consent to insemination = consent to impregnation

There is no someone else. Assuming you're referring to the fetus, that isn't a person when abortions occur.

 

If there is no someone else, the entire pro-life argument falls apart.

Sometimes it is.

 

What is? It is HER taking personal responsibility..... do you know what "personal" means? Means it's HER responsibility and not yours...

BTW, saying something untrue a million times does not make it true.



Why couldn't you address the ENTIRE POST ? Stuck for answers?

Well, it sure isn't YOUR idea …

The pregnant person decides for herself what is her responsibility, not you, not me, not anyone else...


You may have your own idea of what personal responsibility means but you have no right to force that on anyone else...


Or would you like some stranger telling YOU what your personal responsibilities are????


NOW, why don't you answer my question: FoxHastings said: ↑
If a pregnancy is all the woman's responsibility why do Anti-Choicers butt in and want to make her decisions theirs???

No, I don't but that is a big part of "personal responsibility" making choices.

.


You have no idea what I purposefully ignore.

SO WHAT!? Every human on earth has made wrong choices......who the heck are you to decide for them what is right or wrong...











The ENTIRE post is above with all the parts that someone couldn't address

 

Exactly, that's why it's the crux of the issue. Well, there's a separate privacy argument that other pro-choicers focus on, but since it should be clear that a fetus at the time of abortion has no mind, there should be no pro-life movement to begin with.

How so?

 

If someone other than the mother kills the fetus, what are they charged with.

 

It HAS fallen apart because there is NO other "person"

NO, an aborted fetus can NEVER be a person because it will never be BORN

 

That law was written by people with no understanding of biology, obviously. Laws are relevant in court, but not as a stand-alone argument in ethics.

 

Doesn't matter what they're charged with. A fetus is NOT a person, the UVVA did NOT deem fetuses "persons" but "VICTIMS"

IF they were person's they wouldn't have needed the UNBORN VICTIMS of Violence Act...

 

Then why are they charged with murder?

Can you murder a non-person?

 

It's no longer just personal anymore when there are two parties.

 

From the moment of conception you've created a human being. Ending it's existence will end a human life. Just because it's not "finished" doesn't change what it is, if you want to get ethical.

Besides, even Roe V Wade is not a question of ethics. The ethics came after the decision when she regretted taking the case to the court.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Doesn't matter what they're charged with. A fetus is NOT a person, the UVVA did NOT deem fetuses "persons" but "VICTIMS"

IF they were person's they wouldn't have needed the UNBORN VICTIMS of Violence Act...

Are they charged with murder ? Is that what the UVVA says?

Even if they do they UVVA has no power to deem fetuses legal persons"

And they have a clause, which I doubt you read , that says the UVVA has no influence or affect on abortion and abortion laws......and they can't...

 

There might be two parties but only one is a person with rights.....and that's the pregnant BORN one.

 

The very essence of a being is that it has a mind. Without a mind it is not a being. A newborn baby is by no means finished, and is certainly not a scholar, but he/she does have a mind and is human and so is a human being. A preconscious fetus, however, has no mind and so has never been a being.

My point was mainly that you don't point to the law to decide how things should be, or else I'd just say RvW exists so pro-lifers are wrong, and that would be a lame argument. The law obviously builds upon itself in court, but here we're arguing about how things should be.

 

Regardless of its existing condition, if you don't kill it, it will have a developed mind. Also, it does have a mind, it's just not fully developed yet.

Unless one ends it's existence, it will become (barring any unforeseen circumstances) a fully functional human being.

To kill it's present non-conscious self is to kill it's future conscious self.

An egg or a sperm cell can never become a conscious human being. A fetus can, and will.

 

Not technically, unless failure to 'pull out' in time constitutes rape.

 

If you had to kill another person, I'd say you already know the answer to that. But right there, we've now crossed over into a situation for which there is no parallel in an abortion discussion. Anybody you would need to kill in your scenario is an individual which means the time for having an abortion had already passed.

 

So what?

 

If you accept there would be an act of force either way, this doesn’t seem like a useful basis for making any kind of policy decision. The moral issue of an act of force is unavoidable so maybe we’d be better off looking at practical measures to minimise the unavoidable negative consequences in the various different circumstances the whole question raises itself in?

 

I really don't get it, I always had a problem of waning avoiding women because they were annoying a clingy yet had no problem having sex without regret. It was the marriages I regretted the kids were ok..

 

Okay its a vagina and the male member is a penis, or as my momma used to call them the 'tackle box' and the 'fishing rod' (cute terms and well it was my mom) but I would combine two to form consent to pregnancy splaying the woman's legs for a non-condom covered or surgically sterile penis and testicles AND equally unprotected vagina and womb you give implied consent to pregnancy. The sole exception is sexual battery on the part of the woman and she has no choice. If you want to not have a baby and not have birth control so sexual act not risking that like oral sex.

See there is birth control so not using it telegraphs your willingness to have a child on both sides to be fair the man has to also protect himself.

 

And if you get into an accident, you just have to live with being injured and having a broken car. You can’t do anything about either.

 

Exactly. And I would hesitate to call it a "pro-life" argument to begin with. That term is far more encompassing than the very specific circumstances the term is used to refer to.

At the very least, call it a Pro-life* argument, with a note at the bottom for the asterisk explaining that many conditions and limitations apply. Because lets face it, many pro-lifers are not pro-life in other ways than being anti-abortion. I watched and continue to watch some of these so called "pro-life" people argue against helping others in dire circumstances, including children. I've watched and continue to watch them advocate for sending every child back to the horrible conditions they came from simply because they don't have the right piece of paper. That is not pro-life. It's pro-me-and-mine only.

Anti-abortion is the more accurate term that doesn't rely on virtue signalling to create a false illusion of true intent.

 

For a long time, they were charged with assault based on harming the mother, not the fetus. It's only with UVVA that murder charges began being used, and that law only exists to try and insert personhood into abortion law. The law has no other reason to exist, as criminal charges were already previously applied and considered in cases where a fetus was harmed.

Pointing to a law that exists for one very specific ulterior purpose is not proof of concept.

 

It absolutely does impose restrictions on a response. People do not have carte blanche in their responses.

Going back to the driving example, you accept the implicit risk and accept the responses you are required to take in the event an accident happens - you are required to have a serviceable vehicle, you must have insurance, you may receive a ticket and partial or complete blame and face those consequences (such as criminal and civil penalties), you must remain on scene.

Pregnancy has its consequences and restrictions. A woman has a limited time to abort, she has the medical and financial consequences of medical procedures (which she should bear, not push it onto the tax payer). If she does not abort, then she has the restrictions on her activities (no alcohol, smoking, etc), the impact to her career, the medical and financial costs.