The Abortion Debate

[DCVI]

Lord Setar

kp is dcvi

Quote:

How is consent to sex, and as established consent to the risk of pregnancy, irrevocable consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term?

How are (uncontracted) "agreements" even relevant to this debate?

Social responsibility is not viewed as obligatory terms which must be carried out, like two business partners. It's erroneous to think so.

Moreover, I could even take your argument and say that while I may consent to reside in this country, I have not (and perhaps, will not) ever once consent to each and every law the U.S. has established.

Technically, no born citizen of their birth nation has ever agreed to anything legally residing in their document of law. Ever.

That doesn't make the question as any less valid. The question is to attempt to establish if consent to the risk is irrevocable consent to the action, in question to statements that "the woman made her choice when she consented to sex!" It is very relevant and pertinent, especially when statements or implications such as that come into play.

Answer me this Setar: If she refrained from sex in that isolated incident where she did become pregnant: Would she be pregnant?

[Sugarrocks]

Lord Setar

Sugarrocks

Lord Setar

Sugarrocks

Lord Setar

Sugarrocks

When defending yourself you are allowed to use whatever force necessary to defend your own body, your family, and your property this counts for rape.

Thank you for defeating yourself. The fetus, by residing in the woman's body without her consent, is violating the woman's right to security of the person, granted under Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lone precedent on this right in the case of abortion, R. v. Morgentaler, determined that the fetus' right to life, if any, does not override the woman's right to security of the person. Abortion is thus the woman defending her body and rights by removing the offender. To force the woman to carry to term and give birth against her will would be a violation of these rights, and in effect violating the woman's rights by proxy.

I didn't defeat myself, I'm pro life but have respect for the woman's choice and would never take it away. I myself had an abortion which was the result of rape. I have a son now but was told by countless doctors to have an abortion because there was a bunch of problems and I nearly died... a few times. I could have chosen to have an abortion but I love my child's father and I wanted my child desperetly, I was willing to die if that was necessary. But I respect that not all people are willing to go through that.

Then...you're pro-choice. You've just already made your choice. Not wanting to force others to abort or not abort (forced abortion is also anti-choice) is the essence of pro-choice, however, your identifying as pro-life irks me a little in that it seems that you wish to place yourself on a pedestal or separate yourself somehow from everyone else who is pro-choice.

It also irks me that you would try to convince other women to not abort, however, that would be alleviated if you're not going to go to the lengths most protestors do to convince women to not abort.

Actually it's called Pro life personal, pro choice political. It means I think abortion is wrong but respect the rights of women being able to choose and wouldn't take it away.

As for how I'd convince a woman... I would tell her as much of the truth as I could from all the different angles and aspects. I'd tell her the horrible and good parts of both sides. And possibly some of my own personal experience. Your being irked is of no consequence to me, I care on a general sense but your one opinion of what I believe in dosn't matter to me.

I see no pedestal, I believe in truth and facts. I've seen too many people back up their arguments with biblical reference. I think of myself no higher then other people who are pro life, I only respcet the ones who know what they're talking about more then the others.

I'd also like to point out another problem with the whole rights of the mother to abort a fetus because they're violating the woman's rights to her body. Technically a woman's child whether a fetus or an infant until they're old enough to make life decisions which in Canada is 14 I don't know about everywhere else, that child is the parent/ mother's responsibility in all ways an aspects so technically the mother or parent is responsible for everything their... I'm going to use the word baby, does. So technically the mother is violating her own rights through the responsibility she has over her child's actions in her womb.

Whoo that's a mouthful.
go ahead poke some holes in that,.

Um, the so-called responsibility does not mean that the fetus is a mere extension of the woman. Furthermore, you can't violate your own rights, as that is an oxymoron. The fetus, on its own, is violating the woman's rights. The woman's responsibility has no bearing on this and does not cause (except through faulty logic) the woman to be somehow violating her own rights.

Besides, if she were violating her own rights, that is once again solved through abortion as she removes the violator and ends the violation.

Actually you can violate your own rights and be convicted for it. You can technically break into your own home in the dead of night wearing a mask steal everything and sell it and then claim insurance if your caught you go to jail for fraud, theft, and a few other things. The woman, because her body is growing the fetus and is actually attached to the body through the umbilical chord has complete bearing over the child and the child's actions and therefor if the child is violating the woman's rights and the woman is responsible for that.

[Lord Setar]

GoatShow

Elf Lord Chiewn

GoatShow

Lord Setar

Furthermore, you can't violate your own rights, as that is an oxymoron.

Suicide.

Except that you've just given yourself consent.
Fail? Y/Y

Some sort of multiple-personality suicide.

That is a bit of a technicality. It's not you consenting, so it's technically homicide, however, your other personality also inhabits your body so it is still part suicide.

However, it isn't you that's violating your rights in that case, it's your alternate personality - conversely you could be said to be interfering with their rights by preventing them from committing suicide. And that's only two. Three or more means that the one personality is violating the rights of multiple personalities.

However, I don't know how far multiple personalities go as to each having their own seperate rights.

[And Then Nobody Cared]

kp is dcvi

Lord Setar

kp is dcvi

Quote:

How is consent to sex, and as established consent to the risk of pregnancy, irrevocable consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term?

How are (uncontracted) "agreements" even relevant to this debate?

Social responsibility is not viewed as obligatory terms which must be carried out, like two business partners. It's erroneous to think so.

Moreover, I could even take your argument and say that while I may consent to reside in this country, I have not (and perhaps, will not) ever once consent to each and every law the U.S. has established.

Technically, no born citizen of their birth nation has ever agreed to anything legally residing in their document of law. Ever.

That doesn't make the question as any less valid. The question is to attempt to establish if consent to the risk is irrevocable consent to the action, in question to statements that "the woman made her choice when she consented to sex!" It is very relevant and pertinent, especially when statements or implications such as that come into play.

Answer me this Setar: If she refrained from sex in that isolated incident where she did become pregnant: Would she be pregnant?

Answer me this kp: How would she have known that isolated incident would result in her becoming pregnant?

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

kp is dcvi

Quote:

How is consent to sex, and as established consent to the risk of pregnancy, irrevocable consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term?

How are (uncontracted) "agreements" even relevant to this debate?

Social responsibility is not viewed as obligatory terms which must be carried out, like two business partners. It's erroneous to think so.

Tell that to the idiots who think that knowing that sex can cause pregnancy means you should be punished through some kind of weird fetal right that exists depending on your mental state at the time during which you became pregnant.

kp is dcvi

Moreover, I could even take your argument and say that while I may consent to reside in this country, I have not (and perhaps, will not) ever once consent to each and every law the U.S. has established.

And?
The moment a law is passed outlawing weapons or requiring my entrance into the military or banning free speech is the day I become an outlaw.

How is this relevant?

kp is dcvi

Technically, no born citizen of their birth nation has ever agreed to anything legally residing in their document of law. Ever.

I call bullshit.

[Lord Setar]

kp is dcvi

Lord Setar

kp is dcvi

Quote:

How is consent to sex, and as established consent to the risk of pregnancy, irrevocable consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term?

How are (uncontracted) "agreements" even relevant to this debate?

Social responsibility is not viewed as obligatory terms which must be carried out, like two business partners. It's erroneous to think so.

Moreover, I could even take your argument and say that while I may consent to reside in this country, I have not (and perhaps, will not) ever once consent to each and every law the U.S. has established.

Technically, no born citizen of their birth nation has ever agreed to anything legally residing in their document of law. Ever.

That doesn't make the question as any less valid. The question is to attempt to establish if consent to the risk is irrevocable consent to the action, in question to statements that "the woman made her choice when she consented to sex!" It is very relevant and pertinent, especially when statements or implications such as that come into play.

Answer me this Setar: If she refrained from sex in that isolated incident where she did become pregnant: Would she be pregnant?

No. However, that still does not mean consenting to sex is irrevocably consenting to carrying any resulting pregnancy to term. All you've done is re-establish the already established consent to the risk of pregnancy.

[DCVI]

Lord Setar

However, I don't know how far multiple personalities go as to each having their own seperate rights.

DID and Schizophrenia are both listed in the DSM as "disorders". I highly doubt the government would bow down before that.

...although, there's an interesting debate to be had over whether this can really be called disadvantages. 3nodding

[Lord Setar]

Sugarrocks

Lord Setar

Sugarrocks

Lord Setar

Sugarrocks

I didn't defeat myself, I'm pro life but have respect for the woman's choice and would never take it away. I myself had an abortion which was the result of rape. I have a son now but was told by countless doctors to have an abortion because there was a bunch of problems and I nearly died... a few times. I could have chosen to have an abortion but I love my child's father and I wanted my child desperetly, I was willing to die if that was necessary. But I respect that not all people are willing to go through that.

Then...you're pro-choice. You've just already made your choice. Not wanting to force others to abort or not abort (forced abortion is also anti-choice) is the essence of pro-choice, however, your identifying as pro-life irks me a little in that it seems that you wish to place yourself on a pedestal or separate yourself somehow from everyone else who is pro-choice.

It also irks me that you would try to convince other women to not abort, however, that would be alleviated if you're not going to go to the lengths most protestors do to convince women to not abort.

Actually it's called Pro life personal, pro choice political. It means I think abortion is wrong but respect the rights of women being able to choose and wouldn't take it away.

As for how I'd convince a woman... I would tell her as much of the truth as I could from all the different angles and aspects. I'd tell her the horrible and good parts of both sides. And possibly some of my own personal experience. Your being irked is of no consequence to me, I care on a general sense but your one opinion of what I believe in dosn't matter to me.

I see no pedestal, I believe in truth and facts. I've seen too many people back up their arguments with biblical reference. I think of myself no higher then other people who are pro life, I only respcet the ones who know what they're talking about more then the others.

I'd also like to point out another problem with the whole rights of the mother to abort a fetus because they're violating the woman's rights to her body. Technically a woman's child whether a fetus or an infant until they're old enough to make life decisions which in Canada is 14 I don't know about everywhere else, that child is the parent/ mother's responsibility in all ways an aspects so technically the mother or parent is responsible for everything their... I'm going to use the word baby, does. So technically the mother is violating her own rights through the responsibility she has over her child's actions in her womb.

Whoo that's a mouthful.
go ahead poke some holes in that,.

Um, the so-called responsibility does not mean that the fetus is a mere extension of the woman. Furthermore, you can't violate your own rights, as that is an oxymoron. The fetus, on its own, is violating the woman's rights. The woman's responsibility has no bearing on this and does not cause (except through faulty logic) the woman to be somehow violating her own rights.

Besides, if she were violating her own rights, that is once again solved through abortion as she removes the violator and ends the violation.

Actually you can violate your own rights and be convicted for it. You can technically break into your own home in the dead of night wearing a mask steal everything and sell it and then claim insurance if your caught you go to jail for fraud, theft, and a few other things. The woman, because her body is growing the fetus and is actually attached to the body through the umbilical chord has complete bearing over the child and the child's actions and therefor if the child is violating the woman's rights and the woman is responsible for that.

False analogy. That's not violating your own rights, that's violating the terms of the insurance contract and committing insurance fraud =/

[And Then Nobody Cared]

Sugarrocks

Actually you can violate your own rights and be convicted for it. You can technically break into your own home in the dead of night wearing a mask steal everything and sell it and then claim insurance if your caught you go to jail for fraud, theft, and a few other things.

Look, I know 1, 2, ????, Profit is a meme but that doesn't mean it holds up in argument, mmkay?

[DCVI]

Lord Setar

kp is dcvi

Lord Setar

kp is dcvi

Quote:

How is consent to sex, and as established consent to the risk of pregnancy, irrevocable consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term?

How are (uncontracted) "agreements" even relevant to this debate?

Social responsibility is not viewed as obligatory terms which must be carried out, like two business partners. It's erroneous to think so.

Moreover, I could even take your argument and say that while I may consent to reside in this country, I have not (and perhaps, will not) ever once consent to each and every law the U.S. has established.

Technically, no born citizen of their birth nation has ever agreed to anything legally residing in their document of law. Ever.

That doesn't make the question as any less valid. The question is to attempt to establish if consent to the risk is irrevocable consent to the action, in question to statements that "the woman made her choice when she consented to sex!" It is very relevant and pertinent, especially when statements or implications such as that come into play.

Answer me this Setar: If she refrained from sex in that isolated incident where she did become pregnant: Would she be pregnant?

No. However, that still does not mean consenting to sex is irrevocably consenting to carrying any resulting pregnancy to term. All you've done is re-establish the already established consent to the risk of pregnancy.

Tell me Setar... are there lines that can be drawn? Is any one women truly ever in control when the Sperm enters inside her?

What control do we have over our biological processes? If you don't want to digest... you can't shut off digestion, you need to not eat. If you don't want to urinate, you can't reabsorb the liquids into your body, you need to not drink. If you want to sleep, you cannot nullify the caffiene in your body, you need to not drink the coffee...

You're trying to put so much free will over our own flesh, which largely, has a mind of its own.

[And Then Nobody Cared]

kp is dcvi

Tell me Setar... are there lines that can be drawn? Is any one women truly ever in control when the Sperm enters inside her?

Excluding rape, yes.

Quote:

What control do we have over our biological processes?

Not enough for you to make false analogies, it seems.

Quote:

If you don't want to digest... you can't shut off digestion, you need to not eat.

However, in a normal functioning human being, eating food will lead to digestion whereas sex might lead to pregnancy. False analogy.

Quote:

If you don't want to urinate, you can't reabsorb the liquids into your body, you need to not drink.

Fail analogy is double fail: There's liquids in foods and as such you can pee without drinking.

Quote:

If you want to sleep, you cannot nullify the caffiene in your body, you need to not drink the coffee...

Or take sleeping pills, heyho.

Quote:

You're trying to put so much free will over our own flesh, which largely, has a mind of its own.

So, over all, what has this got to do with accepting risk of pregnancy meaning consent to carry it to term?

[PhaedraMcSpiffy]

alliop

I don't want all abortion to be banned just partial birth abortions to be banned.

No such thing.

"Partial-birth abortion" was a term made up by a group of pro-life people to make late-term intact dilation and extraction sound terrible. Typically, this procedure is used for medical reasons only.

Also: This isn't the place for opinion dropping. Tell us why you want it banned.

kp is dcvi

Lord Setar

However, I don't know how far multiple personalities go as to each having their own seperate rights.

DID and Schizophrenia are both listed in the DSM as "disorders". I highly doubt the government would bow down before that.

...although, there's an interesting debate to be had over whether this can really be called disadvantages. 3nodding

Dissociative Identity Disorder (which some do not beleive is a "real" disorder) is not the same thing as Schizophrenia. The two aren't even closely related. Schizophrenics suffer delusions and hallucinations, and sometimes disturbances in movement (in catatonic schizophrenia) but "multiple personalities" happen only with DID.

Vincent Xain

Saigio

Vincent Xain

To the horrible human being who is condoning rape, who gives a man the right to forcibly violate the body of a woman? Say God and there'll be problems. WOMEN ARE HUMANS TOO YOU FREAK!!! WITHOUT WOMEN, YOU'RE PITIFUL EXISTENCE WOULDN'T PLAGUE US! Be grateful for the fact that your mother carried your horrible fetus to term.

RAPE IS NOT GOOD. IT IS NOT RIGHT!!!

Any human who forcibly violates the body of another deserves to have the same done to him.



To the original topic, I happen to be pro-life in all cases except rape. A teenager who goes out and gets pregnant because she doesn't like condoms is deserving of having to raise the child. A woman who is raped should be able to do all that she can to erase the mental trauma which comes with it.

However, second exception comes when the fetus threatens the woman's life terminally. In such case, a woman should be able to secure her own well being if such can be done.

The very thing that garuntees a woman the right to defend herself against rape (bodily domain) applies to abortion. The fetus is using her body without her permission, why should she be forced to allow it to continue to do so?

Um.....no....you had consensual intercourse... You knew of the possible ramifications of said act, including the possibility of pregnancy. This thusly grants said fetus the right to use the body. It's how the circle of life works.

Cognitive dissonance! My Introductory Psych. class is really coming in handy today!

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

GoatShow

Elf Lord Chiewn

GoatShow

Lord Setar

Furthermore, you can't violate your own rights, as that is an oxymoron.

Suicide.

Except that you've just given yourself consent.
Fail? Y/Y

Some sort of multiple-personality suicide.

There's a term for this.
It's called grasping at straws.

[Lord Setar]

kp is dcvi

Lord Setar

kp is dcvi

Lord Setar

kp is dcvi

Quote:

How is consent to sex, and as established consent to the risk of pregnancy, irrevocable consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term?

How are (uncontracted) "agreements" even relevant to this debate?

Social responsibility is not viewed as obligatory terms which must be carried out, like two business partners. It's erroneous to think so.

Moreover, I could even take your argument and say that while I may consent to reside in this country, I have not (and perhaps, will not) ever once consent to each and every law the U.S. has established.

Technically, no born citizen of their birth nation has ever agreed to anything legally residing in their document of law. Ever.

That doesn't make the question as any less valid. The question is to attempt to establish if consent to the risk is irrevocable consent to the action, in question to statements that "the woman made her choice when she consented to sex!" It is very relevant and pertinent, especially when statements or implications such as that come into play.

Answer me this Setar: If she refrained from sex in that isolated incident where she did become pregnant: Would she be pregnant?

No. However, that still does not mean consenting to sex is irrevocably consenting to carrying any resulting pregnancy to term. All you've done is re-establish the already established consent to the risk of pregnancy.

Tell me Setar... are there lines that can be drawn? Is any one women truly ever in control when the Sperm enters inside her?

What control do we have over our biological processes? If you don't want to digest... you can't shut off digestion, you need to not eat. If you don't want to urinate, you can't reabsorb the liquids into your body, you need to not drink. If you want to sleep, you cannot nullify the caffiene in your body, you need to not drink the coffee...

You're trying to put so much free will over our own flesh, which largely, has a mind of its own.

By your logic, we should ban contraceptives.

[PhaedraMcSpiffy]

kp is dcvi

Tell me Setar... are there lines that can be drawn? Is any one women truly ever in control when the Sperm enters inside her?

What control do we have over our biological processes? If you don't want to digest... you can't shut off digestion, you need to not eat. If you don't want to urinate, you can't reabsorb the liquids into your body, you need to not drink. If you want to sleep, you cannot nullify the caffiene in your body, you need to not drink the coffee...

You're trying to put so much free will over our own flesh, which largely, has a mind of its own.

HYPOTHETICALLY: For some crazy-a** reason, there are now medical procedures that allow you to eat without digesting, drink without urinating*, and drink caffeine without absorbing it. Would you fight against someone's right to have one of these procedure if they were proven to be effective, safe, and useful to the people having them?

*Dialysis?