The Abortion Debate

[requietum ac adamo amor]

Talon-chan

Nethilia

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

Agreed. I don't understand why people think that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy when clearly for every other situation where a risk is involved and should the worst come to fruition consent to the action that caused it is not consent to maintaining "the worst"

Tell me, what are our penises and vaginas naturally intended for? Evolution and creationism both point to reproduction.

Tell me, aren't kids taught in school that sex can result in pleasure, but also pregnancy? Sex feels good, but that is not its main purpose. Are people so vain and self centered that they don't understand what their bodily fucntions were made for?

Even if a person commits an act without knowing its signifigance he/she may still bear consequences. If I steal and get caught I will be punished; even if I wasn't aware it was illegal. A child performing an action of any kind may end up being backlashed by the fact that it is the equivelent of property regardless of its race or gender.

[requietum ac adamo amor]

DivineFeline

requietum ac adamo amor

Nethilia

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

Wrong, as I have stated; having sex, even with protection there is a chance of getting pregnant and you know it.

An unemancipated human under the age of 18 has no legal rights to its body, and therefor has no will in this. If the parents want her to abort they can. If they want her to keep it she must.

Anyway since when wasn't sex a consent to prolonged pregnancy? Only in the past 100 or so years have we been able to abort safely. ( To my knoledge. ) So, a child having sex by consent acknoledges the chance of pregnancy; therefor she also acknoledges the risk of her parents making her keep it.

As children are underdeveloped subhumans with limitted rights they take the risk of a continued pregnancy with the very act of sex itself.

I love how you say that aminor can't choose whether or not to keep the baby, but is suddenly respionsible enough to take care of herself during pregnancy.

Also, what about this situation? The last time I talked to my legal guardian, I was 15. By the time the emancipation paperwork would have gone through I would have been almost 18 anyways, and there was no one else who could take custody of me. So, if I was 17 and got pregnant, would you have trusted my mother, whom I haven't talked to in years, to make the decision instead of me? Suprisingly, my situation isn't as uncommon as you would think.

Legal gaurdian works as a parent, as they have legal ownership of you.

To the comment of " if they have no rights they cannot consent. "

If I'am told to eat my vegitables I can say no, but I can be punished for it.

You don't have to have rights to act on your own, but you do need them to have legal say.

If you have sex after your parents say no you still fall under their authority once they find out, or you fall under their punishment if you abort against their will.

If they do not find out it doesn't concern them, as they cannot care about what they do not know.

P.S. This is not my actual opinion, but a cold and cynical one I'm a purposing just to play the devils advocate.

[Talon-chan]

requietum ac adamo amor

Talon-chan

Nethilia

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

Agreed. I don't understand why people think that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy when clearly for every other situation where a risk is involved and should the worst come to fruition consent to the action that caused it is not consent to maintaining "the worst"

Tell me, what are our penises and vaginas naturally intended for? Evolution and creationism both point to reproduction.

Tell me, aren't kids taught in school that sex can result in pleasure? Sex feels good, but that is not its main purpose. Are people so vain and self centered that they don't understand what their bodily fucntions were made for?

Even if a person commits an act without knowing its signifigance he/she may still bear consequences. If I steal and get caught I will be punished; even if I wasn't aware it was illegal. A child performing an action of any kind may end up being backlashed by the fact that it is the equivelent of property regardless of its race or gender.

First: The purpose of sex is NOT solely procreation. The act of sexy stimulates the amygdala, a part of the brain responsible for pair bonds and the maintaining of relationships. Sex stimulates this because of the evolutionary benefit of couples falling in love and staying together for the sake of an infant if that infant should be born. Sex stimulates and maintains relationships. The purpose of sex is procreation as well as the promotion, maintaining, and development of a relationship via pair bonds.

Second: Understand the art of analogy:

I know that driving poses an inherent risk of accident. If the worst should happen and I get into an accident I am in no way required to remain injured against my will, and I am in no way required to get medical care against my will if I so choose to remain injured.

I know that going out at night posses a risk of me getting mugged. If I am mugged I am not obligated to just accept that my wallet has been stolen and that the theif is now entitled to use my credit card against my will. I am permitted to cancel my credit card rather than "face the consequences" and let him or her ruin my credit against my will.

Consenting to sex is no more consenting to pregnancy than consenting to drive in a car is consenting to having an accident. It is a risk that is understood and accepted, but it in no way implies consent or acceptance of that situation happening.

[S. Shark]

requietum ac adamo amor

Legal gaurdian works as a parent, as they have legal ownership of you.

To the comment of " if they have no rights they cannot consent. "

If I'am told to eat my vegitables I can say no, but I can be punished for it.

You don't have to have rights to act on your own, but you do need them to have legal say.

If you have sex after your parents say no you still fall under their authority once they find out, or you fall under their punishment if you abort against their will.

If they do not find out it doesn't concern them, as they cannot care about what they do not know.

P.S. This is not my actual opinion, but a cold and cynical one I'm a purposing just to play the devils advocate.

Maybe I'm a bit thick or something, but I fail to see how the vegetable analogy was relevant. Yes, you can refuse to eat vegetables. Your parents can also ram them down your throat. Staturory rape is a crime, forced vegetable consumption is not.

Yes, if you have sex and your parents find out, they can punish you for it. However, legally, you didn't consent to that sex, no matter how much you insist you wanted it, and I do believe your parents can press charges if they have proof the sex occurred.

[requietum ac adamo amor]

Talon-chan

requietum ac adamo amor

Talon-chan

Nethilia

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

Agreed. I don't understand why people think that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy when clearly for every other situation where a risk is involved and should the worst come to fruition consent to the action that caused it is not consent to maintaining "the worst"

Tell me, what are our penises and vaginas naturally intended for? Evolution and creationism both point to reproduction.

Tell me, aren't kids taught in school that sex can result in pleasure? Sex feels good, but that is not its main purpose. Are people so vain and self centered that they don't understand what their bodily fucntions were made for?

Even if a person commits an act without knowing its signifigance he/she may still bear consequences. If I steal and get caught I will be punished; even if I wasn't aware it was illegal. A child performing an action of any kind may end up being backlashed by the fact that it is the equivelent of property regardless of its race or gender.

First: The purpose of sex is NOT solely procreation. The act of sexy stimulates the amygdala, a part of the brain responsible for pair bonds and the maintaining of relationships. Sex stimulates this because of the evolutionary benefit of couples falling in love and staying together for the sake of an infant if that infant should be born. Sex stimulates and maintains relationships. The purpose of sex is procreation as well as the promotion, maintaining, and development of a relationship via pair bonds.

Second: Understand the art of analogy:

I know that driving poses an inherent risk of accident. If the worst should happen and I get into an accident I am in no way required to remain injured against my will, and I am in no way required to get medical care against my will if I so choose to remain injured.

I know that going out at night posses a risk of me getting mugged. If I am mugged I am not obligated to just accept that my wallet has been stolen and that the theif is now entitled to use my credit card against my will. I am permitted to cancel my credit card rather than "face the consequences" and let him or her ruin my credit against my will.

Consenting to sex is no more consenting to pregnancy than consenting to drive in a car is consenting to having an accident. It is a risk that is understood and accepted, but it in no way implies consent or acceptance of that situation happening.

Yes, sex can strengthen a relationship.

But, then whores and men who sleep around show that relationships are squat.

Most of your senarios are with objects and events to broad for this.

No getting in a car is no consent to a crash, but you do accept the fact that you may get into a crash, and ultimately pay the consequence.

If you are injured you have the right to medical attention, but your parents don't have to pay. So as a fourteen year old with a broken leg how are you going to get medical help without your parents? Aswell pregnancy even at a young age is not nessesarily an injury or a health risk; never the less if often can be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion as the devils advocate .Let me revise myself.

As long as a person meats these requirements they should have the right to an abortion.

1. Of legal consenting age; which may very by the state.
2. has been examined by a psycologist.
3. has or will attend therapy.
4. has had sexual education. (Which is provided for free by many orginizations nation wide.)
5. is willing to pay for the process him/herself if the parents decide not to.

These riquirements seem small if children under the age of 18 are responsible and intellegent enough to legally consent to sex.

If they do not meat these riquirements then they should not be having sex.

[requietum ac adamo amor]

sybex Shark

requietum ac adamo amor

Legal gaurdian works as a parent, as they have legal ownership of you.

To the comment of " if they have no rights they cannot consent. "

If I'am told to eat my vegitables I can say no, but I can be punished for it.

You don't have to have rights to act on your own, but you do need them to have legal say.

If you have sex after your parents say no you still fall under their authority once they find out, or you fall under their punishment if you abort against their will.

If they do not find out it doesn't concern them, as they cannot care about what they do not know.

P.S. This is not my actual opinion, but a cold and cynical one I'm a purposing just to play the devils advocate.

Maybe I'm a bit thick or something, but I fail to see how the vegetable analogy was relevant. Yes, you can refuse to eat vegetables. Your parents can also ram them down your throat. Staturory rape is a crime, forced vegetable consumption is not.

Yes, if you have sex and your parents find out, they can punish you for it. However, legally, you didn't consent to that sex, no matter how much you insist you wanted it, and I do believe your parents can press charges if they have proof the sex occurred.

I'm not argueing right or wrong.

It is simply law.

Aswell, if she cannot consent than she have will over her own body, and therefor she cannot consent to an abortion or lack there of.

[Issabee]

Okay, I need some information that I've seen on these threads before, but I can't find it. That guy I mentioned a while back, the one who believes that women who don't want to have children are selfish, and that all women should have children, has made a claim that abortion is 5 times more fatal than childbirth. But I know someone has mentioned that the ratio is 11-1. I need links to any studies, just so he doesn't accuse me of lying.

This guy is seriously pissing me off now. He's been commenting in several topics including abortion and homosexuality. He's had 4 warnings so far, and he only needs one more to be banned.

I also saw something (I can't remember if it was on this thread, or another) about America not being based on religion. This guy is saying that all laws stem from religious beliefs, and that religion should always have a say when making laws. I think someone posted some quotes from the treaty of Tripoly and something about Jefferson. I've been searching through this thread for it, but I can't find it, so if someone could find it for me, I would really appreciate it.

[S. Shark]

requietum ac adamo amor

I'm not argueing right or wrong.

It is simply law.

Aswell, if she cannot consent than she have will over her own body, and therefor she cannot consent to an abortion or lack there of.

Neither am I. It is simply law. Since she can not consent, she can not consent to sex or pregnancy in addition to abortion. I was correcting your statement, "Unless raped, a child has given consent to sex, and therefore consent to pregnancy."

[requietum ac adamo amor]

sybex Shark

requietum ac adamo amor

I'm not argueing right or wrong.

It is simply law.

Aswell, if she cannot consent than she have will over her own body, and therefor she cannot consent to an abortion or lack there of.

Neither am I. It is simply law. Since she can not consent, she can not consent to sex or pregnancy in addition to abortion. I was correcting your statement, "Unless raped, a child has given consent to sex, and therefore consent to pregnancy."

I apologize for the mistake.

But if she consent not to sex, pregnancy, or an abortion she must leave it to her parents; as they are legally responsible for her.

[S. Shark]

requietum ac adamo amor

sybex Shark

requietum ac adamo amor

I'm not argueing right or wrong.

It is simply law.

Aswell, if she cannot consent than she have will over her own body, and therefor she cannot consent to an abortion or lack there of.

Neither am I. It is simply law. Since she can not consent, she can not consent to sex or pregnancy in addition to abortion. I was correcting your statement, "Unless raped, a child has given consent to sex, and therefore consent to pregnancy."

I apologize for the mistake.

But if she consent not to sex, pregnancy, or an abortion she must leave it to her parents; as they are legally responsible for her.

*shrug*

Since they are legally responsible, if they force her to remain pregnant, should they not also be responsible for the child that results? I can see how this would negatively effect women who wanted to keep their children, just a thought I had.


Sorry if I'm a bit off topic. Am I too off-topic, Talon-chan?

[requietum ac adamo amor]

sybex Shark

requietum ac adamo amor

sybex Shark

requietum ac adamo amor

I'm not argueing right or wrong.

It is simply law.

Aswell, if she cannot consent than she have will over her own body, and therefor she cannot consent to an abortion or lack there of.

Neither am I. It is simply law. Since she can not consent, she can not consent to sex or pregnancy in addition to abortion. I was correcting your statement, "Unless raped, a child has given consent to sex, and therefore consent to pregnancy."

I apologize for the mistake.

But if she consent not to sex, pregnancy, or an abortion she must leave it to her parents; as they are legally responsible for her.

*shrug*

Since they are legally responsible, if they force her to remain pregnant, should they not also be responsible for the child that results? I can see how this would negatively effect women who wanted to keep their children, just a thought I had.


Sorry if I'm a bit off topic. Am I too off-topic, Talon-chan?

Yes, the child should be legally their responsibility, but not to the point where the mother cannot see her child.

[DecimusJuilii]

ThePeerOrlando

DecimusJuilii

Quote:

Murder - A legal term that refers to the illegal taking of a human's life with malicious intent. Abortion, being that it is legal, cannot be considered "murder" in the strictest sense of the word.

(Sorry for splitting hairs, but this term really annoys me.)
Using that definition, Hitler did not murder 6 million people during WWII. It was written in Nazi Germany's Law that their extermination were perfectly legal. My whole point is, just because its legal, doesn't make it just.

Justice is fickle and tends to be subjective. If FDR had been castrated and left to have his flesh fed upon by the crows, I would find that just. Others would not.

And no, Hitler didn't murder any Jewish people. None. 0. Zip. Nada. They were all legally executed.

then what was their crime?

[Katsuya Ishtar]

sybex Shark

requietum ac adamo amor

sybex Shark

requietum ac adamo amor

I'm not argueing right or wrong.

It is simply law.

Aswell, if she cannot consent than she have will over her own body, and therefor she cannot consent to an abortion or lack there of.

Neither am I. It is simply law. Since she can not consent, she can not consent to sex or pregnancy in addition to abortion. I was correcting your statement, "Unless raped, a child has given consent to sex, and therefore consent to pregnancy."

I apologize for the mistake.

But if she consent not to sex, pregnancy, or an abortion she must leave it to her parents; as they are legally responsible for her.

*shrug*

Since they are legally responsible, if they force her to remain pregnant, should they not also be responsible for the child that results? I can see how this would negatively effect women who wanted to keep their children, just a thought I had.


Sorry if I'm a bit off topic. Am I too off-topic, Talon-chan?

I agree actually, if a minor isn't legally old enough to decide to have sex or to get an abortion, and their parents force them to keep the fetus, then the parents should be responsible for the resulting baby, I mean, it's only fair, especially if the minor is too young to make such "life altering decisions."

[ReiDuck]

DecimusJuilii

ThePeerOrlando

DecimusJuilii

Quote:

Murder - A legal term that refers to the illegal taking of a human's life with malicious intent. Abortion, being that it is legal, cannot be considered "murder" in the strictest sense of the word.

(Sorry for splitting hairs, but this term really annoys me.)
Using that definition, Hitler did not murder 6 million people during WWII. It was written in Nazi Germany's Law that their extermination were perfectly legal. My whole point is, just because its legal, doesn't make it just.

Justice is fickle and tends to be subjective. If FDR had been castrated and left to have his flesh fed upon by the crows, I would find that just. Others would not.

And no, Hitler didn't murder any Jewish people. None. 0. Zip. Nada. They were all legally executed.

then what was their crime?

Being Jewish.

[ThePeerOrlando]

Issabee

Okay, I need some information that I've seen on these threads before, but I can't find it. That guy I mentioned a while back, the one who believes that women who don't want to have children are selfish, and that all women should have children, has made a claim that abortion is 5 times more fatal than childbirth. But I know someone has mentioned that the ratio is 11-1. I need links to any studies, just so he doesn't accuse me of lying.

This guy is seriously pissing me off now. He's been commenting in several topics including abortion and homosexuality. He's had 4 warnings so far, and he only needs one more to be banned.

I also saw something (I can't remember if it was on this thread, or another) about America not being based on religion. This guy is saying that all laws stem from religious beliefs, and that religion should always have a say when making laws. I think someone posted some quotes from the treaty of Tripoly and something about Jefferson. I've been searching through this thread for it, but I can't find it, so if someone could find it for me, I would really appreciate it.

I don't have the links to studies, but the OP might. Check the first page.

As for the religious stuff? We are a nation founded on DEISM as our Constitution and Founding Fathers were not Christian's but diests. Religious law stems from societal laws, not the other way around, because religion came AFTER society and civilization.