I think there's a time limit though within which she has to withdraw consent. When a woman acts, she's already brought another life into being and the time of withdrawing consent is over. It's like if you get in a car crash, you're responsible.
So you are saying that if a woman doesn't say no fast enough, she can't withdraw consent and just has to accept a man raping her?
Yes. You don't think that's fair? If a woman is raped, why doesn't she go have her uterus sucked out and receive a shot of estrogen? Why should there be any loopholes for late term abortion in the case of rape? She knew there was a situation (high likelihood of pregnancy) and had plenty of time to do something about it.
Questerr said: ↑ So you are saying that if a woman doesn't say no fast enough, she can't withdraw consent and just has to accept a man raping her? Why? Because a woman who has been raped gets to decide what she wants to do.... What has that got to do with late term abortion? Nothing. The other poster was talking about rape....saying no to rape. You seem to think if she doesn't say it fast enough it has something to do with late term abortion, how bizarre.
That's another thread and the idea that ANYONE, including the father, has a say in what she does with her body is just stupid. NO one owns another person.
DUHHHHHHHH, there IS a time limit.......and you have been told that many times. She has until the 23 week of gestation...THEN and ONLY then is the time of withdrawing consent over. But that's no problem since most women have their abortions long before that.
YUPPERS! It IS all about what the woman wants............getting pregnant does NOT mean you give up your rights. Well, duh, ya, they are the only ones who get pregnant . No, IF a fetus is deemed a person it strengthens the case for abortion. A person cannot use another's body to sustain their life. How many times do you have to be told that.....you have NEVER proven anything different..... YES!....why not? Now before you go off on a rant about how Pro-Choicers want to tear 9 month fetuses apart, that does NOT happen. Most abortions are done long before that and long before the cutoff of 23 weeks. Later than what? If it's before 23 weeks she can have an abortion.......
Then you support unrestricted abortion from conception to birth. That puts you in the extreme of the abortionist camp. Not even Roe supports your position. And what if she changes her mind after the baby is born? There is no difference between the baby 1 second before birth and 1 second after. If killing it is ok before its born, then why not after it is born?
As a general rule the Father DOES have say...we refer to this as a relationship. The Mother still has the final say as it is HER body and she must always control it.
Society places all sorts of restrictions on how an individual can control their own body. For example, the woman's not allowed to put any illegal drugs into her body. An individual isn't allowed use their body to hurt someone else, except under very specifically defined preconditions.
I think there's a little piece inside Pro-Abortion-Choicers that yearns to be a radical Libertarian, though they'll never do it.
This distraction tactic is old and tired, but I understand you must use it because it is all you have. Begin a conversation focused on the "Baby" and when you are shown up revert to something else to avoid it.
No, I don’t think that’s tucking fair. I think a woman owns her body and that a man should stop if she tells him not at any time during the exchange. But apparently you are pro-rape if it helps your anti-abortion position.
I just adore your persistence in the face of, and contrary to , facts .... Yes, there is a BIG physiological difference between born and unborn. Your TOTAL denial of biology and science doesn't change a thing. OH! Then there's LAW which says a fetus isn't a person until it's BORN.... So you hate science and law.....but of course, who else would want women denied the same rights as men...
As usual , the wrong end of the stick is firmly in your grasp despite having been straightened out on this error of yours many times before... Women not "allowed to put illegal drugs in their bodies""? It's not "allowed" to commit murder but it's done anyway. You: """"An individual isn't allowed use their body to hurt someone else, except under very specifically defined preconditions""" YES, so IF a fetus is a person they have NO RIGHT to HURT the woman they're in without her consent... Glad to help...
He knows when he impregnates her he has no say. She does not need his permission it’s her body and her choice
If only we could find a way to sterilize both males and females at birth in a way that could be undone later in life when they can prove to be financially capable of providing for both themselves and a child.
Or if they had sex Tuesday instead of Friday. I am going into therapy for the pony I never got. It could have been a champion race horse and earned millions for me . Oh how I miss it somuch. (Tongue in cheek)
And then if their business fails or bad fortune hits them, we can just take away the child and give it to people with money. Or if one gets sick and doesn’t have health insurance...bye bye kid
Until then, if one has a baby while not being of a certain financial standing, just take the child from the parents and auction it off to the highest bidder who does have the financial standing you think qualifies.
