consent to insemination = consent to impregnation

You are already diverging from the OP because he wants the “limited time to abort” to be zero, as in for abortion to be totally banned, even as a medical necessity recommended by doctors or in the case of rape.

 

It may "telegraph" an intention to get pregnant but that doesn't mean the woman has to stay pregnant.

 

Consent to sex is not consent to any other act (like gestating).

Show me the law that says women must gestate?

Pregnancy does have consequences and restrictions which is why women should have full control of whether or not to gestate...

 

I don't see potential states as meaning much. There's a large number of minds that could exist if I dedicated my life to impregnating women, but that doesn't mean I am murdering children by not realizing this potential.

No, it doesn't have a mind. It has a brain, but not developed the point of having a mind.

Sure it could, with a similar level of manipulation. The mother's body does a lot to take a fertilized egg to become a baby. We know it's possible to take any nucleated cell and induce it to become totipotent, and somebody it will be possible to grow that into a person outside of the female body. Having this technological capability will not suddenly cause every cell in your body to be a person with a mind, even though they technically would be potential clones with their own minds. But again, it is ridiculous to try to equate the potential with the actual.

 

No.

One is reality, one is theoretical.

You're trying to say that there's no difference between something already existing that will grow into a viable human being, vs what might become a human being if you do "x".

Left alone, it will develop self awareness.

I like your last sentence, because you're practicing what you're claiming is ridiculous.

 

Then I almost totally agree with the OP. The one difference would be that abortion is acceptable if it is the only way to save the life of the mother.

 

People don't have carte blanche in their responses regardless of whether they consented to the situation or not. My point was that regardless of the outcome of the semantic games around "consenting to pregnancy", it won't actually impact the rights and wrongs of abortion in general terms (which is the conclusion the OP is clearly trying to drag us to ).

 

As long as some turkey does not force the turkey baster on her. Did she pay for the sperm, or did she rob the sperm bank?

 

or she can let him in through the back door

She has TWO different sexual options that don't involve consent to pregnancy.

 

So? Why would women have to only have sex the way you want them to?

Are you wanting to legislate sexual positions now by involving Bigger Government?

 

I can't get past the notion that a zygote or an embryo that is not wanted by the parents and is not even known to exist to the rest of the world has the same intrinsic value to society as someone who is out in the real world and a part of society.

Morning after pills and first tri abortions shouldn't be in the same bucket as late term abortions.

The turkey baster example is flawed as already pointed out. And I hate the malware counterpoint, a baby is not malware and most pregnancies are wanted and celebrated. We need better analogies. Maybe consenting to go to a comedy club and then being pointed out or called out by the performer in a joke. Most people enjoy it, some don't, but consent isn't part of that equation. If you land near the front row, you might get picked on. And if you don't practice safe sex, you might get pregnant.

But let's get past people trying to control other people's decisions because that will never work. We will outlaw guns before we would ever stop having sex, and we will never outlaw guns. Abortion needs to be argued on it's own merits, free from religious influence and notions ofbtuebsanctity of human life when talking about an organism without a functioning brain, self awareness, etc. I'm not going to be the one to argue where the line is to be drawn, but it should be after the first couple months and it needs to be before thalenlast few months. That is all.

 

AND, TA DA! That's the way it is....abortion is legal up to viability , 23 weeks,.....and any later than that are done to save the life/health of woman or fetus..


As to consent? Consent to one act (sex) is not consent to any other act (pregnancy, more sex, being beaten, getting an STD).

Consent to visit a comedy club is not consent to have the comedian physically beat you up ….

 

Sure, but I'd really prefer better analogies. Comedians don't generally physically assault their audiences. But they do sometimes pick on them verbally. Most like it or at least tolerate it ok. A few really don't. Sort of like pregnancy. Let's stop talking about pregnancy like it's something nobody would want.

 

Well, this is the Abortion Forum so, yes, we talk about unwanted pregnancy. No one said no one would want to be pregnant.

 

That is a good analogy.

 

No it isnt. What's at issue here is a bunch of plebs in the christian lobby think this is a christian nation and want to enforce their ideological morality on those in the public.

 

Pro-Life Atheists and Agnostics website

 

Yawn.

The entire movement found its roots in evangelical america, and appealed to a very minute portion of atheists by applying the constitutional argument.

I argue that the constitution protects the mother from cruel and unusual punishment to force a woman to carry to term.

End of story.

 

There are many problems with your argument. The first problem is "intent". We have this thing called jurisprudence. To be convicted of a crime in this nation requires 2 things -

1) actus rea = you must have actually committed the crime
2) mens rea = you have to have intended it. This is why criminal insanity is a defense for murder (right, wrong, or otherwise)

In the case of a woman walking in to a sperm bank - she is intending to get pregnant. In the case of a woman and man who are using contraception - they are not intending to get pregnant.

It is a tough road to claim direct consent. What you could claim is that they consented to the "possibility" that an accidental pregnancy might occur - just as when one gets into a car one consents to the possibility of an accident - they assume the risk.

Regardless - your argument is a complete fail as while there may have been tacit consent to the possibility of a unintended pregnancy - This is not consent to the creation of a baby by carrying that pregnancy to term.

 

It also protects the people from the Gov't making laws outside its legitimate authority. The principle on which this nation was founded - by which law and the Constitution is to be interpreted - is respect for individual liberty. Specifically - that essential liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The Gov't is to have ZERO authority ( of its own volition) to make law messing with individual liberty.

Just because some law is not directly forbidden by name in the constitution - does not mean the Gov't has the legitimate authority to make that law.

If the Gov't wants to make law messing with liberty it is supposed to appeal to "we the people" for consent "consent of the governed"

The bar - with respect to messing with individual liberty - is overwhelming majority NOT - 50+1/ simple majority mandate.

This is what a Republic is BY Definition ! This is what defines a Republic vs pure democracy.

Both Republicanism and Classical liberalism refer to simple majority mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority".

In the case of Abortion it is "Tyranny of the Minority" as less than 50% want to ban all abortion. If Tyranny of the Majority is an abomination - an anathema to the founding principles and to the whole idea of a Republic. What then is Tyranny of the Minority ?

It is removal of one of the major safeguards that are in place to protect against totalitarianism .. that's what.

 

She intended to involve herself in the act of insemination.

Her real crime is the abortion. If, hypothetically, she did not intend to involve herself in the act of insemination, that would be a mitigating factor.
Intent to specifically get pregnant is not altogether relevant. Well, actually it is. If she was intending to get pregnant and then aborted, that makes it all the worse.

 

Worse for whom? Worse than what?


And what difference does it make? (none, BTW)



Consent to sex is not consent to any other act (like gestating).

Show me the law that says women must gestate?

Pregnancy does have consequences and restrictions which is why women should have full control of whether or not to gestate...

 

What? Oh, no... that doesn’t make you sound like a ignorant creep; start with it!

 

Insemination and pregnancy are two different things. She intended to have sex - which includes being a sperm receptacle - but intending to receive sperm and getting pregnant are not the same= false dichotomy. You should have gleaned this from the first post.

Abortion is legal in the early stages of pregnancy = not a crime.

 

So you would argue that a woman going to a sperm bank and consenting to be inseminated is not consent to pregnancy?