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

And back on the cut out part. You originally posted at 807pm edited it at 809pm, did your edit include the last part? Perhaps I started responding to notifications at 808pm and that edit didn't make its way into my response. All I do when responding to notifications is respond hit the back button and respond to the next so on and so on. So if I start at 808pm(which I did my 308 post says 808pm) it's not gonna show the edit of 809pm when I hit the back button, it's gonna show your original 807pm post. About 817pm I refreshed and for whatever reason your edited post did not show up as a notification. hitting the back button is easier for me then constantly going to my page and seeing who quoted me.
Outside of that all I do is hit reply with quote and reply to people. I don't cut of block off. As I said not even sure how to do it. Someone explained it to me once, but I messed it up, so I just reply with quote and break it down

 

Wrong on the laws broken, unless you don't consider using someone else's body without their consent against the law, already shown you that no person can be forced to use their body to sustain the life of another, even if that means that-that person should die .. hell they can't even take any part of your body AFTER you die without your pre-death consent and/or the consent of your next of kin.

Read the highlighted above which is a contradiction. Firstly you say "society as a whole" and then proceed to highlight not society as a whole but a proportion of society. Whole means all:entire, it does not mean a "part" of, a part of something cannot be the whole.

So the families effected are a PART of society, not the whole of society - I'll add a note here that the majority of women who have abortions feel nothing but relief.

The potential of the aborted foetus is irrelevant, had I been born in another country to different parents I could have effected society, but I wasn't .. it's all pie-in-the-sky stuff to say that a thing MAY have effected society IF it was allowed to happen .. Ifs and maybes are like fairies at the bottom of the garden, meaningless once you hit puberty.

Oh i get what you are saying

 

The edit I made at that point was to insert one of the links that I had forgotten to do . .anyway, it really isn't that much of a problem, I only brought it up because there are pro-lifers here who have edited, cut and pasted my comments before in order to misrepresent what i have written, or just to simple ignore the points raised .. in truth I don't really believe you have done that, so let's just move on.

 

Was it you that said an unborn can't break laws, as they have no knowledge to what they are doing? Plus they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.
part of society does affect the whole society.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf this is one of the most pro abortion websites I could find. Found somewhere it says 90% feel relief a week after. What about a month, a year?
Actually it is quite relevant. It's not potential either. It affects society whether aborted, or not.

 

Intent is not required in order to commit a crime, and I think you will find that if you look back that I didn't say the unborn cannot break laws. I said they are innocent of the crimes of the rapist in reference to your position of allowing abortions in rape cases.

Cancer does exactly as it is supposed to do, so I really don't see what you point is .. just because something is doing what it is supposed to doesn't mean we are supposed to allow it.

Not really.

then you didn't look deep enough, here is a report from a non-biased organization, The American Psychological Association - http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx

Extract - The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.

or how about a study of 5,295 women over eight years of women of who only some had-had abortions between 1979 & 1987 - http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1992-39026-001

Extract - No evidence of widespread post-abortion trauma was found.

or a selection of what experts say about PAS

In a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Nada Stotland, M.D., former president of the Association of Women Psychiatrists, stated:

"Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as documented in numerous methodologically sound prospective studies in the United States and in European countries. Comprehensive reviews of this literature have recently been performed and confirm this conclusion. The incidence of diagnosed psychiatric illness and hospitalization is considerably lower following abortion than following childbirth...Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment."

Henry P. David, PhD, an internationally known scholar in this area of research, reported the following at an international conference.

"Severe psychological reactions after abortion are infrequent...[T]he number of such cases is very small, and has been characterized by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as 'miniscule from a public health perspective'...For the vast majority of women, an abortion will be followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings. This holds immediately after abortion and for some time afterward...[T]he positive picture reported up to eight years after abortion makes it unlikely that more negative responses will emerge later."

Russo and Dabul reported their conclusions of an eight-year study in Professional Psychology:

"Although an intensive examination of the data was conducted, controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent: The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any, independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion, regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming pregnant...Our findings are congruent with those of others, including the National Academy of Sciences (1975), and the conclusion is worth repeating. Despite a concerted effort to convince the public of the existence of a widespread and severe postabortion trauma, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma, even though abortion occurs in the highly stressful context of an unwanted pregnancy."

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/myths/post_abortion_syndrome.html

In your opinion and yet you provide nothing to substantiate that opinion, so please do provide anything that shows that a potential can effect society as a whole.

 

Cancer is also not a human. Cancer correct me if I'm wrong is cells not doing what they are supposed to do, or more or less defected cells regenerating the defect.

You say not really meaning you don't think you being part of society affects the whole society?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080609015634AATHk0h
http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionkeyissues/impact-on-society-abortion/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_abortion_affect_today's_world
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/civilize.html
http://www.lifeissues.org/breakingnews/2013/bn11-1-13.htm

bottom line everything effects society. There is nothing potential about the unborn. If it were potential then how can you abort it? It is obviously alive and there, not potentially there. You can argue potential human being, but it is not a potential it exists.

 

So please point to the part where I said cancer is a human?

The point being that cancer cells are human cells, just as a fertilized ovum is just a group of cells until differentiation, it is at that point that these cells are fixed into the type of cell they will remain. Prior to differentiation they can be ANY cell, be it a skin cell, brain cell etc etc.

Not really interested in yahoo answers as they are usually based upon a person opinion.

all of the above are biased one way or the other, can you not find a study conducted by a non-biased organization.

 

Difference is cancer will not be anything other then cancer, the zygote divides into the many cells that make up what every agrees is a human being. We disagree on when that starts
I'm not sure you are interested in any answer that does not agree with you
No i could not which is why I added pro choice and pro life findings

 

You are still missing the point, prior to differentiation every single one of the 200+ cells are EXACTLY the same, there are no heart cells, no liver cells, no brain cells etc etc etc

I am very interested in answers that both agree and disagree with the evidence I put forward (BTW this isn't just about me), yahoo answers are not reliable.

So we end up back at the beginning where I said there is no consensus or absolute, so you cannot claim as a fact that abortion effects society as a whole, you can claim it as an opinion certainly not as a fact.

 

it is a fact that all parts of society make up the whole society it is a fact that each abortion affects part of society.
My take is there are enough abortions that those parts are significant enough to affect the whole society. 1 million abortions. that's a serious affect right there alone. Try thinking about 1 million more babies. Not just yea buddy more population congestion. Even if the 20% number don't reach term 800,000
Yes every cell starts off exactly the same you are correct. Activating genes creates different parts that make up the human being as everyone agrees is a human being. I will argue that single cell is the start of a human being. I will also agree there is no consensus. Just as there is no consensus on whether women should have the right to abortion for any reason. Which is why we are left to debate on the subject for no other reason here, then to express our takes. I don't recall ever saying your view is wrong, just that we disagree and that's OK until an absolute comes about

 

If it is a fact then you should have no problem supplying the peer reviewed studies that show it to be a fact .. please do so.

Again you are factually incorrect, some of the differentiated cells will NEVER have anything to do with the zef, they will go on to become the placenta.

If there is no consensus then the best either side can do is say experts disagree .. and we do not make laws based on "I don't know".

Now you are mixing biology with social issues.

Problem is that pro-lifers have less basis in fact and legalities than pro-choicers.

and I don't recall saying that you said my view was wrong.

 

I am factually correct.
I have given you studies that show parts of society are affected by abortions. Plus it is a fact that women and men are parts of society. Please prove me wrong
problem is pro-choicers have the same basis and all they can claim is legality based off an unconstitutional ruling that SCOTUS to date has been reluctant to overturn but has been weakening overtime

- - - Updated - - -

I am factually correct.
I have given you studies that show parts of society are affected by abortions. Plus it is a fact that women and men are parts of society. Please prove me wrong
problem is pro-choicers have the same basis and all they can claim is legality based off an unconstitutional ruling that SCOTUS to date has been reluctant to overturn but has been weakening overtime

 

Then produce the peer reviewed studies to substantiate your 'factually' correct opinion.

Not that I have seen, please do post them again .. I don't mean the pro-life, pro-choice, yahoo answers ones either, they are NOT peer reviewed studies.

Not in the slightest, we also have scientific studies the directly refute pro-life arguments ... which is why the best either side can settle for is "experts disagree", and we do not make laws on I don't know.

It is only unconstitutional to pro-lifers, just as other rulings seem unconstitutional to others, and again you bring up the fallacy of Roe being weakened .. the main basis of Roe has not been weakened at all and it never will be.

now do you want to attempt to respond to the following -

Your comment - Yes every cell starts off exactly the same you are correct. Activating genes creates different parts that make up the human being as everyone agrees is a human being.

My response - Again you are factually incorrect, some of the differentiated cells will NEVER have anything to do with the zef, they will go on to become the placenta.

 

http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-did-my-dna-make-me.html- this si where I come to the conclusion genes being activated change the cells into the parts that make up the human being
the following links are examples of affects on society abortion has.
http://www.lawteacher.net/medical-l...y-positive-and-negative-medical-law-essay.php
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/16/the-economic-effect-of-abortion-billions-and-billions-lost/
http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionkeyissues/impact-on-society-abortion/
http://www.drhern.com/news-a-publications/26-abortion-medical-and-social-aspects.html
pro-lifers have the same scientific studies. Which is why there is no agreement
Roe V Wade was more then just undue burden on the woman. It has been weakened and will continue to be so. Laws can be made that make minors notify one parent. 24 hr waiting periods are legal. ultrasounds being shown are legal

 

Dead link



and a blog is not a peer reviewed study, blogs are opinion pieces.

Doesn't give a single effect on society, the whole essay is about the varying arguments of abortion. The only thing it alludes to is that the debate on abortion effects society, not abortions themsleves.

Sorry but if you think a pro-life site gives compelling unbiased evidence to support your claim then you are further from understanding what peer reviewed means than I thought.

and again this one deals with the effect the abortion debate has, not on abortion itself.

Fully agree, so do we make laws on things that have the answer "I don't know" or not?

The ground basis of Roe is that no undue burden shall be placed upon a women seeking an abortion, now what it comes down to is the courts determination of what 'undue burden' means .. no matter how many TRAP laws are passed it will not change the basis of Roe.

Ultrasound laws - Current Status



There are currently 5 states that have mandatory ultrasounds and viewing on their books, two are enforcement permanently enjoined by court order; policy not in effect, the other three have no legal requirement for a woman to look at the ultrasound or to listen to the description. So in effect the ultrasounds laws are toothless.

 

well if people can make laws legalizing abortion off of i don't knows. The court interpreted the 14th amendment to justify privacy and pregnancy.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_congress_pass_the_nineteenth_amendment#slide=1
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=43
the amendment has nothing to do with making new rules on privacy. It was completely revolved around a Civil Rights Act that was passed in 1866. The intent was clearly to give equal protection of the law to ex slaves. How it can be interpreted to mean something new was created is beyond me. I could see a much better argument of the 4th and 9th amendments extending to pregnancy, but SCOTUS correct me if I'm wrong in the Roe V Wade decision actually shot down the 9th amendment argument of the lower court and suggested the 14th amendment was actually referring to privacy.
All the 14th amendment was intended to do was enforce that the laws apply to all citizens regardless of country of origin, or color. Again please correct me if I'm wrong
4th amendment-The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now this amendment is clearly talking about unauthorized searches by law enforcement officials and military officials and has nothing to do with medical privacy. How SCOTUS can interpret that it does is beyond me.-- again am I way off?
9th amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is saying that the rights listed in the constitution can not be violated. It's a pretty useless amendment and does not mention, or even hint at privacy at all. All it is doing is the same as the 14th amendment in reaffirming all laws apply to everyone and laws can not be made that violate the constitution.--- am I way off base here?

 

The most compelling clause of the 14th amendment concerning abortion is The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution which states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.", privileges include the right to privacy as found in Griswold v. Connecticut, The first time the right to privacy was first established explicitly and you have to realize that a SCOTUS ruling effects more than just the case it is decided on.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Arthur Goldberg and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause. For the most later rulings, such as Roe have been made on the basis of Justice Harlan's substantive due process rationale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process

 

the 9th amendment can be used to defend any constitutional ruling. That's what the 9th amendment does it protects the constitution. But it doesn't mention anything new in itself. the 14th amendment due process means the same as the 5th amendment. All it was doing was extending that right to ex slaves.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/4/essays/122/privileges-and-immunities-clause
the privileges and immunities clause was intended to be an equal protections under the law clause as well as unifying the states under one government. and has been interpreted, or even forced upon us by the courts to be natural rights. Corfield v. Coryell (1823)
i think I shall make a new thread about the judicial branch.

 

That would be a good idea, I would hope that the members here who have a far better knowledge and understanding of SCOTUS and the Constitution would partake.

 

I hope so. I have found nothing in it off of my knowledge of it that would persuade the SCOTUS to rule it has judicial review rights or even constitutional interpretation. Silliest part is the defendant in marbury verse Madison was a founding father.

 

The role of SCOTUS is constitutional interpretation & Judicial review, that was established in 1803 in the case you referenced. TBH I am nothing more than a layman when it comes to interpretation of your constitution. I would hope that someone like Shiva_TD would come along and debate it.

 

I keep hoping for someone to. Yea I know that's the case that established it, but could find nothing on what led them to believe the constitution grants them that right.

 

You definitely want to talk to Shiva_TD about it then because he is the most knowledgeable I have ever seen on the subject of Roe v Wade as well as the Constitution and how it has properly been interpreted in this case.

 

This may be of interest to you concerning the reasoning behind the Griswold vs Connecticut ruling

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479

 

well on the constitution side it would be much more broad then one case. I'll have to find him