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

1-

http://www.blessedhopechapel.org/articles/americanholocaust.html

2-The fact that gay couples can't get pregnant doesn't prove that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy.

3-What does "actor" in that context, mean?

 

1. Exactly abortion
2. You sure as heck aren't doing anything to make the killing illegal, in fact you support keeping it legal. Oh the liberation of women. LOL killing humans has nothing to do with liberation. And we are all property of the government, your hyper emotional statements do nothing to change that.
8. no slaughter is the facts. would you rather i use the word kill, or terminate
9. my comment has not been proven wrong by what you just said
10. do we withhld treatment for injuries incurred during pregnancy? nope, does anti abortion laws change that? nope
11. A pregnant woman's life is in no more danger then a hit in the arm in a vast majority of cases
13. Maybe got the state wrong.

 

Begging the question again I see, we all know a woman is a person, the same cannot be said for a zef . .but that aside, you still don't seem to comprehend that the woman who is raped does NOTHING to warrant the rape while the zef IS causing injury to the woman, injuries that more than meet the requirement for deadly force and ALREADY are deemed as serious literal injuries in some cases.

comprehension failure on your part, I didn't say they CANNOT get pregnant I said a lesbian couple do NOT require sexual intercourse in order to get pregnant.

ACTOR, practice. 1. A plaintiff or complainant. 2. He on whom the burden of proof lies. In actions of replevin both parties are said to be actors. The proctor or advocate in the courts of the civil law, was called actor.

 

1-If pregnancy wasn't an injury, would my arguement be valid?

2-What does that have anything to do with whether or not consent to sexual intercourse is consent to pregnancy?

 

Perhaps in your myopic world of no choice it does, thankfully that is not the reality, and you still haven't disputed that pro-life means forced pregnancy and birth.

Nope, because there is not reason to, there are other better ways to reduce abortion without having to make a pregnant woman property of the state based on some minority fetus worshiping zealots.

I support keeping it legal because making it illegal serves no purpose what so ever, history proves that as does comparison with other countries, the fact you choose to ignore that speaks volumes about the real intent.

You may feel yourself to be property of the government, I for one do not.

Really couldn't careless, they are all emotionally charged and serve no real purpose.

do you even know what an appeal to popularity is, here let me help you - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Yes you want to withhold the woman's right to avail herself completely of the injuries, that is like giving someone with gallstone pain relief but refusing to remove them or stitching up a bullet wound while leaving the bullet (which could be removed).

Which is irrelevant to the situation, you keep on about this "life in danger" mantra when I have already shown on numerous occasions that deadly force in self defence does not require for the life to be in danger, and the rest of the comment just goes to show how little you actually know about pregnancy. Each of the injuries on its own do not justify deadly force .. however, the cumulative effect does.

Then DO please find the right one, because of the research I have done there is not a single state that allows a 13 year old girl to give consent to sex.

 

You need to go back and follow the discussion between SteveJa and myself instead of just jumping in ..

 

Do you want to know what happens in a society that is 100% anti-abortion?

Take a look at Savita Halappanavar, an Indian woman who was denied a life saving abortion in a hospital in Ireland because the abortion laws over there are so strict and so confusing to physicians as to when it is most appropriate to give a woman an abortion.

You'd think that if she was dying of sepsis on the table they would just do it, especially since the fetus was already proven to be dead inside of her. But they refused, so now she is dead too.

Anti-abortion laws mean nothing but pain and death for women.

 

Women who have abortions to save their own lives are the exception to the rule. Most women who have abortions, do so for unnecessary reasons.

 

I am not sure how you confuse anti abortion with anti choice. Very troubling how you put the two together
If you insist on asserting your own intents on my behalf why am i taking the time to talk to you.
Pretty much killed this post

 

I don't support 100% no abortion. I support exceptions, one being the example you gave of life threatening to the woman. I also support abortion when the fetus is dead.
I do not support abortion on demand, what I support is a balance. noone is put higher then the other, no matter how hard some try to say otherwise

 

In your opinion.

 

And I support allowing all women to make their own medical decisions governing their bodies. Pregnancy has so many side effects and health issues attached to it and their is always a risk of death. Considering this women should be allowed to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancies and it should not be a decision that the state has power over. My body does not belong to the state, or to society, it belongs to me.

There is no balance in a pregnancy, it is a conflict of rights. Does the fetus have the right to live? Does the woman have the right to remove anything she wants from her own uterus? They cannot be equal in this situation, someone's rights will always come first over the other's in this issue.

 

Why should the woman's rights override the fetus's rights?

Here's why I think the fetus's rights should come first. The fetus is innocent. It didn't chose to invade the woman's body. The woman, regardless of whether or not she gived permission for the fetus to be there, is directly responsible for it being inside of her body.

 

Here's why I think the woman's rights should come first. It is the woman's body. If she doesn't want to sacrifice her health, body and freedom to gestate a fetus, there's no reason she should be forced to. And btw, the woman is no more than 50% responsible for it being there.

 

Define "freedom". I assume, by freedom, you mean having a baby ruins a woman's friday night where she can party.

 

Is that what you think of women?

 

YUP! If that's her reason, that's HER reason....no one has to justify their reason for doing something to you.

However, to imply that is the reason all women get abortions would show a complete ignorance of real life and facts.

 

I am not sure how you confuse pro-choice with pro-abortion. Very troubling how you put the two together.

As if you do anything different.

Yep it usually does when pro-forced birthers don't have answers.

 

Is the woman not innocent? What is she guilty of?

And she didn't choose to get pregnant either.

So? Same thing for drinking and driving. You get into a serious car accident, you caused it, you severely injured another person, does that mean you forfeit the rights to your body or parts of your body because you caused a serious accident? Do they get to take pieces of you to patch up the other person?

 

It is not her life inside of her. We are all the governments property and it has a legitimate interest in protecting everyone to include the unborn.
no the woman should not have the right to kill on demand, just because it is her body, it is not just her life. Yes the fetus should have the same right to life that we all do. there is no balance now. Now the woman has complete control over life. Extra rights no one else has

 

because if you support the woman's life to choose killing on demand that is exactly what you support abortion. It's not hard to do. Pro-lifers give women plenty of choices still. It's not hard to put it together.
I have asserted nothing. I give you facts and then you go off the chain with pro forced this anti choice that. Nonsense
I have the answers you're inability to listen to what i have to say does not change that

 

No I am not the property of the government. Feel free to try and prove it if you like though.

As far as government interest in protecting the unborn Roe v Wade already outlines that at viability. Before then though a woman still has the right to govern her own autonomy.

Yes she does. It's really quite simple. My uterus is mine and I may have unwanted placentas and embryos removed from it.

So you'd rather give the fetus extra rights no one else has, which is the right to use another person's body for their own survival against the will of the person being used? Who else has this right?

 

The child's right to life is 100x more important than the woman's right to party.

 

1-I never said that women are guilty.

2-She made a concious choice to have sex, which always has the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy. To be more specific, the woman COULD HAVE avoided having sex and getting pregnant, but the fetus couldn't have done that.

3-Women aren't having abortions for the sake of having abortions. They have abortions because adoption or raising a child is too inconvenient for them.

 

So then what's your point of stating a fetus is innocent if the pregnant woman is also innocent? Seems like a rather pointless statement don't you think?

So if she did not make a conscious decision to have sex then she can have an abortion right? Or again, is how the fetus conceived really irrelevant to you?

Too inconvenient huh? Raising kids is just an inconvenience? You don't think it's a real sacrifice to choose to raise a family over following one's dreams and goals in life, you don't think it's a sacrifice to make the extremely heart-wrenching decision of giving one's baby up for adoption? These are just 'inconveniences'? Okay...