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

In that case, the man would not be responsible for HIS actions. Why do you expect a woman to take ALL the responsibility for the consequences of THEIR actions? The man can not force a woman to take the risks of pregnancy, and he can not force her to have an abortion (she may be pro-life). That is just a fact of life. She is the only one who can decide what happens to her own body. That said, if she chooses to give birth, then BOTH are financially responsible for the care of the child, not just the father.

It is not the responsibility of the woman to gestate and give birth to a child.

 

Same difference. You would be liable for harming someone intentionally.

 

so you only want the mother to be able to make a decision on the responsibility to raise a child? how is it fail for the mother to force the father to take responsibility financially or other but it is wrong to do the same to the mother

the rues should apply equally Im not saying a mother should be forced to have an abortion if the father decides to not want a child what im saying the father has every right not to assume the responsibility financially or other if he doesn't want a child and she decides to have it

- - - Updated - - -

yes but not murder if the intention wasn't to kill but to just harm

 

I want only the woman to make the decision about what happens to her own body.

How is it wrong to force a woman to risk her health and life and suffer permanent bodily damage in pregnancy? Seriously?

The rules can not apply equally. Life is messy. What you suggest puts ALL the responsibility on the woman. If the man is not legally required to take financial responsibility ( half of it) for the child, then he has no responsibility at all. He would not be concerned about preventing a pregnancy, and he would not have to deal in any way with the consequences of it. He would be free to skip away without any responsibilities at all.

 

your a blatant unadulterated hypocrite
so only a women can make a decision to take on the responsibility to have a child or not but a man cant? only a man is responsible for his actions and the consequences of those action and will have to live with those consequence but a women can decide not to if she shall choses

If you want women to be treated equal then you also have to except the bad with the good you cant say a women can decide to take on the responsibility to raise a child or not but not apply that same rule to a man you don't want equality you want superiority

 

No, practicallity.... do you want men to decide? Then THEY would be superior...and THEY aren't the ones who are pregnant.

And no, I don't want women "treated" equally...they ARE equal and as such have equal rights.

 

I am TRYING to reason with you. You are not trying to follow.

Do you think a man should be able to force a woman to risk her health and life and incur permanent bodily damage in pregnancy? Yes or no?

Do you think a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion? Remember, she may be pro-life. Yes or no?

The decision of how to deal with the responsibility of a pregnancy HAS to be hers, because she is the one impacted physically.

Here is the flaw in your logic. When a woman becomes pregnant, she is responsible for dealing the consequences of it, and EITHER choice takes a physical, emotional, and financial toll on her ALONE. She cannot escape the consequences of her actions, whichever choice she makes.

If she is pro-choice and chooses to give birth, the responsibility of the entire 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth (requiring a year of recovery)--that responsibility is HERS ALONE. If she chooses to keep the child, she is responsible for HALF of the costs and care, the same as the man is. How can you not see that the greater burden of responsibility falls on the woman, whichever choice she makes? How can you possibly whine about "unfairness" to the man?

 

another hypocrite
women can decide to either take on the responsibility to have a child or not she can terminate that responsibility by having an abortion but a man is forced to do so he is forced to take on the responsibility even if he choses not to there for only a man id forced to take responsibility for his actions and if forced to live with the consequences of his actions a women is allowed to reverse said actions by aborting the results of that action
Im not saying a man can force a women to have an abortion but he shouldn't be forced to provide support financial or any kind if he choses not to just like a women can make that same decision by having the kid or not

A man during the period a women is allowed to have an abortion should be able to decide if he wants to give support or not and should not be required to do so if he so choses

 

You are saying that even though women get pregnant because of their choice to have sex, they still don't have the responsibility to give birth to a child.

 

Then, if you want men to escape their responibilities as creators of children, call YOUR Congressperson and ask to have the laws changed...

- - - Updated - - -

You got that right!!!!!!!

 

And I will repeat this again I have already said it 3 other times
IM NOT SAYING A MAN HAS THE RIGHT FORCE A WOMEN TO HAVE THE BABY OR ABORT IT
WHAT IM SAYING A MAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A DECSION NOT TO SUPPORT THE BABY IF HE CHOSES NOT TO JUST LIKE A WOMEN IS ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT CHOICE TO NOT SUPPORT A KID BY TERMENTING THAT KID

if a women decides to keep the kid and the man doesn't want to have a kid and the women decides to have it anyways the man should be excused of any responsibility of that kid if he so choses

 

So these chemicals appear out of thin air then do they, they are not produced by the fertilized ova at all , and how the hell can they be 'lent' to the ova, are they returned to their owners at the end of the process. That is like saying that the ova and sperm are 'lent', which is just ridiculous.

The fact remains that the fertilized ova ( a separate, unique person in your view) produces the chemicals, hormones (they are not produced by the woman or man so cannot be 'lent') that instigate the numerous things that change in a woman's body, and as already stated and is a legal fact, any physical changes to a person performed without their consent is defined as an injury.

Basic biology - the woman does not 'provide' the required hCG that locally suppresses the immune system of the woman, this comes wholly from the fertilized ova and the placenta in later stages.

 

and do we deny full medical recovery to people who take risks?
do we force people who injury others to provide blood, organs etc in order to sustain the life of the person they injured?

Furthermore you are missing the whole point of the OP, I am not saying that a person who takes risks is not implying that they are accepting the consequences of those risks. The question is does consent to one person for one action imply consent to another person (which is what pro-lifers say a fertilized ova is) for a separate action.

The initial consent is to the man to have sexual intercourse with her, the risk is that she may become pregnant . .explain how that can imply consent being given to a separate person (fertilized ova according to pro-lifers) to sustain it's life (a complete separate action from sexual intercourse) .. give me any other example where consent to one person for one action is implied consent to another person for a separate action?

You also seem to be overlooking the fact that consent can be removed at anytime for any reason, consent must be ongoing. A woman may consent to sex with a man that does not imply he can have sex with her again in a few hours, if she says no and he does not stop that is rape, nor does her giving consent to one man imply that his friends also have consent as well.

You cannot have it all your own way. If a fertilized ova is a separate individual person protected by rights and laws then it must adhere to all the laws and rights of other people, not just the ones you cherry pick.

 

Good, then you understand whether the pregnancy results in a child has to be her decision.

I said this before...

If the man is not required to support his offspring, then he has NO RESPONSIBILITIES AT ALL. Why should he have NO RESPONSIBILITIES resulting from his participation in the sex act, and the woman should have the entire burden of responsibility? The difference is that now, the child exists, and it isn't fair to the child if the father doesn't accept his share of the responsibility for it.

Also, you are not considering that the man does have input in the decision in most cases. Taking away a woman's choice would also take away the choice of most men, and that would result in even more men required to support a child they didn't want.

 

There is no direct cause and effect relationship between a man having sex with a woman, and his friends having sex with her.

There is a DIRECT cause and effect relationship between a man having sex with a woman, and an innocent fetus (through no knowledge of its own) living inside her body.

 

Read the OP, it does not state that consent to sex is not implied consent to the risk of pregnancy. It asks the question of how consent to sex can be implied (or otherwise) consent to a separate person for a separate action.

You would deny her the medical care to remove the cause of the injuries she is incurring, or do you not know that medical care includes the full remedy to alleviate the condition. That is like giving someone with a tumor painkillers even though they could remove the tumor. So yes you are denying her the full medical treatment that could stop the injuries occurring immediately.

RE you item on the case of the woman in the coma - if It is the one I think it is then the courts ruled that the hospital cannot refuse to terminate the life support. - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ter-being-disconnected-from-life-support?lite

and I have never said anything about the life threat situation, I have consistently asked you why a pregnancy from rape and/or incest is different from a non rape/incest one, so far you have just given arbitrary reasoning why that is.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is the way your laws are framed, and as such no person can be forced to sustain another persons life regardless of the cause or if the other should die.

injuries caused when no consent is given IS breaking the law, the innocence of the person doing the injuring is not relevant.

so if you think abortion is that bad should you nor be storming abortion clinics, forcibly restraining the women within in order to stop them 'murdering' their 'babies' .. I mean you would try to stop a woman with a gun to a 4 year olds head wouldn't you, and according to you that is no different to a woman seeking an abortion. Surely you should be campaigning for women who have abortions to face the full extent of the law concerning (1st Degree) premeditated 'murder' even if that includes execution.

Then you didn't read the link given, the procedure is no different to a woman taking a pill everyday, it does not stop all human life from being produced, it postpones reproduction until such time the male is in a situation (married, long term relationship etc) where both parties are ready to have children, the procedure is then reversed.

 

The male has absolutely no responsibility to the woman or the zef while she is pregnant, he can walk away at anytime for any reason (even if he is married to her), after the birth assuming there is one then the responsibility is to the child not the woman, yet another reason why birth is seen as the start of person-hood .. unless you are advocating that a man should be responsible for the woman while she is pregnant, if so expect a whole load of court cases from pregnant women wanting the male to pay for her while pregnant .. can you accept that?

As far as I am concerned the same rule should apply to men as it does to women, if the man wants nothing to do with the pregnancy then he should be able to abdicate ALL responsibility after the birth .. but that would be for life, but then of course you would fall into the most hated thing of right-wingers it would mean more welfare.

 

Cause and effect have little to no bearing on consent, and your response still does not address the requirement for consent to be ongoing.

further more is there a difference in the risk of a woman getting pregnant because she gave consent to one man and not another. You have already stated on numerous occasions that a zef conceived via rape should not be held accountable for the actions of the rapist, so for you in the abortion debate consent means nothing.

 

if a women is given the choice not to have NO RESPONSIBILITIES AT ALL then that same right should be allowed to a man
and your are a blatant unadulterated hypocrite if say a man has no choice in his responsibility but a women does

 

I explained all that in excruciating detail multiple times. I don't understand why you still aren't getting it.

 

I am fully aware. Your point though I am not sure what it is.

It is against the woman's will if she does not want to be pregnant and you force her to remain so by removing any and all options for her to end her unwanted pregnancy.

 

This argument of it not being against a woman's will really cracks me up .. it reminds me of the "woman's body shuts down during rape" argument, the argument relies on the absurd assumption that the woman actually has a choice over whether her body 'adjusts' and fails to recognize that the reason her body 'adjusts' is due to the fertilized ova instigating the 'adjust'ments ergo logic dictates that it is the fertilized ova that forces her body to adjust, if it did not then the fertilized ova would be attacked by her immune system and expelled. The other part of this fallacious argument is that the woman (& man) somehow 'lend' the hormones to the fertilized ova in order for it to instigate the process .. one has to wonder when does the fertilized ova return the things it has borrowed from them .. its hilarious.

 

Why should the woman be forced to suffer through pregnancy and the pain of childbirth to have a baby by her rapist? It is absolutely sick and vile to expect a woman to carry a pregnancy that was forced on her to term against her will. It's like continually raping her for 9 months straight.