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

Really? One loses their innocence after having sex? Seriously? No wonder you were avoiding left and right giving me a straight answer to this.

What exactly do you have to back this up aside from dictionary definitions, because I am pretty sure people are technically innocent until proven guilty of a crime normally and as far as I know most adult sex is not illegal.

 

You are confused. You think you have to break laws in order to lose innocence. I didn't say sex was against the law did I?
http://askville.amazon.com/lose-innocence-age/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=5517680
Also seeing something bad you lose innocence.
Talking bad about someone you lose innocence
lots of ways to lose innocence besides breaking laws

 

What about sex = bad in your view if I may ask? So long as the sex is consensual I don't see sex as a bad thing at all.

Also from your own source one of the answers given is this,

So to say someone is not innocent because they chose to do x or because they saw y or because they said z, does not necessarily mean they are no longer innocent. Clearly the use of this word is very subjective and not appropriate for this debate.

 

It's not bad, but technically anyone who has had sex is not innocent either.
But let us just say everyone who didn't break the law is innocent and SCOTUS never ruled on Roe V Wade which took away all rights of the unborn, at least for the first 28 weeks(since reduced to 24 and even some restrictions after week 13)except that states have an interest in the potential life. BTW nothing potential about it, it is clearly a life.
What laws has the unborn broken?
how can you justify killing the unborn outside it's the woman's right? Now exceptions where danger to the mother, fetus and fetus already dead make sense, as it is a survival methid at that point, or a humane way to say I am not gonna allow this baby to be born into an extremely short life of suffering and pain, or no life at all.
In sheer numbers no abortions saves hundreds of thousands of lives. Yes I know they will happen anyways, but that does not mean it should be legal. If that were so, why do we have any laws? People are gonna break them anyways

 

I actually know what you are trying to say with the word "innocence"...BUT that doesn't belong in any conversation on abortion...

 

In your opinion only. You have absolutely no evidence to back this up. The use of the words guilt and innocence in these situations is purely subjective and will differ from person to person.

None. The fetus is not a person and is not able to break laws at this stage of it's development. It just is, doing whatever it does. Also I don't think anyone here has ever said the fetus was innocent or guilty. It is only the pro-lifers tossing out such pointless emotional jargon in the debate and making attempts to demonize women as if they are 'guilty' of some sort of crime.

It's just a bunch of stupid word games if you ask me.

How can you justify elevating the fetus to a status above the woman and give it a right that no other person has, which would be the right to use another person's body, or parts of their body for their own survival?

I redirect you to McFall vs Shimp if you are not already aware that no human, born or not has the right to use another human's body or parts of their body without their ongoing consent.

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html

The reason abortion is legal is because women have a right to make all medical decisions concerning their autonomy. To remove the right to abortion you strip them of their basic human rights and you would also be setting the precedent for others to use other people's bodies without their consent for the purpose of survival, a right, which I remind you, no one has.

 

It wasn't supposed to be a big conversation piece.

 

So basically you are comparing a developing fetus to someone being forced to donate an arm, or liver?
And yes people have tried to argue that the fetus is not innocent-
Disagree on the fetus not being a person.
You can say back it up, I already have backed it up on my reasonings for why the unborn is a person and deserves to be protected like anyone else
The fact it relies on the woman for survival is irrelevant to any other case of forcing body parts. It is unique in that it is required for the survival of the human species.

 

No, I am comparing the woman to someone being forced to donate her uterus and to put her own personal health and life at risk for another against her will.

Fabulous. I think the fetus is neither, but that's just me. As far as I am concerned you cannot be innocent of anything or guilty of anything if you are not even consciously aware of your own existence.

Then we agree to disagree.

That's not what I was asking you to back up. I was asking you to back up what exactly about sex makes a person no longer 'innocent' and to at least show a consensus of agreeing opinions on this. So far we just have your opinions and my opinions and we re disagreeing on this one too.

What's your point? So women must be forced to give birth for the survival of the species? I thought reproduction was a choice, not mandatory.

Also I hardly think we have anything to worry about with the world population increasing by the second. I still remember when we were at 6 billion, now we are over 7 billion and counting. I don't think we have much to worry about as a species.

 

So you are okay with abortion as population control?
It is a choice. She has a choice to have sex in most pregnanciess

 

If by, the population and number of kids I choose to have in my family, then yes. As far as abortion for population control of the world no, absolutely not. I recommend you to watch a film called It's a Girl which shows the horrors of forced abortion, coercive procreation and plenty of child murders, and by child murders I mean actually killing a born child.

What I am simply in favor of is women having the freedom to choose to keep her pregnancy without coercion to abort and the freedom for women to choose abortion without coercion to carry to term.

I really feel that whether she had sex or not is irrelevant. If she was raped she has the right to abortion, if she had consensual sex she has a right to abortion, if she took a turkey baster full of sperm to her womb she still has a right to abortion, if she was seeking IVF treatment to intentionally get pregnant she still has a right to abortion as far as I am concerned. We do not lose our human rights after we get pregnant, no matter how the pregnancy came to be.

 

How is a woman who has an abortion, morally any different from somebody like Casey Anthony (assuming she was guilty- for the sake of argument)? You argue that raising a child is very difficult for a woman, and that adoption/foster care is emotionally damaging to a child and it's costly to the taxpayers.

- - - Updated - - -

People do lose certain freedoms and rights when they become parents.

 

Casey Anthony did not have an abortion so I do not see how her case is relevant to the issue we're discussing.

Do you disagree?

Am I supposed to guess what rights they lose as parents or are you going to tell me?

 

1-Nevermind the casey anthony comment. It was rather off-topic.

2-No, not at all. What you said is partially true.

3-The right to have an easy and fun life at the expense of the child. There's nothing wrong with somebody who is a parent, going to parties, or spending money on frivolous things, hanging out with friends, etc, but those hobbies should never be more important than their child's well being.

 

Ok, well I am pretty sure 'having an easy and fun life' is not a right outlined in the Constitution or any basic human rights I know of, whereas ownership of oneself is one of the most fundamental rights, if I do not own my body who does? The government?

 

Women are motivated to terminate their pregnancies (ie, own their bodies) because they want an "easy and fun" life. They are not motivated by a desire to "own themselves", or to "control their body".

 

And how exactly do you know this?

And even if they do have an abortion because they want a "fun and easy" life there's nothing wrong with that.

In fact there's nothig wrong with ANYONE wanting a fun and easy life....

 

Life can actually be more fun with kids. Easier no. but anyways
You see nothing wrong with a woman having an abortion and myself and approx 50% see it as wrong. You see it as a fundamental right that a woman has control over her body. I agree as long as another human life is not at stake. Someone mentioned that nobody is forced to donate body parts to save a life. I however argue a woman is not donating a body part when she is pregnant. It is still very much hers and will be hers after the baby is born.

 

That "donating" thing has been explained to you many many times, and you still can't get it.


It her body not yours.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm going to keep asking until you answer: How do YOU know why every woman has an abortion?

 

It's not about me, so quit trying to assert it is, really takes away from the facts and I usually ignore it anyways
how do I know? Because I read WHY women have them and have talked to women that have had them
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/10/why-do-women-have-abortions-new-study-provides-some-answers/- just one site of many that has what you are looking for
http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/- another one

You are right I don't get how she can be donating something if she actually never loses it and ti never becomes unattached to her body
and you are right roughly 20% feel no law against abortion. and roughly 40% support a ban with exceptions to rape/incest danger to mother or fetus after first trimester (week 13) and another 20% support it but only for danger to the mom. the other 20% want an outright ban. I don't support an outright ban

 

Common sense and reading studies about it.

 

"Common sense?!!! LOL!

How, HOW would common sense allow you to read minds?

Answer: It can't.

What studies? Some anti-choice website? They don't count.



Try again.



and please don't do what some posters do, claim that millions of women have told THEM PERSONALLY what their reasons were....that is too phony for words....

 

Pretty sure he is talking about innocence in the religious/biblical sense, even though, of course, religion has little to do with abortion

 

Already shown you the laws the unborn 'break', and those laws are part of the fundamental basis of USA, the fact that you choose to ignore them is down to you.

Laws are made and enforced to maintain order in society, abortion has no effect on society as a whole .. name another crime that has no effect on society as a whole?

- - - Updated - - -

no need the evidence speaks for itself, if there had been a glitch then it must be a pretty intelligent one as it can still quote the first and last part of my comment but then leave out the bit in the middle.

Pretty obvious that you cut that part out.

 

The correct response to your highlighted portion of what laws the unborn broke is none. Abortion has huge affects on society as a whole. you think the families are not affected? They are part of society. You think the aborted fetus would not have impacted society? Of course it would have so yes abortions have impacts on society some are realized(the women the man the families) Some are not (the unborn who was killed).

Pretty clear you don't get what I didn't cut anything out means. I don't even know how to separate quotes let alone cut them. I don't care, nor have time for this game of yes you did I see it crap. I don't know, or care how a part of your quote got cut out. If you truely believe that seriously that I did indeed cut out part of it then blatantly denied it, then just stop talking to me. My life will go on. I'm tired of you insisting and even asserting I did cut it out, just because part of it wound up missing somehow