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

Oh sorry for the confusion. In the sense did she do something to provoke the rape, no. Even wearing skimpy outfits does not give someone the right t force them self on you.

 

consent to one person for an action does not imply consent to another person for a separate action, and consent is ongoing, it can be removed at anytime for any reason, or for no reason at all.

Prove me wrong.

 

does something? you mean like buy a car against a spouses will?
harmless in effect or intention <searching for a hidden motive in even the most innocent conversation &#8212; Leonard Wibberley>; also : candid <gave me an innocent gaze>
in the case of the unborn it is harmless in intention, rapist for example it is not
also lots of other defs. fit unborn and not a rapist

 

Please show me where it says consent can be removed when doing so will kill a human being? When doing so will kill a human life?

 

and as has already been shown to you a persons intentions may not be to harm, the fact remains harm is being caused.

A rapist may have no intentions to harm the victim, yet harm is still caused.

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

 

The rapist made a conscious choice to infringe on the woman's bodily autonomy. The fetus is innocent. It did not.

 

Already have.

McCall Vs Shimp - http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html

Extract - The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue. A great deal has been written regarding this rule which, on the surface, appears to be revolting in a moral sense. Introspection, however, will demonstrate that the rule if founded upon the very essence of our free society. It is noteworthy that counsel for the Plaintiff has cited authority which has developed in other societies in support of the Plaintiff&#8217;s request in this instance. Our society, contrary to many others, has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another. Many societies adopt a contrary view which has the individual existing to serve the society as a whole. In preserving such a society as we have it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual&#8217;s body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live. Morally, this decision rests with the Defendant, and, in the view of the Court, the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn. This request is not to be compared with an action at law for damages, but rather is an action in equity before a Chancellor, which, in the ultimate, if granted, would require the submission to the medical procedure. For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence. [Forcible] extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the specter of the swastika and the inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends.

McCall died two weeks after the court case - Robert McFall died of a massive hemorrhage on August 10, 1978, about half a month after this court case was decided against him

In addition to being cited in analyses of tissue donation from a legal point of view, its ruling on the compelled use of the body of a non-consenting person to benefit another person has also been cited in legal analysis of the abortion debate and of women's rights during pregnancy.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ukP5IOP3iCkC&pg=PA152&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9fKIuN7EGQ4C&pg=PA358&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3mCPYXco6dkC&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Now that one is out of the way, would you care to attempt the other item of -

consent to one person for an action does not imply consent to another person for a separate action

 

so are you saying a rapist is innocent? I'm sure not. I'm saying the unborn is

 

That solved nothing. That case had to do with donating body parts without consent. And in same link it talks about legal obligations to help a stranger. Again please show me where it says consent can be removed when it means another human life will be killed? Another human being?
now on your consent comment as it applies to pregnancy
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assumption+of+Risk
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent
http://www.debate.org/debates/Consent-to-Sex-is-an-Implied-Consent-to-Pregnancy/1/

 

The rapist may not see it as an infringement of the woman's bodily autonomy, in his mind she may be the one leading him on.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?

There is a huge difference between what is intended and what actually occurs.

 

A zygot is ONLY a "child" in the mind of HOPEFUL parents. . .NOT in the scientific reality. When a woman WANTS a child, she does get attached very early to the zygote that is developing in her. . .in fact, when parents want a child, they begin to "love" even the "IDEA" of becoming pregnant and sometime even give the, as yet, inexistant zygote a name, they may even start saving for his/her college education, purchase clothes or toys for that "fantasy child."

It is the EXPECTATION and HOPE of the parents that give "life" to a non-existant child or a zygote. . .

When a couple, or a woman, DOESN'T want a child and she happens to become pregnant, she has NO ATTACHMENT to the cluster of cell that is at the early stage of development in her womb. . .it is no more to her than what, SCIENTIFICALLY, the zygote is: a cluster of cells that has almost no similarity to a child, but instead has a lot more similarity with the bloody cells she expels naturally every month.

The fact that a woman at one time in her life has NO desire to become pregnant and develops NO ATTACHMENT or "fantasy" about the zygote in her womb does not make that woman heartless or less of a loving mother to the children she might already have, or those she might some day have.

Every zygote is NOT MET to become a child. . .in fact, there is a large number of zygote that are ejected automatically. The fact that today's medical progress have made it possible to determine a pregnancy at a VERY early stage doesn't change the fact that, 45 years ago, women usually didn't know they were pregnant until much further in the development of the zygote, and thus many didn't even realized that they had "miscarried."

Knowing at an early stage that one is pregnant has good and bad sides: It is good, because a woman who WANTS a child, can very early take necessary precautions to nurture the zygote within her, eat properly, avoid alcoholic beverages, receive pre-natal care, etc. . . It is also good because a woman who DOESN'T want a pregnancy can terminate the development of the zygote at an earlier stage. However, it also has drawbacks, as it leads to very deep and painful disappointment for women who have TRIED to become pregnant, and suffer from natural miscarriage that so often occur at early stages. It is also more likely that if a woman didn't want to be pregnant and seeks an abortion, this may have been unnecessary because that zygote may have been expelled naturally within the first 2 or three months anyway.

But accusing a woman who doesn't want a child to be "selfish" and "deliberately killing her own CHILD" is ridiculous, mean spirited, and totally unfair. . . .most of all, it is NOT YOUR PLACE to JUDGE!

 

Good post.
Do you notice how the Anti-Choice men all act like what they think is important to women??
What would the poor things ever do if they found out the truth.....

 

Then you didn't read it ..

one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue

Our society, contrary to many others, has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another

and you do realize that the decision of this case has far further meaning than simply body parts. It ruled that a person is under no legal compulsion to take action to save that human being, or to even give aid. The judgement is not just specific to this single case.

The assumption of risk can be seen in other cases where people realize others have created risks, yet the voluntary expose themselves to those risks. A person who sees that someone has left dangerous objects lying around yet chooses to walk through them is said to have assumed the risk of the activity and cannot hold the person responsible for the debris that contributes to any injury, if we apply this idea to a pregnant woman, it would mean if she voluntarily agrees to be pregnant, she cannot hold the fetus responsible for harming her. On the other hand if she does not agree to be pregnant, the fetuse's harm to her falls outside of the parameters of her assumption to risk.
In general, even if the woman can be said to have assumed the risk that the fertilized ovum will harm her, since people are not bound to continue their assumption of risk, neither should she be bound. People who agree to box with others are allowed to stop boxing when the harm exceeds their tolerance. Even if we were to apply an assumption of risk analysis to pregnancy, therefore, it would not entitle the fertilized ovum to harm a woman unless she has consented to that harm.

The law recognizes the idea of implied consent, involving "an inference arising from a course of conduct or a relationship between the parties, in which there is mutual acquiescence or a lack of objection under circumstances signifying assent", 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 a fetus makes her pregnant and expresses no objection, one can infer her implicit consent to the pregnancy relationship. Yet if a woman does say no to sexual intercourse it is no longer possible to infer her implicit consent. To the contrary, "no means no", and at that point a man imposing sexual intercourse on her is committing rape. So to with pregnancy. A woman who seeks an abortion by definition is seeking the termination of the pregnant condition imposed on her body by the fetus. Such a woman is explicitly saying no to pregnancy, she does not consent to being made pregnant by the fertilized ovum, and just as "no means no" in relation to sexual intercourse, so, too, does "no mean no" in relation to a pregnancy.

There are thus two reproductive relationships, sexual intercourse and pregnancy, and consent for one does not stand for consent to the other. Each relationship requires the woman's specific consent: the woman must explicitly consent to engage in sexual intercourse with a man and she must also explicitly express consent to engage in pregnancy with a fertilized ovum. A woman's consent to pregnancy means that she agrees to allow the fetus to invade her interests as represented by her body and her 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 actively objects to a relationship with the fetus there is no longer any ground for inferring from her conduct that she implicitly consents to that relationship, in fact the direct opposite is true.

I have absolutely no interests in a members debates on other places, especially when the opponent has not go a clue.

BTW, I didn't fail to notice that you edited my full post in order to side step where that McCall Vs Shimp ruling has been cited in legal analysis relating to abortion and women's rights during pregnancy, but just in case you did 'accidentally' miss them here they are again.

McCall died two weeks after the court case - Robert McFall died of a massive hemorrhage on August 10, 1978, about half a month after this court case was decided against him

In addition to being cited in analyses of tissue donation from a legal point of view, its ruling on the compelled use of the body of a non-consenting person to benefit another person has also been cited in legal analysis of the abortion debate and of women's rights during pregnancy.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u...page&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9...page&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...page&q&f=false

 

How can you say that the woman is not guilty and then say she is guilty in the same sentence. Which is it? Is she guilty or not? And what is she guilty of?

 

says the person who then proceeds to submit their own 'flamebait' comment.

 

I didn't edit anything in your post. Yes but legally it's still legal to kill innocent unborn on demand, so the law has been wrong before and it is wrong now. Consent to sex is consent to the risks and consequences to include pregnancy

 

Are you kidding me?

 

Re-read you own post number #309, which quotes my post #307, the full post of mine reads -

your response, including the quotation reply part is as follows -

the parts missing are -

considering that you managed to get the last two sentences of my response, but 'somehow' lost the above, the only way this could happen is if you edited them out of the reply quotation.

 

So you are now denying the precedence set by numerous court cases that a person cannot be forced to sustain the life of another even if it results in their death, and TBH I really can't be bothered to debate with someone who doesn't provide ANYTHING of substance to back up their incorrect claims and opinions. If you think that just repeating the same thing over and over again without anything to support it makes it right, then you have already lost.

Have a nice day!!

 

Are you kidding me? First you say she is guilty, of what I am still not sure, then you say, she's not 'legally' guilty of anything, and then in the same breath say but most women are guilty of something.

I am asking you to elaborate on this and you are refusing to. Is it so hard to decide whether you think women are guilty of something or not and then explain what that something is? Or am I supposed to read your mind?

 

sure didn't and not gonna go back and forth about it

- - - Updated - - -

you do the same.

 

I gave you the definition of innocent. Yes she didn't break any laws, but that does not make her innocent

 

Which can be said about most of the earth's population... did you have a point?

 

So then what is she guilty of? Are you ever going to tell me or are we going to play the guessing game?

 

that was the point. For some reason a comment I made about the woman being far from innocent has spewed over into a huge debate over innocence

- - - Updated - - -

Having sex would classify her as no longer innocent by definition. Do i need to give you the definition of innocent again?