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

Seems to talk about marital privacy and contraceptives. That the govt can't dictate what you use in your home to protect yourself against pregnancy

 

It goes a lot deeper than that, it establishes the right to privacy which later rulings, such as Roe, included abortion.

Most states of the United States also grant a right to privacy and recognize four torts based on that right:

Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs;
Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts;
Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye; and
Appropriation of name or likeness.

The first one of these is the important one concerning abortion, the fact that abortion is a very private affair.

 

False. A pregnant women does have the option to avoid unwanted parenting and raising a child for 18 years. She can give the baby up for adoption.

 

That isn't an option if the woman (NOT you) decides it isn't.
You have it explained to you many times why it might not be an option so don't go there and pretend AGAIN that you don't know...

 

Immediate recourse from injury is legally justified, so your adoption mantra is irrelevant.

 

I don't believe that the physical effects of a normal pregnancy are "injuries". Try using a better arguement.

 

I don't really care what you believe, your fantasy is irrelevant compared to the reality.

What better argument is there than one supported by the law, or do you not believe in abiding by the law?

Oh and by the way this topic is about consent not injuries.

 

You mentioned that pregnancy is an injury in your previous post.

 

In the context of the issue of consent, not as the item of debate in this topic.

A person can consent to injuries being incurred upon themselves for example, piercings, S&M, contact sports & pregnancy .. however the second they revoke consent by expression or by action any further attempt to injure is illegal. I really do not see how anyone can dispute that NO means NO.

 

A person can revoke consent to injuries, but not if another person's rights are taken away. (ie, the baby's right to life.)

And you argue that the right to life is not inalienable. I never said that the right to life was inalienable. In certain situations (execution, war, self defense), the right to life can be taken away. You are misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I just don't think self inflicted injuries are a valid enough reason, to deny the fetus the right to life. So explain the reasons why the injuries of a normal pregnancy (ie, hormonal fluctuations, a new organ) are valid enough reasons to take away the fetus's right to life. In certain situations, such as when pregnancy causes life threatening or very serious health problems, I could somewhat understand your justification for abortion, but not in a normal pregnancy.

 

Erm, yes they can, as has been shown to you numerous times - McFall vs Shimp is just one example of this and you know that no person can be forced to use any part of their body in order to sustain another even if it leads to their death. Even a parent cannot be forced to donate a single pint of blood to their child (and remember they created that child) or are you alluding to the fact that birth makes a difference?

No I am not, all of the above are ok with you because you personally feel they are justified .. yet because you personally feel abortion is not justified you think it should be made illegal .. that is the classic state of making arbitrary decisions based on your own preconceptions.

Self inflicted injuries by definition (Of a wound or other harm inflicted on oneself - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/self-inflicted ) are injuries caused by yourself upon yourself, the woman is not causing the placenta to grow, the zef is. The woman is not causing the hormonal fluctuations, the zef is. The woman is not causing the suppression of her immune system, the zef is etc etc. Purely by definition these things cannot be self inflicted, IF, as you declare a zef is a 'person at conception' because then there is another 'person' involved.

 

Refusing to donate blood is indirect. An abortion is a direct way of killing the fetus.

 

Is that why you think abortion should be illegal even though you stated that it would happen anyway ?

 

Actually, being born is a gift from your mother, be sure to thank her....

 

Both end in death, you are now just trying finding justification in your opinion where none exists and we both know we have been down this road before, you lost the debate then so why do you try to re-kindle it.
There are diseases etc than are passed directly from the female to the fetus during gestation so the female in those cases is the direct cause of the problem and by refusing to donate she (or he) is the direct reason for their death.

If you feel a woman should be directly responsible for maintaining a fetus within her womb, why do you not feel she should not be directly responsible after the birth .. in both cases the fetus/child is her offspring according to you, so why does her responsibility to maintain its life end at birth, could it be that you, and other pro-lifers, recognize the fact that birth is the defining moment as to when a person becomes a reality. We could take it one step further, no matter how old you get you are still the product of your parents sexual intercourse, as they created you should they not be responsible for your well being for all of your life, or is it that you decide there is a arbitrary point when that responsibility ends .. tell me Sam when EXACTLY is that magic moment?

 

The crux of the matter is that according to you a person cannot remove consent if it adversely effects another, the reality is somewhat different, a person can remove/revoke consent even if it results in the death of the other person.

You have been given case law where this has been established and yet you still spew the same rubbish time after time after time .. this is a classic case of denial on your part, your unwillingness to accept that your assertions are simply wrong.

 

Can a person who adopts a child, withdraw consent?

 

Adoption involves a ton of legally binding contracts and paperwork.

Having sex does not. Perhaps you can see the difference.

 

Yes, they can it is called adoption dissolution if it is done after legal completion or adoption disruption before legal completion.

Dissolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_(law)
Disruption - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruption_(adoption)