You mean the man knows there could be consequences. But you don't believe that should apply to the woman.
Actually, YOU think she believes that which she obviously does not. Dishonesty in debate is not useful or productive.
What are you getting at? If she did believe it should apply to the woman then she'd believe that the woman should have known there was going to be possible consequences for herself when she had sex, which she obviously does not believe.
From what I can tell in this convoluted pile of purposeful confusion, this is where you began the derail into this new tangent to ignore the actual debate....though this may also play a role. "So you agree, her rights can still be violated even though her eggs are outside of her body. Yet you deny the man the same rights in this type of situation. " You are now trying to present her as some strange sexist thingy in a further attempt at avoidance....bad form sir.
YOU do NOT know what "she" believes or doesn't believe....why not try being HONEST and ask her directly instead of trying to have a point by falsely representing what you think someone else means or believes.....
I've noticed pro-choicers seem to hide behind ambiguity as much as possible to avoid exposing their inconsistencies and double standards. I wasn't really saying that's what the woman believes, but just trying to cover the possibilities and potential reasons. (i.e. If she's getting an abortion and that reason applies, then this objection applies)
Only in your opinion which is usually based on episodes of "Star Trek" and other fiction. You have NEVER proven Pro-Choicers have inconsistencies or double standards. Gee, it sure took you long enough to reply.... ..and my reply? Read Posts 178 and 180.
Because I can never pin you down on what you believe. You write in ambiguous language, and every time it seems you're obviously implying something, you go back and deny it, but still don't clarify what you allegedly meant.
Only in your opinion which is usually based on episodes of "Star Trek" and other fiction. You have NEVER proven Pro-Choicers have inconsistencies or double standards. Gee, it sure took you long enough to reply.... ..and my reply? Read Posts 178 and 180. You can never address a post and can only cherry pick...seldom answer direct (inconvenient ) questions. WTF did I deny? What is ambiguous? (SEE, there's questions you'll dodge, you never have proof of anything )
I really don't see how those who are CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED to WOMEN'S RIGHTS being UNAMBIGUOUSLY WRONG on ALL counts could ever be considered to be a positive "standard" since it is a direct violation of the Constitution.
My guess here is this "ambiguous" language you see is actually an inability to understand what the average middle schooler would easily grasp. I have noted many instances where this occurs with you....Perhaps an encyclopedia would be helpful?
Coy about what? You can never say....so as usual you have no point. I address posts and you don't seem able to...
So if a person gets a kidney transplant from a live donor does the person who received the kidney, and is now inside that persons body, not own it? Does the live donor still own the kidney that is now in another persons body?
The man created and owns the sperm he has until he donates it voluntarily, at which point it belongs to the entity he gave it to. Think of it the way you would giving $100 to St. Jude hospitals.
The woman also accepted it into her body voluntarily. And the terms of the transfer were likely not discussed beforehand. The man no more gave up the rights to the offspring of his seed than the woman agreed to grow it. It seems we're dealing with implicit agreement here.
right , women don’t realize they have consequences. They don’t realize that they’re going to have nine months of pregnancy. They don’t realize that they will have to go through the agony of delivery. They don’t realize they will be responsible for 18 years. Maybe somebody should tell them
One of the places where giving money to St. Jude goes to is research to save premature babies. Of course, a woman who chooses life at 16 weeks into her pregnancy is doing something that another family would pay many tens of thousands of dollars to do. Seems like a lot more bang for the buck just to choose life rather than donate $100 to St. Jude.