Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 75 of 75
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Legal precedent does not seem to be on your side...

    If you consent to the cause of an effect, you have consented to the effect, legally.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...roximate+Cause
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT this assertion. The link you provided is neither about consent nor does the word "consent" even appear within the link (as far as I can tell).

    And legally, it's obvious that the legal definition means "agree". If one consents to sex (which is legally the most common use of consent), it means that they have agreed to have sex and if they did not agree to have sex, then the sex is nonconsensual. The age of consent is the age where one has the ability to legally agree to have sex. There really is no valid reason to doubt that legally "consent" means what I showed that it means in the dictionary, which is:

    "to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive):
    He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented."
    Last edited by mican333; October 6th, 2017 at 05:57 PM.

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't say that he didn't "consent" to the possibility to falling off the roof. I said he didn't consent to falling off the roof.
    And the significant difference to "consenting to the possibility" as opposed to "consenting to the actuality" is what in this case, and why would it outweigh a human life, since legal precedent normally sides with life (abortion being the ONLY case I'm aware of where "other concerns" trump a human life)?

    And how does this apply to a woman using abortion as birth control (as in those that have had two or more), which is what I am arguing against?

    Why are late term abortions limited in ways earlier term abortions are not?

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    not sure of the full context here, but the idea of consenting to some action, but not a specific natural effect of that action, seems counter intuitive. suppose i were a hired stunt man, in a test of bullet proof jackets. the test i consent to is a live fire test. can i not consent to actually die so as to make the other person liable? bad example? how about a nascar drivers then? do they inherently consent to the possibility of death? even with all the precautions taken? seems obvious yes. sex and pregnancy and any responsability that carries.
    it is one thing to take precautions, but it seems ridiculous or foolish to think that obvious and known consequences are not consented to when the action is taken. with any given example.... other than abortion of course. isnt this the exact reason men are held responsible for children they spawn, regardless if they "wanted" or "intended" to have a child, and even further regardless if they were decieved by the woman so as to father an unwanted child.

    whatever the arguments about inherent parental obligations at birth etc.. there should be no debate that the effects of sex are consented to.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. Thanks Belthazor thanked for this post
  5. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    not sure of the full context here, but the idea of consenting to some action, but not a specific natural effect of that action, seems counter intuitive. suppose i were a hired stunt man, in a test of bullet proof jackets. the test i consent to is a live fire test. can i not consent to actually die so as to make the other person liable? bad example? how about a nascar drivers then? do they inherently consent to the possibility of death? even with all the precautions taken? seems obvious yes. sex and pregnancy and any responsability that carries.
    it is one thing to take precautions, but it seems ridiculous or foolish to think that obvious and known consequences are not consented to when the action is taken. with any given example.... other than abortion of course. isnt this the exact reason men are held responsible for children they spawn, regardless if they "wanted" or "intended" to have a child, and even further regardless if they were decieved by the woman so as to father an unwanted child.

    whatever the arguments about inherent parental obligations at birth etc.. there should be no debate that the effects of sex are consented to.
    So first "privacy" falls, and now "consent", are there any other pro-side arguments left?....

  6. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    So first "privacy" falls, and now "consent", are there any other pro-side arguments left?....
    I mean of course I don't think so, I'm pro life
    The major and core issue is always if the unborn is a person. I think Ben Shapiro makes a solid point when he said that any line of requirement you draw, "accidentally" covers some adult otherwise human.
    Like requiring consciousness, Which covers every unconscious (IE sleeping) adult or at least all in a comma. A heart beat, covers people with artificial hearts (they literally lack a heart to beat).
    There is even the "I can kill a cell of yours" kind of argument, but it is never applied to ALL the cells. We can't kill ALL the cells of anyone (that is born that is).

    It's always about if the unborn is a person or not, and those that are pro abortion (or anti life) simply deny this point. For the most part shifting the burden to those who say it is in fact a person at any point.
    The whole line of argument along the philosophical lines of supporting a person against your will, IE if you woke up attached to someone by IV that if you took it out you would cause their death. .. is really not in the ball park of peoples minds when they get an abortion.
    I don't think any woman ever said "Yes, this is a person and my child, but I have the RIGHT to kill it" To the extent that it has occurred is the extreme, extreme, extreme minority. (there are always nuts out there).


    Personally, I think there needs to be an argument regarding the inherent responsibility of parents. A woman has an inherent responsibility to take care of her own body while she is pregnant in an effort to protect her unborn.. from the moment of conception.
    To deny this, is to say that a woman with a wanted pregnancy can morally take any action with her body regardless of it's effect on the unborn. A woman who did drugs and had a mentally handicapped child as a result, could not be said to have done anything "wrong" only at worst "foolish". I don't think any reasonable person takes that view. They are more likely to deny the connection, or be some sort of moral relativist where really anything goes, as it's all made up anyway.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It's always about if the unborn is a person or not
    Indeed. The law currently (with regards to abortion) doesn't see a legal human being until after the fetus has left the mothers body (I think the umbilical cord can still be attached to the mother/placentae though). I just don't see how any point after conception can be considered "the beginning of a legal human". The moment the egg and sperm combine DNA IS the start of a human. There just seems nothing controversial with that. Calling it a legal human at any point after conception seems quite arbitrary.

    ---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Personally, I think there needs to be an argument regarding the inherent responsibility of parents. A woman has an inherent responsibility to take care of her own body while she is pregnant in an effort to protect her unborn.. from the moment of conception.
    And this is a better way of saying where I am at on the subject.

    I just think abortion is a sad choice when used as birth control and don't see how it can be supported legally in that sense, as American law historically attempts to protect innocent human life.
    The more prevention of unwanted pregnancy, the less this is an issue.

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    In the case of your 4 yr old, the mother not giving a kidney (what if she only had one?) is not a "death sentence". He/she can possibly get one form another donor or dialysis is another possibility.
    No. Read it again. The scenario specifically indicates the 4yo will die without the parent's kidney.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But no matter what, she has not specifically chosen he/she will die/be terminated, and agreeing on the date of termination/death. That she knows her child will eventually die without a kidney transplant isn't remotely like choosing to abort/kill her pregnancy.
    By refusing to consent to the transplant operation, she is choosing to let her child die. So the question remains, if you say that the fetus has a right to life and requires the mother's uterus and she must therefore donate control over it, and your "right to life" stems from giving the fetus the same right to life a living human has, then are you also in favour of forcing the parent to donate their kidney to the 4yo to save his life? If not, then why are you granting special rights to the fetus?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    In the case of abortion, the mother has made a conscious decision to pay someone to have her fetus killed/terminated (same thing is this case, see how easy that is
    No, remember, the pregnancy is terminated, not the fetus. In any case, the mother, by refusing to consent to donating an organ which they know the 4yo cannot live without, is consciously deciding to take actions which will result in the death of their child. Should they be forced to donate the organ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And, a woman might not know intercourse can lead to pregnancy.
    Then you concede that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have been arguing against abortion as birth control (as in the scenario of a woman hooking up with a guy, finding out later she was pregnant, regretting her choice to hook up, and having an abortion as a solution, which I have mentioned at least a couple times without response).
    You have mentioned it, but made no argument for why I should be in favour or against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Women that have had more than one abortion, clearly know that intercourse can lead to pregnancy, would you agree?
    Yes, but again, the point is about consent. Even knowing that pregnancy can result from intercourse does not mean that the woman is consenting to being pregnant. It's almost as if you're saying that these women are actively trying to get pregnant in order to be able to kill babies. Regardless of why they got pregnant, they clearly don't consent to continuing the pregnancy, and therefore, in order to uphold their right to bodily autonomy, must be allowed to decide by themselves to terminate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    On another note, could you explain why are late term abortions limited??? Basically why are early term abortions ok, but not late term?
    I imagine it's because most folks consider late term, or "postviability" abortions to be killing a fetus that is developed enough to be able to survive outside the mother's body.

    ---------- Post added at 08:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    seems obvious yes. sex and pregnancy and any responsability that carries. it is one thing to take precautions, but it seems ridiculous or foolish to think that obvious and known consequences are not consented to when the action is taken.
    Do you deny that it is possible for someone to consent to sex without knowledge that pregnancy can result, and therefore they are not consenting to pregnancy?

    ---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The major and core issue is always if the unborn is a person.
    So, if the unborn is considered a person, then are you saying that they should have the same rights (right to life) as a regular person? If so, how do you address the 4yo needing his parent's kidney to live scenario?

  10. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    64
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Again we agree
    (but you always have to reword it

    ---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------



    When by rule of law, has "privacy" ever trumped murder (this assumes of course agreement that we are calling this unborn individual a "life", as you just did)?

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------



    I said there are many existing times when the gov't thinks they can tell anyone there things they can not do to their "own body". Your qualifier of "medical issues with your doctor" of course limits this. But we are not talking about the woman's health. Woman get pregnant and give birth all the time with no issues. Hell, my mom even did it a couple times. Women generally do not seek an abortion because it will improve their health.
    We are talking about the health of the as yet unborn individual.

    ---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------



    And here you are correct, but show the failing of abortion as an option at all, since it is "the taking of a life", because of a decision (two people) made that gave this unborn a chance at life in the first place.

    The unborn is a silent pawn with it's own life at stake.

    A woman makes a poor choice and regrets it. Killing one with no choice or voice is no viable option. The woman chose this to be an issue not the unborn.
    What you are saying is this is more convenient for the woman. Nothing to do with her "health discussions with her doctor.

    The woman wants to undo a bad decision which is natural, but unfortunately, in this case, takes an innocent life.

    I have never seen legal precedent for the taking of a completely innocent life, out of someone's convenience before.

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------



    This surprised me a bit, well quite a bit. It really needs me to post separately, but it would be sooooo off topic of the Op, I don't feel it would be appropriate in this thread.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------



    And no.

    This issue, again, comes down to,

    does the unborn human have a "right" to life as you and I do??
    (generally, a woman's "health" is not affected enough to endanger her life in an average pregnancy).

    So:
    if it is "human life" while unborn, there are laws that should protect it,
    if it is not a "human life",
    there really is not much of an argument against killing/aborting it......


    Belthazor, I'm liking your arguments to date! I will keep reading.

  11. Thanks Belthazor thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  12. #69
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And the significant difference to "consenting to the possibility" as opposed to "consenting to the actuality" is what in this case
    I didn't say there was a specific difference. I'm saying that a woman does not consent to pregnancy whenever she chooses to have sex. So any argument that says otherwise is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    and why would it outweigh a human life, since legal precedent normally sides with life (abortion being the ONLY case I'm aware of where "other concerns" trump a human life)?
    And again, you are engaging in equivocation by calling a fetus "human life". The term is imprecise and therefore does not refer exclusively to the fetus. In fact, going by the strictest definition of "human life", I would conclude that it means whatever has human DNA (human) and is alive (life) which would include an unfertilized human egg. I know that you don't intend to include unfertilized eggs in your definition but regardless, that is what is included in the definition of "human life".

    Really, it just looks like you are attempting the say that the fetus is no different than a born human by using a term that applies to both of them. Again, that's equivocation. Can you stop doing that please?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And how does this apply to a woman using abortion as birth control (as in those that have had two or more), which is what I am arguing against?

    Why are late term abortions limited in ways earlier term abortions are not?
    Well, it's your argument. So how about answering these questions yourself?

  13. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't say there was a specific difference.
    Your scenario was, a man "consented to the possibility" of falling off the roof, but not "actually" falling off the roof. Now you are saying there is no difference between the two?

    ---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm saying that a woman does not consent to pregnancy whenever she chooses to have sex. So any argument that says otherwise is wrong.
    1. That she knows full well that this action could lead to an unwanted pregnancy not withstanding....I just can't make this make sense????

    2. I think post #63 by MT, refutes your point fairly well.

    However, if I may again, quote a friend much more articulate than I:

    3. "The legal concept of proximate cause is that if you are responsible for the proximate cause of the event, you are responsible for the event. IE if you push someone onto train tracks, you are responsible for the train hitting them, even if the "cause" of the train hitting them is the train's velocity.

    What Mican is arguing, and what you were rebutting was not about the definition of consent, I don't think there is an argument there. Rather, it is about his attempt to sever consent for an act with consent for the consequences. Legally you can't do that. You can't consent to push someone in front of a train, but not consent for the train hitting them.

    Thus, he is asking you to support a claim you didn't make. The link and claim were that the link of accountability flows through the event to any action it was a proximate cause for.

    For example, if I consent to have unprotected sex with a woman, can I not "consent" to her impregnation? Legally, no you can't. That is the point of the original response."

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Really, it just looks like you are attempting the say that the fetus is no different than a born human by using a term that applies to both of them. Again, that's equivocation. Can you stop doing that please?
    Yet, in fact, you agree "the term applies to both of them"

    And, how ARE they different anyway?

    And, mostly, I have used several terms at the same time eg: fetus/unborn human/human life.
    I think this makes my point of view more clear to someone else reading this. I seriously doubt anyone wonders "what" I am talking about when I speak in this way in this thread. Maybe we could take a vote and see if I am being confusing in this way to others??

    ---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, it's your argument. So how about answering these questions yourself?
    Cute.....
    (not really...people on ODN ask questions all the time (you do it as well) so they don't argue against something the other person doesn't even believe and waste time. This is the kinda "thing" I mentioned to you recently...).

    How about cause at late term the "fetus"/unborn human/baby waiting to be birthed is a human being realizing his "same rights as a 4 yr old" (as Future would say...).

    ---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No. Read it again. The scenario specifically indicates the 4yo will die without the parent's kidney.

    By refusing to consent to the transplant operation, she is choosing to let her child die.

    Ok, I will play one more round of this non-related (to the subject at hand) analogy. I wish you would pick a different one, this one just doesn't relate at ALL!

    So,
    the mother in your 4 yr old scenerio "is choosing to let her child DIE "OF NATURAL CAUSES!!!!!!

    In an abortion the "mother is choosing to have her "fetus"/little unborn human life "aborted/terminated" (see killed!!) because SHE doesn't want it to be born!!!!!

    How can you NOT see the diffenence
    Last edited by Belthazor; October 12th, 2017 at 04:31 PM.

  14. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  15. #71
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your scenario was, a man "consented to the possibility" of falling off the roof, but not "actually" falling off the roof. Now you are saying there is no difference between the two?
    No. There is obviously a difference. I just don't see the relevance of the differences regarding your argument. I mean if one is to argue that the fetus is entitled to the legal right to life, whether the woman consented to the pregnancy or not is not relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    However, if I may again, quote a friend much more articulate than I:

    3. "The legal concept of proximate cause is that if you are responsible for the proximate cause of the event, you are responsible for the event. IE if you push someone onto train tracks, you are responsible for the train hitting them, even if the "cause" of the train hitting them is the train's velocity.
    But that is not about consent but proximate cause. And I would assume that with "proximate cause" (per the example) one has to be pretty certain that the result will stem from the action. If you push someone in front of a train, you pretty much expect that they will get hit by the train. A woman who has sex without the intent of getting pregnant is not nearly as certain that a pregnancy will result, even if it does.

    I don't know where the dividing line actually is where "proximate cause" is reached but assuming it's something as solid as pushing someone in front of a train, then you can't say that any and all effects from an action (such as getting pregnant from choosing to have sex) rises to that level.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Rather, it is about his attempt to sever consent for an act with consent for the consequences. Legally you can't do that. You can't consent to push someone in front of a train, but not consent for the train hitting them.
    Right. If you do something that you KNOW will result in X, then you are responsible for X (like pushing someone in front of a train KNOWING that they will get hit by the train). But again, that's not the same thing as engaging in an activity that MIGHT lead to an effect (especially when it usually doesn't lead to that effect) and one does not expect it to.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yet, in fact, you agree "the term applies to both of them"
    And I also agree that the term applies to unfertilized eggs. So going by that, people absolutely do not mind some "human lives" dying on a regular basis since no one really cares when an unfertilized egg dies. In fact, MOSt human lives don't reach the stage of birth.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And, mostly, I have used several terms at the same time eg: fetus/unborn human/human life.
    I think this makes my point of view more clear to someone else reading this. I seriously doubt anyone wonders "what" I am talking about when I speak in this way in this thread. Maybe we could take a vote and see if I am being confusing in this way to others??
    It's still equivocation. The term "human life" applies to both the born and the unborn and therefore you are tying them together when you use the term. And in your statement about the law and "human life", you were very much talking about both the born and the unborn.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Cute.....
    (not really...people on ODN ask questions all the time (you do it as well) so they don't argue against something the other person doesn't even believe and waste time.
    So instead of you stating your position to see if I disagree with it, you are asking me to state my position so we can see if you disagree with it? So basically you are asking me to waste the time that you don't want to waste.

    And to me, the kinds of questions you are asking appear to be an attempt to shift the burden. Whatever answer I give can be attacked and therefore I have the burden to defend my response instead of you stating your argument and then assuming the burden of defending it. I've seen this done plenty of times in the past which is why I don't answer such questions.

    And I don't uniformly refuse to answer questions. I answered the first question you asked in your last post because I saw it as seeking clarification on something that I said.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How about cause at late term the "fetus"/unborn human/baby waiting to be birthed is a human being realizing his "same rights as a 4 yr old" (as Future would say...).
    I'm not sure what you are saying there.
    Last edited by mican333; October 12th, 2017 at 10:03 AM.

  16. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I also agree that the term applies to unfertilized eggs.
    And I doubt anyone else does. Again, an unfertilized egg will never grow into a human. It will never combine DNA to form a new, unique human being. It is a building block. One half of the whole, destined to never change until it dies. Quite different than a living human seems obvious enough....

    At this point, I think a pretty good case has been made against using abortion as birth control for a person reading that hadn't already made up their mind on the subject. I think you and I have gone maybe as far as we can go. Though we are farther along than I thought we would be
    Till we meet again sir, have a great night.
    The last word is yours

  17. #73
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And I doubt anyone else does. Again, an unfertilized egg will never grow into a human. It will never combine DNA to form a new, unique human being. It is a building block. One half of the whole, destined to never change until it dies. Quite different than a living human seems obvious enough....
    I don''t deny the difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg but regardless, an unfertilized egg is both human and alive and therefore technically is "human life". So again, if you mean something other than everything that is human and alive, you need to use a more specific term that describes precisely what you are trying to communicate instead of using an overly vague term in what appears to be an attempt to equivocate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    At this point, I think a pretty good case has been made against using abortion as birth control for a person reading that hadn't already made up their mind on the subject. I think you and I have gone maybe as far as we can go.
    While I can understand someone having a problem with using abortion as birth control, there is nothing about that make changes what the law should be.

    If one holds that the fetus is entitled to the right to life, then one would be against abortion regardless of whether it's being used for birth control or for a more acceptable reason.

    If one holds that the fetus is not entitled to the right life and therefore it's primarily a privacy issue, why the woman decides to have an abortion is a private matter and therefore whether she's doing it for birth control doesn't matter (legally).


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Till we meet again sir, have a great night.
    The last word is yours
    Okay. I took advantage of having the last word as you can see above. Have a great night as well.

  18. #74
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don''t deny the difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg but regardless, an unfertilized egg is both human and alive and therefore technically is "human life". So again, if you mean something other than everything that is human and alive, you need to use a more specific term that describes precisely what you are trying to communicate instead of using an overly vague term in what appears to be an attempt to equivocate.



    While I can understand someone having a problem with using abortion as birth control, there is nothing about that make changes what the law should be.

    If one holds that the fetus is entitled to the right to life, then one would be against abortion regardless of whether it's being used for birth control or for a more acceptable reason.

    If one holds that the fetus is not entitled to the right life and therefore it's primarily a privacy issue, why the woman decides to have an abortion is a private matter and therefore whether she's doing it for birth control doesn't matter (legally).




    Okay. I took advantage of having the last word as you can see above. Have a great night as well.




    .

  19. #75
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Any prevalent American social issue

    future- there are two approaches when dealing with unknown consequence.
    1- Without full disclosure the person can not actually consent.
    2- Is is a result that exists regardless of knowledge,(edit) and consent is still considered given.

    So if I agree to have sex with you, but i'm 5 years old and don't really know what sex is and all it intails. Then I am not able to consent, because I'm not able to know.
    If I agree to eat at your house for 5 years, and I am ignorant of how rich in calories it is, and I become fat. I am still considered capable of consenting. (at least by any reasonable common sense).

    I guess there is a 3rd, where you decieve me , and thus my consent is nullified.
    Anyway, bascially you are left with saying it was rape, or too bad your able to consent and suffer the consequences.
    sex and STD's are like that. Unless you show that the other person knew they could spread a desease, then its too bad and you consented to the risk.


    ---
    this stuff is really clear when it comes to applying it to men.
    claims they didnt know simply do not apply to the consequences.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; October 12th, 2017 at 07:17 PM.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  20. Likes Belthazor liked this post
 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. New Social Group
    By Loller65 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2009, 02:57 PM
  2. Social Anxiety
    By vec90 in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2008, 08:31 AM
  3. Social Retards
    By mysticalwonder in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2007, 12:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •