a sexual relationship and a pregnancy relationship and not treating them as a single relationship.

It's not an opinion it is a legal reality, and why should I provide you with anything when you never do?

BTW, go back and read my other comments you will find source references to the legal standings.

 

Your legal standing quotes didn't reference the scenario that you mentioned in your post.

 

Sex and pregnancy are related directly to each other. Consent to sex is implied consent to pregnancy. A woman is well aware that she can get pregnant if she has sex, just as she is aware that she can catch a disease. You talk about relationships between a man and woman then an unborn and woman. the act to get pregnant is the result of the relationship between a man and a woman. after she is pregnant then it transfers to the unborn and woman. Her consent to sex is her consent for the unborn to invade her life and liberty.
they are not wholly hers if she is pregnant, she shares everything with the unborn, therefore it belongs to them both.
Self defense does not apply in pregnancy
Consent is one of several main arguments to include right to life and the constitution when it comes to pregnancy.
You have shown zero evidence to state that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
I cant find the cases of sharing blood.

 

Again I remind you that I have already asked you during other comments if there was anything you did not agree with,to which you replied no.

A man is not the legal cause of pregnancy, he is a factually cause, but that is not enough to be the legal cause, the legal cause has to be necessary and significant.

I have already gone through implied consent and the legal standings on it, do you disagree with those standings and if so why and please cite actual legal precedences that show consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

consent cannot be transferred between two separate people for two separate acts without the agreement of the person who gave the original consent, what you are saying is that consent given to one person for sex is implied consent to another person for sex and that is just plain wrong.

I think you are finding the concept of two individual people involved hard to comprehend - if I consent to you borrowing my car does that consent imply that you can lend the car to someone else . .no it does not, the consent is to you and you alone, if you want to lend my car to someone else you have to get my agreement to do so, in the same way that the woman giving consent to the man for sex does not imply that implied consent is given to the fertilized ovum UNLESS she agrees, should a woman seek an abortion then she is explicitly saying no to the pregnancy relationship.

Only is she consents to share them.

Please quote the legal standing that applies to your assertion.

the right to life is not a main argument in abortion, all people have a right to life until they impose onto another in such a way that they cause serious injuries to the other person.

your constitution supports the right to self defense from non consented injuries.

I have given you plenty of evidence, with sources .. can you please show me your evidence with sources to show that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

First transfusions were two people hooked up to each other;

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p...JMvaOMfPgegF&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=900

 

Yuo are comparing two express consents. Basically I consent to you borrowing my car, then you consent to someone else borrowing. Two different acts. Sex is one act that you are consenting to. That act directly leads to pregnancy. You borrowing my car does not directly lead to someone else borrowing it. One act responsible for two actions(sex and pregnancy) verses two acts(me saying you can borrow and you saying someone else can)resulting in two actions (you borrowing and someone else borrowing)
She consents when she has sex
We have already been over the self defense issue. It's not an assertion. Even your argument for self defense actually supported my case that it did not.
The injuries incurred on the woman are from her own body, or through the implied consent to pregnancy.
You have shown zero.
Here is one for you signed by Gov Brown of California clarifying what sex is.
Its in regards to discrimination, but Sex is to include pregnancy and childbirth is mentioned before it goes into gender.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c484c10-a497-4688-8c77-1ce3e52f576e

 

Chuck Colson mentions it in one of his books.

 

So I should believe what you post because some guy I never heard of mentions it in a book ?

No.

What does "Chuck" think of people who call abortion murder and say it's wrong but hypocritically think abortion due to rape is OK ?

 

This thread has reached post capacity and is now closed.

Shangrila
PF Moderator