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

As do pro-choicers. Pro-lifers take away choice from the woman as far as pregnancy is concerned. That is a fact.

No you give facts as you see them, and you have asserted numerous things that have no consensus or absolute as fact, and if my memory serves me right it was you that first raised the pro-choice = pro-abortion mantra.

no you have the answers that you wish to be right, you just cannot accept that there are alternatives to what you want to be correct.

 

If a woman raising a toddler changed her mind and decided that raising a family and not following her dreams is a sacrifice, and giving her child up for foster care is a "heart wrenching decision", it's okay and moral for the woman to kill her child in that situation?

- - - Updated - - -

Having an abortion is also a very heart wrenching decision.

 

Sam, this is the one thing I am most interested in seeing your answer for. Is how she has sex (raped/consensual) relevant or not to the pregnancy? If how she conceived is irrelevant why in Heaven's name do you continue to bring it up as though it matters?

Every time I point this out to you you either disappear or ignore it entirely.

If this argument is not working for you since as you can see it is so easy to poke this hole right through it, perhaps you should come up with a better argument against abortion for women who chose to have sex and who were raped.

 

I believe that abortion is wrong and shouldn't be legal, regardless of how the fetus was conceived.

 

Then why do you constantly cry, "She CHOSE to have SEX!!!" as if it matters? Why? Help me understand, because I sincerely do not understand.

 

Because the fact that the woman is only pregnant because of her choices, means that she's ESPECIALLY responsible for taking care of the child that she created.

 

But if she was raped she is not responsible for what happened to her at all, yet you expect her to give birth anyways. Do you see how what you're saying makes no sense to me?

 

Does that include those deemed to young or incapable to give informed consent, or those impregnated by a family member?

Even if she is only pregnant due to her choices we do not force people to be responsible for what they created, a woman can give up her child for adoption (something pro-lifers push for women seeking abortion), how is it she is ESPECIALLY responsible for a zef and yet not for her born child, when she chose (according to you) to create it?

Also why is a woman not forced to give blood, organs etc if her child should have a serious problem passed to it from her during gestation .. is she not ESPECIALLY responsible for the child she created?

It is the same old thing, pro-lifers want to place arbitrary decisions based on .... wait for it .... birth!

 

1-A teenager who got pregnant still has no right to be a brat and kill their own child because "raising a child is too difficult".

Or what if a woman got pregnant from consensual incest?

2-Giving a child up for adoption doesn't take away the child's life.

 

so then in reality consent means nothing to you.

as I said "It is the same old thing, pro-lifers want to place arbitrary decisions based on .... wait for it .... birth!"

and that is not what you stated, you said nothing about taking away life, you stated "Because the fact that the woman is only pregnant because of her choices, means that she's ESPECIALLY responsible for taking care of the child that she created."

all of the above stick to your premise, does that responsibility some how end once birth has happened .. surely that cannot be correct, because then that would be an arbitrary place wouldn't it?

 

Just because a teenager gets pregnant at an age where they can't give consent to getting pregnant, it doesn't mean that you should use the same terminology that's used to describe a forced pregnancy, to make it seem like a pregnant teen is a victim. A pregnant teen who aborts an innocent baby is not a "victim".

 

right

Try telling that to the 11 and 12 year old girls, or the mentally impaired who have no knowledge of reproduction.

You do realize that a large proportion of those pregnant teens are ones raised in christian conservative families who have little to no knowledge of reproduction. You know the ones who didn't know they could get pregnant the first time they have sex, or thought they couldn't get pregnant while having their period, or thought they couldn't get pregnant in the shower, or thought they couldn't get pregnant if they did a hand stand after sex etc etc etc. .. guess who taught them those myths.

How the hell can anyone reconcile a teen with very limited reproduction knowledge being forced to remain pregnant .. ridiculous

 

Christians want to discourage people from having premarital sex, and if teenagers know that they could get pregnant the first time they have sex (or during their period, etc), it sure would scare and discourage a lot of teens from having sex. So why are Christians against sex ed if it sometimes discourages premarital sex?

 

Everyone starts off as a fetus. And it isn't against the woman's will, as the woman's body adjusts to support the unborn

 

pro-choice does = pro-abortion, and I've stated my reasoning behind it. however pro life does not equal anti choice, even when it comes to pregnancy, the woman still has choices. thats a fact.
You wanna accuse me of stating facts and accepting nothing else, then you go and do the same thing?
I never said I didnt accept what you say, I just dont agree with it

 

How would you know?? You never had to make that decision ..and never will....

And so wha tif it is? It is STILL the woman's decision , NOT yours.

 

Because they believe, wrongly, that it encourages teens to have sex, they would rather try to use fear to control .. problems is it doesn't work.

 

So again the question asked, and ignored, is does the pro-life mantra of banning abortions take away a females choice to remain pregnant or not?

Actually if you read what I wrote I didn't say that at all. I said you give facts as you see them and that you have asserted numerous times things as facts when there is no consensus or absolute to the very thing you are asserting. I look at all arguments offered, the fact that I can and do post arguments against them does not mean I do not consider them .. however I can and do offer evidence in support of my arguments. Can you say the same?

Ditto

Lets take your assertion that pro-choice = pro-abortion, you have zero evidence to support that apart from your own assumptions, numerous times in this very thread you have ignored that pro-choice does not force anyone to have an abortion. you have ignored that It does not take away ANY choice as far as a woman and her pregnancy are concerned, the very basis of pro-choice is simply that .. giving the woman the choice to remain pregnant, remain pregnant and give up the born child for adoption, or to terminate the pregnancy .. pro-life removes one of those choices. You may believe that your course is true and right, that does not take away from the fact that you ARE attempting to remove a choice from the woman and as such pro-life = pro-forced pregnancy and birth.

 

no, because it does not force her to get pregnant. I've already answered the force pregnancy thing. Under normal circumstances sure it forces her to remain pregnant and removes the choice to kill on demand. Also I have seen no evidence to support what you are claiming as facts. I even give you sound reasoning on how I came to my conclusions. That is evidence. I don't need a professional opinion to tell em how to think. Either do you and you stated why you believe the way you do. However I caught you a little bit on it where you said pro life is anti-choice by taking away one of the 3 choices. you modified to say forced pregnancy and birth, when no law forces a woman to get pregnant. Forced to remain pregnant under normal conditions could be used and I can accept that. The other two are very much there(keep the baby or give it up for adoption). Also the 3rd one is there(terminate pregnancy) for certain circumstances under the way i support abortion use.

 

So, so wrong, the woman's body is forced to adjust to the unborn.

upon implantation the ova releases chemicals that 'announce' it's arrival, this instigates a series of changes within the female in order to prepare her body for the gestation of the zef. The ONLY reason the woman's body 'adjusts' as you put it is because the ova implanting forces the changes to take place.

To make the leap of faith you have that these changes are not against a woman's will would require that a woman actually has control over them, ie she can assert her will over them .. which is an absurd notion .. much like the one spouted by Todd Akin concerning rape victims.

 

Pro-life has nothing to do with pre-conception, unless you are advocating for control over when a woman has sex.

Thank you for that admission .. so in reality then pro-life DOES = forced pregnancy and birth.

what evidence do you need, I will provide it as I have done numerous times before.

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Your sound reasoning without the body of facts or information is NOT evidence.

No one said you do .. however how you think and what is fact are two very different things. I have stated what I believe, the difference is I can, and do, provide evidence to back it up.

No you didn't catch me at all, I just assumed (wrongly it would seem) that you would understand what I meant, when it became obvious that you didn't I added what was required to show my meaning.

Fine, then I am right is saying that pro-life = pro-forced pregnancy and birth.

As I said pro-life takes away one of the choices .. unless it meets their arbitrary conclusion as to what is ok.

 

One has to wonder why pro-lifers don't want to stick with the OP of the thread and answer the question;

Does giving consent to one person imply consent to another?

using only their pro-life arguments.

 

comparing my view to what an idiot said about rape victims is absurd. And you do know where the ova gets these chemicals right? Oh yes half from the woman. Let's not forget that.

 

Nothing arbitrary about rape/incest and danger to the mother. In fact over 80% of America agrees those exceptions should be there. Roughly 20% do not. And only about 20% believe in free reign. So actually doing the math im right in there with roughly 60% of America in my way of thinking. if you would like links I can provide them.
Id rather be forced pregnancy/birth labeled then support the legal killing of hundreds of thousands aka abortion. you explain no it simply is the woman's choice to remain pregnant, or not, which is reality is the only difference between pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-choice supports the mothers right to choose aka supports abortion on demand to preserve the mothers right to terminate pregnancy whenever she feels like it. zero value to the unborn. Whether you personally agree with abortion, or not is irrelevant, the fact you support the woman's right to gave one makes you pro-abortion. I do not know why you get so offended by your stance. Most pro-life advocates still give the woman choice in certain circumstances, but in normal circumstances that choice is void due to the fact another human life is growing inside of her and her own life is not threatened at that time. aka pro forced remaining pregnant and giving birth to save the life of another human being. I consider it human being, lots of others do to, to include the medical community and some scientists. As I stated even medical definitions of human being is human. Are you saying the medical experts got it wrong?

 

Urm, and half from the man, which you pro-lifers state creates a new 'person', the hormones and chemicals produced after fertilization are wholly the ova's, or do you prefer that the woman can refuse to allow her half of them to be used, after all that half is her property is it not?