You bait a debate with something you know is unrelated and when questioned about it you switch to something else. In this case you baited by trying to say consent to sex = consent to pregnancy is related to consent to sex = consent to pay child support, when questioned on the validity of the relationship you firstly tried to assert again they were related and then switched to saying you were only debating the concept of consent. Bait and switch Sam and you don't do it very well.
I never said that pregnancy and child support were related. I only used the analogy of consent to sex=consent to child support, to explain why consent to sex=consent to pregnancy. I never said that pregnancy and child support were the same thing/related. Another misrepresentation of my position. Also, I never baited you.
Oh yes you did, do you forget your own words all the time; So in your own words you DID relate the two, and as such there is no misrepresentation of your position.
The fact that pregnancy and child support are 2 different situations (with some similarities-such as a parent's responsibility to their child), does not diminish my arguements about consent.
Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, regardless if the woman wants the pregnancy or not. That's like saying that consent to sex is not consent to child support.
You claiming "Consent to sex = Consent to pregnancy" does not make your claim true. An argument consists of 1) a claim " " and 2) rational or valid arguments that show why that claim is true. You are missing (2). I can claim the moon is made of Green Cheese but without support to back it up the claim is worthless.
that is not what is on the table here, what is-is your assertion and then backtrack that they are related. Your own words condemn you. Neither of your allusions have merit in the consent issue either. Consent to sex is simply not consent to pregnancy, you and others have failed consistently to offer anything of merit to dispute that and as such has no bearing on paying child support, in order to show any correlation between the two you first have to prove that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. Responsibility is defined as "The state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone:", there is no state or fact of having a duty to deal with an unintended pregnancy in the way you want, in fact abortion IS dealing with it. you also miss the point that the government has no interest in making abortion illegal, it has no effect on government at all and no effect on the population as a whole, where as unsupported children do have an effect on government via increased welfare or care homes and as such on the population as a whole via increased taxation.
Been down this road so many times with so many pro-lifers and to date not one has been able to offer conclusive evidence that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, it's just another of those soundbites they like to throw at the wall hoping some will stick.
Same thing when they are asked to show that the Zygote is a human. It is rare to hear something that is not fallacy after that point and never have I heard a valid argument. Consent involves "intent" to some degree. If two people have sex and both have expressed the intent not to get pregnant then there is no consent. If pregnancy does happen then it is against their consent. Accidents happen but this does not mean we consent to them. On the mans part he has not consented to the woman going through with the pregnancy should she become pregnant. This is the crux of the issue. Even if we could somehow show that sex is consenting to pregnancy, consent to continuing the pregnancy is a completely different. Only the woman can consent to continuing the pregnancy. Therefor the claim Consent to sex = consent to a child is false.
Notice that the cite you posted and every dictionary I have posted supports what I have said and not you. I have no further obligation to continue to do so. It's a baby as much as you dislike the fact, it's a baby in there.
You're getting hysterical. It isn't a baby in the context of developmental stage. From medical dictionaries: baby Vox populi A popular term for an infant, or the youngest person in a family, from birth to toddlerhood–circa age 2. See Blue baby, Blueberry muffin baby, Bollinger baby, Cloud baby, Collodion baby, Crack baby, Designer baby, Juicy baby, Test tube baby. McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. ba·by (bā'bē, An infant; a newborn child. Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012 ba·by (bā'bē 1. An infant; a newborn child. 2. Colloquially, in some usages, the younger child. Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012 baby /ba·by/ (ba´be) infant. Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
THEN you should be able to take it out at ANY time before birth, even 2-3-4 weeks. one month along, and give it a bottle and a diaper it and raise it on your own.... because that's what people do with BABIES... Why don't people do that???? Wouldn't it save the mother's time?? WHY don't they do that???? WHY can't you explain why they don't do that??? It's a BABY, a YOUNG CHILD.......why not ????????
Sometimes I say to my spouse , "Hey , baby! What's up!" Does that make my spouse a baby? According to you it does.... ( and we are both quite old but NOT in diapers yet! And being called "baby" doesn't put us there!)
you actually can experience the same hormonal fluctuations from an abortion as you can with a birth then you couple that with the guilt and regret of knowing you did something horrible and wrong
But they didn't and anyone who tries to make them feel bad and suffer mentally because of it is a a mentally depraved fiend.
Which is not what I posted which makes your post dishonest. Abortion doesn't involve murder no matter what you think. If your grandmother, mother, wife, sister, or daughter had an abortion would you call her a murderer ? Would you want her to suffer forever? Would you want her executed for murder?
Yep exactly the same thing that can happen to a woman who has given birth, yet we do not see the focus on the mental problems women suffer after having birthed a child .. oh no, that doesn't fit with the pro-life agenda and so MUST be ignored. Every respectable mental institution states that there is no such thing as PAS (Post Abortion Syndrome) Using the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS), Coleman, Coyle, Shuping and Rue (2009) published an analysis indicating that compared to women who had never had an abortion, women who had reported an abortion were at an increased risk of several anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders. Here, we show that those results are not replicable. That is, using the same data, sample, and codes as indicated by those authors, it is not possible to replicate the simple bivariate statistics testing the relationship of ever having had an abortion to each mental health disorder when no factors were controlled for in analyses (Table 2 in Coleman et al., 2009). Furthermore, among women with prior pregnancies in the NCS, we investigated whether having zero, one, or multiple abortions (abortion history) was associated with having a mood, anxiety, or substance use disorder at the time of the interview. In doing this, we tested two competing frameworks: the abortion-as-trauma versus the common-risk-factors approach. Our results support the latter framework. In the bivariate context when no other factors were included in models, abortion history was not related to having a mood disorder, but it was related to having an anxiety or substance use disorder. When prior mental health and violence experience were controlled in our models, no significant relation was found between abortion history and anxiety disorders. When these same risk factors and other background factors were controlled, women who had multiple abortions remained at an increased risk of having a substance use disorder compared to women who had no abortions, likely because we were unable to control for other risk factors associated with having an abortion and substance use. Policy, practice, and research should focus on assisting women at greatest risk of having unintended pregnancies and having poor mental healththose with violence in their lives and prior mental health problems. - http://www.guttmacher.org./pubs/journals/j.socscimed.2010.10.006.pdf Further reading; http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...ed-researcher-debunks-abortion-mental-health/ http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx Mental health Issue During Pregnancy an After Birth. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG045PublicInfo.pdf https://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/depression-pregnancy.html http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/postpartumpsychosis.aspx http://womensmentalhealth.org/specialty-clinics/postpartum-psychiatric-disorders/
No that would be you, by your own cites your were rebutted. It's a baby in there we don't have to change the English language to suit you.
So who is trying to change the English language? because as far as I can see we want to use the correct terminology, however you want to use informal terminology .. nobody has changed any words here .. all that has been done is to point out your incorrect usage, your choice if you want to use the false terminology in a medical debate, though don't expect us to accept the obvious misuse. BTW. Still waiting for you responses to the following; Your assertion - "Fetus don't damage, the birth process does and pregnancy is a perfectly normal process for the female human body. And yes the right to life trumps the woman being inconvienced by pregancy, only if that life in her severly threatens her physical health or life does her right then trump that right. " My response - n medical terms, even a normal pregnancy is an extraordinary condition. Hormones may rise to 400 times their base levels. A woman's respiratory system drastically changes, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume and a 15 percent increase in blood pressure. A new organ is grown in a woman's body, the placenta, and her entire circulatory system is rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus. The fetus releases a chemical molecule called phosphocholine which is also found in the nematode worm, the purpose of this molecule is to suppress the immune system and prevent it attacking the "foreign" object. "Another role for foetal transferrin receptors on trophoblasts could be to bind maternal transferrin at the materno-foetal interface, thus frustrating maternal immunosurveillance. This is similar to a mechahism used by schistosomes in the host-parasite relation where host proteins are bound by the parasite to escape immunological recognition." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37515 "During implantation, fetally derived cells (trophoblast) invade the maternal endometrium and remodel the endometrial spiral arteries into low-resistance vessels that are unable to constrict. This invasion has three consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother's arterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient content of blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placenta becomes largely independent of control by the local maternal vasculature. Third, the placenta is able to release hormones and other substances directly into the maternal circulation. Placental hormones, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and human placental lactogen (hPL), are predicted to manipulate maternal physiology for fetal benefit. " - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8115596 It would seem that the fetus causes substantial damage throughout the pregnancy and one wonders how the hell you majored in biology if you don't know these things. Furthermore pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injury in some cases and cited as a injury in some state laws. "Nebraska, which defines “serious personal injury” as “great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Nebraska’s statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury. Michigan’s statute does the same work, defining “personal injury” as “bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” In those two states alone they are not saying that pregnancy is like and injury, they are stating it IS an injury. The supreme court of California also disagrees with you on whether pregnancy is an injury - People vs Cross On Appeal - (1) Can a pregnancy without medical complications that results from unlawful but nonforcible sexual conduct with a minor support a finding of great bodily injury? Holding(s): (1) Yes, it can, and here evidence of the pregnancy was sufficient to support such a finding. Issue 1: Great bodily injury “means a significant or substantial physical injury.” This is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. In Sargent, the court found that the pregnancy itself that followed a rape, constituted a great bodily injury based on the severe intrusion into a woman’s body. In fact, none of the cases cited by the defendant suggested that medical complications or the use of force is required to support a finding of great bodily injury. Each of the cases instead acknowledges that a great bodily injury determination is to be made by the jury based on the facts as presented at trial in the context of the particular crime and the particular injuries suffered by the victim. Furthermore, Section 12022.7 does not make any such limitation. Therefore, the court rejects defendant’s argument here that a pregnancy without medical complications that results from nonforcible but unlawful intercourse can never support a finding of great bodily injury. Proof that a victim’s bodily injury is “great,” that is, significant or substantial within the meaning of section 12022.7, is commonly established by evidence of the severity of the victim’s physical injury, the resulting pain, or the medical care required to treat or repair the injury. Your assertion - Which has nothing to do with whether it is human, a human being or a person. My Response - Has a whole lot to do with it, as legally a fetus is not recognized as a 'person' until birth. Care to answer of will you just evade and ignore.
"A very young child, " Full Definition of CHILD 1 a : an unborn or recently born person http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/child Here's another Random House Webster's College Dictionary ba•by*ˈbeɪ bi(n.)(pl.)-bies (n.)an infant or very young child. Category: Developmental Biology a human fetus. Category: Developmental Biology And another, Yahoo online babyVariation Houghton Mifflin n.noun A very young child; an infant. An unborn child; a fetus. Correct English, you don't get to change it to suit your argument. I have no furthre obligation to continue to post the defintions which support my side even using those coming from yours which support what I have psoted. As I said, as usual when the pro-abortion loses their arguments it gets uncivil as you demonstrated. I have no desire to engage on such terms.
