The Abortion Debate.............part 1

Yep, my quote .. yet again you forget that consent to sex does not imply consent to pregnancy

"One can argue that if a woman consents to intercourse, by implication sh< has consented to pregnancy. But even in legal terms, this is not true. Sex is not the same condition as pregnancy, it only creates the risk that pregnancy will occur. The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk." - http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/1998winter/w98_McDonagh.php

 

We can both agree that when (in your view - if) voluntary abortion is finally banned, this will be tested before the courts.

I believe they will rule that "consent to sex" is an assumption of risks for pregnancy and that the child created by that assumption of risks is entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Just like many other aspects though - there is only one way to find that out for sure.

 

I do not believe that the consent aspect would be tested if a case were to be brought to the Supreme Court even if the Roe decision were to be reversed. If the Roe decision will ever be overturned it will be so on the premise of a fetus being considered a person as it is mentioned in the original decision.
The consent aspect could and would never be considered because it is far too vague and the ramifications too broad to be a factor, not to mention entirely irrelevant if it is established that the fetus is a person.

 

I bring it up because you are trying to compare apples to car tires. They aren't relevant or similar in the slightest.

You're the one who wanted to make the stupid comparison, so I thought I'd ask how a child molester is the same or even similar to a pregnant woman. One is putting her health and life at risk to bring another human being into this world, the other is harming children on a deep emotional, psychological and physical level. How is that similar?

Yet you constantly ignore that women are always taking great risks to bring children into this world and you like most pro-birthers attempt to minimize the risks of pregnancy as mere inconveniences. It is so insulting. Now you want to compare pregnant women to child molesters. You disgust me.

 

Saying that once someone is born they magically become a person or should have more or less rights than an unborn child in ridiculous. The location of someone should not have any correlation with their rights. Thats like saying when i'm in my room I am a baby but once I go outside I am an adult.

 

And your theory is?

 

That's not the comparison that was being made.

The comparison is between abortions and child molestations.

Not pregnant women and child molesters.

Most women don't hire someone to kill (molest) the child in their wombs.

People who read my comments know that I nearly lost my own wife and daughter during a difficult pregnancy.

P.S. It's not about ME anyway.

Why do you keep trying to make it about ME?

I was disgusted first.

By those who can't even admit that the child is being killed or violated in an abortion in the first place.

 

People develop over time in the womb and out.
They do NOT instantly develop into a human being, it is a gradual process.

 

That's what I believe, too. But birth is the culmination of that gradual process, it marks the separation of the baby from the woman, and the baby has come into the world. It has achieved personhood.

 

Interesting signature you have "Everyone owns their body" it would seem though that you don't think that applies to a pregnant woman, and location in this instance is important .. when you are in room you are still an independent sentient being, you do not require an attachment to another being in order to survive. Birth is the non-arbitrary obvious time, it is the complete physical separation that makes a fetus/"child" independent from the life support of the woman.

 

Why do you keep linking to debates you are having in other places, they have absolutely no bearing on the debates here .. If you want to debate that particular item then start a thread here to do so, supply your evidence to support your claim so others can, if they wish, dispute it. Using a debate outside of here is pointless, especially as no one can add their points and evidence to it.

 

Irrelevant in the establishment of person hood for a fetus - not irrelevant in the establishment of a woman's rights to abortion, even of a fetus were to be designated a "person" under the constitution it does not necessarily follow that abortion would become illegal .. Murder is illegal, but there are still circumstances where it is deemed justified.

The establishment of fetal person hood is only a step in the overall debate of abortion .. one I believe that SCOTUS will never take.

 

Very true, yet until there is a mind there is no "person" .. oh and please don't make the same mistake other pro-lifers do, the brain and the mind are different things.

The establishment of the mind can be measured via EEG, prior to the mind being present EEG readings are sporadic, after they are constant, this is not some "magical" occurrence it is a scientifically measurable event.

 

But that is the whole point. 'in that debate I have proven "whatever" so it must be so...'
The best on yet was a debate he linked to in which there was no opposing argument, naturally he declared himself the winner.

 

So you are now admitting here that your comparison still makes absolutely no sense in the slightest.

Then I find it extremely sad that after experiencing this you still believe women should be forced to put their health and lives at risk for a pregnancy even if they do not want to.

I am not making it about YOU. I am saying your comparison is utter crap and totally nonsensical.

Abortion kills a fetus. There I said it. But you know what? A woman has a right to defend her body and protect it from unwanted biological actions. You already know firsthand that pregnancy and childbirth are risky, considering that all women should be free to CHOOSE if they want to take those risks.

 

She chose to take that risk. Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, in the same way that speeding makes somebody responsible for getting into a car accident afterwards. Besides, the vast majority of women don't have abortions to save their own lives.

 

Right and by that logic or rather the total lack of it one should not seek medical attention because the accident was consented to.

 

I link to them to save time.

If you are interested in my views, I share that previous conversation so you can see what they are.
If you have questions or points that I haven't touched on (before) we can go from there.
It's my way of being more efficient and to be honest, I would encourage you to do that same.
If you've already debated a point in a previous thread (or even on another site) and you think it expresses your views on something?
Link to it.

Then, maybe we can get past rehashing the same crap over and over.

 

So to you it is "crap", ok fair enough at least that gives me a better understanding of your position.

What happens on other sites is irrelevant to here, especially if it is a closed debate. If you feel the need to use the information on these other sites then do us all the courtesy of posting it.

 

I'll let you tell me how to make my points and how to post my comments and arguments when you let me tell you how to do the same.

Deal?

 

Fair enough, in future when you link to another debate on another site I will just ignore it as irrelevant.

 

That would be different from what you've been doing....

How?

 

What I link to is evidence of the point, what you are doing is linking to a closed debate, are you to lazy to actually link to the evidence?

 

There were multiple links and arguments made in the debate.

I don't feel the need to cut and paste all that here - when I can just link to that debate and you can see it in the context that it was presented in before.

 

and I don't feel the need to go chasing your evidence by reading through a closed debate, it is up to you to present it.