I find it hard to believe that some people think they have a right

[AGENT J]

I agree a woman consenting to sex is NOT consenting to having a child.

In the USA an early abortion is legal.

If a woman becomes accidentally pregnant she knows she will have to make a choice.
She can either seek an early abortion or she can choose to continue her pregnancy.

its just facts and common sense that dishonest people try to deny.

Its the womans choice and thats that, maybe she IS consenting to have a child, maybe she isnt, its her choice

 

[mac]

It is imposible for both the woman and the embryo or fetus to have equal rights during a pregnancy.

no it isn't.

The woman can either give up some of her rights so the pregnancy may continue or she can choose to keep her rights and have an early abortion.

There's nothing mutualy exclusive in this statement. :shrug:

 

[mac]

Minnie, you're right on. The Supreme Court's views are pretty clear in Roe v. Wade. The Court won't declare when life begins, much less allow right to life status for a fetus. Right to life is only for born persons. A fetus doesn't have personhood status. The only provision that comes close to allowing any "so-called" rights for a fetus is stated in an ambiguous viability period clause...and even then there are exceptions.

By throwing in "The Supreme Court" you are alluding to the fact that this statement represents the courts view, which is simply not true.

 

[Removable Mind]

By throwing in "The Supreme Court" you are alluding to the fact that this statement represents the courts view, which is simply not true.

Show the legal precedence giving ALL rights afforded to a ZEF at conception...PLEASE!

 

[mac]

Show the legal precedence giving ALL rights afforded to a ZEF at conception...PLEASE!

That's not my purpose. My purpose was to negate your implication that the Supreme Court has negated such rights. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has not defined a "right to life", but only the states interest in protecting life. Which, by the way, begins before birth.

 

[minnie616]

the Supreme Court has not defined a "right to life", but only the states interest in protecting life. Which, by the way, begins before birth.

Only during the last trimester at which time the fetus is usually viable and delveloped enough to survive without ( or possibly with ) medical support outside the woman's body.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Fact: When two consenting adults have sex they are fully aware that a pregnancy could occur and that birth control is not fail proof. There is your fact. If you are aware that you are taking the risk that a child will result, then you are responsible. End of your FACT.

FACT: Consent to a risk is NOT agreeing to not seek remedy if something happens. Consent to the risk of pregnancy is not agreeing to carry to term and give birth any more than the smoker consenting to the risk of lung cancer is consenting to not seek to have the resulting tumour(s) removed.

 

[mac]

Only during the last trimester at which time the fetus is usually viable and delveloped enough to survive without ( or possibly with ) medical support outside the woman's body.

Which is before birth. :shrug:

 

[iangb]

Your driving analogy isn't actually analogous by the way. It would be if you said that sex is like getting behind the wheel and deciding to ram a school bus with your seat belt on and not intending to hurt anyone. Unprotected sex would be equivalent to taking off the seat belt.

In both situations someone is doing one thing that risks harming others, but without the intent to risk harming others. You're simply ramping up the 'accepted risk' stakes by choosing a situation where the risk is much higher. Given that, completely unprotected, a single act of sexual intercourse has an ~2% chance of getting someone pregnant, and that contraception will drastically reduce that probability (especially with proper use), I'd say that your risks are pretty highly inflated. I believe Objective-J has already posted an excellent piece somewhere on how unlikely it is that sex will result in an abortion.

 

[Removable Mind]

That's not my purpose. My purpose was to negate your implication that the Supreme Court has negated such rights. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has not defined a "right to life", but only the states interest in protecting life. Which, by the way, begins before birth.

Gezzzzzzzzz...you're only repeating what I've copied and pasted from the Supreme Court's opinion...ohhhhhhhhhhhh, about a dozen times in abortion threads since I've been a member....and you are stating virtually saying the same thing I am in the post you are disputing.

Try reading my post again, Mac!

Minnie, you're right on. The Supreme Court's views are pretty clear in Roe v. Wade. The Court won't declare when life begins, much less allow right to life status for a fetus. Right to life is only for born persons. A fetus doesn't have personhood status. The only provision that comes close to allowing any "so-called" rights for a fetus is stated in an ambiguous viability period clause...and even then there are exceptions.

Get some reading glasses, Mac. Yes, Mac, you are saying the same thing that I said. And you can't rewrite history. Yes, they also said...if there can be a change in consensus among those entities who can't seem to reach a consensus...then the court will reconsider. Thus far...no consensus.

 

[mac]

In both situations someone is doing one thing that risks harming others, but without the intent to risk harming others. You're simply ramping up the 'accepted risk' stakes by choosing a situation where the risk is much higher. Given that, completely unprotected, a single act of sexual intercourse has an ~2% chance of getting someone pregnant, and that contraception will drastically reduce that probability (especially with proper use), I'd say that your risks are pretty highly inflated. I believe Objective-J has already posted an excellent piece somewhere on how unlikely it is that sex will result in an abortion.

As you well know, the abortion rate is the pregnancy/abortion ratio. Not the sex/abortion ration, anyways....the risks may be different in in the driving/sex analogy, but the action is more accurately represented by the ramming/sex analogy.

 

[mac]

Gezzzzzzzzz...you're only repeating what I've copied and pasted from the Supreme Court's opinion...ohhhhhhhhhhhh, about a dozen times in abortion threads since I've been a member....and you are stating virtually saying the same thing I am in the post you are disputing.

No, you're implying that the Supreme Court has established that there is no right to life of the unborn. That is not the case as I explained.

Try reading my post again, Mac!

Get some reading glasses, Mac. Yes, Mac, you are saying the same thing that I said. And you can't rewrite history. Yes, they also said...if there can be a change in consensus among those entities who can't seem to reach a consensus...then the court will reconsider. Thus far...no consensus.

Perhaps you should try making a logical post you actually thought about.

 

[Removable Mind]

No, you're implying that the Supreme Court has established that there is no right to life of the unborn. That is not the case as I explained.



Perhaps you should try making a logical post you actually thought about.

I'm not implying anything...the court has established such. They said that they cannot AT THIS TIME. Show me the Court's declaration to the contrary.

 

[melons]

uhm you changed absolutely NOTHING lol

I asked you to prove your opinion true and my facts wrong. you didnt, you failed, you didnt even come close LOL

all you did is repeat your OPINION :shrug:

maybe your problem is you dont understand the difference between facts and opinion, you should look them up and come back later

Sorry a woman consenting to sex is NOT consenting to having a child, this fact will never change

Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow, I understand. But if you have sex then you know what the outcome can be. And that is a fact. Sorry you don't like the truth. We live in a society of people who don't want to take the blame for what they cause to happen, apparently you are one of those.

 

[melons]

FACT: Consent to a risk is NOT agreeing to not seek remedy if something happens. Consent to the risk of pregnancy is not agreeing to carry to term and give birth any more than the smoker consenting to the risk of lung cancer is consenting to not seek to have the resulting tumour(s) removed.

Yes you are exactly right. Smoking is a risk and if you get lung cancer, you are to blame and everyone else will blame you too. A tumor is not comparable to a baby. You can't just a take a pill or do something simple to get rid of the tumor, nor should you be able to kill a baby because you were too thoughtless and irresponsible to accept the risk that you took. If you have sex and get pregnant, you caused it, period! Nothing else causes pregnancy and that is a proven fact. We live in a world of people who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions.

 

[melons]

Every time a person eats food, there is a risk of chocking and dying, but that's surely not the "INTENT". Food has now become more than just a nutritional function in life...it also has a "pleasure" function.

Sex has TWO functions. Firstly, PLEASURE. It is used to stimulate the Limbic (pleasure producing) part of the brain. Secondly, sex is used for reproduction. But make no mistake about it. The PLEASURE use of sex by far out weighs the reproduction function of engaging in sex. The innate impetus to engage in sex for pleasure is often more powerful than a heroine fix for a junkie.

Should people ignore the risks involved when having sex for pleasure, which is way more engaged in than to reproduce? NO!

But it sure is getting really boring and even absurd for those who want to deny the realities regarding sex as it relates to one of the fundamental acts in human nature. For centuries religions have tried to control human sexuality with threats of damnation, excommunication, exiled...even causing people to be murdered. Not even that has stopped people from engaging in sex.

There are so many people who post about the horrors of abortion and that opine that the primary function of abortion is for birth control. Bull****! There are a host of reasons for a woman having an abortion.

And for those who claim that rights for a fetus begin at conception...need to catch up on the laws of the land.

When people can finally understand that they cannot control or legislate the sexual behaviors of others...then maybe they'll also understand that sexual responsibility starts with "self". Your friends, neighbors, family, fellow citizens starting in your own community, state, country and around the globe...have to also stand responsible for "SELF". If they don't...there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Abortions in the US is on the decline because of better access and better quality in birth control. That's not a 100% insurance that a pregnancy won't occur...but the EVOLUTION of humanity will eventually resolve a lot of the issues regarding UNINTENDED pregnancies.

Sexual responsibility STARTS WITH YOU!

I agree that sexual responsibility starts with you. I also agree that there are many reasons why a woman would and possibly should want an abortion. I disagree that a woman and man who engaged in sex are not responsible for the outcome of that action. They are responsible.

 

[Chickenhawks]

Most anti choice people are ignorant people who claim to be religious.

WE must as a species evolve beyond these childish people so we can pursue science and decency and fairness...

 

[Removable Mind]

I agree that sexual responsibility starts with you. I also agree that there are many reasons why a woman would and possibly should want an abortion. I disagree that a woman and man who engaged in sex are not responsible for the outcome of that action. They are responsible.

I genuinely agree that they are responsible for his and her actions...but how they "choose" to manage their responsibilities fall under "right to privacy".

 

[Bodi]

So if I have a voice and a vote, you dont mind me meddling in your affairs?

You already are... everyone who votes is meddling in the lives of others. You didn't realise this already?Does this mean that you are giving up on your debunked claim that "having skin in the game" is relevant?

 

[mac]

I'm not implying anything...the court has established such. They said that they cannot AT THIS TIME. Show me the Court's declaration to the contrary.

They said that they can not define personhood, that's not the same as saying that the unborn have no right to life. You're conflating two different things. Willfully and knowingly, if I had to guess.

 

[Removable Mind]

They said that they can not define personhood, that's not the same as saying that the unborn have no right to life. You're conflating two different things. Willfully and knowingly, if I had to guess.

I'm still waiting for any documented claims by the Supreme Court saying the the unborn have a right to life. The UNBORN DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE under current laws...state, federal, or otherwise. The unborn's only form of protection falls under the "VIABILITY" clause created in Roe v. Wade...and even that includes exceptions.

 

[nota bene]

Well, I guess I've read it all now. Choking on food is comparable to pregnancy?

The biological function of eating is to nourish the body. The biological function of sex is to reproduce. That eating and having sex are generally pleasurable is a bonus but not the function of the biological activities.

 

[Removable Mind]

Well, I guess I've read it all now. Choking on food is comparable to pregnancy?

The biological function of eating is to nourish the body. The biological function of sex is to reproduce. That eating and having sex are generally pleasurable is a bonus but not the function of the biological activities.

I'm choking by just trying to digest your posts.

 

[AGENT J]

Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow, I understand. But if you have sex then you know what the outcome can be. And that is a fact. Sorry you don't like the truth. We live in a society of people who don't want to take the blame for what they cause to happen, apparently you are one of those.

wow more dishonesty

where did I ever say one single time that the out come of sex couldnt be a child? thats right I never did its something you are making up to try and save face but you are just looking more silly

now you are simply trying to CHANGE the argument but sorry I wont let you LOL

ill repeat the facts again since now you are trying to reflect and backpedal


"Sorry a woman consenting to sex is NOT consenting to having a child, this fact will never change" :shrug:

let me know wehn you have any facts at all to prove different because currently you have provide ZERO

 

[PirateMk1]

You already are... everyone who votes is meddling in the lives of others. You didn't realise this already?Does this mean that you are giving up on your debunked claim that "having skin in the game" is relevant?

The government is about regulating the proceedures for settling disputes between people, not telling them how to live. I dont like people meddling in my affairs in fact get rather hostile about it. Having children is the parents and to a lesser dergree the families affair. Certainly not mine or yours. Niether of us should have ANY say in that matter as it does not directly concern us. It would seem in all your arguements so far that you have yet to present a direct concern. Do kindly present one. If you even have one. As I said before you have no skin in the game so you shouldnt be telling people how they should deal with their internal affairs. Its not polite one, and two in some places it aint considered friendly.