Yup, she can consent to be inseminated and she can consent to becoming pregnant. Whether you like it or not consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act. If you invite someone into your house (consent to have them in your house) that does NOT mean you gave them consent to eat all your food and beat you up.....or did you think it did??? LOL!
I see, so you view the fetus as a guest in the woman's womb that she can kick out anytime she wants. She did consent to letting that guest inside her house though.
Well, NO , she did NOT consent to get pregnant she ONLY consented to sex. With your "reasoning"(using the term in this case very loosely) because you consented to let a person into your house you ALSO consented to let them beat you up and eat all your food......why would you do that?
Translation: I consent to doing what I want, when I want, but I do not consent to being responsible for the consequences of my actions.
A more apt analogy might be that if you invited someone into your home and they fell unconscious, you consented to allowing them to remain there until the paramedics can arrive. You can't drag an unconscious person that you had invited into your home outside into the snow.
No, it isn't. My analogy was perfect....you just don't want to agree because it blows your "consent" argument out the window. AGAIN, you failed to answer my question. When one can never answer questions it means they haven't any answers With your "reasoning"(using the term in this case very loosely) because you consented to let a person into your house you ALSO consented to let them beat you up and eat all your food......why would you do that?
It's more like a guest you invited over was sick and threw up all over the floor. Then you kicked them out into the snowstorm.
Good grief you need to up your game. Obviously the woman going to the sperm bank is "INTENDING" to get pregnant so she is consenting.
It is not a good analogy. In a comedy club, if I dont like the content, or am being picked up, I have the right to stand up and walk out and not participate whenever i want to.
I've been to events where people aren't free to leave whenever they want. It would cause too much of a distraction (with them standing up, trying to squeeze through the crowded rows of seats while everyone is trying to focus on the performer). They have to wait until intermission, unless it's some sort of emergency. The woman entered the comedy club in the first place. She knew the policy. She's not going to be kept there forever against her will, but she will have to wait till intermission.
Lets say its is for the sake of this argument. Ok. So Now she consents to getting an abortion. Problem solved
Id like to see them stop you from leaving if you really wanted to. Is a security guard going to tackle her? Giv me a break. THey have no lawful method of keeping you there. The most they could do would be to ask you to leave. Which you were doing anyways.
That's a strawman. And not only that but it seems very discriminatory what you're implying, as if a baby somehow has more value "once it's been introduced to society". Sounds like a young woman being brought out at a debutante ball.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act....the end. They do NOT CONSENT to give them up...they are taken... ...and , AS USUAL, your post has nothing to do with ""Consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act....the end""""
It isn’t reasonable to say someone consents to the consequences of an action when the chances of those consequences are tiny. The chance of getting pregnant from any single act of intercourse, especially if you are using birth control, are tiny tiny tiny. It would be like saying that a tiny chance exists that you will be hit by a drunk driver anytime you get in a car on a Saturday, therefore if you get in a car you are consenting to being hit by a drunk driver.
The police choose to kill people all the time. So do the Military. Do they give up their rights when they do so?