Abortion: human right?

[Othelos]

Exactly what part of not consenting = consenting?

Where did I say that not consenting=consenting?

You said that someone who gets an abortion is consenting to having that baby. If someone is getting an abortion, they are not consenting to having the baby.

No, not always. People give their babies up for adoption, or have abortions all the time. Or, they use contraception.

1. Which is still fulfilling the purpose of creating the next generation.

Yes. Hence, why I said 'not always' - because that is the purpose for it sometimes.

2. Which are irresponsible and frankly sadistic if they enjoy having abortions frequently.

I meant on a societal level, not an individual one.

The part where, apparently, he gets to decide whether or not other people have consented.

Sorry that people aren't allowed to just going around fucking each other without a care in the world, killing off anything that'd dare inconvenience them.

Again, many women don't get abortions for any possible inconvenience. Either way, it's irrelevant.

[Dyakovo]

No, if I commit a bank robbery, I am doing it knowing I risk arrest.

Which is irrelevant because you would be arrested regardless of whether you consent.

This is the worse example you could have given.

Give him time, I'm sure he can manage worse examples.

[Pragia]

No need to shout, I hear you loud and clear. I also disagree entirely. Consent to sex means you're consenting to all that comes with it. If a woman is seeking an abortion, she agreed to reproduction, but does not want the responsibility that comes with it.

No, it does not, and no court would ever take this stupid argument seriously.

I'm not interested in your false equivalencies. I'm interested in the claim that it's true in cases such as pregnancy. Because that would mean that if a woman who had sex with her husband, became pregnant, and then entered a coma, the husband wouldn't be able to make any decisions on her behalf period. Even if they beforehand had no intentions to have a child at that point in time, you're telling me that because she had sex, she consented to pregnancy, and therefore the husband cannot give permission for an abortion.

Or if the woman became pregnant and had a life threatening incident that resulted in her being in a vegetable state thereby forcing her to be on life support. What precedent is there that the father would have no right to pull the plug? After all, according to you, she consented to the sex, therefore consented to pregnancy, and therefore that consent cannot be broken.

Or, is that claim just plain bunk?

I'm not drawing the connection between euthanasia and pregnancy here. If a pregnant woman is vegetative, then what? She has her child via ceasarean, and the father takes care of it/puts it up for adoption. It's the same as when a mother of a small child becomes vegetative, the father cares for the child.

[Mavorpen]

No, it does not, and no court would ever take this stupid argument seriously.

I'm not drawing the connection between euthanasia and pregnancy here. If a pregnant woman is vegetative, then what? She has her child via ceasarean, and the father takes care of it/puts it up for adoption. It's the same as when a mother of a small child becomes vegetative, the father cares for the child.

Nowhere did I talk about euthanasia in my post.

My example has actually happened. A pregnant woman was in a state where the only thing sustaining her system was life support. The husband, having the full legal authority to tell doctors to pull the plug, was allowed to do so by a court, despite the fact that it would have, and did, killed the fetus. No court recognized "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy." That is a lazily constructed argument with utterly no basis in legal theory.

[Pragia]

Where did I say that not consenting=consenting?

You said that someone who gets an abortion is consenting to having that baby. If someone is getting an abortion, they are not consenting to having the baby.

1. Which is still fulfilling the purpose of creating the next generation.

Yes. Hence, why I said 'not always' - because that is the purpose for it sometimes.

2. Which are irresponsible and frankly sadistic if they enjoy having abortions frequently.

I meant on a societal level, not an individual one.

Sorry that people aren't allowed to just going around fucking each other without a care in the world, killing off anything that'd dare inconvenience them.

Again, many women don't get abortions for any possible inconvenience. Either way, it's irrelevant.

1. They consented to having a baby when they have sex. With great power (to have potentially reproductive sex) comes great responsibility (to raise a possible child that is a result of said sex)
2. I don't have source or the time to find it again, but a majority of abortions are due to financial issues/unplanned pregnancies.

[Mavorpen]

1. They consented to having a baby when they have sex. With great power (to have potentially reproductive sex) comes great responsibility (to raise a possible child that is a result of said sex)

Repeating this bullshit does not make it true. You've given us no reason to take this claim seriously. What precedent is there to accept it as true?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No? I'm in favor of forcing those who agreed to reproduction to have their children and their father to support them. I said that those who didn't consent shouldn't be forced to.

Yes. If the woman is seeking an abortion, she clearly has not agreed to reproduction.
Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy

Fuck it, I'm turning this into a glitter text and see if it finally fucking sinks in.

Tho-ugh I doubt it.

[Pragia]

I'm not drawing the connection between euthanasia and pregnancy here. If a pregnant woman is vegetative, then what? She has her child via ceasarean, and the father takes care of it/puts it up for adoption. It's the same as when a mother of a small child becomes vegetative, the father cares for the child.

Nowhere did I talk about euthanasia in my post.

My example has actually happened. A pregnant woman was in a state where the only thing sustaining her system was life support. The husband, having the full legal authority to tell doctors to pull the plug, was allowed to do so by a court, despite the fact that it would have, and did, killed the fetus. No court recognized "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy." That is a lazily constructed argument with utterly no basis in legal theory.

Uh, euthanasia includes pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state. And yeah, the husband has the legal right to pull the plug. How does consent to pregnancy have any bearing on the father ending the life of the mother and child? I'm saying that you accept the risk of pregnancy with consensual sex, and I'm not seeing the relation.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

I'm not drawing the connection between euthanasia and pregnancy here. If a pregnant woman is vegetative, then what? She has her child via ceasarean, and the father takes care of it/puts it up for adoption. It's the same as when a mother of a small child becomes vegetative, the father cares for the child.[/quote]

This is the only circumstance where you could be right, though your terminology is wrong.

A vegetative state is not destruction of higher brain function, but a very vaguely defined state of unconsciousness or semi-consciousness for a period of time. Vegetative patients often rouse to fully consious states, and so the diagnosis of vegetative is completely irrelevant to the debate in that women have reproductive freedoms that include abortion.

I believe that the term you intended was brain dead, which is destruction of all brain regions that permit higher order cognitive functions. Brain death is the death of the person whose body has been damaged. However, a body can be sustained after brain death, even so far as to safely continue a pregnancy.

The question in that case is different, because the body does not have human rights as it is not a person. It does not have any personal rights that could be infringed. Is it then morally permissible that the body be kept alive, even against the wishes of next of kin, to ensure the continuation of a pregnancy not otherwise viable? A difficult question, and rather out of scope of the topic at hand. I digress.

[Pragia]

1. They consented to having a baby when they have sex. With great power (to have potentially reproductive sex) comes great responsibility (to raise a possible child that is a result of said sex)

Repeating this bullshit does not make it true. You've given us no reason to take this claim seriously. What precedent is there to accept it as true?

The precedent of common sense? If you have sex, there's a chance to have a child. If you agree to have sex, you agree to the chance to have a child. I can't decide to rob a bank then decide to not go to jail for it.

[Mavorpen]

Uh, euthanasia includes pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state.

No it does not. Euthanasia is a procedure of ending the life of an individual to alleviate suffering or pain.

And yeah, the husband has the legal right to pull the plug. How does consent to pregnancy have any bearing on the father ending the life of the mother and child?

Then consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Because if that were true, then that would mean that the fetus would HAVE to remain alive until viability and birth. Pulling the plug on the pregnant mother would kill the fetus and violate the consent she gave to the pregnancy. The whole reason why we give the husband authority is because the wife can't give consent on her own. If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, the consent to that pregnancy remains and the fetus cannot be killed.

Thus isn't difficult at all.

[Mavorpen]

Repeating this bullshit does not make it true. You've given us no reason to take this claim seriously. What precedent is there to accept it as true?

The precedent of common sense?

So basically there's no reason to take it seriously. Okay, got it.

If you have sex, there's a chance to have a child. If you agree to have sex, you agree to the chance to have a child.

Not according to a single legal precedent.

I can't decide to rob a bank then decide to not go to jail for it.

No shit. That's because your consent doesn't matter. You go to jail no fucking matter what. This example is THE most irrelevant example.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Repeating this bullshit does not make it true. You've given us no reason to take this claim seriously. What precedent is there to accept it as true?

The precedent of common sense? If you have sex, there's a chance to have a child. If you agree to have sex, you agree to the chance to have a child. I can't decide to rob a bank then decide to not go to jail for it.

Is smoking consent to lung cancer?
Driving consent to car accidents?
Being 21 consent to alcohol poisoning?
taking a tropical vacation consent to malaria?

A fetus is a literal parasite that is separable from actions that caused the parasitism event.

[Benuty]

The precedent of common sense? If you have sex, there's a chance to have a child. If you agree to have sex, you agree to the chance to have a child. I can't decide to rob a bank then decide to not go to jail for it.

Is smoking consent to lung cancer?
Driving consent to car accidents?
Being 21 consent to alcohol poisoning?
taking a tropical vacation consent to malaria?

A fetus is a literal parasite that is separable from actions that caused the parasitism event.

Those with Hashimoto's thyroiditis might disagree.

[Pragia]

The precedent of common sense? If you have sex, there's a chance to have a child. If you agree to have sex, you agree to the chance to have a child. I can't decide to rob a bank then decide to not go to jail for it.

Is smoking consent to lung cancer?
Driving consent to car accidents?
Being 21 consent to alcohol poisoning?
taking a tropical vacation consent to malaria?

A fetus is a literal parasite that is separable from actions that caused the parasitism event.

Well yes, it is consent to all of those. If you're being dumb and smoking, youre allowing yourself to get lung cancer. Every time you get behind the wheel, you're acknowledging that you might be hit or hit someone else. Having the legal right it purchase alcohol is assuming that you're responsible with it. Taking a vacation to a country with malaria is accepting the idea that you might get malaria.

A fetus could not exist without the event taking place, so no, it isn't really separable

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Is smoking consent to lung cancer?
Driving consent to car accidents?
Being 21 consent to alcohol poisoning?
taking a tropical vacation consent to malaria?

A fetus is a literal parasite that is separable from actions that caused the parasitism event.

Those with Hashimoto's thyroiditis might disagree.

That doesn't make any sense. That condition is an autoimmune disease that occurs with very little correlation to environmental factors. You should provide more than zero context.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Is smoking consent to lung cancer?
Driving consent to car accidents?
Being 21 consent to alcohol poisoning?
taking a tropical vacation consent to malaria?

A fetus is a literal parasite that is separable from actions that caused the parasitism event.

Well yes, it is consent to all of those. If you're being dumb and smoking, youre allowing yourself to get lung cancer. Every time you get behind the wheel, you're acknowledging that you might be hit or hit someone else. Having the legal right it purchase alcohol is assuming that you're responsible with it. Taking a vacation to a country with malaria is accepting the idea that you might get malaria.

A fetus could not exist without the event taking place, so no, it isn't really separable

So you support laws making malarial treatment, trauma care for anyone in a car, cancer treatment for smokers, and all drug related interventions illegal?
Knowing that a thing might occur is not the same thing as relinquishing all rights to actually handle those consequences.

[Galloism]

Is smoking consent to lung cancer?
Driving consent to car accidents?
Being 21 consent to alcohol poisoning?
taking a tropical vacation consent to malaria?

A fetus is a literal parasite that is separable from actions that caused the parasitism event.

Well yes, it is consent to all of those. If you're being dumb and smoking, youre allowing yourself to get lung cancer. Every time you get behind the wheel, you're acknowledging that you might be hit or hit someone else. Having the legal right it purchase alcohol is assuming that you're responsible with it. Taking a vacation to a country with malaria is accepting the idea that you might get malaria.

A fetus could not exist without the event taking place, so no, it isn't really separable

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why there have never been medical practitioners in the history of mankind.

Because if you get sick or injured, you consented to it, so shut the fuck up and deal with it.

[Mavorpen]

Well yes, it is consent to all of those. If you're being dumb and smoking, youre allowing yourself to get lung cancer. Every time you get behind the wheel, you're acknowledging that you might be hit or hit someone else. Having the legal right it purchase alcohol is assuming that you're responsible with it. Taking a vacation to a country with malaria is accepting the idea that you might get malaria.

A fetus could not exist without the event taking place, so no, it isn't really separable

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why there have never been medical practitioners in the history of mankind.

Because if you get sick or injured, you consented to it, so shut the fuck up and deal with it.

I think he may be mistaking the real world for The Sims 3, where sometimes the fire department just sits there and watches as your house burns down and your Sims die a gruesome death. I guess in The Sims, they operate by "you consented with cooking, you consented to your house burning down and you dying."

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Is smoking consent to lung cancer?
Driving consent to car accidents?
Being 21 consent to alcohol poisoning?
taking a tropical vacation consent to malaria?

A fetus is a literal parasite that is separable from actions that caused the parasitism event.

Well yes, it is consent to all of those. If you're being dumb and smoking, youre allowing yourself to get lung cancer. Every time you get behind the wheel, you're acknowledging that you might be hit or hit someone else. Having the legal right it purchase alcohol is assuming that you're responsible with it. Taking a vacation to a country with malaria is accepting the idea that you might get malaria.

A fetus could not exist without the event taking place, so no, it isn't really separable

Then I'm also consenting to allowing that fetus/baby/child to die without my care if I never wanted it.

[Pragia]

Uh, euthanasia includes pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state.

No it does not. Euthanasia is a procedure of ending the life of an individual to alleviate suffering or pain.

And yeah, the husband has the legal right to pull the plug. How does consent to pregnancy have any bearing on the father ending the life of the mother and child?

Then consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Because if that were true, then that would mean that the fetus would HAVE to remain alive until viability and birth. Pulling the plug on the pregnant mother would kill the fetus and violate the consent she gave to the pregnancy. The whole reason why we give the husband authority is because the wife can't give consent on her own. If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, the consent to that pregnancy remains and the fetus cannot be killed.

Thus isn't difficult at all.

It's ending the life of an individual to allieviate the suffering of a vegetative state. And no, it doesn't, consent to pregnancy means that the woman agreed to the chance that she could get pregnant. I'm not saying the fetus has a legal right to life, and must be kept alive, I'm saying the mother has acknowledged the chance of pregnancy, and has agreed to not terminate it. The wife and child are still legally the same person(?-iirc there was a case where a murder of a pregnant woman was counted as a double homicide.) So the father is allowed to pull the plug to end the morher's life, and by extension the child's.

I'm sorry if I phrased that horribly, I'm not well versed in legal matters.

[Othelos]

You said that someone who gets an abortion is consenting to having that baby. If someone is getting an abortion, they are not consenting to having the baby.

Yes. Hence, why I said 'not always' - because that is the purpose for it sometimes.

I meant on a societal level, not an individual one.

Again, many women don't get abortions for any possible inconvenience. Either way, it's irrelevant.

1. They consented to having a baby when they have sex. With great power (to have potentially reproductive sex) comes great responsibility (to raise a possible child that is a result of said sex)
2. I don't have source or the time to find it again, but a majority of abortions are due to financial issues/unplanned pregnancies.

1. NOOOOOOOO they didn't. How many times do we have to explain that consenting to sex is not necessarily consenting to nine months of pregnancy? Seriously dude.
2. And? If she doesn't want it & wants to abort, she will, whether it's legal or not. It's safer for it to be legal, because she will be overseen by a doctor and the proper tools will be used.

[Godular]

No it does not. Euthanasia is a procedure of ending the life of an individual to alleviate suffering or pain.

Then consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Because if that were true, then that would mean that the fetus would HAVE to remain alive until viability and birth. Pulling the plug on the pregnant mother would kill the fetus and violate the consent she gave to the pregnancy. The whole reason why we give the husband authority is because the wife can't give consent on her own. If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, the consent to that pregnancy remains and the fetus cannot be killed.

Thus isn't difficult at all.

It's ending the life of an individual to allieviate the suffering of a vegetative state. And no, it doesn't, consent to pregnancy means that the woman agreed to the chance that she could get pregnant. I'm not saying the fetus has a legal right to life, and must be kept alive, I'm saying the mother has acknowledged the chance of pregnancy, and has agreed to not terminate it. The wife and child are still legally the same person(?-iirc there was a case where a murder of a pregnant woman was counted as a double homicide.) So the father is allowed to pull the plug to end the morher's life, and by extension the child's.

I'm sorry if I phrased that horribly, I'm not well versed in legal matters.

Bolding/Underlining mine to point out important portion with the following response:

Nope.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

We don't care how some places define the legal status of a fetus - if consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, then driving is consent to getting T-boned and medical treatment for car drivers should also be illegal.

Also, see my earlier post on the PVS issue, where you might be right but your reasons are basically all still wrong.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

No it does not. Euthanasia is a procedure of ending the life of an individual to alleviate suffering or pain.

Then consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Because if that were true, then that would mean that the fetus would HAVE to remain alive until viability and birth. Pulling the plug on the pregnant mother would kill the fetus and violate the consent she gave to the pregnancy. The whole reason why we give the husband authority is because the wife can't give consent on her own. If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, the consent to that pregnancy remains and the fetus cannot be killed.

Thus isn't difficult at all.

It's ending the life of an individual to allieviate the suffering of a vegetative state. And no, it doesn't, consent to pregnancy means that the woman agreed to the chance that she could get pregnant. I'm not saying the fetus has a legal right to life, and must be kept alive, I'm saying the mother has acknowledged the chance of pregnancy, and has agreed to not terminate it. The wife and child are still legally the same person(?-iirc there was a case where a murder of a pregnant woman was counted as a double homicide.) So the father is allowed to pull the plug to end the morher's life, and by extension the child's.

I'm sorry if I phrased that horribly, I'm not well versed in legal matters.

That isn't very surprising that you've been able to bring the same damn point for 17 times