Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
in Politics

YeshuaRedeemed · July 2019

AlofRI · July 2019

I stand with Planned Parenthood in protecting the lives of women, and, wait for it, …… children!

Last I checked the U.S. was rated 174th out of 193 countries in "infant death after live birth" … that with THEE most expensive health care in the world! Much of that comes from women who can't afford pre and post natal care … or to feed the newborn well AFTER birth. The strange thinking people that take the only care available away from those women are responsible for much of the number of born (and unborn) children's deaths. The numbers were before the ACA, and AFTER the closings of PP's around the country by "well meaning", conscientious, but poorly thought out actions of citizens.

We could save MORE babies by bringing PP BACK, and supporting the ACA.

ethang5 · July 2019

Hell no, I do NOT stand with Planned Parenthood to murder unborn beautiful little innocent babies!

Hell no.

TKDB · July 2019

I'm pro unborn baby.

And I'm pro adoption.

ethang5 · July 2019

>I'm pro unborn baby.
And I'm pro adoption.

Me too! I'm also anti baby murder.

And I'm not a fan of calling it other dishonestly deceptive things like,
Choice, healthcare, and planned parenthood.

Dee · July 2019

A woman’s body a woman’s choice , maybe people should mind they’re own business regarding what choices women make regarding bodily autonomy

TKDB · July 2019

@Dee

What about the babies voice?

What about the father's voice?

Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation?

ethang5 · July 2019

The same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

The issue here is there are two bodies, not one. The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body. The baby's body is another thing.

Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business. I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.

Dee · July 2019

@TKDB

You say ......What about the babies voice?

My reply ......What what are the unborn saying?

You say .....What about the father's voice?

My reply .....I care not as it’s nothing to do with what I said

You say ......Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation?

My reply .....No they shouldn’t

Dee · July 2019

@ethang5

You say .....he same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

My reply .....When did you ask my opinion on these topics or are you gifted with psychic powers?

You say ......The issue here is there are two bodies, not one.

My reply .....No one has the right to use someone’s body without permission

You say .....The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body.

My reply .....Abortion is a right she is exercising her right

You say......

The baby's body is another thing.

My reply ......The implied rights of a fetus are of no concern to me regarding the matter in hand

You say .......Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business.

My reply .....Don’t do it then. A fetus is not a “citizen”

You say .....I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.

My reply .....That statement is merely a typical emotional outburst void of anything meaningful

TKDB · July 2019

@Dee

(What about the babies voice?

What about the father's voice?

Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation?)

"You say ......What about the babies voice?

My reply ......What what are the unborn saying?

You say .....What about the father's voice?

My reply .....I care not as it’s nothing to do with what I said

You say ......Because if it takes two individuals to create an unborn baby, shouldn't they, get to have some sort of a voice as well, in the conversation?

My reply .....No they shouldn’t"

"A woman’s body a woman’s choice , maybe people should mind they’re own business regarding what choices women make regarding bodily autonomy."

"Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?"

I googled the above, and the below was the primary response;

"Tell Congress you stand with Planned Parenthood The federal government is in the hands of extremist lawmakers who have tried for years to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers and cut patients off from care. ... Tell Congress you're ready to fight like hell to protect reproductive health and rights in this country."

A sad reality about two individuals creating a baby, in the after process of being intimate?

Both individuals have forms of birth control, that could have been used to prevent, an undesired pregnancy?

So either the some of the consenting adults, are missing the point about practical birth control, or abortion is being looked at, as an after measure, that happens because some were mindfully lazy, when it came to the utilization of OTC birth control, by either of the consenting adults, before becoming intimate?

Because, if an unborn baby isnt being given a voice, or the father of the unborn baby, isn't being given a voice, as well, in the light of the abortion conversation, than the lacking of those two missing voices, goes to show, that the abortion conversation, needs to be broadened then, to accomodate those additional voices?

Thus making the abortion conversation, more fair, and equal.

Dee · July 2019

@TKDB

I haven’t a clue what you’re attempting to say , I take it my advice on curtailing your alcohol consumption has fallen on deaf drunken ears yet again

Plaffelvohfen · July 2019

ethang5 said:

1: The same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

2: The issue here is there are two bodies, not one. The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body. The baby's body is another thing.

3: Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business. I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.

1: Oh really?? Got anything to back that up?? As usual, probably not...
2: I would even go further and say that there is 2 "person", not one... It doesn't change a thing as the number of bodies is not the issue...
3: A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen... B ) People have abortions in their bedrooms now, really??

What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant, the only relevant fact is what is it doing? The answer to that question is: The baby is using another person body, that is undeniable...

The question then becomes a matter of consent, does the woman continuously consent or not, to her body being used? That's the only thing that matters... And that choice to consent or not, is hers alone to make...

So, here's a challenge for you, if you can actually demonstrate that A) the right to life, infers B ) a right to use someone body without their consent...
Then I would have no choice but to actually change my position on this, as this is my strongest argument... No one has been able to, yet... Up for it?

MayCaesar · July 2019

I do not think the government has any business in this matter. Planned Parenthood is tax-exempt for no reason other than the government officials believing in its cause. I am all for not taxing corporations, but only if it applies to all corporations equally, not only to the ones nitpicked by the government.

I am all for Planned Parenthood; it is a good organisation. I am just against it being coddled by the government. If the government is to coddle anything at all, let it be things like technological innovation that benefit all people, rather than a small minority. After all, the taxes are paid by everyone, so exempting an organisation from taxes should not benefit people preferentially.

TKDB · July 2019

@Dee

I'll create another forum, and pose the same questions, and see how the citizens of the United States, go about participating in the conversation.

Have a good day Dee.

ethang5 · July 2019

@Dee

The same people championing a woman's choice here, are against a woman's choice in prostitution, pornography, and incest, and if women begin to abort only female babies.

>When did you ask my opinion on these topics...

You'll know when I address a post to you. Every issue I mentioned concerns a woman's use of her body, something you say you are for.

The issue here is there are two bodies, not one.

>No one has the right to use someone’s body without permission

Does not address my point that there are 2 bodies.

The woman is welcome to her choices concerning her own body.

>Abortion is a right she is exercising her right

Owning blacks as slaves was once a "right". I do not recognize evil as rights.

The baby's body is another thing.

The implied rights of a fetus are of no concern to me regarding the matter in hand

Exactly as your opinion is to me.

Choosing to kill a fellow innocent citizen of mine is indeed my business.

>Don’t do it then. A fetus is not a “citizen”

Like a black man once wasn't? I do not recognize evil as rights.

I will stay out of your "bedroom", but when you start murdering people in your bedroom because you think that because they're in your bedroom, you're have a right to kill them, you will hear from me.

>That statement is merely a typical emotional outburst void of anything meaningful

Then you are wasting your time. Buh-bye.

ethang5 · July 2019

@Plaffelvohfen

>1: Oh really?? Got anything to back that up?? As usual, probably not...

To back what up?

>2: I would even go further and say that there is 2 "person", not one... It doesn't change a thing as the number of bodies is not the issue...

I count 2 bodies. Both bodies are the issue.

>3: A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...

All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.

>B ) People have abortions in their bedrooms now, really??

I would not be surprised. But interesting that you, a dyed in the wool liberal, doesn't know the bedroom analogy.

>What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant,

I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.

>the only relevant fact is what is it doing?

I reject that as ad-hoc nonsense.

>The answer to that question is: The baby is using another person body, that is undeniable...

That depends on what you mean by "using". But I will note that the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.

>The question then becomes a matter of consent, does the woman continuously consent or not, to her body being used?

Abject nonsense. You cannot invite a person in, where their life and or safety depends on you, and then change your mind where it results in the person's death.

What about a doctor operating on a patient? Can he quit mid operation because it is his body performing the operation?

>That's the only thing that matters... And that choice to consent or not, is hers alone to make...

You want that to be the only thing that matters. But that is certainly not the only thing that matters. The inalienable rights of the baby matters too.

>So, here's a challenge for you, if you can actually demonstrate that A) the right to life, infers B ) a right to use someone body without their consent...

Easy. I cannot morally or legally leave a person to drown if I find him shipwrecked in the ocean. I cannot abandon flying a plane with passengers because I change my mind. I cannot go and take back a kidney I donated to someone if taking it will result in their death. Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women.

>Then I would have no choice but to actually change my position on this, as this is my strongest argument... No one has been able to, yet... Up for it?

It is actually a very weak argument. My guess is you will dodge the analogies.

You may have a slight case in those instances where the woman did not invite the baby in, but even then, the babies right to life trumps the woman's right to choice.

Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.

1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?

You are going through these mental contortions to avoid the clear logic of the matter. You simply want to be able to be rid of the baby. That is all.

Your strongest argument is, "because I want to". There is no logic on the side of abortionists.

Plaffelvohfen · July 2019

@ethang5

>So, here's a challenge for you, if you can actually demonstrate that A) the right to life, infers B ) a right to use someone body without their consent...

Easy. I cannot morally or legally leave a person to drown if I find him shipwrecked in the ocean. I cannot abandon flying a plane with passengers because I change my mind. I cannot go and take back a kidney I donated to someone if taking it will result in their death. Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women.

You haven't demonstrated anything as I correctly presumed... You tried to argue about the Duty to rescue principle, but there is no federal level laws regarding that in the US, and a majority of states do not either...

In an 1898 case, Buch v. Amory Mfg. Co., 69 N.H. 257, 44 A. 809, 1897 N.H. LEXIS 49 (N.H. 1898), the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight-year-old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.

In the 1907 case People v. Beardsley, Beardsley's mistress, Blanche Burns, passed out after overdosing on morphine. Rather than seek medical attention, Beardsley instead had a friend hide her in the basement, and Burns died a few hours later. Beardsley was tried and convicted of manslaughter for his negligence. However, his conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court of Michigan saying that Beardsley had no legal obligation to her.

Some states such as Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island make it a misdemeanor offence if it is known that someone is in serious danger and someone can intervene safely or call 911 and they do not (Trinh, Li, 2015).

There are Good Samaritan laws though, but those protect the helper from liability resulting from the help provided... If someone is bleeding on the side of the road you can legally move on without doing anything, you'd be an asshole sure but in any state this would be an nonindictable offense... There are criminal laws addressing that elsewhere in the world, but not in the US...

You haven't even got close to addressing the problem: How to you go from A to B... From a right to life to a right to use someone body without consent... Still going to evade I guess...

>What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant,
I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.

Comprehension problems I see, unsurprising but I'll try to explain it like to a 5 year old: It's irrelevant because I already granted the fetus a legal person status, with all the rights a full grown adult may have...

When a crime is committed, who or what the perpetrator is, is irrelevant in assessing the guilt or not.. Do you agree? Whether a murderer is white, black, jewish, Buddhist, tall, small, fat, republican or democrat, doesn't matter at all right? It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant... The only thing that matters is what this person is doing or has done...

A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...
All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.

Funny, you used "person" this time instead of "citizen", changing your terminology during the course of an argument now? LOL
A person and a citizen are not the same... A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition...

the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.

The association between pregnancy and sexual intercourse is a mere construct born of our traditional ways of thinking about gender and reproduction. Note that the US Supreme Court has maintained the view that specifically, "a man’s impregnation of a woman causes her pregnant condition”... The man is currently the responsible party under the law, not the woman... But I challenge that view that either of the man or woman are responsible...

Whereas a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him, a man cannot cause a woman’s body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition; the only entity that can do that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself in a woman’s uterus.

The action of the man in “Moving sperm into a woman’s body” during the act of intercourse, certainly represents one of the “factual sequential links” leading to pregnancy. But I maintain, however, that this action is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman’s pregnant condition. It is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk for becoming pregnant, like choosing to get out of bed in the morning is a factual sequential link to anything that may happen to you on any given day...

This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before... This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state. In the eyes of the law, too, therefore, the fertilized ovum should be the legal cause of a woman’s pregnancy. Not the man nor the woman...

Men and women who contribute to a situation in which it is foreseeable that a fertilized ovum might be conceived and make a woman pregnant against her will contribute no more to the woman’s harm than does a woman who walks down a street late at night contribute to her own rape ... Men and women who engage in sexual intercourse, therefore, cannot be held as contributing to the harm imposed on a woman by a fertilized ovum making her pregnant without consent.

Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women

Absolutely not, this principle is valid for anyone at anytime, I don't make exceptions for woman, you do... By denying her a right that everyone else has, the right to bodily integrity/autonomy...

Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.
1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?

1: Yes. I can rescind my consent at any time for any reason... Unless we actually did sign a formal legal contract, then I would be guilty of a breach of contract... I would agree that it would make me a despicable asshole for doing so but being a despicable asshole is not illegal anywhere...
2: See 1...
3: Sure, I verbally agree to give you a vital organ (any) that'll help you survive, the morning of the operation before we go in surgery I can rescind this consent for whatever reason, you will die and I'll have to live with it but it still would be legal, even if questionable, yes (See 1)... It might be difficult to rescind it during the surgery obviously, because I won't be conscious then but at this point it's purely rhetoric...

Now, you deflect and evade but have yet to directly make the connections between A ) The right to life, and B ) A right to use someone else body without consent...

I guess you'll play around the bush and will not directly address my question as usual?

Dee · July 2019

@ethang5

You say ...... You'll know when I address a post to you. Every issue I mentioned concerns a woman's use of her body, something you say you are for.

My reply ..... A woman may prostitute herself if she wants indulge in porn if she wants , where did I say I’m in favour of incestous relationships?

You say .....The issue here is there are two bodies, not one.

My reply .....It’s not , the issue is no one has the right to use your body without consent

You say ......Does not address my point that there are 2 bodies.

My reply ......It does read what I said again regards consent

You say ......Owning blacks as slaves was once a "right". I do not recognize evil as rights.

My reply .....Yet you totally accept biblical slavery as entirely just and fair , you said before that owning people as property was evil yet the Bible clearly states your slaves are your property, you fled last time when confronted with this as you clearly have no defence.

Disallowing women’s rights was once an evil now it’s a right, suck it up

You say ......The baby's body is another thing.

My reply .....Your point being as it’s there without permission

You say ......Like a black man once wasn't? I do not recognize evil as rights.

My reply .......I do not recognize stupidity as reason , a fetus is still not a citizen.

Abortion is legal in most places get over it

ethang5 · July 2019

@Dee

>A woman may prostitute herself if she wants indulge in porn if she wants , where did I say I’m in favour of incestous relationships?

It is still a woman's body in incest. You said you supported a woman deciding how to use her body.

The issue here is there are two bodies, not one.

>It’s not , the issue is no one has the right to use your body without consent

First, the woman give her consent when she opened her legs, and the baby was invited in, it is not an invader.

Does not address my point that there are 2 bodies.

>It does read what I said again regards consent

The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.

Owning blacks as slaves was once a "right". I do not recognize evil as rights.

>Yet you totally accept biblical slavery as entirely just and fair,

No, that is just you spinning because you can't debate the point.

>you said before that owning people as property was evil yet the Bible clearly states your slaves are your property,

I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.

>you fled last time when confronted with this as you clearly have no defence.

Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.

Stupidly, you want us to pretend with you that the word "property" has only one meaning.

>Disallowing women’s rights was once an evil now it’s a right, suck it up

No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.

The baby's body is another thing.

>Your point being as it’s there without permission

It is there because it was invited in. And 50% of the baby is the woman.

Like a black man once wasn't? I do not recognize evil as rights.

I do not recognize stupidity as reason , a fetus is still not a citizen.

Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.

>Abortion is legal in most places get over it

Then you have no problem with homosexuality being illegal in most places?

The question here is not about the legality, but abut the morality.

This absurdist argument that the baby needs continuous consent from the woman is an unwelcome invader is ...... absurd.

If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her keep her legs closed. She had control of her body before the baby right?

ethang5 · July 2019

>You haven't demonstrated anything as I correctly presumed...

Lol. Confirmation bias.

You tried to argue about the Duty to rescue principle,

No. This is based on the same principle used to prosecute businesses that refused to serve minorities. A responsibility is created when one causes a person to place themselves in their care.

If the person needs to be "rescued", and it is you who caused them to need rescuing, then it is you with the responsibility to rescue them.

>but there is no federal level laws regarding that in the US, and a majority of states do not either...

The question is not whether there is a law. We all know Roe vs Wade exists. The question is one of inalienable rights. Of morality.

>...unanimously held that after an eight-year-old boy negligently....

False analogy. The boy was negligent and trespassing. Neither is true of a baby.

In the 1907 case People v. Beardsley, Beardsley's mistress, Blanche Burns,....

False analogy. Beardsley did not cause Burn's overdose, and Burns did not require Beardsley to use his body.

>Some states such as Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island make it a misdemeanor offence if it is known that someone is in serious danger and someone can intervene safely or call 911 and they do not (Trinh, Li, 2015).

Do you know why?

>There are Good Samaritan laws though, but those protect the helper from liability resulting from the help provided... If someone is bleeding on the side of the road you can legally move on without doing anything, you'd be an asshole sure but in any state this would be an nonindictable offense...

Do you know why moving on without doing anything makes you an asshole? What about the case where you caused the person to be bleeding? Can you simply move on?

>You haven't even got close to addressing the problem: How to you go from A to B... From a right to life to a right to use someone body without consent... Still going to evade I guess...

First, your silly test does not show in any way that abortion is correct. I just wanted to show you the sloppiness of your thinking. Going from A to B is just an absurd ad hoc argument you've put up.

My showing you your poor logic does not mean I accept your silliness that a baby is using the mothers body without consent, or that a baby needs the "continuous consent" of the mother.

>What the fetus is (a person, a baby, a citizen, whatever) is irrelevant,
I disagree. A person has undeniable rights.

Comprehension problems I see, unsurprising but I'll try to explain it like to a 5 year old: It's irrelevant because I already granted the fetus a legal person status, with all the rights a full grown adult may have...

When a crime is committed, who or what the perpetrator is, is irrelevant in assessing the guilt or not.. Do you agree?

No, I disagree, because I do not allow my biases to make me stupid. No crime has been committed. That is the fakery you're trying to slip past us.

>Whether a murderer is white, black, jewish, Buddhist, tall, small, fat, republican or democrat, doesn't matter at all right?

When did we decide a murder had taken place? If you don't see the fakery, you are dense, and dishonest otherwise.

>It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant...

What sense is that slick? The baby being a criminal? Lol. You must think I'm as dense as one of your liberal mates.

A) I can grant you that the fetus is a person no problem, but it certainly isn't a citizen...
All persons within the borders of my country get their right to life protected.

>Funny, you used "person" this time instead of "citizen", changing your terminology during the course of an argument now? LOL

The words can be synonymous.

>Person and a citizen are not the same... A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition...

Who's definition? Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.

the baby did not invade the mother's body. The baby was invited in.

The association between pregnancy and sexual intercourse is a mere construct born of our traditional ways of thinking about gender and reproduction.

Let me stop you here, because your argument is so ridiculous I hesitate to respond least I break the forums civility code.

But your argument instantly absolves every murderer who used a tool to kill a person. I can see now that you're one of those people who values debate over honesty.

>But I maintain, however, that this action is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman’s pregnant condition.

You can "maintain" any stupidity you want, but when you leave logic behind, Ethan cannot remain with you.

>like choosing to get out of bed in the morning is a factual sequential link to anything that may happen to you on any given day...

False. There is no causal link between getting out of bead and being killed by a drunk driver, whereas there is a direct causal link between being inseminated and becoming pregnant. I blush to have to point out something so silly to you.

>This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before...

I reject this as absurdist nonsense, for then no rapist could be convicted of impregnating a victim, and no deadbeat dad can be held for non support.

>This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state.

This is not the case. Logic will be required here.

>In the eyes of the law, too, therefore, the fertilized ovum should be the legal cause of a woman’s pregnancy. Not the man nor the woman...

But lucky for me, the law tends to be logical and completely disagrees with you.

>Men and women who contribute to a situation in which it is foreseeable that a fertilized ovum might be conceived and make a woman pregnant against her will contribute no more to the woman’s harm than does a woman who walks down a street late at night contribute to her own rape

False. There is no direct causal link between a naked woman walking down a street at night and rape, as is with consensual sex of a man and a woman and pregnancy.

>... Men and women who engage in sexual intercourse, therefore, cannot be held as contributing to the harm imposed on a woman by a fertilized ovum making her pregnant without consent.

So please tell us, how would a woman "consent" to a fertilized ovum making her pregnant?

Your "continuous consent" is made up stupidity you give validity only in the case of women

>Absolutely not, this principle is valid for anyone at anytime, I don't make exceptions for woman, you do...

I do not. My wife does not need "continuous consent" in making love to me. Marrying her is consent enough. My doctor does not need "continuous consent" in operating on me. My signature on the consent form is enough. My pilot does not need my "continuous consent" to keep flying me. The fact that I purchased a ticket is consent enough.

I asked you to tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance and you dodged the question.

>By denying her a right that everyone else has, the right to bodily integrity/autonomy...

No one is denying her that right. The baby's body is not hers.

Consider this analogy. You volunteer to give me a blood transfusion directly from your circulatory system, and change your mind mid transfusion. If you stop the transfusion, I die. Here are my questions.
1. Do I need your "continuous" consent?
2. Once we start, do you have a responsibility to continue due to my life being on the line?
3. Can you tell us another situation where your concept of continuous consent is viable AND where a life is in the balance?

>1: Yes. I can rescind my consent at any time for any reason... Unless we actually did sign a formal legal contract, then I would be guilty of a breach of contract... I would agree that it would make me a despicable asshole for doing so but being a despicable asshole is not illegal anywhere...

We aren't talking legality. Some actions constitute a legal contract within themselves. You are wrong about the legality in this particular case, and right about being a despicable asshole.

>2: See 1...

Untrue. You do. "Once we start".

>3: Sure, I verbally agree to give you a vital organ (any) that'll help you survive, the morning of the operation before we go in surgery I can rescind this consent for whatever reason, you will die and I'll have to live with it but it still would be legal, even if questionable, yes (See 1)

You have dodged my question. You changed your mind BEFORE the surgery. And thus my life is on the line because of my illness which you didn't cause. But during surgery, if you change your mind, I die due to the surgery having to be abandoned mid stream. You are wrong.

>... It might be difficult to rescind it during the surgery obviously, because I won't be conscious then but at this point it's purely rhetoric..

No it isn't. You just wish to dodge it. The question is theoretical and can be answered.

>Now, you deflect and evade but have yet to directly make the connections between A ) The right to life, and B ) A right to use someone else body without consent...

I need make no such connection because I do not accept...
1. That the baby lacks consent, and....
2. That the baby needs "continuous consent", and....
3. That a baby is "using" the woman's body in the way you mean "using" here

>I guess you'll play around the bush and will not directly address my question as usual?

People are forced to have their bodies used all the time. Under court orders, or by police action, or by immanent domain of a state when it would result in lives being saved.

I have addressed your fakery, but my guess is that you won't like it, and you won't notice my questions you dodged.

Dee · July 2019

@ethang5

You say ......It is still a woman's body in incest. You said you supported a woman deciding how to use her body.

My reply ......I said I supported a woman’s right to bodily autonomy bodily autonomy meansa person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

Your rant about incest is a typically stupid red herring

You say .........First, the woman give her consent when she opened her legs, and the baby was invited in, it is not an invader.

My reply ......She gave permission which may be withdrawn at her will

You say .....The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.

My reply .....The fetus is still there by permission

You say ......No, that is just you spinning because you can't debate the point.

My reply ......No spin on my part , you don’t debate you rant

You say ........I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.

My reply .....But that’s typically you when you are trapped by your own stupidity, you claimed owning people as property was evil , the Bible clearly states slaves are your property .....ouch ......still no defence have you?

You say .......Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.

My reply ......Actually the Bible does not state that , the Bible states clearly In several different verses slaves are your property , you need to get a Bible mate

.......Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

I never read your “sports star analogy”there only so much of your stupidity one can tolerate

You say ......Stupidly, you want us to pretend with you that the word "property" has only one meaning.

My reply .....Who is us? I never said that but neat little twist to aid your dishonesty , I said Slave had one meaning as in .....owning another as property.....lost again E T

You say .....No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.

My reply .....A fetus is now a person? But you agree with slavery if the Bible is doing it , make your mind up will you?

You say ......It is there because it was invited in. And 50% of the baby is the woman.

My reply .....The invite can be withdrawn. So what?

You say .....Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.

My reply ....It doesn’t , Abortion is legal

You say ......Then you have no problem with homosexuality being illegal in most places?

My reply .....That makes no sense

You say .......The question here is not about the legality, but abut the morality.

My reply .....I get it you don’t like the law if you disagree with it , I don’t agree with the right to carry a gun in the U S so your point is?

Regarding morality what makes you demanding a woman give birth without consent moral?

You say .....This absurdist argument that the baby needs continuous consent from the woman is an unwelcome invader is ...... absurd.

My reply .....Nonsense, your argument that women must give birth because you say so makes you a bully and a tyrant

You say .......If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her keep her legs closed. She had control of her body before the baby right?

My reply ......Spoken like a true Victorian misogynist

ethang5 · July 2019

@Dee

There is still a woman's body in incest. You said you supported a woman deciding how to use her body.

>I said I supported a woman’s right to bodily autonomy bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

Like incest. You have to accept the consequences of your argument dee dee.

>Your rant about incest is a typically stupid red herring

Lol. OK. You support a woman's right to use her body for whatever she wants except incest.

First, the woman give her consent when she opened her legs, and the baby was invited in, it is not an invader.

>She gave permission which may be withdrawn at her will

She can withdraw all she wants, she just cannot kill the baby. She has no "right" to do so.

The baby does not consent to be hacked to pieces.

>The fetus is still there by permission

So is a French immigrant in America, but the government cannot kill him.

No, that is just you spinning because you can't debate the point.

>No spin on my part , you don’t debate you rant

I ask questions, you dodge. I explain my positions, you pretend I didn't and repeat your lame addressed claims. I think the Gentle Readers know who is empty.

I will just have to accept that you're either too dishonest or too stupid to get my argument.

>But that’s typically you when you are trapped by your own stupidity, you claimed owning people as property was evil , the Bible clearly states slaves are your property .....ouch ......still no defence have you?

It is most likely stupidity

Yet here I am with you dodging the fact that I said the bible says the person's service is what is bought. You have even dodged my analogy of sport stars and athletes being property.

>Actually the Bible does not state that,

Actually it does, you are just willfully ignorant.

>the Bible states clearly In several different verses slaves are your property , you need to get a Bible mate

And you need a dictionary.

>I never read your “sports star analogy” there only so much of your stupidity one can tolerate

Lol. OK. But you really should read posts you intend to reply.

Stupidly, you want us to pretend with you that the word "property" has only one meaning.

>Who is us?

Does it matter to your pretense?

>I never said that but neat little twist to aid your dishonesty , I said Slave had one meaning as in .....owning another as property.....lost again E T

Slave has more than one meaning slick. And I said "property" has more than one meaning too. You kept harping on property. Get thee to a dictionary.

No woman has a "right" to kill another person no matter what any court says. For example, blacks were still men even when the supreme court said they weren't.

>A fetus is now a person?

When is a person not a person? Do you think calling a person a fetus makes them not a person?

>But you agree with slavery if the Bible is doing it , make your mind up will you?

I've decided. You're stupid.

It is there because it was invited in. And 50% of the baby is the woman.

>The invite can be withdrawn. So what?

Not morally. That's what.

Even if we grant that, the baby retains the right to life, as does any person.

>It doesn’t , Abortion is legal

Human laws do not affect inalienable rights. Look up the bolded word with a dictionary.

Then you have no problem with homosexuality being illegal in most places?

>That makes no sense

Sorry, I keep thinking your IQ is average.

The question here is not about the legality, but abut the morality.

>I get it you don’t like the law if you disagree with it , I don’t agree with the right to carry a gun in the U S so your point is?

Abortion is immoral because it is the willful murder of a person.

>Regarding morality what makes you demanding a woman give birth without consent moral?

I have demanded no such thing.

This absurdist argument that the baby needs continuous consent from the woman and is an unwelcome invader is ...... absurd.

>Nonsense, your argument that women must give birth because you say so makes you a bully and a tyrant

That is not what I say.

If a woman doesn't want a baby, let her keep her legs closed. She had control of her body before the baby right?

>Spoken like a true Victorian misogynist

My acknowledgment that a woman has control over her body and should exercise that control, is misogynistic?

I dismiss your silly politically correct illogic. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she should not do what creates one.

Actions have consequences, if she feels she controls her body, then the time for that control is before she let's some doofus knock boots with her.

She has no right to kill another person.

Plaffelvohfen · July 2019

@ethang5

Projecting a lot I see, typical...

The question is not whether there is a law. We all know Roe vs Wade exists. The question is one of inalienable rights. Of morality.

We're talking about rights, therefore by necessity, the discussion is set in a legal framework, if you don't acknowledge this, that is your problem, not mine...

False analogy. The boy was negligent and trespassing. Neither is true of a baby.
False analogy. Beardsley did not cause Burn's overdose, and Burns did not require Beardsley to use his body.

I wonder if you're even able to understand that it wasn't an analogy about bodily autonomy but about the absence of Duty to rescue laws in the US...

your silly test does not show in any way that abortion is correct.

It isn't meant to, it is meant to show that it is legitimate... Morality being subjective, whether it is good or bad, is for the pregnant woman to decide, no one else...

>It's in this sense that what the fetus is, is irrelevant...
What sense is that slick? The baby being a criminal?

Yes... Whether you accept it or not, the fetus is using someone body, at the moment consent is withdrawn, a crime is being committed... All persons being equal in rights, if you allow for a fetus to use someone body in whole or in part without this person consent, then you also allow for other person, regardless of age, sex, etc, to use anyone body part without consent too...

>Person and a citizen are not the same... A citizen is a born person, there is no unborn citizens by definition...
Who's definition? Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.

The US Constitution?? You should look it up... 14th amendment, first sentence of the first section : "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

There are no unborn citizens... Don't play the equivocation fallacy, doesn't work with me...

Both of them have a right to life that should be respected by the authority of the jurisdiction.

I completely agree, where did I state that the baby didn't have a right to life?? Multiple times now I have stated that I grant every rights an adult have to the fetus... You on the other hand, deny women theirs...

>This is so because “pregnancy is a condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman’s body.” Not a nanosecond before...
I reject this as absurdist nonsense, for then no rapist could be convicted of impregnating a victim, and no deadbeat dad can be held for non support.

?? Wow... If you actually think that rapists are convicted for "impregnating" someone then you are farther into delusion then I thought... This notion of yours implies that there is no rape if there is no pregnancy... Now THAT is nonsense... And you are actually denying basic biological facts... No woman can be pregnant without a fertilized eggs implanted in her uterus... That is literally what it means to be pregnant, to have a fertilized human egg implanted in your uterus... If the ovum is NOT fertilized, you are not pregnant, if the fertilized ovum is NOT implanted in the uterus, you are not pregnant... Those are 2 imperative conditions to be pregnant, biology 101... Did you skip class in school? It would explain a few things...

>This being the case, we can identify the fertilized ovum to be the factual cause of a woman’s pregnancy state.
This is not the case. Logic will be required here.

Please explain to everyone how can a woman be pregnant without the presence of a fertilized ovum in her uterus... This will be interesting...

So please tell us, how would a woman "consent" to a fertilized ovum making her pregnant?

By letting it stay there obviously... Like a fly on your arm, you may not have consented to it landing there, but by doing nothing you consent to its continued presence until you withdraw this consent if you want to...

People are forced to have their bodies used all the time. Under court orders, or by police action, or by immanent domain of a state when it would result in lives being saved.

"Immanent" domain??? Don't use words you don't understand boy... It's eminent, and it refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring "just" compensation to be given to the original owner. No body can be used for any purpose under eminent domain... Educate yourself...

Someone bodily integrity can indeed be suspended, but it is not inferred from a right to life... It can be inferred from a public safety imperative (vaccines) and such, but it cannot be inferred from a right to life...

I need make no such connection because I do not accept...
1. That the baby lacks consent, and....
2. That the baby needs "continuous consent", and....
3. That a baby is "using" the woman's body in the way you mean "using" here

Of course you do, if you are to invoke the right to life as an argument against abortion... What does the baby's consent has to do with anything? His body is not being used, the woman body is...

You have a right to your opinion but not to your alternative facts... So far, all you've brought forth are opinions...

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

The 6 best robot lawn mowers in 2024 are here to make your Roomba jealous

In this Debate

Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

"Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?"

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

The 6 best robot lawn mowers in 2024 are here to make your Roomba jealous

In this Debate

Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

"Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?"

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Do you stand with Planned Parenthood, in protecting Title X?
in Politics