It has begun. New Republican totalitarian Congress to ban abortion after 20 weeks

Except for the fact you are 100% wrong in your BS assertion that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, it simply is not. You are fully ignorant of how consent laws work and what they mean. So instead of spouting the rubbish you do why don't you actually do some research and clear the cloud if ignorance that you spew through.

Whether a "former fetus" is happy to be alive or not is totally irrelevant to the issue.

 

Yes it is a lie, pro-choice means supporting the choice of the person whether they decide to continue the pregnancy or not, the clue is in the 'choice' part of pro-choice, where as pro-life is about not supporting choice, it is about forcing women to abide by what you want.

We support the RIGHT to abortion, very different from supporting abortion.

For exactly the same reasons you support taking a human life in self-defence, or don't you support self-defence?

So you don't support consent laws and self-defence laws?

Never in doubt, however your disagreement is founded on personal feelings and not facts or law.

100% a lie.

 

Many people are unhappy that they were ever born. That's why it is so inappropriate for you to force birth on anyone.

 

Post of the month there.

/sarcasm

 

Why, because you believe forced birth is a good thing?

 

No, because it was a ridiculous statement.

 

Why????

 

Because YOU can't say how another person feels about being alive. Just like you can't say a dead fetus is good riddance. You can only speak for yourself.

 

No, the ridiculous statement this stemmed from was the illogical question Anti-Choicers always ask when they have nothing to actually say, " How would you feel if you were aborted? (drool, grunt)"

 

I never spoke for anyone else. Plenty of people say it for themselves all the time. AND where did I say a dead fetus is good riddance? You just made that up, didn't you...

 

Post exactly where she said any such thing. *knowing smw cant*

 

In order for me to be wrong there would need to be people having consensual sex that are unaware you can get pregnant from it. So you refuse to answer if you were happy to be born. Of course you refuse. It makes you a hypocrite if you say yes. So as I backed you into a corner all you can do is dodge and hurl insults exactly as I expected. Your angry posts scream lost argument. Very amusing.

 

Explain the attack from a fetus for us. You call it self defense but Ive never heard one woman anywhere claim self defense from a fetus. Ive only heard it referred to as pregnancy.

 

So IF someone said they were happy to be born what EXACTLY would that prove concerning abortion? How would that make anyone a hypocrite?

 

How do leftists know which fetuses wish not to be born?

 

Where did anyone say they know which fetuses wish "not to be born"?

 

No. You asked an asinine, rhetorical question. You backed no one anywhere. Declaring yourself the winner by such tactics makes you the automatic loser.

Not one person alive has the thought, "boy, im dang sure glad i wasnt aborted" unless this topic is being discussed. This isnt everyday stuff.

 

Are you suggesting those 50 MILLION aborted, if not aborted, would agree with abortion as used today....? I really don't think so and that's what all this is about. I don't think "Family Planning" would dare ask the question, since very, very few of those pregnant ladies would continue the process.

 

How do righties know which fetuses wish to be born?

Dont say all of them unless you have irrefutable proof.

 

Wow, you have just displayed your complete ignorance of consent laws .. here let me educate you . .what you are referring to in your comment above is implied or informed consent, both of which are reliant on the continued acquiescence of the person, once that person, by word or action, explicitly says "no" they are both rendered moot.

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

I do hope that is not to complex for you to understand, just let me know if it is I'll re-write it in simply grade school English for you.

It is an irrelevant question as far as the issue is concerned.

It does no such thing, except in your fantasy that masquerades as reality.

You really do have a strange sense of humour, there is no corner and you are the hypocrite not I, you have failed to answer a single question put to you by me, and believe me you do not have the intelligence to make me angry .. in fact I find you highly amusing.

 

It would illustrate that you are glad you werent killed by your mother but feel you can make that decision for others. Do as I say not as I did.

 

It is all here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html and here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html with all the sources included.

I doubt you will read it simply because you would be scared to confront your erroneous opinion.

 

No I didnt. Its a valid and on point. If you think otherwise its your asinine opinion as well. I wonder though how many people think its asinine to assume that if you have sex there is a chance you could get pregnant?
Ive never heard of anyone who didnt know that but apparently leftists were unaware sex can lead to pregnancy