Question : Does giving consent to one person imply consent to another?

The fetus is innocent. What crimes did it commit?

 

The woman is innocent. What crimes did she commit?

 

I think the issue is confused by talking about "innocent life" and how it is always wrong to kill innocent people. For the sake of this argument, I am going to accept the idea that fetuses are people, and that they are "innocent." I have some misgivings on that, but I'll put those aside to make what I think is the greater point.

Take something like war. In order to wage war effectively, a military will be required to kill innocent people. The better the military, the less it does this, but nonetheless, it is an essential and unfortunate fact of life that it is impossible to wage war against another people without harming those who have nothing to do with the conflict.

From that, we can see that political goals most certainly can override the importance of innocent life. What we do in order to justify this is engage in a cost-benefit analysis. What is the cost in lives of adopting this policy? Is it worth it to achieve certain goals?

In my opinion, when it comes to abortion, it most certainly is worth it. I understand that a fetus is "something" like a human life. I don't really care to get into the science of it - I just think that the science has shown definitively that some fetuses are more "sentient" and "alive" than others, and that having an abortion at four months is quite a bit different from having an abortion at seven months. But the question is, what is the benefit of allowing it all around? The benefits, as I see it, are this:

1. Less poverty, because children are damned expensive, as is pregnancy and childbirth;
2. More individual autonomy for women;
3. Less state involvement in a persons medical decisions, which should only ever be interfered with in the case of insanity or an inability to be rationally evaluate risks;
4. Less obligations on young men and young women, who are already facing extremely difficult economic futures and simply cannot afford a child;
5. Less crime, because poverty is the number one correlated factor to crime;
6. Less people, because the overpopulation of the planet is a serious, serious issue that will lead to species-wide destruction if we are not careful.

In my opinion, the sum of these benefits is far greater than the benefits accrued by forcing women into back-alley abortions, placing their health and lives at risk, while also failing to alter the fundamental fact that these "murders" are going to happen regardless of the law.

 

You implied that the fetus was not innocent. What crimes did the fetus commit? Btw, I never said that the woman is guilty.

 

You implied the woman was not innocent. What crimes did the woman commit? Btw, I never said the the fetus is guilty.

 

Where did I imply that the woman was not innocent?

 

Where did I imply the fetus was not innocent?

I'm glad this stupid line of questioning you started has brought us back full circle. Please, do tell me where I ever implied such. I am interested in your response so that I may tell you why I never implied it and how pointless innocence and guilt are in this situation.

 

Here's the quote.

 

Yes, because there is only one person involved in an abortion, which is the woman and she is most definitely innocent. In order to have innocence and guilt one must first be a person.

So rather than implying the fetus was not innocent, I was strongly implying that the fetus is not a person to begin with. Do you see the difference now?

 

Explain why the fetus isn't a person. The fetus IS a person, because of the simple fact that size and location doesn't determine personhood.

 

Easy, a woman can abort it and not be charged with murder.

Actually it does.

Anyways, I'd love to discuss this more with you but I have to get going. Apparently there are some fires I need to put out at work and I have to go in early. (((((siiiigghhh)))))

 

no Sam you have never directly stated it but you sure have implied it numerous times

 

Sam , instead of babbling in circles and asking for the millionth time "What's wrong with adoption?" READ the other post I quoted here.

Really READ it...slowly. It is very well written in simple English and explains everything you need to know.

 

Sam , I know you're here...I sawwwww you ....so did ya read that post?

 

Which post do you want me to read?

 

What did I imply that women are guilty of?

 

Sex before marriage, which is a sin is it not?

sin - an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

If it is against 'divine' law then any women (or man) who has premarital sex is guilty are they not?

So when you state that premarital sex is wrong, sin etc etc which you have done a number of times you are proclaiming them guilty of breaking divine law.

You have also stated that a woman who gets an abortion does so for 'convenience' .. therefore you are implying she is guilty of placing her personal wants (or as you put it 'just so she can party') above the life of the 'child'

Just two of many, where you imply they are guilty of some transgression where there is none.

 

What does sex before marriage being a sin have ANYTHING to do with whether or not it's moral/immoral for a woman to have an abortion?

 

Oh, just the one I indicated in the post of mine you quoted....post # 253...it's right IN the post of mine you quoted....

 

and what does the above have to do with the question you asked .. here let me remind you;

You asked, I told you . .simple enough.

 

already told you when it is

 

Not sure where you get 4% from but here take a look at this
political view or fall along a binary; in one Public Religion Research Institute poll, seven in ten Americans described themselves as "pro-choice" while almost two-thirds described themselves as "pro-life". The same poll found that 56% of Americans were in favor of legal access to abortion in all or some cases.[SUP][61][/SUP]
lots of both's there which how i read it means neither. as 70 plus 66=136% so atleast 36% are neither correct? meaning little of both. I'm both myself depending on the circumstance

 

I must've missed it....why is it OK to "kill an innocent life"...

 

the woman is far from innocent.. and I said life, not person. should say human life

 

When that innocent life came to being through force aka lack of choice on the part of the woman. At that point the woman can make the decision to terminate pregnancy. However once she decides to keep the innocent life, at a certain point (personally feel week 13, but law says week 24) she can no longer terminate, except when her own life is in danger, or the fetus.
Doesn't make it OK, but it also gives the woman the power of choice she was denied in the beginning. Consenting sex, she has choice. so choice is not taken from her and it is not acceptable at that point to terminate except the exceptions Ive mentioned previously. The choices we make should not kill another human life, unless that human life came to be because no choice was given aka forced pregnancy (no consent) verses choice sex, consent to risks to include pregnancy