"Person-hood" is not the defining factor in abortion

You can't be as dense as you are pretending to be.

No laws were specifically cites in the news story.

That doesn't mean that he was not charged with violating a specific law.

 

So in the news story no laws were cited (pretty standard) so unsure as to how that is relevant to the discussion.

 

I already explained the relevance for you.

If you can't lure a stray cat into a situation and then kill it (and claim it was self defense).... what makes you think you can do the same thing to another human being? A child?

 

Well as no one lures anything into any situation concerning pregnancy (I would LOVE to see you prove it) then the analogy is worthless and pointless.

Lure - verb - [with object and adverbial] - tempt (a person or animal) to do something or to go somewhere, especially by offering some form of reward:the child was lured into a car but managed to escape

noun - 1 something that tempts or is used to tempt a person or animal to do something
the strongly attractive quality of a person or thing

2 a type of bait used in fishing or hunting.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lure

I can only assume you are alluding to entrapment, which no private citizen can be charged with.

I really want to see how you can show legally that a woman lures a fetus into her womb.

 

By having unprotected sex. If the woman used birth control, maybe she didn't lure the fetus into her womb. But not otherwise.

 

Really!!!!

[face - palm]

 

Even with protection, she assumes a risk (and along with it the responsibilities) for the life she (and her partner) creates.

Everyone knows (or should know) that no BC product is 100% effective and that there is always a risk for failure.

I agree that it is a more than a stretch to say the couple 'lures' the child into the womb - by having sex.

The actual ACT of creating the child is much more significant and unquestionable.

The 'lure' thing came from the news article that was only being used to illustrate the point.

We can't claim self defense and the right to use deadly force against people (or even animals) without justification and the fact that the child is only in the womb as a result of the choices and actions his or her parents took to put them there? They (the parents) gave them the right to be there - with their ACTIONS.

That's consent.

 

You aren't even mature enough to dismiss my arguements. you just ignore my statements and make ad hominem comments.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with you. However, I was just trying to compromise with Fugazi so that he may understand my stance somewhat more.

 

Let me know when you have a relevant argument.

 

Go back and read my previous comments.

 

So you admit that sexual intercourse is just a risk taken. The law does not require a person to suffer injury for taking a risk .. True or False

Again only a risk

So your "entrapment" analogy fails

Since when did sexual intercourse create a "child", I always thought and medical reproduction research agrees with me that a "child" is created at fertilization and considering that there is only a 20-25% chance of a pregnancy occurring even that is a low risk. You can't even claim it is a precursor to pregnancy anymore now that we have IVF.

A moot point

Is pregnancy the same action as sexual intercourse . .Yes or No

If Yes then you are deluded and ignoring the biological facts. If intercourse were the same action as pregnancy then no MOP would work would it?

If No then consent to one act (intercourse) is not consent to another act (pregnancy).

For example, if a woman consents to heavy foreplay but does not consent to sexual intercourse, does her consent to the first imply consent to the second? If not, based on your implied consent reasoning, why not?

 

The risk taken is for pregnancy, std's and things like that.

Moot point.

A pregnancy which results from consensual sex is not an injury.

I'll take that bet.

Okay...

Doesn't fertilization typically result from sex intercourse?

You're grasping so much I can't even tell what point it is that you think you were trying to make with that^.

Aren't you a little old for birds and bees questions?

The consent was to the RISK for pregnancy.

Pregnancy is the result.

Child created has rights.... blah blah blah... we've covered this.

It might.

Implied consent would be considered unless and until she told her partner that they can not go any further.

 

Okay. Pregnancy doesn't always damage a woman's body.

 

It does. Pregnancy ALWAYS damages a woman's body to some degree.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-i...#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

 

Which is still nothing more than a risk, do we stop treatment for STD's because of the consent to sex?

Considering the law already recognizes pregnancy as an injury, the point is not moot, though your reply is.

you will lose, entrapment can be a chargeable incident only for government agents or officials, If the crime was promoted by a private person who has no connection to the government, it is not entrapment.

No, 15-25% is not a "typical" result. There is about a 15-25% chance of becoming pregnant in each ovulatory cycle - http://www.babymed.com/getting-pregnant/what-are-the-odds-conceiving-conception

Grasping at what, that the risk of getting pregnant is not a high risk and that sexual intercourse does not "typically" end it pregnancy, nor is it actually required in order to get pregnant .. more likely you are evading.

Usual evasion, answer a question with a question . .so will you answer truthfully?

Taking a risk does not blah blah blah we covered this already.

I'd suggest you check up on the law in this case, and I already stated that the consent to intercourse has not been given, so the implies consent foes not exist . .same for the pregnancy, no permission was given.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, it always cause damage regardless .. or did you not read the OP?

 

I did, still nothing relevant in it.

 

Are you equating a prenatal child with an STD?

Can a pregnant woman file charges against her prenatal child for assault based on the injuries caused by her pregnancy?

This is key...

If she can't do that?

Ask yourself WHY she can't do that.

You'll see.

CONCEPTION - when it occurs - is TYPICALLY the result of sexual intercourse.

True or False?

I'm not going to reward your diversion attempts.

Again I ask for you to consider WHY a woman would not be able to file charges against her prenatal child during pregnancy.

You claim the child is there against her consent, that it's a threat to her life, that it is doing damage and harm to her body....

Why can't the woman file charges and hold the child liable for all those crimes?

 

Because it's not a person under the law.

 

The UVVA says they are human beings (persons).

BUT... beyond that, this thread assumes that the child's personhood HAS been established.

So, I ask again... "why can't a woman file charges against her prenatal child for tresspassing, assault, etc?"

We all know that the answer is because the woman created the child and the situation (with the help of her partner) herself...

I just want ONE honest person on your side of the issue to attest to that fact.

 

Only under certain circumstances. This is not one of them.

Then in that case a woman could probably take her case to a judge and file a claim to remove the thing causing her injury, which would be the fetus.

 

Children (under our Constitution) are entitled to the 'equal protections' of our laws.

Agree?

 

If you really were confident in your opinions, then you would directly address my arguments.

 

No, you did that

As it stands now no, because she has no need to while abortion is legal and the fetus is not endowed with the same rights as a born person .. however under the scenario offered here I see no reason why a woman could not do so. So your question is irrelevant in the context of this debate, based as it is on current standings.

So you are advocating changing that law as well are you . .as that is the only way you are going to get a charge of entrapment against a private citizen.

False .. conception is not a typical result of sexual intercourse .. just because you change your original statement for one that you think will lead to an answer that suits your argument, doesn't change the fact that pregnancy from sexual intercourse is not a typical happening.

More evasion.

and again I remind you that your premise is based on current legal standings, or are you alluding that the law cannot change?

Not claims, facts, though the threat to life one is not one used in the OP, as even the most adamant pro-lifer would not stand against abortion in those circumstances (well one would hope they wouldn't).

Under current law she can't, bit like a women having an abortion cannot be charged under the UVVA, you seem to think that you can change that, so what makes you think other laws cannot be changed as well?

 

If the woman had unprotected sex, then she definitley should not have the right to an abortion.

 

OK sam, here is your assertion

"By having unprotected sex. If the woman used birth control, maybe she didn't lure the fetus into her womb. But not otherwise."

Despite having gone through this numerous times I'll do it once more just for you.

1. Giving consent to sex is not giving consent to pregnancy, the two items are entirely different actions, so even if a woman (& man) have unprotected sex the act of intercourse is not the same action as pregnancy, furthermore intercourse only creates the risk of pregnancy and the law states that no person can be forced to suffer injury because they took a risk.

2. To lure someone to do something means "to tempt then to do something or go somewhere, usually by offering them something" . .so please explain how a woman tempts a pregnancy, what does she offer?

Now please think before you post, or at least read the thread comments ... because what you have asked has been answered numerous times and I won't be doing it again.