consent to insemination = consent to impregnation

A better analogy would be, that you implicitly consent to (or at least accept) the consequences (such as arrest, loss of DL, and death) every time you drive drunk, even though you've successfully made it home drunk without consequence many times before.

 

Except, like being hit by a drunk driver, pregnancy is a result of outside probability that a person can not control.

 

Except, like being the drunk driver, pregnancy is a result of voluntarily engaging in inherently risky behavior. No one ever "controls the probabilies" on ANYTHING, that's no excuse to absolve yourself of responsibility for the consequences of your actions. And if you can't grasp the concept of a woman being the drunk driver (perfect creatures that they are), then it's like being hit by a drunk driver after you invited him to drive right up your puss.

 

So if you consent to let someone into your home you also consent to them stealing all your belongings and beating you up....hmmm, interesting ….

 

In the same way that getting in your car on a Saturday is voluntarily engaging in "inherently risky" behavior.

The chances of getting pregnant from any single act of intercourse are miniscule. They get even smaller if birth control is used.

 

The chances of getting in a fatal car accident while driving drunk are also miniscule (and even smaller if your car is slow). So should drunk drivers bear no responsibility for the consequences of their actions? When pulled over, should the drunk driver just say, "hey what's the problem, I've made it home plenty of times before"?

 

No they are not.

 

Maybe you would have a point if theft and violence were a natural biological result of letting someone in your home. But they aren't, so you don't.


But let me throw some leftist logic back at you:
1. Anti-gunners say "you're more likely to experience gun violence if you have a gun in the home"

2. Pro-gun people then say "well, if you own a swimming pool, you're more likely to drown"

leading to the inevitable...
3. But guns are made for the purpose of killing. That's the difference, you stupid right winger.

Now, let me ask you a simple question: what are reproductive organs made to do?

 

Got any data to back that up? Your assertion does not match my observations.

 

Why have you changed your goalposts to simply fatal accidents?

 

Nope, too bad, we're talking about laws and consent NOT biology which has nothing to do with it...

Off topic desperation irrelevant bullcrap …

WHAT! You don't know??!!!!!

 

Pffft, YOU bolded the sentence that specified fatal accidents and made your claim about that. If you're now instead trying to meet a lower standard when asked for proof of your claim concerning fatal accidents, then YOU are the one moving the goalposts.

 

Every bit as mature as I've come to expect. Do yourself a favor. Just stop. Since you refuse to engage with the actual arguments made, and just pulling your usual childish routine, I'm done with you. You're simply not worth my time.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Nope, too bad, we're talking about laws and consent NOT biology which has nothing to do with it...

Off topic desperation irrelevant bullcrap …

WHAT! You don't know??!!!!!

Not a graceful way to back out....but a good concession speech


Consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act.

 

Do you really believe this?

Pregnancy just "happens"?
The woman has no control over it?

 

NO, a woman has NO control over whether she , after intercourse, gets pregnant.

She can wish she would or wish she wouldn't but that does not influence what happens in her body.

Consent to one act is not consent to any other act.


In FACT, a woman can only consent to the POSSIBILITY of getting pregnant.

And she can withdraw consent to be pregnant if she chooses to.

 

Yes. Do you believe humans have sentient control over internal organs like ovaries?

 

"consent to insemination = consent to impregnation"

yes and consent to abortion = legal

 

All I can say is I hope you don’t have a daughter with your attitude about women.

 

Fiction as usual.....let me know when you want to talk reality....

 

In my opinion, consent to insemination is consent to the chance of impregnation, which the woman has full right to terminate within the first two trimesters.

 

Is it?

Haven't Pro-Choicers made it "legal" with activist judges?

 

At least you do admit that consent to insemination is consent to the chance of impregnation.

 

No, it was always legal, the Supreme Court made the country uphold women's rights to it.


You have no proof of "activist judges".....the court that heard RvW was conservative anyway


See, if you had facts you wouldn't need to use cartoons and movies (which are not real, BTW....did you know they weren't real?)