[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Non-sequitur aside, the answer is yes. If it is what they've decided, along with a healthcare professional, then yes, they should be. Family planning is perfectly fine.

Then the entire point Gen is trying to make is irrelevant. Consent can be revoked regardless of intent or contraception used by either party.

Yes, it can be. Consent can be revoked at any point.

[Genivaria]

Not specifically to no but if a couple has taken every means of safe sex then it's obvious that they're not consenting to pregnancy.
You can't get around that.

So if a couple knowingly has sex without protection, they are consenting to pregnancy. Should that couple be allowed to get an abortion?

Yes.

[Luna Amore]

Then the entire point Gen is trying to make is irrelevant. Consent can be revoked regardless of intent or contraception used by either party.

Yes, it can be. Consent can be revoked at any point.

So child support is a thing of the past?

[Genivaria]

The first sentence is a non-sequitur.

I’m going off of what is being said. If sex with protection implies no consent to pregnancy, then sex without protection implies the opposite.

Not inherently no, the two are like night and day.
Preparation implies consent and preparation isn't really needed for pregnancy.

[Genivaria]

Yes, it can be. Consent can be revoked at any point.

So child support is a thing of the past?

....sorry what the hell are you talking about?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, it can be. Consent can be revoked at any point.

So child support is a thing of the past?

Another non-sequitur? Ok.

[Godular]

Non-sequitur aside, the answer is yes. If it is what they've decided, along with a healthcare professional, then yes, they should be. Family planning is perfectly fine.

Then the entire point Gen is trying to make is irrelevant. Consent can be revoked regardless of intent or contraception used by either party.

Yup!

[Genivaria]

Then the entire point Gen is trying to make is irrelevant. Consent can be revoked regardless of intent or contraception used by either party.

Yup!

The fact that consent can be revoked doesn't actually mean that contraception doesn't imply that consent is happening.
The entire reason brought up contraception was to counter the unfounded assertion that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, which a third party cannot claim without knowing anything else.

[Godular]

Yes, it can be. Consent can be revoked at any point.

So child support is a thing of the past?

With proper welfare supports for single mothers, it could be rendered such, without any concern for who consented to what.

[The New California Republic]

As an aside, I love how the abortion thread can die for weeks at a time, and then out of nowhere there is this almost manic flurry of activity as full broadsides are suddenly fired everywhere. It's almost as if the pro-life and pro-choice fleets suddenly meet after weeks of sailing...

[Godular]

Yup!

The fact that consent can be revoked doesn't actually mean that contraception doesn't imply that consent is happening.
The entire reason brought up contraception was to counter the unfounded assertion that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, which a third party cannot claim without knowing anything else.

Even so, whatever consent exists at the time can still be revoked whenevs. There’s no contractual obligation to consent.

[Genivaria]

So child support is a thing of the past?

With proper welfare supports for single mothers, it could be rendered such, without any concern for who consented to what.

I mean if the pro-life position actually did give a damn about the welfare of the child then they very well should have letting single mothers live comfortably a part of their platform, that they don't draws suspicion.

[Genivaria]

The fact that consent can be revoked doesn't actually mean that contraception doesn't imply that consent is happening.
The entire reason brought up contraception was to counter the unfounded assertion that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, which a third party cannot claim without knowing anything else.

Even so, whatever consent exists at the time can still be revoked whenevs. There’s no contractual obligation to consent.

To that point I agree completely.

[Godular]

As an aside, I love how the abortion thread can die for weeks at a time, and then out of nowhere there is this almost manic flurry of activity as full broadsides are suddenly fired everywhere. It's almost as if the pro-life and pro-choice fleets suddenly meet after weeks of sailing...

It’s like the occasional cigarette tossed out of a car... one tiny spark and boom half of California’s an ashtray.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Even so, whatever consent exists at the time can still be revoked whenevs. There’s no contractual obligation to consent.

To that point I agree completely.

I still fail to see where you said otherwise. Regarding consent and all.

[Luna Amore]

So child support is a thing of the past?

....sorry what the hell are you talking about?

We have established that consent can be revoked by either party at anytime and method of contraception including none has no bearing on consent.

Therefore, the guy can be as recklass as he wants under the claim that he does not consent to the pregnancy. If the woman keeps the baby, he has no obligation or responsibility (financial or otherwise) to that child.

It’s the logical conclusion of this claim that consent can be revoked at any time. You are advocating for an irresponsible society in which you can revoke consent of something that has already happened. This is a pretty terrible argument.

[Genivaria]

To that point I agree completely.

I still fail to see where you said otherwise. Regarding consent and all.

I have no idea, Luna simply kept asserting that that was the implication.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I still fail to see where you said otherwise. Regarding consent and all.

I have no idea, Luna simply kept asserting that that was the implication.

Ah well. No worries.

[Genivaria]

....sorry what the hell are you talking about?

We have established that consent can be revoked by either party at anytime and method of contraception including none has no bearing on consent.

Therefore, the guy can be as recklass as he wants under the claim that he does not consent to the pregnancy. If the woman keeps the baby, he has no obligation or responsibility (financial or otherwise) to that child.

It’s the logical conclusion of this claim that consent can be revoked at any time. You are advocating for an irresponsible society in which you can revoke consent of something that has already happened. This is a pretty terrible argument.

It's a terrible argument and not one that I'm making, your ability to put words in my mouth has already been demonstrated.

[Dogmeat]

As an aside, I love how the abortion thread can die for weeks at a time, and then out of nowhere there is this almost manic flurry of activity as full broadsides are suddenly fired everywhere. It's almost as if the pro-life and pro-choice fleets suddenly meet after weeks of sailing...

Well, on NSG, it's more like

[The New California Republic]

As an aside, I love how the abortion thread can die for weeks at a time, and then out of nowhere there is this almost manic flurry of activity as full broadsides are suddenly fired everywhere. It's almost as if the pro-life and pro-choice fleets suddenly meet after weeks of sailing...

Well, on NSG, it's more like

That poor pro-life ship got rekt.

[Datlofff]

With proper welfare supports for single mothers, it could be rendered such, without any concern for who consented to what.

I mean if the pro-life position actually did give a damn about the welfare of the child then they very well should have letting single mothers live comfortably a part of their platform, that they don't draws suspicion.

As a child of a single mother I can firmly say that single motherhood is shit. Keep families together if at best possible. But yes, single mothers should get help for their kids, thats what child support is for.

[Godular]

I mean if the pro-life position actually did give a damn about the welfare of the child then they very well should have letting single mothers live comfortably a part of their platform, that they don't draws suspicion.

As a child of a single mother I can firmly say that single motherhood is shit. Keep families together if at best possible. But yes, single mothers should get help for their kids, thats what child support is for.

Yesssssss, force people into unwanted relationships because that somehow causes the optimal family unit. Failing that, make sure that solution causes maximum animosity between parents. There is no conceivable way this could go wrong. Yesssss...

Punish them both for their infidel ways.

[Frievolk]

As a child of a single mother I can firmly say that single motherhood is shit. Keep families together if at best possible. But yes, single mothers should get help for their kids, thats what child support is for.

Yesssssss, force people into unwanted relationships because that somehow causes the optimal family unit. There is no conceivable way this could go wrong. Yesssss...

Alternative interpretation of the AAN statement: "Don't have babies if you don't have a stable family of at least two"

[Godular]

Yesssssss, force people into unwanted relationships because that somehow causes the optimal family unit. There is no conceivable way this could go wrong. Yesssss...

Alternative interpretation of the AAN statement: "Don't have babies if you don't have a stable family of at least two"

And yet many folks who might claim that argument also want to deny alternative lifestyle couples from adopting.