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

They don't have to define it beyond saying that any person who is killed by another person is a murder. That protects all born people equally without extending it inside of a mother's body where murder laws don't belong(because there's no people in there). No picking and choosing necessary.

This is a great argument, it's just not relevant to the abortion debate. Pro-choicers are not deciding which people live or die. If you're born, you're protected by the law. It's is the most all encompassing and straight forward way of handling it. Every single person, no matter what gender, race, ethnicity, religion, handicap, etc is protected by the law as soon as they are born. You would like to have the right to arbitrarily decide when a person has rights(sometimes women do but ehhhh, sometimes they don't), but wait a second.....isn't that what the dastardly pro-choicers are doing that you disagree with? That sounds.....a bit elitist to me.

So we already hold equal dominion over each other. I've no more right to decide when my lovely neighbor down the street should die than I do when my other neighbor whose trash blows into my yard. I also don't have the right to tell any of my neighbors how they ought to be handling personal decisions regarding the inside of their own bodies since, by the very definition of it occurring within their own bodies, there is only one person involved.

And that would be true if pro-choicers were making arbitrary decisions about what people should live or die. But again, this argument is a good one, you're just using it in the wrong debate. It doesn't apply here. This would be a great argument against the death penalty, but that's a different sub-forum.

In any case, my original point about you not getting to define things for other people was in regards to what you said here:

You're trying to define not only how mothers should feel but also how men who support a woman's right to choose things for her own body should feel. 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. Because it's not your health decisions that are at stake. But mostly because you think your subjective judgments on another person's character are objective and should matter to anybody else. In that, you are incredibly mistaken and a bit arrogant.

 

That's because you are thinking of a woman as a human being, think of them instead as a kind of farm animal used to produce men, and the whole Right To Life agenda makes complete sense......

 

You gave no explanation as to HOW it was wrong? Isn't that the "pro-lifer" argument?

1. Woman agrees to have sex with a man.

2. She becomes accidentially pregnant.

Therefore 3. The Government gains right to control her body until parturtion.

 

Consider a basic undeniable fact of "pro-life" thinking....

To them?....a woman immediately upon fertilization of a ovum should be the property of the State.

(BTW, they can try to deny this...and I can quickly get them to contradict themselves. Done it many times on this forum.)

 

And as already told to you on numerous occasions pro-choice means being a supporter of allowing the woman to choose.
It does not mean being in favor of abortion no matter how many times pro-lifers spew that mantra.

If you take away a woman's choice whether to remain pregnant what else are you doing but forcing her to remain pregnant and forcing her to give birth through weight of law against her will, and if you are going to accuse me of lying you had better have better proof than just your opinion.

It is irrelevant whether she is being forced or not to become pregnant, as consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and pregnancy is a related, but different action to sex.

You are right the courts are not always right, but until the laws change then they are deemed to be right .. by all means campaign to change the laws that don't adhere to your own personal beliefs, that is your right, but until those laws are changed then they are what people are governed by.

All I am asking you is a very simple set of questions;

1. Does consent given to one individual imply consent given to a another individual? (remember it is pro-lifers who insist that a zef is a separate person)
2. Does consent for one action imply consent for a separate different action?
3. Do the cumulative injuries incurred during pregnancy meet the current recognized requirements for the use of deadly force, if not, why not?
4. Do laws already recognize pregnancy as a serious literal injury in some cases?
5. Do some states contain pregnancy in there laws defining injury?

If you are truly intellectually truthful your only answers to the above questions must be yes to all of them.

 

Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You always make sure you are immune from the consequences of your own beliefs. Drawing the line at born is no different than drawing the line at black or whatever else you might randomly decide. If you want to actually be consistent, you need to stop trying to save your own ass and make it equal for everyone. You need to play by your own rules.

You still don't get it. You're still using the slavery-era Democrat definition of personhood. How do slave owners reconcile "all men are created equal" with owning another person? Why, we just play with the semantics until we can make it fit, of course. If we just arbitrarily cut some people out of the definition, then we don't have to actually change anything we're doing and we can still pretend we're on the right side of the issue. Now all people are still considered equal. But some are just not considered people. Problem solved. And no "people" are harmed.

 

It IS equal for everyone. Being born is not a right that is bestowed. It's not something that some people will have but others not. It's not something you buy with money or influence. It's not passed down through generations. It's a transition that Every. Single. Person. goes through and what makes it distinctive is that it's the first time that you're NOT a connected dependent part of the inside of another person's body. You're truly independent at that point. You are HERE.

And Mr. Reagen's quote isn't as profound as you think it is when you realize that all he's pointing out is that something that cannot think doesn't come up with ideas. Great big duh to that. Most of us figure that out when we're old enough to realize our G.I.Joe's aren't actually alive.

And if you want to be all high and mighty about drawing the line at birth, why do we draw the line at humans at all? Why shouldn't ALL life be protected? Why not all forms of life? Hmm? I'll tell you why. Because you're a human being so naturally you want to protect human beings. Where's the mercy for the cows and the pigs and the chickens and the fish and the plants and the bacteria and all the other forms of life humans trample on by the millions each and every day? Do you raise the issue of the sanctity of life when you sit down to eat a steak? I'll bet you don't. And I don't blame you. I don't either. I accept the position that human beings are in as the apex predator on this planet which basically means we get to say what's what for everything else. But I am not ignorant about the arbitrary nature of that arrangement and I don't pretend I'm some type of morally superior being by drawing a line at a human fetus. I'll bet you've destroyed more life just today than the total amount of abortions that occur in a year. Did you know the human stomach is full of more bacteria than there are people on the Earth? If you kill even a fraction of that, you've effectively destroyed more individual lives than all the abortions that happen in this country. High horses are a dime a dozen these days.

We're all being arbitrary to a certain degree, it's just that some of us are willing to realize it to ourselves.

 

In an attempt to get the debate back onto topic, I would like to address Smevins comment on contributory negligence.

I would suggest that anyone with an interest in contributory negligence read Breaking the Abortion Deadlock : From Choice to Consent: By Eileen McDonagh

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

I cannot quote the book as it is copyrighted.

 

"But (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s ain't people! They're black!"

That's all I got out of this.

 

Read it again.

 

Now that the usual pro-lifers have attempted to take the topic off track, perhaps they would care to address the OP.

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.

 

You quote Reagan which is amusing because he was the one who signed into law the Therapeutic Abortion Act in June 14, 1967 in California.

Also Nancy Reagan is pro-choice, perhaps that had some effect on her husband's personal opinion regarding abortion?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...4147_1_nancy-reagan-donald-regan-first-ladies

 

A lawyer said that pregnancy wasn't an injury.

 

Citation please. A lawyer doesn't tell us much. lol

 

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/ca...-m-997506.html

Joseph Brophy

 

And yet we have Khiara M. Bridges, Boston University School of Law who disagrees with him.

http://works.bepress.com/khiara_bridges/1/

 

Oh by the way I fixed your image Unifier, feel free to use it whenever you like and tell people how awesome I am at photoshoop. lol

 

In a medical malpractice ... what has that to do with anything?

and again I need to remind you that pregnancy is ALREADY seen as a serious literal injury in some cases, AND is deemed an injury in some state laws.

Nebraska, which defines “serious personal injury” as “great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.

Michigan’s statute similarly defines “personal injury” as “bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain,
pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.

and to go even further there is still the issues of initial consent and ongoing consent.

 

What's the difference between initial consent and ongoing consent?

 

What am I your dictionary?

 

Government gains right to protect the unborn. why you are so for saving a few at the cost of thousands is beyond me. And doesn't that go against human nature to protect those that can't protect themselves.

 

chose abortion. Pro-choice is referring to no other choices. That's the truth don't like abortion why be pro-choice, because you support the right to choose abortion, which is supporting abortion.
I already have proof that abortions kill unborn and that being against it is supporting the unborn. I also have proof that no law forces a woman to get pregnant against her will. Her will stops when another life is at stake. You can call ti force if you want, but when another life, a human life si at stake you better believe laws should protect that human, especially since it can not protect itself from the persecution it has sustained. Treating the unborn as nothing more then a parasite, some unknown quality. It is very known. I need no more proof of the plight of the unborn then 55 million legal slaughters in the last 40 years.
pregnancy is directly related to sex.
I've already answered these questions I believe, but here it goes
1. Yes in some cases especially pregnancy the act of sex is implied consent to the unborn.
2. Yes every action has a reaction
3. Depends on the injuries, are they life threatening? if not then no, if yes then yes.
4. Yes and those cases justify her terminating pregnancy
5. Yes, but also some states say a 13 year old can consent to sex. Do you support those laws too?

 

Well that is pure rubbish, what part of choosing NOT to have an abortion do you consider 'no other choice'.

You can twist it however much you like, the truth of the matter is that pro-choice simply means having the opportunity to choose to remain pregnant or not. Pro-choicers have no wish to force any female to get an abortion, not force her to remain pregnant . .can you say the same?

Never said anything different . .however that supporting the unborn also requires forcing the woman to remain pregnant and to give birth ergo you are giving the unborn superior rights.

Nope, but you want a law that forces her to remain pregnant.

Rubbish, does your will stop when you are defending yourself against attack just because another life may be at stake.

But of course you gloss over the persecution of the woman . .to be expected.

Well in strict biological terms the zef does display a number of parasitic-like characteristics.

Appeal to popularity

Emotional hyperbole

Not in all cases it is not.

So you are saying that consent given to one person is implied consent to a different person .. care to provide any legal precedence or current law that gives evidence of that assumption.

Does not answer the question. Does consent to one action mean implied consent to a different action ie does a woman consenting to foreplay imply consent to full sexual intercourse. Your "every action has a reaction" implies that consenting to foreplay has the reaction of consenting to sexual intercourse, and we all know that is not correct.

Deadly force does not require for the injuries to be life threatening, while you are entitled to your opinion on this it does not make your opinion reality.

Then if the laws state that pregnancy is a serious literally injury it applies to any pregnancies, those laws make no specification as to the cause of the pregnancy.

There is not a single state in the US that has any laws that say a 13 year old can consent to sex. - http://globaljusticeinitiative.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/united-states-age-of-consent-table11.pdf

The closest you will find to what you are implying is that some states decree a lesser crime if the age difference between the male and female is under a specified range, but even they do not apply to a 13 year old girl.

 

1. you answered your own question, as pro-choice only refers to abortion and the choice to have it, I think you just like saying the word rubbish
2. Oh so the fact you stand by idly and watch a million deaths a year in the name of women's rights (America alone)makes you good? and eys I can say I do not force any woman to have sex. Nor do I support any woman to kill on demand. Or man for that matter
3. You mean equal rights afforded under the constitution. Due process clause. Point to Roe V wade blah blah it's unconstitutional anyways, otherwise it wouldn't be weakened more and more with every ruling.
4. Simply being pregnant is not an attack. there's a difference between the body adjusting to support pregnancy and actual life threatening occurrences like blood clots, organ failure. there's that rubbish word again.
5. Women aren't being persecuted and killed at will. to compare being pregnant to being slaughtered by the very person meant to protect you is clearly an injustice and part of what I'm arguing about.
6. so it's an adjective of a parasite? But is clearly a noun of human. Also as i've stated the woman's body adjusts and provides the unborn with means to survive to include the enzymes that suppress the immune system to allow it to survive inside the woman.
7. Again it is very known, refusal to recognize it doesn't change it
8. you mean facts- aprox 55 million legal killings since Roe V Wade. nothing emotional needed
9. care to prove me wrong?
10. consenting to sex has the potential reaction of pregnancy. I answered the question when i said yes.
11. OK you try to fight a murder case when you killed someone because they kept hitting you in the arm and see if you don't go to prison. however someone stabs you in the gut= self defense if the person stays as your life is threatened
12. serious literal does not mean life threatening. And that only applies to some states and those states happened to be the most pro abortion states in the union if I am not mistaken
13. Last i checked Alabama has a 13 year old consent of sex for females and 15 for males.

 

Pro-choice does not 'only' refer to abortion, it also refers to choosing to remain pregnant, choosing to remain pregnant and give up the born child for adoption .. it pretty much much means choosing anything when it concerns your own body .. can you as a pro-lifer say the same?

Who says that pro-choicers stand 'idly' by . .you have no idea what I, or other pro-choicers do to try and reduce abortions, one thing is for certain it doesn't involve trying to force any women by law to become the property of government, which is what pro-lifers advocate.

That is just an opinion, and your statement again begs the question of is a zef a person, regardless of your own personal opinion of that the fact remains there is no consensus or absolute as to when a zef becomes a person, if there was then the whole abortion argument would be pretty much settled one way or another.

Roe, as far as I am aware has not been 'weakened' by any ruling ... the main argument of Roe has not been 'weakened', and that argument stands as no undue burden to be placed on a woman in her pursuit of an abortion .. it comes down to what the courts decide an 'undue burden' is.

Attack is also another word for assault and legally assault is At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.
Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition. and as stated before what you call 'adjusting' legally is called assault.

Why is it an injustice, because you say so, and yet again you are begging the same question as in #3.

No it is a comparison, that is what parasitic-like means, and again you are making assumption that there is no consensus or absolute to. Please do show where the woman provides the enzymes that suppress the immune system. You biology is somewhat lacking, the fertilized ova sends out chemical signals that initiate the whole cycle of immunity suppression, the zef is the instigator.

I am not refusing to recognize it, so please do show where I am. The fact remains that your comment is nothing more than an appeal to popularity.

If no emotional content is needed then why do you use the word 'slaughtered', slaughter IS an emotional charged word.

well let us see, lesbian couples will not have sex with a man in order to become pregnant, neither does IVF require sexual intercourse, so your 'pregnancy is directly related to sex.' comment is pretty much proven to be wrong.

Consent to sex also has the potential reaction of STD's .. do we withhold treatment, after all they consented to sex they must have implied consent to the STD, and you still haven't provided a single piece of legislation that alludes to consent to one person is implied consent to another .. care to try?

do you have other recourse apart from deadly force if someone keeps hitting you on the arm .. can you request the person stop, can you remove yourself from the situation, can you use non deadly force, the answer you are looking for is yes you can .. a pregnant woman has NONE of these options.

and I'll refer you to this -

The purpose of the law of self-defense, particularly in the context of the use deadly defensive force, is to be able to protect yourself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm before that harm occurs, not to require that you actually experience death or grave bodily harm before you may act to protect yourself.

imminent danger of death is NOT the only justification for use of deadly force in self defence.

and life threatening is not the only justification for self-defence.

I need to do some research on state self defence laws, so I will come back to you on this one.

Alabama

The age of consent in Alabama is 16.

Shown by articles of the Code of Alabama:

13A-6-70: (c) A person is deemed incapable of consent if he is: (1) Less than 16 years old... - http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-6-70.htm

13A-6-67 : (a) A person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree if: ...
(2) He, being 19 years old or older, subjects another person to sexual contact who is less than 16 years old, but more than 12 years old. - http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-6-67.htm

13A-6-62 (a) A person commits the crime of rape in the second degree if: ...
(1) Being 16 years old or older, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex less than 16 and more than 12 years old; provided, however, the actor is at least two years older than the member of the opposite sex. - http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-6-62.htm