Rape victim denied abortion, forcibly hydrated and made to carry Fetus to viability.

One way or another, the fetus has to come out of there. Why can't the woman choose to have the fetus come out alive?

Any time? Even the eighth month of pregnancy?

 

Not in the slightest, you seem to forget that every person has the right to defend themselves against non-consented injuries, the fetus as a person MUST gain consent to impose pregnancy and the injuries that causes .. a fetus as a person would be no different, if it did not require that consent then you would be granting a fetus a right that no other person has ie the right to use another persons body to maintain their life without their consent.

 

And we have been through this dozens of times and I will repeat
A WOMEN GIVES CONSENT TO THE POSSIBILTY OF PREGNANCY WHEN SHE GIVES CONSENT FOR SEX IF SHE IS INFORMED OF THAT POSSIBILTY

WHEN YOU GIVE CONSENT YOU ARE ALSO GIVING CONSENT OF THE INFORMED CONSQUENCES. PERIOD END OF ARGUEMENT

And having the option to reverse that consent doesn't indicate that consent wasn't given to start with so don't even try that failed argument again

 

Consent can be withdrawn at any time. Just because the woman gave consent to the man to have sex with her doesn't mean she gave consent to the fetus to use her body.

 

So an argument that basically renders your argument moot is a failed one. You certainly have a strange twisted logic (if you have any logic at all) .. so I shall also repeat -

IT SIMPLE DOES NOT MATTER EVEN IF IT COULD BE SAID THAT "A WOMEN GIVES CONSENT TO THE POSSIBILTY OF PREGNANCY WHEN SHE GIVES CONSENT FOR SEX IF SHE IS INFORMED OF THAT POSSIBILTY" NO ONE, NOT A SINGLE PERSON, HAS EVER BEEN FORCED TO SUFFER PROLONGED INJURY FOR TAKING A RISK. PERIOD END OF ARGUMENT. YOU LOSE.

Consent to one action by one person has NEVER been a proxy for a separate action by a separate person, by your twisted sense of logic a woman giving consent to a man who informs her that by giving consent she is also giving informed consent to allow his friend (*)(*)(*)(*) her, and that is just plain bloody stupid.

You really do need to learn what informed or implied consent are and what their limitations are, when you can get that through your skull then maybe, just maybe it will dawn on you that the argument of informed consent is pure and plain BS.

 

does a women not know that sex causes pregnancy? they certainly do there for it is informed consent

and about your idiotic analogy. if a man tells the women if she is going to have sex with him she will also need to have sex with his friend and she says yes then she is also agreeing to have sex with the friend because she was informed of it

 

Are you kidding me?????? Next time you are raped, make sure the perp gives you a minute to "use contraception". How idiotic does that sound? . . . rrrrriiiigghht.

 

"""""""""""Quote Originally Posted by munter View Post

why didn't she just use contraception in the first place?""""""""""""

No, he's not kidding. The righty Anti-Choicers believe every bad thing is women's fault.....and that certainly includes being raped and getting pregnant after being raped.

They believe that if she was a "good, responsible " woman she would just accept being raped and forced to give birth to some scumbag's git no matter what price she pays for being a victim...they WANT the rapist to have control over her for the rest of her life ....

 

Which has no bearing on whether she continues to consent after the fact, informed consent is only relevant to the point that she says, by word or action, no, from that point onwards informed consent is moot.

Can she after having sex with the first man, revoke her informed consent to the second man, if she can then your wailing about informed consent means nothing, and as we all know she can revoke that informed consent so you really have no point.

 

I don't see why she had to be forcibly hydrated. They could have locked in her in a room with nothing but really salty tortilla chips and then offered her a bottle of water a little later...

 

You find that quite funny punishment for being raped.....?????

 

Should the fetus be punished with dehydration, just because it resulted from a rape?

 

The fetus shouldn't be there at all....

 

It should not have been there in the first place, but now it is there, and should not be removed.

 

One man rapes the woman and the other man says she can't abort.

Sick world. Sick attitudes. Sick behaviours. Just sick, really.

 

Why not? Because YOU say so? YOU want this woman punished for being raped and obviously the backwards elements in Ireland do , too.

 

I think she should abort—she should run to the hospital as soon as possible and have her uterus sucked out, get a shot of estrogen, then take a day after pill just to be sure.
But there's no excuse for her to sit around and wait to figure out whether she has really become pregnant or not. That embryo grows fast.

 

She was raped, for god's sake! You really think she was "sitting around" after she was raped? She was no doubt traumatised and bereft. How dare you - no compassion for women who are raped, but you claim they "sit around" when they're raped. Your post disgusts me.

Go (*)(*)(*)(*)ing take it up with the rapist! HE is a CRIMINAL and TO BLAME, not the woman who's been raped you accuse of "sitting around".

Disgusting. Creepy. Ignorance.

 

You do realize, probably not, that the pregnancy is an extension of the injuries caused from the rape don't you, and like any other person a woman has the right to rectify those injuries, you cannot even assert consent in this issue .. not only does she not consent to the pregnancy she didn't even consent to the sexual intercourse in the first place.

In an ideal world any woman who has been raped should have access to the right treatment in order to ensure no pregnancy takes place, the reality is that many women are so traumatized by the rape that they don't even report it. They question whether they were somehow responsible for what happened - you can blame the ideology that some women deserve to be raped due to their actions or the way they dress for that - http://www.care2.com/causes/british.html

The fact that you diminish the reality of the psychological damage done to a woman who is the victim of rape only serves to show your utter ignorance of the matter.

 

And just how long does her rape entitle her to wait around before she finally gets an abortion? All the while, letting the fetus develop inside her...

Oh, I have more compassion for the women who was raped than you do for the unborn life growing inside her.

That's no excuse. If she waits too long she is going to be killing a human life, which becomes more and more human with each passing day.

I could never understand the reasoning for a rape exception for a woman wanting to get an abortion after 24 weeks.

What the rapist did was reprehensible, and for creating a pregnancy where he had no right to, his actions are almost as bad as the crime of murder.
But it is the woman who is the one choosing the actual killing—if she makes any delay, that is. The rapist might have taken away the woman's choice, but he didn't take away all of it. She doesn't have to carry the rapist's baby and she doesn't have to kill an innocent developing human life. But only if she gets over to the hospital without delay. If she wants them to catch the rapist, she will have to go to the hospital. First they will do a rape kit sample, then they can make sure a pregnancy does not develop.

And in addition to all this, abortion does not un-rape you.
An abortion can sometimes even be more traumatic for a woman than the initial rape.

 

Why's it sick? Can a 14 year old born of rape be killed because the child's presence may traumatize the mother?

 

I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank the right, for their public charity and public moral of "goodwill toward wo-men", and to ask them to cease and desist complaining about social spending. Thank you. Sincerely, some on the left.

 

Let's see now, a strawman and a false equivalence fallacy . .nice, way to go.

 

How is the analogy a strawman? I never claimed someone was making the claim that killing a child of rape was ok, but rather using that example against the argument of aborting a fetus conceived by rape. Do you not understand an analogy or don't know what a strawman is?