Question : Does giving consent to one person imply consent to another?

Pro-lifers insist that the unborn are separate, individual 'people' from the moment of conception, and as such have the basic rights that all people have ie. The right to life.

They also insist that if a woman consents to sex then she also implies consent to any resulting pregnancy, this I believe is incorrect based on current laws dealing with consent (expressed or implied)

Consent is legally defined as - consent 1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations.

Implied consent is legally defined as - implied consent n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered. Examples: a) a "contract" based on the fact that one person has been doing a particular thing and the other person expects him/her to continue; b) the defense in "date rape" cases in which there is a claim of assumed consent due to absence of protest or a belief that "no" really meant "yes," "maybe" or "later."

Consent to sex cannot be seen as (expressed) consent to pregnancy, there is not voluntary agreement to another's proposition ie the man does not ask the woman to become pregnant prior or during sex.

Implied consent to pregnancy cannot also be valid, based on the 'person at conception' of pro-lifers there is a separate, individual person and consent whether implied or expressed cannot be transferred to another person for a different action to the one the original consent was granted, and although pregnancy is related to sexual intercourse it is not the same. for each separate action consent must be granted to each individual person eg. A man cannot assume implied consent to sex just because the woman gave consent at an earlier time, neither can his friends assume she implied consent for them to have sex with her just because she consented to have sex with him. Therefore IF the zef is a separate, individual person as pro-lifers want to claim the consent to sex CANNOT be seen as consent to the zef (a separate person) to use the woman's body in order to sustain its life (a separate action).

There is also the issue that consent is an ongoing agreement that can be revoked at anytime for any reason, or even no reason at all - except in contractual consent, which requires a person to be fully informed and a signature, and even this is not 'set in stone' eg. a man signed a consent form to take part in tests to see if he was a bone marrow match for his cousin, the consent form laid out the procedure from the initial tests to the actual removal of bone marrow, the man was a match .. upon finding out he was he withdrew his consent for any further procedures, his cousin took him to court using the consent gained on the form as evidence that his cousin should be forced to full fill the contract he had signed .. The court ruled that the man could not be held to a contract that would enforce substantial intrusion and injury to him, and that he had the legal right to withdraw consent based on this..

Pregnancy is a substantial intrusion and injury to the woman.
The zef (as a separate, individual person) has not gained consent to perform a separate action (use the woman's body to sustain its life) from the woman.

Therefore I conclude that consent to sex CANNOT be consent, implied or otherwise to pregnancy.

 

What's the difference between intrusion and injury?

 

What am I, your dictionary?

Look it up yourself.

 

84 views and not a single relevant response from a pro-lifer .. one wonders why.

 

"Pro-life" logic-

If you let me borrow your car?....the Government has a right to confiscate the car for 9 months so you won't wreck it.

 

Speaking only for myself - I haven't responded to the OP because it calls for too much speculation.

We don't know how the courts would apply 'implied consent' language to a consensual pregnancy - IN A WORLD WHERE ABORTION IS BANNED - until we get there. I suppose we could look at how it is dealt with in countries where abortion is already banned but frankly, I'm not interested in doing that because their Constitutions and Legal systems are quite different from our own.

 

If you're fiddling with semantics to try to find legal justifications to kill your own child, you are straight up evil. Period. There is nothing more to it. A real woman would sacrifice her own life to save her child. Because she has integrity and her child is the most important thing in the world to her. A mother's love for her child is the strongest bond in human nature. Thus any woman who is so selfish as to invert this bond and deliberately kill her own child for the mere sake of convenience is evil personified. And let's just be real here. All males who try to further encourage these women to do this are only doing so to gain female approval and/or to get out of having to man up and take care of their own children. It's not about anything more noble than that.

 

and yet you indulge in speculation for your beloved UVVA .. hmm says a lot really.

do you disagree that consent to one person for one action does not imply consent for another person (which is what pro-lifers claim a zef is) for a separate action .. unless of course you are suggesting that sex and pregnancy are the same, or that the zef is not a separate individual 'person', and one would assume that the courts would apply 'implied consent' language as they do now .. unless of course you (that is pro-lifers you) plan to change that as well.

One wonders just how many laws, rights and decisions pro-lifers are going to attack in order to get their own way.

 

What semantics, please DO point then out for me .. the rest of your post is just your opinion with nothing to support it, feel free to have any opinion you want just don't try to assume that everyone thinks the same as you.

 

How (where) have I speculated about the UVVA?

If you can't support that claim - I'll just write it of as yet another baseless assertion.

That made my head spin.

If you are asking whether or not a child has the right to be where it is (in the womb) because the mom and the child's father assumed the risks that created that situation? My answer is yes.

This is the speculation I was talking about in my previous post.

We are proponents of equal rights.

That's not going to change.

 

Do tell me when did the UVVA over turn Roe, I must have missed that .. oh hang on it hasn't happened, there fore your assertion that it WILL is nothing but speculation.

doesn't surprise me, it usually does when pro-lifers don't want to give a truthful answer.

and of course you know very well that is not what was asked, though it is noted that yet again you try to turn the topic away from what hurts your agenda.

So asking you question and asking your opinion is speculation now is it .. So funny.

Perhaps you would like to 'speculate' why the courts would change on how they apply 'implied consent'

nope, you (pro-lifers you) are proponents of forced pregnancy, forced birth, removing rights from females and giving zefs super rights.

and that certainly won't change for pro-lifers.

 

Show me where I ever claimed it does.

Show me where I said the UVVA alone would overturn Roe.

You'll never find it because it never happened.

1. I'm not a pro-lifer.
2. I honestly could not say for sure what your question was. That's why I tried to rephrase it and then gave an answer.

"If you are asking whether or not a child has the right to be where it is (in the womb) because the mom and the child's father assumed the risks that created that situation? My answer is yes."

Wasn't that what you were getting at?

I don't know that at all.

You are welcome to rephrase your question and try again though.

No thank you.

Like I said in my first post of this thread, that calls for too much speculation.

Reported

Not everyone who opposes abortion are 'pro-lifers.'

Some of us are anti-abortion.

 

Because it is an idiotic analysis. Contributory negligence would be more relevant a legal argument if one were to believe that pregnancy is an "injury".

 

I conclude this based off of what you have given us here. She consented to the sex. she also has implied the consent of getting pregnant based on the fact it can happen and might happen.
this can be applied to anything. you consent to drive car. You are implying consent to being injured based on the fact it can happen and might happen.
she is also implying consent to injuries resulting form pregnancy, due to the fact pregnancy can and might happen and injuries can and might happen during pregnancy. Some of these injuries may be life threatening. When these situations occur she can retract her consent and kill the unborn to save her own life.
Also in rape/incest no consent was given, therefore no implied consent was given to pregnancy and therefore she can kill the unborn if she chooses.
Pregnancy is not the same as a contract for a job. In a job there is only one life involved, yours. Pregnancy involves two, the mother and the unborn.
The unborn has gained consent to perform its duties to develop. the woman's body adjusts for the changes and even supplies the unborn with enzymes to prevent the unborn form being attacked. That is giving consent to live inside and do what billions have done since the beginning of human beings.
Are you saying the woman's body is not part of the woman?

- - - Updated - - -

You got that wrong, good job

 

Men also force women to have abortions to have control over them, something pro-choice talk about all the time, control

- - - Updated - - -

it's ok to be wrong, but that was so blatantly wrong it can't possibly be taken seriously

 

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-i-persue-a-lawsuit-if-a-doctor---hospital-to-m-997506.html

Joseph Brophy

 

You don't get to define what being a mother is to another person. In fact, you don't get to define anything for another person. All of us get to define things for one person only.

Yourself.

I might think that eating meat is murder. I might think you a horrible monster every time you look at a cheeseburger. There are even people who would agree with me.

Know what means? Jacksquat to anyone who doesn't feel the same way. We get to define things for ourselves only and only hope that others will agree, but you must be careful to not assume that other people's agreement constitutes an objective fact when you're not talking about an objective subject.

 

It is if she was raped and forcibly impregnated.

 

neither can the pro-choice = pro-abortion be taken seriously as it is so blatantly wrong, still doesn't stop pro-forced pregnancy and birth people from repeating it.

 

Then please do explain how consent given to one person for one action can be transferred to another person (as pro-lifers would have people believe a zef is) for a separate action.

Can you explain how consent given to a man for him to insert his penis into her vagina can be implied consent for a zef to attach itself to the female in order to sustain its life?

Driving a car does not 'create' another 'person' living inside of you, using a females resources in order to sustain its life and neither do we refuse medical treatment for any injury incurred due to a risk taken, what you are alluding to is that a person who risks a car crash should not be treated if they are injured.

and again you are stating that self-defence can ONLY be justified in life threatening situations, which is not correct and which you have been shown on numerous occasions, so why do you ignore the fallacy of your argument. Deadly force in self-defence can be justified in situations that are NOT life threatening.

2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)

There is no 'implied' consent in any unwanted pregnancy.

and I have never said it was

Crap .. what you are calling 'adjust' courts and states have deemed injuries. It is the fetus that expresses the hormones that suppress the woman's immune system.

Then you have a very twisted version of what consent, implied or otherwise means.

Are you saying that the fetus is not a separate individual?

 

Interesting and something that I hadn't actually thought about to be honest ... even so, does contributory negligence (which BTW is now only used 5 states, the rest have moved to comparative negligence) stop a person from availing themselves of the injuries incurred, ie are they forced to continue to suffer injury even though they contributed through negligence to the injury?

Interesting take on your Contributory negligence point follows;

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...y Negligence play a part in pregnancy&f=false

 

Then you had best let Mr Brophy know that it is already deemed a serious literal injury in some cases and is classed as an injury in at least two states laws/

Apart from that the answer deals with a medical malpractice lawsuit for a woman being told she had a tumor when she was pregnant . .nothing at all to do with the woman's right to self-defence against unconsented injuries.

 

please explain how being pro-choice meaning allowing a woman to have abortions willy nilly is not pro abortion. I've already explained how your lies were just that on forced pregnancy and forced birth. nobody is forcing her to get pregnant, or have sex in most cases. Those that she is forced sex are exceptions in my book and over 80% of peoples books. so I guess roughly 80% of Americans are on my side on this. Only 20% are on your free reign to kill at will stance. and actually over half consider abortion wrong, but 70% want roe v wade to stand. makes no sense, also considering roughly 70% can care less about abortion, which is disturbing

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sayign the courts aren't always right. Also saying the fetus is separate. \. Also sayign em disagreeing with you does not make my views twisted. Stick to the issues. I'd like to think i've been quite civil in our discussion

 

Interesting. So then how does the government define who is and is not protected by anti-murder laws? Since you've pretty much just argued here that they are pointless to even have at all.

You see, this is the uncomfortable little fact that you guys never want to admit. You're only so cavalier with these beliefs when you know that you're immune from their consequences. Because you are in the position of the elite. You can arbitrarily decide whatever you want in regards to life and death for other people because none of it will come back on you directly. So who cares who else dies? Because you are safe either way. But if society repealed all anti-murder laws, then we'd all be on equal footing. And your statement would actually hold some weight. Because we could all define whatever we want by whatever individual standards we might have and we'd all hold equal dominion over one another.

But the proof of the hypocritical self-righteous cowardice is in the pudding. Because few if any of these "let everyone decide for themselves" people would ever allow the value of their own lives to be arbitrarily decided by another person. Thus their whole position is a joke.

 

Your entire post is based on the assumption that fertilized eggs are people. That's what you need to prove.