Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
You replied to Linda's poston November 27, 2008 at 7:20pm "No human being is allowed to use me just because they will die." so, if i were holding someones hand who was dangling from a cliff, does it give me the right to drop them? I mean, i could pull them up, but they shouldnt be allowed to use my arm that way. "I don't want women to cheat, but I'm not going to legally or physical stop them from doing so. Just like I don't want women to have to have abortions (more abstinence and better contraceptives, please), but I'm not going to legally or physically stop them from" cheating doesn't kill anyone. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 27, 2008 at 7:24pm "so, if i were holding someones hand who was dangling from a cliff, does it give me the right to drop them?" lol, I've actually heard this scenario before. First off, is the man infringing upon your rights? I'd say no. He's not trying to knife you or stick his hand in your mouth or anything. Second, do you have a way of actively getting him off your arm that doesn't involve killing him? If you have an alternative to actively accomplish your goal, you must use that option first. So for your story, no, you cannot kill him because 1 he's not infringing on your rights, and even if he is, you can pull them up to make them stop using your arm. For a fetus pre-viability, no matter how I remove it from my body, it will "die." You replied to Linda's poston November 27, 2008 at 8:52pm "First off, is the man infringing upon your rights? I'd say no. He's not trying to knife you or stick his hand in your mouth or anything. " nor is a fetus. it just is trying to be born. "Second, do you have a way of actively getting him off your arm that doesn't involve killing him? If you have an alternative to actively accomplish your goal, you must use that option first." like the way you can have the baby, then give it up for adoption, so that it isnt dead and you arent forced to take care of it? "For a fetus pre-viability, no matter how I remove it from my body, it will "die." " So if i would be able to pull the man up in fifteen minutes, but not immediately, I wouldnt be forced to hang on? interesting. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 28, 2008 at 5:00am "nor is a fetus. it just is trying to be born." The fetus is inside my body, I think that counts as infringing upon my rights. "like the way you can have the baby, then give it up for adoption, so that it isnt dead and you arent forced to take care of it?" Nope. If I am trying to actively remove the fetus, letting it stay in my body is not actively removing it. That would be the opposite. It'd be like someone holding a gun to my head, and you waiting until AFTER he shoots me to take the gun away. You replied to Linda's poston November 28, 2008 at 7:38am "The fetus is inside my body, I think that counts as infringing upon my rights." like... sex? consensual sex. a women allows the guy to enter her body. a women allows the fetus to enter her body, by having sex. Having sex doesn't infringe on any rights that I'm aware of... "It'd be like someone holding a gun to my head, and you waiting until AFTER he shoots me to take the gun away." your analogy confuses me. what part of pregnancy is like being shot... in the head? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 28, 2008 at 3:39pm "consensual sex. a women allows the guy to enter her body. " Sorry, the fetus is inside my body unwanted and without my consent. Consensual sex clearly... has consent. An unwanted fetus does not. "what part of pregnancy is like being shot... in the head?" The whole part when it's unwanted. You replied to Linda's poston November 28, 2008 at 5:39pm "Sorry, the fetus is inside my body unwanted and without my consent" really? because I was under the impression that having sex created the fetus. By agreeing to have sex, you are agreeing to create the fetus, in your body. Having something you don't want is the same as being murdered? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 28, 2008 at 5:50pm Consenting to one thing is not consent to its possible risks. Consenting to smoking is not consent to getting lung cancer. Consenting to driving is not consent to getting into an accident. Consenting to cross the street at the crosswalk is not consent to be hit by a car. "Having something you don't want is the same as being murdered? " I don't understand this question at all. You replied to Linda's poston November 28, 2008 at 5:59pm "Consenting to one thing is not consent to its possible risks." It really... kinda is. Every time you do something, you acknowledge that all of these risks can happen to you, and you do it anyway. When you decide to smoke, you decide to do something that may cause lung cancer. It's not the lung cancer's fault you got it, you allowed it to happen. Which is different than a risk of human action, to some degree. You can't argue that by agreeing to get out of your house today, you allow yourself to be shot; because there's nothing you can do to prevent this; you could just as likely be shot in your own house. Pregnancy, you have the choice, you can choose not to have sex. (Other than the case of rape, but I can't see abortion in the case of rape ever being outlawed, so I don't care to argue it in legal terms.) You compared being pregnant to being shot in the head. I asked for you reasoning behind this, you said because the fetus was unwanted... which I didn't understand. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 28, 2008 at 6:05pm "It really... kinda is." But it's not. I think you're confused. "Every time you do something, you acknowledge that all of these risks can happen to you, and you do it anyway." See, exactly. Consenting to one act is acknowledging its known risks, but it is never consent to those risks. I acknowledge that I could be hit by another car while driving, but that does not mean that I CONSENT to be hit. I do not AGREE to be hit. I simply acknowledge that it COULD happen. Either way, just because a person consents to something (say smoking) that causes something they do not want (say cancer), are you going to refuse them medical treatment JUST because they "caused" the cancer? Oh well, too bad, die die die? I certainly hope not. Even if a woman, I don't know how, but "consented" to pregnancy through sex, she can still REMOVE that consent, and she should still be allowed medical treatment of her choice (which is either abortion or prenatal care). "You compared being pregnant to being shot in the head. I asked for you reasoning behind this, you said because the fetus was unwanted... which I didn't understand." Shooting me in the head (or threatening to do so) is a violation of my body which might result in death. Unwanted pregnancy (non-consensual pregnancy) is a violation of my body which might result in death. You wouldn't wait for me to be bleeding on the floor to help me, you shouldn't wait until after the pregnancy is over to help me. You replied to Linda's poston November 28, 2008 at 8:44pm Okay.... what if I reused your car accident analogy? "I acknowledge that I could be hit by another car while driving, but that does not mean that I CONSENT to be hit. I do not AGREE to be hit. I simply acknowledge that it COULD happen." What if the driving of a car is pregnancy, and the car accident is death caused by pregnancy, which you mentioned. Does that make it okay to kill the driver in the car next to you, to prevent a car accident that could potentially happen? Like how you argue you should be able to abort the fetus because it could cause death. And, in this analogy, the reason you kill the person in the car next to you is not because they might put you in a situation that might endanger you, but that you put yourself in that situation. And "non-consensual pregnancy", as you call it, is not a one way street. Lets say you didnt want this fetus growing inside of you. You make it seem like the baby walked itself into your womb and started violating your privacy. You put it there. It didnt ask to be placed inside a mother who didnt want it. "are you going to refuse them medical treatment JUST because they "caused" the cancer?" I certainly wouldn't kill someone else to fix them. I'm not going to rip the lungs out of somebody healthy so I can give them to the smoker. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 28, 2008 at 9:45pm Your analogy does not make sense, because the person in the car next to me is not infringing on my rights. It also does not make sense because my stance is not "miscarriage happens, therefore abortion is okay too." "You make it seem like the baby walked itself into your womb and started violating your privacy. You put it there." The fetus did not put itself there, that is correct. However, *I* did not put the fetus there either. A biological process which I have absolutely no control over is what "put" the fetus there. If I have a heart attack, I am not blamed and punished for that biological process, even if my bad living style put me at a higher risk for heart attack. "I'm not going to rip the lungs out of somebody healthy so I can give them to the smoker. " The irony is that this is basically what you're doing with the fetus. You wont force a person to give up their lungs, but you'll force a woman to give up her uterus. How does that make sense? You replied to Linda's poston November 28, 2008 at 9:57pm "because the person in the car next to me is not infringing on my rights" he is a threat to your right to live, like you say the fetus is. "biological process which I have absolutely no control over" not so. you introduced the sperm and the egg, thus starting the biological process. "If I have a heart attack, I am not blamed and punished for that biological process, even if my bad living style put me at a higher risk for heart attack." You are blamed, it's your fault. You're not punished because you hurt no one but yourself. "but you'll force a woman to give up her uterus" I don't recall advocating ripping out a womans uterus, and giving it to someone who wasn't using theirs responsibly. Abortion is more like poisoning somebody, and then refusing them the antidote, because it's yours and they have no right to it. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 28, 2008 at 10:12pm How exactly is the person in the car next to me a threat to my life? I don't see it. "you introduced the sperm and the egg, thus starting the biological process. " Well, actually, maybe I do have some control if you put it that way. I use pills to keep the egg from being released into my fallopian tubes. I use condoms to keep the sperm from entering my body. So how exactly do I introduce the sperm to the egg? "I don't recall advocating ripping out a womans uterus, and giving it to someone who wasn't using theirs responsibly. " Perhaps not ripping it out, but definitely "giving" it to "someone." Of course, they're not using theirs responsibly, because they don't have one to use! But I didn't cause the fetus to be there, I didn't give them the poison. You replied to Linda's poston November 28, 2008 at 10:15pm The same way a fetus is. They might be involved in an accident that kills you. "So how exactly do I introduce the sperm to the egg?" by not using birth control 100% effective. which, you know, there isn't. "But I didn't cause the fetus to be there, I didn't give them the poison." you didn't get yourself pregnant? It just happened, and you had no control over it? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 28, 2008 at 10:18pm But a fetus is infringing upon my right to bodily integrity, which is the important part. The possibility of later infringing upon rights isn't why abortion is legal, that was just a comment in my connection. "by not using birth control 100% effective. which, you know, there isn't." Well, I can use it 100% correctly, but you're right it isn't always 100% effective. Of course, nothing in life is. But I'd say the chance are sort of in my favor (99% and all). No, I didn't get myself pregnant. Pregnancy is not a direct result of sex. My body did it with absolutely no control from me. Either way, it doesn't matter. If I get pregnant, I suffer the consequences- an abortion. You replied to Linda's poston November 28, 2008 at 10:26pm "But I'd say the chance are sort of in my favor (99% and all)" indeed they are. But it's like gambling. The odds can be in your favor, but are you going to blame the dice when you lose? You have to take responsibility for your actions. "Pregnancy is not a direct result of sex" It really is. And your body doesn't spontaneously get pregnant. You make the conscious decision to have sex, thus possibly starting a process in which a fetus resides in your womb. "If I get pregnant, I suffer the consequences- an abortion." Why must the fetus also suffer the consequences? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 29, 2008 at 10:15am "but are you going to blame the dice when you lose? You have to take responsibility for your actions." I don't blame the fetus. That doesn't mean that I can't remove it from my body. I DO take responsibility. That's why I'd get an abortion instead of just sitting there looking dumb. "It really is." But it's not. I don't become pregnant just because I had sex. Having sex does not make me pregnant. "Why must the fetus also suffer the consequences?" The fetus doesn't suffer anything- it cannot think or feel. It will never know it existed. You replied to Linda's poston November 29, 2008 at 10:27am I don't believe getting an abortion is taking responsibility. By introducing a new life into the world, you have a responsibility to take care of it, at least until somebody else can. "Having sex does not make me pregnant." Then... what does? "The fetus doesn't suffer anything" It may not suffer physical pain. But losing one's life is suffering a consequence. You say "It will never know it existed," so I will infer you do not believe in any sort of afterlife. But by that logic, you could kill me in my sleep, and if I felt no pain, I wouldn't even know I died, and there would be no harm done. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 29, 2008 at 10:32am "I don't believe getting an abortion is taking responsibility." Well, there in lies the problem. It is a responsible solution for some women. "Then... what does?" A fertilized egg (pre-embryo) implanting into the lining of my uterus, which causes a hormonal change in my body that is recognized as pregnancy. "so I will infer you do not believe in any sort of afterlife." Actually, I do believe in an afterlife. But that does not mean that I believe early term fetus get souls at conception, or that they (as souls) will remember the womb. "But by that logic, you could kill me in my sleep, and if I felt no pain, I wouldn't even know I died, and there would be no harm done." No, because you will probably wake up and feel pain. But besides that, you would have been alive and known life, and so when you died you would remember being alive and thinking and consciousness, and then you would know you died. Ending a life once it has started is wrong. Stopping a life from ever happening is not wrong. You replied to Linda's poston November 29, 2008 at 1:21pm "It is a responsible solution for some women." They took responsibility for themselves, perhaps, but they didn't take responsibility for the fetus they created. "A fertilized egg (pre-embryo) implanting into the lining of my uterus, which causes a hormonal change in my body that is recognized as pregnancy." And the egg becomes fertilized through sex. "No, because you will probably wake up and feel pain." Let's say I was drugged not to wake up. Like... surgery. "Actually, I do believe in an afterlife. But that does not mean that I believe early term fetus get souls at conception, or that they (as souls) will remember the womb." When do you believe they get their souls, and by what reasoning? I believe that that a human gets a soul as soon as it is alive. I believe this because to me there is no other reasonably time for the soul to enter the body. It doesn't make sense to me that the soul would enter halfway through. Also, why wouldn't the soul remember the womb? Souls are no different due to age. Do you believe the soul of an elderly person with Alzheimer's would also not remember it's life? "Stopping a life from ever happening is not wrong." Surely you agree a fetus is alive. I think you believe it is a different kind of life... So when do you think a "valuable" life starts? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 29, 2008 at 3:59pm "And the egg becomes fertilized through sex." No, the egg becomes fertilized through a sperm connecting with an egg in the woman's body. "Let's say I was drugged not to wake up. Like... surgery." Well then perhaps you wouldn't feel the pain. That's not to say that we should kill you anyway, because it's wrong to kill people. "When do you believe they get their souls, and by what reasoning?" I believe that the fetus gets a soul when it has a functioning brain. The reasoning that it is not at conception is because somewhere between 30-70% of fertilized eggs never even make it to the embryo stage. For those that do, there is no guarantee that they will be one human being when born. That egg could split any number of times to create multiple fetuses. Would those fetuses have half souls, or 1/6th of a soul? I believe it comes it at the time of the functioning brain because the brain is where the individual is. There are conjoined twins that share one body, but have two heads. Plus, we can replace hearts and body parts, but we have no way of replacing the brain. Once the brain is gone, the person is gone, the soul is gone. "Do you believe the soul of an elderly person with Alzheimer's would also not remember it's life?" The soul would remember because it had already existed and been put into the body. "Surely you agree a fetus is alive. I think you believe it is a different kind of life... So when do you think a "valuable" life starts?" Personally, when brain function starts. I'd like to point out that this is getting a bit off topic. My personal opinion of when it is a human being or alive has absolutely nothing to do of when a woman can get an abortion. You replied to Linda's poston November 29, 2008 at 4:09pm "No, the egg becomes fertilized through a sperm connecting with an egg in the woman's body." which happens in sex. "That egg could split any number of times to create multiple fetuses." I think you're looking at the soul differently than I see it. You seem to seethe soul as what you think and and your memories. I see it as the force that lies behind those things. The reason you think and act how you do. It's everything good or bad inside of you. And it isn't physical. The soul doesn't split. It just is, it is where life is. "The soul would remember because it had already existed and been put into the body." Whereas a fetus's soul would not remember it had been placed in a fetus? Remember, in this level of our arguments, we were already working under the assumption that a fetus has a soul. (you said something along the lines of "and even if it did") "I'd like to point out that this is getting a bit off topic. My personal opinion of when it is a human being or alive has absolutely nothing to do of when a woman can get an abortion." I disagree. Surely if you believed it was a human being equal to the rest of us you would believe the woman shouldnt not be able to have the abortion? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 29, 2008 at 4:14pm "which happens in sex." Um, no it doesn't. Sex does not have anything to do with sperm connecting with eggs. "And it isn't physical." No, the soul isn't physical, but it is trapped by the physical body. If you have one soul in a zygote, and then it splits into two zygotes, do you have two souls all of a sudden? Where did the second one come from? "Whereas a fetus's soul would not remember it had been placed in a fetus?" No, because the soul isn't in the body until the brain functions start. And if the soul had already been put in, then I would say that it hadn't been awaken yet. "I disagree. Surely if you believed it was a human being equal to the rest of us you would believe the woman shouldnt not be able to have the abortion?" Nope. If the fetus was somehow magically a human being completely equal to the rest of us, then abortion pre-viability should still be legal. There is NO human being that is allowed to use a person's body without that person's consent. Therefore, a fetus can be removed from a woman's body- pre-viability, that means abortion. You replied to Linda's poston November 29, 2008 at 5:57pm In vaginal sex, the sperm is generally released in an area where it can reach the egg. Even if they use protection,they still have to take responsibility for the fact that they were the ones who put the sperm and egg together, allowing it to become fertilized. "No, the soul isn't physical, but it is trapped by the physical body." Again, I think you are seeing the soul a physical. It is not trapped in a body, it is more like residing in it, controlling it. "Where did the second one come from? " They don't come from, they just are. It's like (and I'm going to seem really corny) love. You can give love to some person, and still have love left over. You don't lose love by giving it. "because the soul isn't in the body until the brain functions start" But the brain does not control the soul, the soul would controls the brain. If the soul choses not to mess around with the brain while it is still developing, that doesn't mean the soul isn't there. "If the fetus was somehow magically a human being completely equal to the rest of us, then abortion pre-viability should still be legal" This has just become an extremely different argument than most pro life v pro choice. "There is NO human being that is allowed to use a person's body without that person's consent." But they did give consent, when they had sex. (which will lead us back into the first level of our argument). Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 29, 2008 at 6:14pm "In vaginal sex, the sperm is generally released in an area where it can reach the egg." No offense, but I see why I advocate for real and better sex education. Yes, sperm is generally released, but usually it is either into a condom or outside of the girl. Not very many people have unprotected sex. And even if they do have unprotected sex, the sperm must then swim up to the fallopian tubes to hopefully reach an egg. And if the woman is using birth control, there more than likely wont be an egg there. The pill also makes it more difficult for the sperm to get through the cervix, which means it's also unlikely to reach the egg (if the egg is there). Sex might POSSIBLY put the sperm in a location where it might possibly be able to swim to an egg. But I think the fact that it took us THIS long to get to the sex part PROVES that pregnancy is not a direct result of sex. =D "Again, I think you are seeing the soul a physical. It is not trapped in a body, it is more like residing in it, controlling it." No, the soul is not physical. That's why we can't prove it's existence. And by trapped in the body I meant that it cannot do things if the physical body is not capable of doing them. Just because souls can, say, fly or travel through physical objects does not mean that a soul in a human body can fly or travel through walls with that body. "They don't come from, they just are. It's like (and I'm going to seem really corny) love. You can give love to some person, and still have love left over. You don't lose love by giving it." So it's not that each person has a soul, or that there are millions of souls... but there just is... soul? That everyone shares? I don't get my own soul that goes to heaven in the form of my body, perhaps? That's an odd idea. "But the brain does not control the soul, the soul would controls the brain." I don't know if either even controls the other at all, but that they act dependent of each other. I don't think a nonphysical, the soul, can control a physical thing, besides God himself. "This has just become an extremely different argument than most pro life v pro choice." Actually, it's what the whole pro-choice argument should be. Unfortunately, the pro-choice can be pulled into an unimportant argument (about if the fetus is a human being or alive or whatever) by the pro-life. "But they did give consent, when they had sex. (which will lead us back into the first level of our argument)." Except they didn't. Never ever ever is consent to one act a consent to it's associated risks. I can consent to drive without consenting to a car accident. I can consent to eat without consenting to choke. I can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy. And even if magically she did consent to pregnancy, consent can be revoked, so your argument is pointless. You replied to Linda's poston November 29, 2008 at 6:29pm But the sperm would not be in such close proximity to the egg were it not for sex. Sure, protection, fine. It's not 100%. But if a women doesn't have sex, she cannot get pregnant (unless she puts does it artificially, which she is still her choice.) Okay, maybe I can see logic that it isn't a direct result of sex, but it is nevertheless a result of sex. "So it's not that each person has a soul, or that there are millions of souls... but there just is... soul?" There are individual souls, the same way the love a man feels for his wife is individual from the love he feels for his children or parents. But if his wife died and he remarried (like twin fetuses) they each get individual love, his second wife doesn't take away the love he had for his first. "I don't get my own soul that goes to heaven in the form of my body, perhaps?" I don't believe the soul takes the shape of the body. "Actually, it's what the whole pro-choice argument should be. Unfortunately, the pro-choice can be pulled into an unimportant argument (about if the fetus is a human being or alive or whatever) by the pro-life." The vast majority of pro choice people I have talked to argue that it is not a person; It's not just pro life propaganda. "I can consent to drive without consenting to a car accident." At this point I feel we're about to argue in circles. I think you did consent to these things. You don't want them to happen, but you allow them to happen by taking the risk. "And even if magically she did consent to pregnancy, consent can be revoked" By this logic, I can give a kidney to my dying brother, and after the procedure is done, demand it back. "But if a women doesn't have sex, she cannot get pregnant." Actually, she could. If the sperm is released near her crotch, there is a chance it could work it's way up into her body (odd and rare, but possible). Or if it's on her hands and she fingers herself. A girl doesn't have to have sex to get pregnant. "There are individual souls, the same way the love a man feels for his wife is individual from the love he feels for his children or parents. But if his wife died and he remarried (like twin fetuses) they each get individual love, his second wife doesn't take away the love he had for his first." So there is two different loves. It's not that the first love is taken back and given to the new wife, it's that she gets her own love. But I have to ask again, where does that new soul come from? How does it know to go into the "body"? If souls go into the body at conception, then where would the soul come from to go into the body formed after conception? "The vast majority of pro choice people I have talked to argue that it is not a person; It's not just pro life propaganda. " Well yes, but being a person is not the same as being a human being or being alive. Either way, I still hold that even as a person, it cannot use her body against her will, so the point is moot. "You don't want them to happen, but you allow them to happen by taking the risk. " That's not consent, then. =\ Allowing something to happen is not consent for it to happen. "By this logic, I can give a kidney to my dying brother, and after the procedure is done, demand it back." Sorry, I should have clarified- consent can be revoked as long as the action (the giving) is still being done. While the fetus is still using the uterus, the woman can remove consent. Once it is done, how would she be able to remove consent? The act is over... you can technically remove consent but it doesn't matter because there's nothing you can do because the action has already stopped. "sperm is released near her crotch" ... how did the sperm get near her crotch, if not sex or some sort of sexual activity? "But I have to ask again, where does that new soul come from?" The same place the love for the second wife came from. But I don't think you will be happy with this answer, so what if I compared it to the fertilized egg cloning itself? Both would have identical souls, because they have had identical experiences (although I think all fetus souls are generally the same). Perhaps when the egg divides, the soul divides as well. But just as you do not have two half people when you have twins, you do not have two half souls. Once separate, the twins' souls would be separate, and would have separate experiences, thus making them individual. "so the point is moot. " I agree. I do not think this particular argument will get us anywhere. consent: to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield. to permit: to allow to do something -From dictionary.com "Sorry, I should have clarified- consent can be revoked as long as the action (the giving) is still being done." Okay, then allow me to amend my analogy to fit your clarification. The consent isnt the giving. It is the using. You consent to letting the fetus use your uterus. I consent to let my dying brother use my kidney. After the procedure, the action is still going on; he is still using my kidney. I should be able to remove consent and demand my kidney back, just as you say you should be able to demand your uterus back. "... how did the sperm get near her crotch, if not sex or some sort of sexual activity?" Sorry, I thought we were talking about vaginal sex, not any sexual activity. I don't consider masturbation or a hand job to be sex. "The same place the love for the second wife came from. " The love was coming from the man, and his choice to be with the woman. The soul doesn't have a human to come from, so that doesn't make sense to me. "Perhaps when the egg divides, the soul divides as well. But just as you do not have two half people when you have twins, you do not have two half souls. Once separate, the twins' souls would be separate, and would have separate experiences, thus making them individual." The reason that twinning can happen is because the cells in the pre-embryo are all the same. It's like 6 identical cells just touching each other. So if one separates, it will start producing more of those identical cells. And then once it can no longer split, then the cells develop into cells with unique functions and abilities. A soul isn't created of multiple identical parts that can be broken off and still be the same, though. A soul is a soul. If you split it in half, then you have two halves of a soul... so if you think the soul splits, you think twins only have half a soul. So yes, I do not like that answer. =D I don't think dictionary.com gives the legal definition of consent. "I consent to let my dying brother use my kidney." Ehh, I don't think so. Your consent is to give up your kidney for him to use, not for him to use it. Your consent for him to use it doesn't matter- using a kidney is a biological function that will happen whether you consent or not. lol. So the action is you having surgery to take your kidney out and give it to him. And once he's got it, the thing you consented to is over. "just as you say you should be able to demand your uterus back." in terms of the uterus, this means that once the pregnancy has ended, you can't 'demand your uterus back' because the fetus isn't in it anymore.. it isn't using it, you aren't sharing it. You replied to Linda's poston November 29, 2008 at 9:10pm Okay, then we'll back up for a second. I think any sexual act resulting in the fertilization of the egg creates a responsibility for said fertilized egg. "The love was coming from the man, and his choice to be with the woman. The soul doesn't have a human to come from, so that doesn't make sense to me." Still, the man created love for the wife from nothing. So can soul be created. Where do you believe the soul comes from? "If you split it in half, then you have two halves of a soul" Cannot the soul grow just as the fetuses do? Like a starfish cut in half will become two starfish. Regardless, I don't think a soul is something that can be measured. Some people don't have more soul than others. You just have a soul. Any "amount" of soul would be the same as any other. "I don't think dictionary.com gives the legal definition of consent." What is the legal definition of consent? "Your consent is to give up your kidney for him to use, not for him to use it." Well then wouldn't pregnancy be consent to give up your uterus (temporarily) to use? It seems to me like your trying to get the best of both arguments. "you can't 'demand your uterus back' because the fetus isn't in it anymore" so... you only want your uterus if someone else is using it? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 29, 2008 at 9:19pm "I think any sexual act resulting in the fertilization of the egg creates a responsibility for said fertilized egg." Don't forget that you also think abortion is not included in said responsibility. "Still, the man created love for the wife from nothing. So can soul be created. Where do you believe the soul comes from?" I think God creates souls. But I also think God is not sitting watching zygotes to see if they are splitting or not. How many millions of zygotes are created each minute? God wouldn't bother himself with that. There's a reason He created humans in a way that we can reproduce ourselves without His intervention. Besides. If the soul came in at conception, that would mean that 30-70% of the souls in the world are never living longer than, what, a few days? A few hours? Since 30-70% of fertilized eggs never even make it to implant in the uterus. Why would God "kill" so many of His children? "Cannot the soul grow just as the fetuses do? Like a starfish cut in half will become two starfish." So you think that a soul can just... regenerate itself a new other half? I don't see souls as being able to change or edit themselves, or grow new parts of themselves like a living creature. I see each soul as one solid thing, not able to break in half, not able to generate new parts for itself... "You just have a soul. Any "amount" of soul would be the same as any other. " But that's the point. If a zygote has one soul that is the same amount as a born human being, and then that zygote has a cell split off and form a twin, you're suggesting that part of that amount of the soul goes to the new zygote, and part stays with the old zygote. I don't think this happens because, like you said, the amount of the soul has to stay the same as everyone else. "What is the legal definition of consent?" Honest to goodness, I'm not 100% sure. But I know it's not going to be what dictionary.com lists. "Well then wouldn't pregnancy be consent to give up your uterus (temporarily) to use?" I don't see how that changes things. I would be in the process of giving it up the whole time that the fetus was using it, because the uterus never leaves my body like a kidney does. The fetus has to leave MY body for the giving to stop. "so... you only want your uterus if someone else is using it?" lol, no I'm saying I've already gotten my uterus back once the fetus gets out of the uterus. There is no one to want it back from when I am not pregnant- I have my uterus. You replied to Linda's poston November 29, 2008 at 9:34pm "Don't forget that you also think abortion is not included in said responsibility." I haven't am not sure why you bring it up... So I'm slightly alarmed that your next post will tie those two things together... "God wouldn't bother himself with that." God knows everything any everyone. Nothing is too insignificant for God. Regardless, the reason I asked was to answer where the other soul came from. Just as the man created love for his wife out of thin air, so can God create souls. "Since 30-70% of fertilized eggs never even make it to implant in the uterus." I have trouble with this, mostly because you have a 40% range in there. It doesn't make a lot of sense. "Why would God "kill" so many of His children? " I don't pretend to understand God's actions. Though perhaps that since he knows everything, he gives souls only to those fertilized eggs that will implant themselves in the uterus. It would still be wrong to abort, because if the fertilized egg would have survived, it has a soul, and if it wouldn't have survived, you would have no need to abort it. "like you said, the amount of the soul has to stay the same as everyone else." rather, I said any amount of soul would do. I don't believe soul can be measured, or if it can, amount doesn't matter. Perhaps your soul is three times as big as mine. What would it matter? "But I know it's not going to be what dictionary.com lists. " How can you know that? You're not arguing with anything to back you up. It would help to find the legal definition of consent. I have no reason to believe it is different from dictionary.com. "I would be in the process of giving it up the whole time that the fetus was using it" No, you gave it up when the fetus entered. After that, the fetus is just using it, like how my brother is using my kidney. "lol, no I'm saying I've already gotten my uterus back once the fetus gets out of the uterus. There is no one to want it back from when I am not pregnant- I have my uterus." Then everyone is happy!!! My brother has his kidney, you got your uterus back after nine months of helping create a new life, it's all good! Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 29, 2008 at 9:47pm "I haven't am not sure why you bring it up... So I'm slightly alarmed that your next post will tie those two things together..." Because I could have easily said abortion is taking responsibility. lol. But your personal belief is that a woman who does anything that might possibly make her pregnant should have to keep that pregnancy no matter what because she is at fault for it's creation. "I have trouble with this, mostly because you have a 40% range in there. It doesn't make a lot of sense." Well, see, it's kind of hard for us to know if an egg has been fertilized in the woman's body. The tell tale signs of pregnancy come from hormones that happen because the pre-embryo implants. Between that and women not being very... inspecting into their period blood (not that they could see the egg anyway, right?), it's hard for scientists/doctors to know exactly what the number is. "rather, I said any amount of soul would do. I don't believe soul can be measured, or if it can, amount doesn't matter. Perhaps your soul is three times as big as mine. What would it matter?" Ehh. It's getting into complete personal beliefs now. I think souls are all the same amount of "soulness." Perhaps it's because I am very mathematically orientated in my brain. "How can you know that? You're not arguing with anything to back you up. It would help to find the legal definition of consent. I have no reason to believe it is different from dictionary.com." You're making me not be lazy!? lol... consent 1) n. a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations. http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=299&bold=|||| Nothing about permitting. It's about voluntary agreement to an act... not to the risks associated with an act. =D "No, you gave it up when the fetus entered. After that, the fetus is just using it, like how my brother is using my kidney." Ehh, not really. Because while the fetus is using my uterus, I am ALSO using it because it's still in my body and part of my body. With the kidney, you stop using it because it is removed from your body. "Then everyone is happy!!! My brother has his kidney, you got your uterus back after nine months of helping create a new life, it's all good!" Except for those nine months were my consent was ignored, my will was ignored, by rights as a citizen and person were ignored. You replied to Linda's poston November 29, 2008 at 11:06pm "But your personal belief is that a woman who does anything that might possibly make her pregnant should have to keep that pregnancy no matter what because she is at fault for it's creation." Right. But you're trying to belittle it by calling it my personal belief. It is also my personal belief that murder is wrong. "it's hard for scientists/doctors to know exactly what the number is" so your data isn't really relevant to the argument, considering its not in any way sure. "It's about voluntary agreement to an act... not to the risks associated with an act." But surely if you agree with something you agree with everything that goes along with it. For example "which may range from contracts ," implies that you except the contract and everything in the contract. Is sex not a contract with a "you may get pregnant" foot note? "I am ALSO using it because it's still in my body and part of my body" What are you using it for, that the fetus is keeping you from doing? "Except for those nine months were my consent was ignored, my will was ignored, by rights as a citizen and person were ignored" yea, well, you weren't killed. That's more than can be said for the aborted fetus. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston November 30, 2008 at 6:48am "Right. But you're trying to belittle it by calling it my personal belief. It is also my personal belief that murder is wrong." Murder being wrong is a personal belief for you, but also a societal belief. Women being punished for getting pregnant is not a societal belief. "But surely if you agree with something you agree with everything that goes along with it. For example "which may range from contracts ," implies that you except the contract and everything in the contract. Is sex not a contract with a "you may get pregnant" foot note?" No, you don't agree to everything that goes along with it in terms of risks. The part about the contract was talking about legal written or spoken contracts, where you sign on the dotted line and therefore agree to what is written or spoken. There is no contract when you have sex, though. I don't have to sign a paper saying "yes, I agree to this" when I have sex. Getting pregnant is not part of having sex. "What are you using it for, that the fetus is keeping you from doing?" It doesn't have to keep me from using it in a certain way. As long as I am still using it, and it's part of my body, I can say that the fetus cannot use it. "yea, well, you weren't killed. That's more than can be said for the aborted fetus." So you don't care about the woman's rights? The woman's consent? The woman's free will, which God gave her? Screw the woman, save the non-thinking, non-feeling, possibly alive fetus? That makes me so sad. You replied to Linda's poston November 30, 2008 at 12:31pm "Women being punished for getting pregnant is not a societal belief. " Being pregnant is not a punishment. And it is not yet a societal belief, but not all laws are. If the majority of the public decided everything in the government, nobody would pay taxes. "you don't agree to everything that goes along with it in terms of risks" okay... so I'm not responsible for the results of my actions? I shot my friend, but I am not at fault for his death because it was only a risk that he might die, and the death was not a direct result but I biological function over which I had no control? "It doesn't have to keep me from using it in a certain way. As long as I am still using it, and it's part of my body, I can say that the fetus cannot use it." Except that you're the reason the fetus needs to use it. It still seems to me like you've poisoned him and are refusing the antidote. "woman's rights?" I don't feel abortion is a natural right (one all people should be allowed ex. life, equality) but a government given right. And if the government right takes away from someone else's natural right, then no, I don't give a damn about this right. "The woman's consent?" You have yet to convince me that she did not consent to pregnancy, so until then, this argument is void. I still think that she agrees to getting pregnant when she agrees to having sex. "The woman's free will, which God gave her?" Of course I care about her free will! I think she needs to have the free will to murder, steal, and have an abortion. I just think there need to be legal repercussions for these actions, to help make sure they cease to happen. "Screw the woman, save the non-thinking, non-feeling, possibly alive fetus? " Except that I'm not sure which part is "screwing" the woman. I'm not leaving her to die. She's just sharing part of her body with someone that she forced it to need in in the first place. I think we are ignoring the rights of a fetus. We've already decided that, in this argument, it does not matter if it is a person or not, so for the sake of argument, let's say it is. Are its rights not violated, when it is forced into a situation where it will be killed? The mother forces it into her womb, and then is going to complain that it is violating HER rights? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 1, 2008 at 9:37am "Being pregnant is not a punishment." Then why do so many pro-lifers want to punish women for having sex with a pregnancy?? "Deal with the consequences!!" is all I hear, over and over. "so I'm not responsible for the results of my actions? I shot my friend, but I am not at fault for his death because it was only a risk that he might die, and the death was not a direct result but I biological function over which I had no control?" Shooting your friend isn't a biological function... o.O;; Shooting a gun is a lot different than having sex. Shooting a gun at a person is a LOT LOT different than having sex. Shooting at someone clearly results in hurting them, whether they die or are just wounded. Having sex doesn't hurt anyone. Death is also a result of shooting, where as pregnancy is an associated risk, not a result. Besides that, if you accidentally shoot your friend, you'll get charged with manslaughter- accidental killing- instead of murder. "I don't feel abortion is a natural right (one all people should be allowed ex. life, equality) but a government given right." Not abortion as a right, but the woman's right to maintain her body. To not have it used by another "person" without her consent. I mean, if a fetus is allowed to use a woman's body without her consent, and you're saying a fetus is exactly the same as an adult..... then what's to stop an adult male from using a woman's body without her consent? Should we make rape legal too? "You have yet to convince me that she did not consent to pregnancy, so until then, this argument is void. I still think that she agrees to getting pregnant when she agrees to having sex." But she doesn't. =\ There is no reason why consent to one thing would be consent to it's risks. We don't see that anywhere else in society or the law. "Are its rights not violated, when it is forced into a situation where it will be killed? " How exact is the fetus "forced" into the situation? It can't think, there's no one "holding a gun to it's head" so to say. But going with the idea anyway, say that I crash my vehicle into another car, and some metal from the crash punctures the other driver's lung. Now, I forced him into the situation where he needed a new lung. Do I have to then allow myself to be operated on to donate my lung to him? No, of course not. I have no legal requirement to give up any part of my body, even if I am the cause of the other person's situation. So I really don't think it would matter if the woman "forced" the fetus into that position or not. Once it is violating her rights, she has a right to make it stop. Do you complain about a woman killing her rapist? Do you fight against a criminal being sent to jail? If you take away someone else's rights, you are in a position to have your rights taken away. You replied to Linda's poston December 1, 2008 at 11:58am I've decided to go along with pregnancy is a punishment. I don't believe it, but you do, and it works for my argument... "Shooting your friend isn't a biological function..." No, dying is. "Death is also a result of shooting, where as pregnancy is an associated risk, not a result." It is not. The cause of death could be excessive blood loss or something. Death would be the associated risk of shooting someone. "Shooting at someone clearly results in hurting them, whether they die or are just wounded. Having sex doesn't hurt anyone." Sex hurts if it ends up with you killing someone as a result. No perhaps, not a direct result, but if you had not had sex, you would not have killed the fetus. Though if the problem is "clear results", perhaps I should shoot with my eyes closed. It may not hit him. It was not my intention to hit him. "But she doesn't. =\ There is no reason why consent to one thing would be consent to it's risks. We don't see that anywhere else in society or the law." Considering we're still arguing this in one of our above levels of argument, I'm going to drop this level. "How exact is the fetus "forced" into the situation? It can't think, there's no one "holding a gun to it's head" so to say. " The mother forced him into a situation where his life was at risk, an unwanted pregnancy with the intent of abortion. "I have no legal requirement to give up any part of my body," But you already gave it up. That's when you got pregnant. But still, you didn't really give up your uterus. You forced someone else to use it, and they are not keeping you from using it. Another reason pregnancy is not like organ donation - abortion directly kills the fetus. Not donating an organ doesn't kill the other person. Now, why is this? Because the man in need of a lung can theoretically get it from somewhere else. The fetus was already "given" the organ it needs to survive. Then it is killed by being ripped apart with a vacuum or stabbed in the back of the head by scissors. And even if the fetus could be removed from the womb without directly killing it, it's still taking away the organ it already has that it needs to survive. In conclusion, abortion is not refusal to donate an organ, but taking away an organ it already has. "So I really don't think it would matter if the woman "forced" the fetus into that position or not. Once it is violating her rights, she has a right to make it stop.' But she violated its rights first. She forced it into the situation where its life was in danger. Her rights are being restricted to keep the fetus safe. Just like a murderer is sent to jail so that he can no longer harm anyone. A murderer does not have the right to escape from jail because his rights are being restricted. "Do you complain about a woman killing her rapist?" The man took her rights first. She is protecting herself. And could she not protect herself, I hope there would be somebody who could. Much the same way the fetus's rights were violated by putting it in a life threatening situation. It cannot protect itself, so Anti-Abortion laws would help to protect the fetus. "If you take away someone else's rights, you are in a position to have your rights taken away." Precisely. So if the woman takes away the fetus's rights, her rights may be taken away. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 1, 2008 at 12:26pm "I've decided to go along with pregnancy is a punishment. I don't believe it, but you do, and it works for my argument..." Haha. I don't believe pregnancy is or should be a punishment. I'm saying that your argument (as you've pointed out) is that pregnancy is a punishment. You just refuse to acknowledge that this is what you are actually saying. "Sex hurts if it ends up with you killing someone as a result." But the result of the sex isn't killing someone, it's having an orgasm, or at the very least being exhausted. The sex doesn't hurt (unless you want it to, but that's a different discussion). "Though if the problem is "clear results", perhaps I should shoot with my eyes closed. It may not hit him. It was not my intention to hit him. " Well, that's one of the problems. The other problem is that your friend is not invading/infringing on any of your rights- he is an innocent party which you are taking the first action against. A fetus on the other hand is already infringing upon my right to bodily integrity. Besides that, a fetus is not a person while your friend is (hopefully?). "The mother forced him into a situation where his life was at risk, an unwanted pregnancy with the intent of abortion. " How? You act like women are actively trying to get pregnant just so they can "force" fetuses into abortions or something. The woman didn't force the fetus to do anything. Clearly, if she had control over it, she would have told it to not be created in the first place! "But you already gave it up. That's when you got pregnant." If I gave it up, why is it still in my body, still part of my body, still being used by me? "Another reason pregnancy is not like organ donation - abortion directly kills the fetus. Not donating an organ doesn't kill the other person." Well then, would you be happy if we all just got c-sections and then let the intact fetus "die" from other reasons- ie not being developed enough? Then it would be more like organ donation. "it's still taking away the organ it already has that it needs to survive." So we can take away the organ from the woman, even though it's part of her body and HER organ... but we can't take it away from the fetus, even though it is NOT the fetus's organ, and the fetus is using it against the owner's will... "In conclusion, abortion is not refusal to donate an organ, but taking away an organ it already has." Kind of. In comparison to organ donation, pregnancy is similar to the stage where you've agreed to donate your organ, and they're about to perform surgery on you to remove it, but then you change your mind and decide you no longer consent. In pregnancy the woman either has not agreed, or as you consider it, she has already agreed to donate the organ. The transplant recipient is relying on you to give him your organ. The fetus is "relying" on the woman to give it her organ. But the organ donater has every right to change his mind as long as the organ is still in his body, and the government cannot force him to go through with it. In pregnancy, this means the woman can decide to stop letting the fetus use her organ as long as she still has it in her body (which is always), and the government cannot (and should not) force the woman to stay pregnant and go through with the "donation." "But she violated its rights first." lol! No, really, she didn't. The fetus didn't even EXIST, and then it came into existence in her body without her consent- that's violating HER rights. She couldn't have violated the rights of something that doesn't even exist! "Just like a murderer is sent to jail so that he can no longer harm anyone." A murderer is sent to jail because he has broken the law and done something bad. Is it now bad to have sex? Is it against the law to have sex and become pregnant? =\ "The man took her rights first. She is protecting herself." EXACTLY like a pregnant woman against a fetus. Win! "Precisely. So if the woman takes away the fetus's rights, her rights may be taken away." You don't take away the rights of someone because they defended themselves. You replied to Linda's poston December 1, 2008 at 12:53pm "Haha. I don't believe pregnancy is or should be a punishment. I'm saying that your argument (as you've pointed out) is that pregnancy is a punishment. You just refuse to acknowledge that this is what you are actually saying." Okay, for all intensive puposes, legally, and for the sake of my argument, pregnancy is a punishment. "But the result of the sex isn't killing someone, it's having an orgasm," I secretly think youre trying to kill me with semantics. Fine. Just replace "sex" with "an act which can knowingly result in pregnancy". Does that satisfy you? "he is an innocent party which you are taking the first action against." like a fetus is the innocent party in which becoming pregnant into a person who wishes to kill it is the first action against. "Besides that, a fetus is not a person" whoa, whoa whoa. When did being a person come into the argument? You told me it didn't matter. So, unless we decide it does matter, it is off limits, and assumed that the fetus is a person. "You act like women are actively trying to get pregnant " she doesnt have to do it actively. I'm not actively trying to shoot my friend by shooting in the dark. I'm just preforming an action which may result in the shooting of my friend. Just as the woman preformed an action (Im hesitant to say sex, since that appears to be too specific or too vague for you) that could result in a pregnancy that would be terminated. "Clearly, if she had control over it, she would have told it to not be created in the first place!" But she does have the control not to get pregnant. It's the control to get pregnant she does not have. To not get pregnant, all she has to do is not do any actions in which sperm and egg may meet.' "If I gave it up, why is it still in my body, still part of my body, still being used by me?" Which is why I no longer like the organ donor analogy. You did not give it up. You gave the fetus permission to ... share your uterus when you put him in it. "So we can take away the organ from the woman" It isnt being taken from her. Like you said, it's still in her body. "fetus is using it against the owner's will..." But the fetus is being forced to use it to live against his will. If she had not gotten pregnant, the fetus would not be forced to use her body. And the woman does have the control to not get pregnant. "The fetus is "relying" on the woman to give it her organ." But he isnt. He already "has" her organ. Else he wouldn't be alive. "and then it came into existence in her body" she made it come into existence in her body. It didn't ask to be created in her body. She created it in her body where it's life is in danger. And she created it FIRST. If it had not been created, there would be no conflict. Thus, its creation must have happened first, and being created into a body only to kill it is violating its rights. "Is it now bad to have sex? Is it against the law to have sex and become pregnant? =\" Nope. It's bad to create a fetus in your body where it will be killed. "EXACTLY like a pregnant woman against a fetus. Win!" No. more like a fetus against a murderer. "You don't take away the rights of someone because they defended themselves. " She's not defending herself, the fetus is. She is the threat. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 1, 2008 at 1:14pm "Fine. Just replace "sex" with "an act which can knowingly result in pregnancy". Does that satisfy you?" Ehhh. I don't think there is any act that for sure will result in pregnancy. The only way to get pregnant is to have the implantation happen in the uterus (or elsewhere, but that's unsafe)... that that doesn't require any "knowingly." "But she does have the control not to get pregnant. It's the control to get pregnant she does not have." This logic amuses me. She can control not doing something, but she can't control doing something? Don't you have to be able to control doing something in order to control not doing it? "It isnt being taken from her. Like you said, it's still in her body." Sorry, take away her rights to it. ""The fetus is "relying" on the woman to give it her organ." But he isnt. He already "has" her organ. Else he wouldn't be alive." Well then, the fetus is "relying" on the woman to continue to give it her organs. "she made it come into existence in her body. " No she didn't. You just said above that a woman cannot control getting pregnant. She didn't make it come into existence. The fetus is inside the woman's body without her consent, which is a violation of her rights. The fetus is in the wrong, not the woman. She has done nothing wrong. "It's bad to create a fetus in your body where it will be killed." Which is a biological process that the woman cannot control... you're going to punish people for that? How about heart attacks then too? And diabetes... you didn't stick to a good diet, so suffer diabetes without any medication? "She's not defending herself, the fetus is. She is the threat." Okay, now you're loosing it I think. You just said that a woman is a threat to a fetus... even though the woman is where the fetus gets it's life force from and it's nutrients from and everything. How is a woman NOT defending herself? The fetus is in her body without her consent. A woman cannot "attack" or "take away" the rights of something before it even exists, so having sex cannot be considered infringing on the rights of the fetus. The only way you can think this is if you think women are guilty of some sort of crime JUST for becoming pregnant. What an odd idea. You replied to Linda's poston December 1, 2008 at 3:47pm "I don't think there is any act that for sure will result in pregnancy" Doesn't matter if it's for sure. By doing the action that can indirectly result in something, a person causes that thing, should it happen. Much like the shooting of a gun can result in death, but doesn't for sure. I am still the cause of the death. "This logic amuses me. She can control not doing something, but she can't control doing something? Don't you have to be able to control doing something in order to control not doing it?" Not at all. For example, I do not have the control to make my friend live. Their are a number of things that can happen that would keep him from living that I cannot control. However, I do have the control to make him not live. All I have to do is kill him. It's kind of like math (since you earlier stated you think mathematically, I believe.) One value of X has the control to disprove the entire equation. However, one value of X does not have the control to prove the entire equation. "Well then, the fetus is "relying" on the woman to continue to give it her organs." There's that word again. Rather, you think the fetus is relying on her to continue to allow it to use the organ. But I don't think the woman has that right. It's essentially the same as taking away an organ I donated, because they are no longer allowed to use it. As soon as the organ is given, and the person is using it to live, you can't take it away. "No she didn't. You just said above that a woman cannot control getting pregnant. She didn't make it come into existence." She does not have control to make it come into existence. She cannot say "I WANNA BE PREGNANT, NOW!" and make it happen. But she has control to keep it from coming into existence. She can choose whether or not to prevent it from coming into existence. By choosing to not prevent it, she agrees to allow it, at her fault. "Which is a biological process that the woman cannot control..." As I said, she can control it by making it not happen. "And diabetes... you didn't stick to a good diet, so suffer diabetes without any medication? " I could have stuck to a good diet. So I had control to make the diabetes not happen (assuming its not hereditary, I don't know much of diabetes. Regardless, pregnancy isn't hereditary). However, I may have medication, because I am not harming anyone by taking it, nor did I harm anyone by getting diabetes. "even though the woman is where the fetus gets it's life force from and it's nutrients from and everything." right. in normal pregnancy. In which, there is no foul, no blame. The woman is threatening to kill the fetus, in a pregnancy in which the mother will have an abortion. "The fetus is in her body without her consent" Since this still being argued, I don't think it proves your point. Perhaps if it were in her body without consent, it would be violating her rights. We'll discuss that as soon as I believe it's true. "to having sex cannot be considered infringing on the rights of the fetus. " the very first thing that happens in pregnancy is the egg is fertilized. The fetus can not be violating the woman's rights before this happens. However, the act of allowing the egg to be fertilized in her body with the intent to kill it, should it be fertilized, violates it's rights. She does have the control to make it not be fertilized in her body. She is violating it's rights by not doing this. "A woman cannot "attack" or "take away" the rights of something before it even exists" she took away it's rights the moment it came into existence. It was premeditated. Like if a women lit a room on fire, and then gave birth to her baby in it. "The only way you can think this is if you think women are guilty of some sort of crime JUST for becoming pregnant" Its criminal for her to become pregnant with the intent to kill the fetus. Or to at any time in the pregnancy to plan to kill the fetus. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 1, 2008 at 5:56pm "Doesn't matter if it's for sure. By doing the action that can indirectly result in something, a person causes that thing, should it happen. Much like the shooting of a gun can result in death, but doesn't for sure. I am still the cause of the death." Well, perhaps she could be considered "responsible" for the fetus coming into existence. I do not think that means, though, that she consented to it being inside her, or that she has a "responsibility" to keep the pregnancy to term. Just as I don't have to donate my organs to someone just because I crash my car into them. "It's essentially the same as taking away an organ I donated, because they are no longer allowed to use it. As soon as the organ is given, and the person is using it to live, you can't take it away." Ehh, here is where we have to guess and make things up. There is no other situation where two people are actually using one person's organs after or during a person donates an organ. So you can say I can't take an organ "back" from a person who is using it, but I can also say that you can't force a person to go through with a donation as long as they still have the organ in their body. It's not exactly the same as an organ donation, but I think mine makes more sense. "She can choose whether or not to prevent it from coming into existence. By choosing to not prevent it, she agrees to allow it, at her fault." But what if she does prevent it? She uses condoms and birth control. Of course, you'll say that's not 100% but surely... she's choosing to prevent it from happening. Another example would be the woman who gets a tubal ligation thinking it's 100% sure but then it's not and she gets pregnant. Either way, if she can choose to prevent it from happen, women would never ever have unwanted pregnancies. "However, I may have medication, because I am not harming anyone by taking it, nor did I harm anyone by getting diabetes" How is becoming pregnant harming the fetus? o.o; "right. in normal pregnancy. In which, there is no foul, no blame. The woman is threatening to kill the fetus, in a pregnancy in which the mother will have an abortion." The woman who wants an abortion is having just as normal a pregnancy as a woman who does not. o.o; It isn't the pregnancy that is bad for the fetus, in your ideas, it's the abortion. "Perhaps if it were in her body without consent, it would be violating her rights. We'll discuss that as soon as I believe it's true." Well, if you can't realize that, then I don't see how you could understand the idea. Throughout our society, consent to one act is NOT consent to it's associated risks. Walking across the street is not consent to being hit by a car. Consenting to eating is not consent to choking on food. Consent to date someone is not consent to have sex with them. Consent to drive a car is not consent to be in a car accident. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Besides that, society sees it that if one human being is using another human beings body ( going with your idea that the fetus is a human) WITHOUT consent, then that first person is invading/infringing/violating the rights of the second person. This is why rape is illegal and sex is not, though they are the exact same physical act. If you take those two ideas together, and then apply it to a woman who is pregnant and does not want the fetus in her body, you have a woman who's rights are being violated because she did not consent to pregnant. And she has ever right to stop that "person" from using her. "the very first thing that happens in pregnancy is the egg is fertilized." Technically, pregnancy doesn't start until implantation. "However, the act of allowing the egg to be fertilized in her body with the intent to kill it, should it be fertilized, violates it's rights." You're still going by the idea that the woman is consciously allowing the egg to be fertilized, consciously allowing the pregnancy to happen. The woman would never intentionally become pregnant just to have an abortion. Besides that... a sperm and egg don't get rights. "It was premeditated." Yeeeeah, going off the deep end. Women are not purposefully getting pregnant to have abortions. "Its criminal for her to become pregnant with the intent to kill the fetus. Or to at any time in the pregnancy to plan to kill the fetus." Not really. =\ You replied to Linda's poston December 1, 2008 at 7:39pm "but I can also say that you can't force a person to go through with a donation as long as they still have the organ in their body. It's not exactly the same as an organ donation, but I think mine makes more sense." well then i'd argue that your person doesnt have to go through with the donation. They can keep the organ right there in their body if they want to. "But what if she does prevent it? She uses condoms and birth control. Of course, you'll say that's not 100% but surely... she's choosing to prevent it from happening. Another example would be the woman who gets a tubal ligation thinking it's 100% sure but then it's not and she gets pregnant." She's choosing to make the chances slimmer, not prevent it. The only 100% prevention is abstinence. And she should have done more research on that tubal ligation, then. "Either way, if she can choose to prevent it from happen, women would never ever have unwanted pregnancies. " She can choose to prevent it. She just chooses not to. Because she likes the other effects of sex (and whatnot). "How is becoming pregnant harming the fetus? o.o; " The pregnancy isn't harming the fetus. Being put in a body where the person has every intent to kill you is harming the fetus. "The woman who wants an abortion is having just as normal a pregnancy as a woman who does not. o.o; It isn't the pregnancy that is bad for the fetus, in your ideas, it's the abortion." The planned abortion makes the pregnancy bad. It may be a catch22, or something of the like. Putting a fetus into a pregnancy that will be aborted is bad, it's child abuse. Putting a fetus into a pregnancy where it will not be aborted is not bad. If the woman intends to abort, she is violating the fetus's rights, and thus does not have the right to abort. If the woman does not intend to abort, she is not violating the fetus's rights, and the fetus is not violating the womans rights, because she agrees to let it stay in her. If half way through the pregnancy the woman decides she would rather have an abortion, she violates the fetus's rights, and no longer has the right to get an abortion. Therefore, the woman only has the right to get an abortion if she does not choose to abort. Furthermore, no one has the right to force a woman to choose to abort. "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy." This is were you lose me. These -- "Walking across the street is not consent to being hit by a car. Consenting to eating is not consent to choking on food. Consent to date someone is not consent to have sex with them. Consent to drive a car is not consent to be in a car accident" -- are not the person's fault. If it were her fault she was in a car accident by not doing everything to prevent it, I would argue that she did consent to the car accident. But, since we decided "perhaps she could be considered "responsible" for the fetus coming into existence," I think she did in fact consent to creating the fetus. "woman who is pregnant and does not want the fetus in her body" but the fetus didn't want to be put in a body where it would be killed. it's rights were violated, and they were violated first. "This is why rape is illegal and sex is not, though they are the exact same physical act" Which is why pregnancy with the intent to abort is criminal and pregnancy without the intent to abort is not, though they are the exact same physical act. "Technically, pregnancy doesn't start until implantation. " Alrighty, the very first thing that happens in some biological process or other that comes before pregnancy is the egg is fertilized, and it's rights are violated. "The woman would never intentionally become pregnant just to have an abortion. " but she consciously allows herself to become pregnant by not preventing it, which she has the power to do. "Besides that... a sperm and egg don't get rights." Not individually they don't. If you can kill the sperm before it gets to the egg, more power to you. I don't know what my personal beliefs on the subject are, but I dont believe there is any legal reason to stop you. "Women are not purposefully getting pregnant to have abortions." Nope. Theyre purposefully having sex with the intent to kill the fetus should it be created. Though having sex without the intent to carry the fetus isnt in itself a crime, because more likely than not the fetus wont be created. You could argue that since you did not get pregnant you were 100% protected. The only way to tell if you weren't is when you get pregnant. '""Its criminal for her to become pregnant with the intent to kill the fetus. Or to at any time in the pregnancy to plan to kill the fetus.' Not really. =\" Why not? We are currently working under the assumption that the fetus has all the rights a born person has. I consider this to be extreme child endangerment. Can you explain to me why it isn't? Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 1, 2008 at 8:18pm "well then i'd argue that your person doesnt have to go through with the donation. They can keep the organ right there in their body if they want to." Yes, and the idea is that for pregnancy the donation is letting the fetus use her body. So if she can "keep the organ" then the fetus can't use it. "The only 100% prevention is abstinence. And she should have done more research on that tubal ligation, then." For the record, abstinence is not 100%... rape happens. And are you really going to blame the woman for relying on the words of her doctor, a medical profession? "She can choose to prevent it." Women cannot choose to prevent pregnancy. If this were possible, unwanted pregnancies would never happen. "Putting a fetus into a pregnancy that will be aborted is bad, it's child abuse." No one is putting the fetus anywhere. You're as bad as the pro-choicers who say that the fetus is purposefully out to kill the woman. "If the woman intends to abort, she is violating the fetus's rights, and thus does not have the right to abort. " What rights exactly? I can intent to kill as many people I want in my head, but until I do some sort of physical action, I can't be charged with anything. It doesn't violate anyone's rights to think something. "but the fetus didn't want to be put in a body where it would be killed." The fetus doesn't want anything. What ARE you talking about?? Personally, I think you've gone and twisted your views to try to counteract my points, and just made yourself sound like a looney, no offense. The woman is infringing on the fetus's rights by thinking about having an abortion?? The woman is infringing on the fetus's rights- before the fetus even exsits to HAVE rights- by having sex? Where is the logic? You replied to Linda's poston December 2, 2008 at 2:02pm "Yes, and the idea is that for pregnancy the donation is letting the fetus use her body. So if she can "keep the organ" then the fetus can't use it." No, because she never loses her organ. She can keep the organ without taking it from the fetus. Anyways, the organ donation analogy really doesn't fit any more. "For the record, abstinence is not 100%... rape happens. " This entire argument is based on the assumption the woman wasn't raped. Because if she was, I don't think there is any legal reason to keep her from having the abortion. I still think it's morally wrong, but I don't think that she forfeited her rights to have an abortion because she was not the one to put the fetus in danger by placing it in her womb. "And are you really going to blame the woman for relying on the words of her doctor, a medical profession?" Honestly... yes. She should have done additional research before having such a major surgery that could but a potential fetus at risk. However, I do think that most the fault would fall on the doctor, if he told her it was 100%. Surely their is some penalty for lying to a patient about an operation he gave her. (For the record, I'm not sure tubal ligation is considered surgery, or whatever. If I'm wrong, please correct me. However, I think the argument still holds true if you replace "medical procedure" with surgery and operation) "Women cannot choose to prevent pregnancy. If this were possible, unwanted pregnancies would never happen. " Didn't you already say this...? They can choose to prevent pregnancy by choosing to not have sex or anything that involves close proximity of sperm and egg. She chooses not to prevent pregnancy 100% because she would rather have sex. "No one is putting the fetus anywhere. You're as bad as the pro-choicers who say that the fetus is purposefully out to kill the woman." Fine, rather, it his her fault that the fetus was put into a pregnancy that will be aborted, and she knew this before she caused it to happen. "What rights exactly? I can intent to kill as many people I want in my head, but until I do some sort of physical action, I can't be charged with anything. It doesn't violate anyone's rights to think something." Im fairly sure the children have a right to be in a safe environment. That's why social services can take them away. By being in a person who intends to kill you is not a safe environment, By your logic, the child would have to be dead before it could be protected, or before it's rights were violated. "The fetus doesn't want anything. What ARE you talking about??" Okay, rather, the fetus did not consent to be put in a body where it would be killed. And, sure, fetuses don't consent to anything. But if for some reason I am physically incapable of consenting to sex, does that mean I cannot be raped? "Personally, I think you've gone and twisted your views to try to counteract my points, and just made yourself sound like a looney, no offense." I completely understand what youre saying. My points have changed to counteract your points. Just because my points were wrong (not saying they are, I dont even remember), doesnt mean yours are right. I'm not interested in "winning" this debate, so much as I am interested in finding the truth. I believe abotion is wrong, and there is some legal backing behind it. I wasn't sure what the legal backing was, and I'm figuring it out through the debate. I hope to uncover the truth. Frankly, I think you threw me a curveball when you said it didnt matter if the fetus was human or not; it was an argument I was not prepared to counter. Not because there was no counter, but because I didn't know what it was. And I think I may be close to stumbling upon it. "the woman is infringing on the fetus's rights by thinking about having an abortion??" Not thinking, more like planning. Conspiracy, to murder, perhaps. Which is a crime, I believe. "The woman is infringing on the fetus's rights- before the fetus even exsits to HAVE rights- by having sex?" The rights are violated when she gets pregnant, the moment the fetus comes into being (or before, when the egg is fertilized, I'm not god with technical jargon). The rights are infringed by "putting" (please substitute for what I changed "put" to above.) the fetus in a dangerous environment. It is complicated, I admit, but legal matters always are. If you need further explanation of my logic, I really want to map it out, for myself as well. I do not have time just now. So, until next post. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 2, 2008 at 4:07pm "Honestly... yes. She should have done additional research before having such a major surgery that could but a potential fetus at risk." But the whole point was that she thought there was NO potential fetus to be put at risk. =\ "Im fairly sure the children have a right to be in a safe environment. That's why social services can take them away. By being in a person who intends to kill you is not a safe environment, By your logic, the child would have to be dead before it could be protected, or before it's rights were violated." It's only an unsafe environment if there is some sort of physical change or harm or something. If a woman is thinking something, you can't prove that or charge her for that, unless she takes some sort of physical action. So a fetus in a woman is a "safe" environment, even if she is thinking "ABORT ABORT ABORT!!" Now, I'm not saying the fetus has to already be removed. An appointment with an abortionist would be considered a physical act that could say the woman was intending to hurt the fetus, and that it wasn't safe. Either way, it means the fetus is the FIRST one to infringe on the woman's rights, because it is in the woman's body before she goes out and schedules an abortion. "Okay, rather, the fetus did not consent to be put in a body where it would be killed. And, sure, fetuses don't consent to anything. But if for some reason I am physically incapable of consenting to sex, does that mean I cannot be raped?" The fetus did not consent to being in the body, and the woman did not consent to have the fetus in her body. Both of them can try to remove the fetus from the situation, if the fetus were capable of such as thing. All you've proved is that the woman can remove the fetus, and (if it were possible) the fetus could remove itself from the situation. Not that neither could remove the fetus. "Not thinking, more like planning. Conspiracy, to murder, perhaps. Which is a crime, I believe." Perhaps, if you can prove that she is planning, which requires that physical evidence. The court wont really believe you if you go "she plans on aborting, but I have no evidence or proof." Your word against hers. But like I said earlier, that means that the fetus is the first to infringe on rights- which is why the woman can infringe on the fetuses rights, assuming it has some. Thanks for not getting mad at me calling you a loonie. lol. You replied to Linda's poston December 2, 2008 at 5:31pm "But the whole point was that she thought there was NO potential fetus to be put at risk. =\" But, its still her fault. If i point a gun at my friend and pull the trigger, thinking it was unloaded, and kill him, am I not still taking away his right to life? "unless she takes some sort of physical action. " so... if a mother puts leaves her kids in the care of an escaped convict, armed and dangerous, it is not putting her children at risk? there is no physical action. "Now, I'm not saying the fetus has to already be removed. An appointment with an abortionist would be considered a physical act that could say the woman was intending to hurt the fetus, and that it wasn't safe. Either way, it means the fetus is the FIRST one to infringe on the woman's rights, because it is in the woman's body before she goes out and schedules an abortion." No, the conspiracy to abort would be the crime. But true, you do need physical evidence. So the meeting with the abortionist would be proof that the crime of conspiracy had already been committed. Which would leave the baby with the first one to be violated. Even if she decided not to have an abortion, but still thinks it's violating her rights. that would not give her the right to abortion, because she already allowed it to saty in her. And if she could take back this consent (not saying that she can), she's playing with a whole new deck of cards. Clean slate. And the conspiracy to abort comes first. Plus, she could not prove she wasnt conspiring to abort the whole time. "The fetus did not consent to being in the body, and the woman did not consent to have the fetus in her body. Both of them can try to remove the fetus from the situation, if the fetus were capable of such as thing. All you've proved is that the woman can remove the fetus, and (if it were possible) the fetus could remove itself from the situation. Not that neither could remove the fetus." okay, ive just forgotten the context of this level of argument. i don't remember if it were a key point to anything. it was, please remind me. Otherwise im gonna drop it. I think we may have just established that it dosnet matter... im not sure. tho i would argue still the woman consented... i dont think it matters to my main point. "Perhaps, if you can prove that she is planning, which requires that physical evidence. The court wont really believe you if you go "she plans on aborting, but I have no evidence or proof." Your word against hers." Here's the beauty of it. I can prove that she was planning it. When she does the physical action, I can prove that she had conspired to it. I'm not proposing we go around arresting people who are just thinking about abortion, because there is no proof. However, once they act on it, it proves they planned to do so. The future action proves the past crime. The only people who would be "arrested" or whatever are the people who act on it, by trying to get an abortion. Much the same way you can prove I bought an illegal weapon if you see me in my window a week later trying to fire said weapon. "But like I said earlier, that means that the fetus is the first to infringe on rights- which is why the woman can infringe on the fetuses rights, assuming it has some." Even though the proof comes afterward, the violation of the fetus's rights still occurs first. "Thanks for not getting mad at me calling you a loonie. lol." Im glad that you brought it up. Only this morning did i realize exactly what you said; i was interested in truth, not winning. Problem (for you) is, it's a lot easier to disprove a theory than to prove it. You presented the equation, and all I have to do is find one value of X to disprove it to you. Plus, lots of people were called loonies for having different ideas. I mean, look at Martin Luther King Jr. Lotsa people thought he was crazy. Now he has his own holiday. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 2, 2008 at 5:48pm "But, its still her fault. If i point a gun at my friend and pull the trigger, thinking it was unloaded, and kill him, am I not still taking away his right to life?" There is a difference between doing something that might cause harm, and trying to prevent something from happening. If the woman is told by her doctor that getting her tubes tied is 100% effective, it's similar to a gunsmith telling you the safety is 100% effective. And then when the safety is on, your kid goes and accidentally kills himself because the safety wasn't 100% effective. "so... if a mother puts leaves her kids in the care of an escaped convict, armed and dangerous, it is not putting her children at risk? there is no physical action." Leaving her kids somewhere is a physical action... "So the meeting with the abortionist would be proof that the crime of conspiracy had already been committed.Which would leave the baby with the first one to be violated." How do you figure? Is the woman going to talk to the abortionist BEFORE she's even pregnant? If she's already pregnant against her consent, then the fetus is ALREADY infringing on her rights. "And the conspiracy to abort comes first. Plus, she could not prove she wasnt conspiring to abort the whole time." I don't think you can really say a woman is conspiring on aborting a specific fetus before the fetus even comes into existence. I can't infringe upon the rights of a specific fetus if I don't know it exists, I can't infringe on it's rights before it exists. "When she does the physical action, I can prove that she had conspired to it." You can prove she conspires to it AT THAT POINT, but not two days ago, or two weeks ago, or two months ago. Which would mean the fetus was in her body infringing on her rights *before* you have any proof of conspiring. "the violation of the fetus's rights still occurs first." She can't violate its rights before it exists, and once it exists it is in her body without her consent which means it is infringing on her rights. There is no way the woman could infringe upon the fetus's supposed rights before it infringes upon hers. You replied to Linda's poston December 2, 2008 at 6:45pm "similar to a gunsmith telling you the safety is 100% effective. And then when the safety is on, your kid goes and accidentally kills himself because the safety wasn't 100% effective." Except in my story, the safety wasnt the problem, its being loaded was the problem. If the gun salesman told the person that it was 100% not loaded, the kid still needs to check before he goes firing it. "Leaving her kids somewhere is a physical action... " We decided that it was the women's fault that the sperm and egg combined earlier. I'm pretty sure that was agreed upon. Thats the same as leaving her kids somewhere. One mother left the kids at the murderers house, the other mother left her fetus in the womb of someone who would kill it. In both stories, it is the mother's fault that the child was left in danger. "Is the woman going to talk to the abortionist BEFORE she's even pregnant? " nope. as i said, a crime can be proved after the fact. "I don't think you can really say a woman is conspiring on aborting a specific fetus before the fetus even comes into existence." Well, if you consider "the fetus that will be inside of me" a specific fetus, then yes. Women do decide that they will get an abortion in the case of pregnancy before they have sex. You make it seem like she has to target a single egg and sperm combination. If i decide to shoot the next person who walks by me, I'm still conspiring to murder. And you could argue that she didn't plan to have an abortion before the pregnancy. It that case, no one's rights are being infringed upon, until she decided to get an abortion. By not deciding to get an abortion, she is agreeing to allow the fetus to be in her. Perhaps she can remove consent, which she can only do by deciding to get an abortion, at which point the fetus's rights are violated. "You can prove she conspires to it AT THAT POINT, but not two days ago, or two weeks ago, or two months ago. " Okay then, I think my argument above argues this. Her rights can't be violated if she allows it to live in her. Her rights can only be violated if she decides not to let the it live in her, at which point the fetus's rights are violated first. "She can't violate its rights before it exists, and once it exists it is in her body without her consent which means it is infringing on her rights." Ah, but at the very first moment she becomes pregnant she has consented to it. (This is because she caused it to happen. A woman can't start having sex with a man, and then say that she didn't consent to it) In that moment, the fetus comes into existence and get rights. Perhaps she can choose to remove consent the moment after, but it is to late, the fetus already has the right to a safe environment, which the mother would violate by deciding to remove consent, which means deciding to get an abortion. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 2, 2008 at 6:59pm "Except in my story, the safety wasnt the problem, its being loaded was the problem. If the gun salesman told the person that it was 100% not loaded, the kid still needs to check before he goes firing it." But the woman isn't being told she wont make eggs, she's being told she wont become pregnant because the tube for the sperm to get to the egg is gone/cut/whatever. "We decided that it was the women's fault that the sperm and egg combined earlier. " Um, I highly doubt I agreed to that. It's not her fault at all unless she's paying for in-virto fertilization. "One mother left the kids at the murderers house, the other mother left her fetus in the womb of someone who would kill it." LOL- so in order to NOT leave the fetus in the womb of someone who would kill it, she can get an abortion and take it out, right? haha.... "Well, if you consider "the fetus that will be inside of me" a specific fetus, then yes. Women do decide that they will get an abortion in the case of pregnancy before they have sex" Not legally. I can't commit crimes or plan crimes against a person that doesn't exist. The unique fetus of the pregnancy couldn't bring up a court case saying the woman was planning on killing it if she didn't know about that fetus specifically. "If i decide to shoot the next person who walks by me, I'm still conspiring to murder." Perhaps, but if you don't actually shoot anyone, you haven't committed any crime. Or if you haven't bought a gun (haven't made an appointment), you can't be shown to have conspired. If you don't talk to a gun owner about how guns work you haven't conspired to anything. "It that case, no one's rights are being infringed upon, until she decided to get an abortion." No no no, you can't ignore the woman's rights. If the fetus is in her body without her consent, that's infringing upon her rights. Therefore, she can get an abortion. "By not deciding to get an abortion, she is agreeing to allow the fetus to be in her. " No she's not. She could go "I don't want this fetus inside me, but I'm still thinking about what I want to do about it." at that point, she has not consented. From there she can get an abortion, or she can change her mind and consent to let the fetus stay inside her (but that consent can be revoked of course). "A woman can't start having sex with a man, and then say that she didn't consent to it." There is a difference between giving consent and something happening in your body that you can't control. The woman gives direct consent to sex. She gives no consent to becoming pregnant (unless she's actively TRYING to be pregnant). "the fetus already has the right to a safe environment The fetus has absolutely NO right to use my body as a 'safe environment' if I do not want it in my body. Besides that I don't think safe environment is even a real right... You replied to Linda's poston December 3, 2008 at 12:04pm "But the woman isn't being told she wont make eggs, she's being told she wont become pregnant because the tube for the sperm to get to the egg is gone/cut/whatever." Ah. you had changed my analogy, making it more relevent to pregnancy. No matter. If a gun salesman tells me the safety works, so I go out and fire at my friend with the safety on, it's still my fault. "Um, I highly doubt I agreed to that." "Well, perhaps she could be considered "responsible" for the fetus coming into existence."- You, on december 1st. I don't have a problem if you want to change your argument with reason, I just dont want to go in circles. You can take what you said on dec 1st, if you have a reason why. But I dont want to start over until we reestablish what we agreed then. More likely, it think you'll argue that what you said then isnt the same as what I'm saying now. So, we'll cross that bridge when we fall of of it. "LOL- so in order to NOT leave the fetus in the womb of someone who would kill it, she can get an abortion and take it out, right? haha...." not sure if this is a joke, or you think youre right. If its a joke, then it really isnt arguing your case. If youre serious, then by this logic, the murderer can kill all of the kids, and that way they wouldn't be in danger. It really doesnt make sense. "I can't commit crimes or plan crimes against a person that doesn't exist. " I beg to differ. I can plan to shoot the next person who walks through the door. Since no one has yet walked through the door, that person does not yet exist. Yet im still planning to shoot them. You argue that it can't be proved, which is in the sub-argument level thing below. "Perhaps, but if you don't actually shoot anyone, you haven't committed any crime. Or if you haven't bought a gun (haven't made an appointment), you can't be shown to have conspired. If you don't talk to a gun owner about how guns work you haven't conspired to anything." No, you havent commited any crime. Im arguing that leaving the fetus with someone who will commit a crime against them is violation of its rights. The murderer doesnt need to kill a child before the child is in danger. Still, there is the trouble of proof, which is your main argument, I believe. "Or if you haven't bought a gun (haven't made an appointment), you can't be shown to have conspired. " Right. but as soon as you make the appointment it can be proved that you had conspired. So as soon as you try to get an abortion, there is proof for the crime. If you dont try to get an abortion, there is no proof. But there's also no problem (no abortion). ""It that case, no one's rights are being infringed upon, until she decided to get an abortion." No no no, you can't ignore the woman's rights. If the fetus is in her body without her consent, that's infringing upon her rights. Therefore, she can get an abortion." I'm not. the "in that case" reffered to the case that the mother didnt want remove the fetus. This way, she is consenting to keep it in her. She could change her mind about what she wants, and stop consenting to keep it in her, but that would violate the fetus's rights. "but I'm still thinking about what I want to do about it." key point. still thinking... meaning that time is passing as she decides. In this time, she is consenting to let the fetus be inside of her. Its like sex. She can't start having sex, and then realize that she hasnt decided if she consents. Until she says that she doesnt consent to it, her rights are not being violated. "She gives no consent to becoming pregnant" she definately did. we are in the process of figuring out if we already decided this. Though i think "she could be considered "responsible"" covers it. if you are responsible that you had sex, you consented to it. "The fetus has absolutely NO right to use my body as a 'safe environment' if I do not want it in my body.." But at some point, even if it was only the moment of conception, it was the womans fault the fetus was there. That's when the fetus's (or fertilized egg, dont kill me with semantics) rights happen. And you can't argue that even if it was her fault, she didnt want it to happen. You can have sex, but later decide you didnt want to, and call it violating your rights. "Besides that I don't think safe environment is even a real right..." Pretty sure it is. Might be called something else, but same principle. Thats why child endangerment is a crime, i believe. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 3, 2008 at 12:22pm "If a gun salesman tells me the safety works, so I go out and fire at my friend with the safety on, it's still my fault." But there's still a big difference. The woman isn't going out and trying to pretend to get herself pregnant. Your analogy only works if the gun suddenly goes off for no reason- just sitting in the closet with the safety on. "More likely, it think you'll argue that what you said then isnt the same as what I'm saying now. So, we'll cross that bridge when we fall of of it." lol, yup. I said she might be considered responsible (should have said partially since the man's responsible then too), but I don't think it's her fault or that we should blame her. It's similar to a person who's driving and suddenly their brand new tire explodes, making them crash into another car and puncture that guy's kidney. Is it the driver's fault? No. Are they partially responsible? Yes, because if they hadn't hit the guy he wouldn't need a new kidney. Does the driver have to donate his organ (kidney) just because he is partially responsible for the need for the kidney? No, he doesn't have to. "not sure if this is a joke, or you think youre right. If its a joke, then it really isnt arguing your case. If youre serious, then by this logic, the murderer can kill all of the kids, and that way they wouldn't be in danger. It really doesnt make sense." I was joking and not trying to argue a point. I just find it funny that you think it's a crime for her to leave the fetus inside of her when she wants to get an abortion, but it's also wrong to take it out of the "environment" where it is unsafe. Like trying to have your cake and eat it too... "I beg to differ. I can plan to shoot the next person who walks through the door. Since no one has yet walked through the door, that person does not yet exist. Yet im still planning to shoot them. You argue that it can't be proved, which is in the sub-argument level thing below." Ummmmm. I don't know if you realize this, but people can exist before you see them. [/sarcasm]. But really. Just because you haven't seen someone yet doesn't mean they do not exist. I know there are people that exist in Africa that I have not seen. However, a fetus does not exist before the egg and sperm come together to form it. "Im arguing that leaving the fetus with someone who will commit a crime against them is violation of its rights. The murderer doesnt need to kill a child before the child is in danger." Perhaps, but the woman as of yet is not a murderer and there is no proof she is going to commit a crime. "leaving a fetus" with her is not yet bad because she hasn't committed any crime, or made any sort of physical show that she is going to commit a crime. She's just a normal woman. "Right. but as soon as you make the appointment it can be proved that you had conspired. So as soon as you try to get an abortion, there is proof for the crime." Yes, once you make an appointment it is clear, if we're saying abortion is a crime, that you intent AT THAT TIME to commit a crime. However, if the woman is making an appointment for an abortion, it is because the fetus is ALREADY inside her, and ALREADY infringing upon her rights. And if the fetus is infringing upon her first, it's not a crime to get an abortion. "I'm not. the "in that case" reffered to the case that the mother didnt want remove the fetus. This way, she is consenting to keep it in her. She could change her mind about what she wants, and stop consenting to keep it in her, but that would violate the fetus's rights." We're not talking about cases where the woman doesn't want to remove the fetus... Removing her consent is NOT violating the fetus's rights (otherwise I'm violating the rights of a lot of men, cause I don't consent to them using my body), until she takes action against it... but of course, as soon as she removes consent, the fetus is infringing upon her rights BEFORE she takes action against it. "still thinking... meaning that time is passing as she decides. In this time, she is consenting to let the fetus be inside of her." No, it absolutely does not. Just because I have not decided how to get someone/thing out of my body does not mean I consent to it being there. It just means she hasn't found a way to enforce her non-consent. "she definately did. we are in the process of figuring out if we already decided this. Though i think "she could be considered "responsible"" covers it. if you are responsible that you had sex, you consented to it." Being responsible for something doesn't have anything to do with consenting. I can be responsible for a car accident, but that doesn't mean I consented to be in a car accident. "And you can't argue that even if it was her fault, she didnt want it to happen. You can have sex, but later decide you didnt want to, and call it violating your rights." Yes I can. It's not that she is trying to take back the sex, she's trying to stop the pregnancy. They're two completely different things. I can want to have sex but NOT want to be pregnant. You replied to Linda's poston December 3, 2008 at 7:55pm "But there's still a big difference. The woman isn't going out and trying to pretend to get herself pregnant. Your analogy only works if the gun suddenly goes off for no reason- just sitting in the closet with the safety on." No, the woman is having sex, thinking it will not get her pregnant. She is still pulling the trigger. The gun sitting in the closet going off is more like rape: she did not pull the trigger, yet it went of anyway (rather, because someone else pulled the trigger) "I said she might be considered responsible (should have said partially since the man's responsible then too), but I don't think it's her fault or that we should blame her." I think you're mixing emotion with logic a little. If she were considered responsible, then it would be her fault. you're connecting fault to blame, which has negative connotations. She is not at fault for getting pregnant, but rather for getting into a pregnancy that will kill the fetus. You don't think the woman should be "blamed" just for getting pregnant; i agree, she is being "blamed" for putting the fetus at risk. You feel sorry for the woman because she didnt "want" to get pregnant, which is okay... I guess. But you can't let that cloud your judgement. She is still at fault for the endangerment of a child. "It's similar to a person who's driving and suddenly their brand new tire explodes" not really; you make it seem like there should have been no way that teh tire could have blown. She popped her own tire, so to speak. She didn't want it to pop, but she did in fact pop it. "partially responsible" The women may be partially responsible for getting pregnant, seeing how the man had some part in this. But she is fully responsible for the pregnancy being dangerous for the fetus, as she alone in the one to decide to kill it. "I was joking and not trying to argue a point. I just find it funny that you think it's a crime for her to leave the fetus inside of her when she wants to get an abortion, but it's also wrong to take it out of the "environment" where it is unsafe." Well then perhaps you were trying to argue a point through irony... Regardless, i think my murderer analogy holds true. The environment must be made safe, it's the only way to keep the fetus's rights from being violated. Safe environment = no killin' the fetus. Intersting side point: what on earth does have your cake and eat it too really mean? How would I have a cake without eating it... or how would I eat it without having it. "I don't know if you realize this, but people can exist before you see them." Sure the person who I shot existed before. Shot being the key point. Before I shot them, they did not exist. They were merely the person who will walk through the door. Since no one had yet walked through the door, they did not exist. "but the woman as of yet is not a murderer and there is no proof she is going to commit a crime." she's not a murderer. murder is not the crime... well, its a crime, just not the one I'm arguing right now. For her to be a murderer, the fetus would have to be dead. Id rather the fetus not die before it could be protected. The crime is child endangerment, which happens before the murder. The proof is when she tries to get an abortion. Again, evidence in the future that proves a past crime. "She's just a normal woman." Exactly. until which point she proves otherwise, the act of trying to get an abortion. This is why I don't want to arbitrarily arrest pregnant women. "Yes, once you make an appointment it is clear, if we're saying abortion is a crime, that you intent AT THAT TIME to commit a crime." It is clear AT THAT TIME that the crime had already been committed. Unless you wanted to argue that she didnt want to have an abortion untill she made the apointment, but then, her rights wouldnt have been violated. She has to declare that she doesnt consent to have the child inside of her before it is violating her rights. Otherwise, its consunsual. The moment she does something to remove consent, the fetus's rights have been violated, because by removing consent she has made a dangerous environment for it. "Just because I have not decided how to get someone/thing out of my body" she wasnt deciding how. She was deciding whether or not to get someone/thing out of her body. "Being responsible for something doesn't have anything to do with consenting" Even if she didnt (not saying she didnt), she still took away the other person's rights first. She cant say that since she didnt consent to the car accident, she did not violate the other persons rights, nor can she say that since she did not consent to the accident, the other person took away her rights, since it was her fault. "Yes I can. It's not that she is trying to take back the sex, she's trying to stop the pregnancy. They're two completely different things. I can want to have sex but NOT want to be pregnant." I think i may have worded my words incorrectly, sorry; i was rushed. Especially since "You can have sex, but later decide you didnt want to, and call it violating your rights." is not only not a sentence, it doesnt make any sense at all. I think "And you can't argue that even if it was her fault, she didn't want it to happen" wasn't my entire sentence. perhaps: "And you can't argue that even if it was her fault, SINCE she didnt want it to happen, her rights were violated first." I was trying to avoid being vulgar, but hey, sex is natural, so let's try this analogy. Its like the woman putting the man's penis inside of her, but then saying she didn't "consent" to it, so it her rights were violated. Since it was her fault, her rights were not violated. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 3, 2008 at 8:21pm "No, the woman is having sex, thinking it will not get her pregnant. She is still pulling the trigger." Sex is not a direct act that leads to pregnancy in the way that pulling a trigger is a direct act that leads to a gun firing. "You don't think the woman should be "blamed" just for getting pregnant; i agree, she is being "blamed" for putting the fetus at risk. You feel sorry for the woman because she didnt "want" to get pregnant, which is okay... I guess. But you can't let that cloud your judgement. She is still at fault for the endangerment of a child." But that's still running with this crazy idea that the woman has control over if the fetus is put there or not. And she doesn't have that control, because if she did **it wouldn't be there in the first place.** She is not "putting the fetus at risk" until after it has already put her at risk- by taking away her bodily integrity. "not really; you make it seem like there should have been no way that teh tire could have blown. She popped her own tire, so to speak. She didn't want it to pop, but she did in fact pop it." If she's using birth control or had her tubes tied, then there should have been practically no way for her to get pregnant, just like there's practically no way for a new tire to explode but rarely, it does happen. "The environment must be made safe, it's the only way to keep the fetus's rights from being violated. Safe environment = no killin' the fetus." And the environment is safe for the fetus at first. And then the woman removes her consent, and the environment is still safe, but the fetus is now infringing upon the rights of the woman. Once it's infringing upon her rights, she is allowed to make it's environment unsafe in order to defend her rights. "Intersting side point: what on earth does have your cake and eat it too really mean? How would I have a cake without eating it... or how would I eat it without having it." lol it's an old saying that a person can't have their cake and eat it too. Doesn't really make sense, but it basically means you can't get your way twice if the ways are conflicting, I think. "Used for expressing the impossibility of having something both ways, if those two ways conflict." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_your_cake_and_eat_it_too "Sure the person who I shot existed before. Shot being the key point. Before I shot them, they did not exist. They were merely the person who will walk through the door. Since no one had yet walked through the door, they did not exist." o.O;;;;; The PERSON did exist before you shot them. The LABEL of "person who next walked through the door" was not yet assigned to them until they walked through said door... but the PERSON surely existed. "The crime is child endangerment, which happens before the murder. The proof is when she tries to get an abortion. Again, evidence in the future that proves a past crime." Okay, but she's still not guilty of child endangerment until she makes a physical action to prove it. And once she makes that physical action, you can prove AT THAT TIME that she is guilty of child endangerment, but NOT that she is guilty of it BEFORE that. Which means that in between the time that she revokes consent and she does the physical action (appointment or whatever), she is *not* guilty of anything, and the fetus IS guilty of infringing upon her rights. Which allows her then to infringe upon it's rights in return. "Unless you wanted to argue that she didnt want to have an abortion untill she made the apointment, but then, her rights wouldnt have been violated." She can WANT whatever she pleases- it is not a crime to WANT something. It is only a crime to ACT on those wants. This is why being a pedophile is not a crime unless you assault children. This is why I can think "I want that screaming kid next door to be killed" but I'm not guilty of anything until I go grab a gun. So no, she did want the fetus out of her body, which means it is infringing upon her rights, but until she makes a physical action to show this want, she is not infringing upon it's rights. "she wasnt deciding how. She was deciding whether or not to get someone/thing out of her body. " Ehh, she was deciding how to go about doing it. "She could go "I don't want this fetus inside me, but I'm still thinking about what I want to do about it."" Sorry if it wasn't clear. She's thinking about what she wants to do to remove the fetus, to stop it from using her body. "Its like the woman putting the man's penis inside of her, but then saying she didn't "consent" to it, so it her rights were violated. Since it was her fault, her rights were not violated." Ahh, so you're still with this idea that the woman is directly putting the fetus inside of her. Which she isn't. I don't know any woman that takes a fetus and sticks her hand inside herself and puts the fetus there, and then goes "OMG WTF I DON'T WANT THAT." You replied to Linda's poston December 4, 2008 at 12:48pm "Sex is not a direct act that leads to pregnancy in the way that pulling a trigger is a direct act that leads to a gun firing. " sigh. Okay, so she is not pulling the trigger, she's pulling a string that makes the ball fall on top of the lever that pulls the other string that's tied to the trigger. It's still her fault the gun fired. "this crazy idea that the woman has control over if the fetus is put there or not. And she doesn't have that control, because if she did **it wouldn't be there in the first place.**" but it's not a crazy idea. She has the choice. I'm not sure why you don't agree. She has control over if the fetus is put there; she can control if she has sex. You make it seem like the fetus just appeared inside of her one day, with no action of hers having anything to do with it. Women choose not to exercise their control to keep the fetus out of them because theyd rather have sex. That's like pulling the trigger but saying they didnt have control over the bullet firing. Or, rather, perhaps its trying to have one's cake and eat it too. "practically no way for her to get pregnant" regardless, she knew she could get pregnant. practically in not absolutely. and she is still the one popping the tire. it didn't just blow out on the road. She poked it with a fork, or something to that effect. Much the same way she "pulled" the trigger, and the same way she had sex. "And then the woman removes her consent, and the environment is still safe" nope. cuz she can only remove consent by deciding she wants the fetus out of her, and unless she plans to do this in a way safe for the fetus (like giving birth to it) the environment is no longer safe. ""person who next walked through the door" was not yet assigned to them until they walked through said door" right, and "fetus inside of me" was not yet assigned to the sperm and egg, that doesnt mean they didnt exist. I just dont think they had individual rights at that point. They get their rights as soon as the combine, at which point it is allowed to be in the mother, as its her fault its in her. After which, she can't exercise her right to remove it, because you cant exercise your rights if they would take someone else's away. Much the same way a person cant claim they have the right to pursue happiness and decide it would make them happy to kill other people. His exercising his right would violate someone else's, so he doesn't have the right to do it. "Which means that in between the time that she revokes consent and she does the physical action (appointment or whatever), she is *not* guilty of anything, and the fetus IS guilty of infringing upon her rights." She can't prove that she revoked consent without admitting to conspiring to get the child out of her, which would violate his rights. So the fetus isnt guilty of anything until after she's guilty. "it is not a crime to WANT something." it can be a crime to plan something though. Her rights can't be violated if she doesnt attempt to fix the problem. A person can;t have sex with someone, say "I dont want to do this" and then continue to have sex with them, and call it violation of her rights. If she doesn't remove consent by preforming some action that would fix the problem, her rights aren't violated. And she preforms some action that would fix the problem that would harm the fetus; that would violate its rights. "She could go "I don't want this fetus inside me, but I'm still thinking about what I want to do about it.""" Then her rights really aren't violated. Just like she cant be having sex, decide that she doesnt want to have sex anymore, but that she is still deciding whether or not she wants to stop, and call it violating her rights. "Ahh, so you're still with this idea that the woman is directly putting the fetus inside of her. Which she isn't. I don't know any woman that takes a fetus and sticks her hand inside herself and puts the fetus there, and then goes "OMG WTF I DON'T WANT THAT." It doesnt maker it it is direct, so long as she is the cause. Are you familiar with syllogisms? Its a proof system that goes: If A then B If B then C If C then D Therefore, if A then D. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 4, 2008 at 4:17pm "but it's not a crazy idea. She has the choice. I'm not sure why you don't agree. She has control over if the fetus is put there; she can control if she has sex." Okay, ready? Having sex is not the same act as putting a fetus in my uterus. Otherwise, "sex" wouldn't be penis in vagina, it would be "fetus in uterus." Controlling sex is NOT controlling pregnancy or fetuses. "Or, rather, perhaps its trying to have one's cake and eat it too." Except not, because staying non-pregnant and having sex can both happen at the same time- they do not conflict. Having her cake and eating it too would be like trying to stay a virgin but also wanting to have sex. "and she is still the one popping the tire. it didn't just blow out on the road. She poked it with a fork, or something to that effect." No she didn't. She was just driving along. She got in the car, that's all she did. The tire blew up while she was driving. "nope. cuz she can only remove consent by deciding she wants the fetus out of her, and unless she plans to do this in a way safe for the fetus (like giving birth to it) the environment is no longer safe." Ummmm, what? She can remove her consent without having a specific plan laid out on how she's going to remove the fetus from her body. The environment is safe until she makes the appointment for the abortion (or talks to someone about it in terms of that specific pregnancy) but she can remove her consent BEFORE she makes that appointment. Here are the steps: 1. Fetus conceived (womb = safe) 2. Woman removes consent (womb = safe) 3. Fetus infringing on woman's rights because it has no consent (womb = safe even though she removed consent) 4. Woman makes abortion appointment (allowed, because fetus ALREADY infringed on her rights!) ( womb = unsafe) 5. Abortion 6. Woman regains her rights "They get their rights as soon as the combine, at which point it is allowed to be in the mother, as its her fault its in her. " But it doesn't matter if it is her fault or not... she can either remove consent once she finds out she's pregnant, or say she never consented in the first place- either way, the fetus is infringing on her rights. "After which, she can't exercise her right to remove it, because you cant exercise your rights if they would take someone else's away." The fetus doesn't GET the right to use the woman's body without her consent- that is NOT a right. And if the woman removes consent, the fetuses right to life is unimportant because it is taking away HER rights. "She can't prove that she revoked consent without admitting to conspiring to get the child out of her, which would violate his rights. So the fetus isnt guilty of anything until after she's guilty." Yes she can. She can verbally say "I do not consent to have this fetus in my uterus." She can even think it. She doesn't have to take physical action to remove it to prove that she does not consent. Otherwise, rape victims who don't fight back couldn't prove they were raped. "A person can;t have sex with someone, say "I dont want to do this" and then continue to have sex with them, and call it violation of her rights." Yes they can. As long as that person wasn't actively pursuing the sex (like the guy climbed off her and she jumped him and kept having sex), she can say that it was rape because she revoked her consent half way through. "If she doesn't remove consent by preforming some action that would fix the problem, her rights aren't violated." So rape victims who are frozen in fear and don't fight back weren't really raped? Hmmm. Or maybe! Maybe if I tie a girl up so that she can't move at all and have sex with her, it wasn't rape because she didn't physically do anything to fix the problem? >.> Doesn't work that way. "If A then B If B then C If C then D Therefore, if A then D." What are your B and C? Either way, it doesn't work. Because it's not that sex = sperm touching egg, it's that sex can LEAD to sperm touching egg. sex is not pregnancy. You replied to Linda's poston December 5, 2008 at 2:22pm "Okay, ready? Having sex is not the same act as putting a fetus in my uterus. Otherwise, "sex" wouldn't be penis in vagina, it would be "fetus in uterus." Controlling sex is NOT controlling pregnancy or fetuses." No, sex is not the same as getting pregnant. But pregnancy is caused by sex. So if the woman chooses to have sex, its her fault she got pregnant. Do you disagree that by not having sex a woman can choose to not get pregnant. controlling sex does not give you the control to get pregnant, but it gives you the control to not get pregnant. "because staying non-pregnant and having sex can both happen at the same time" your right. But trying to claim you are respsonsible for having sex but not responsible for getting pregnant does conflict, since pregnancy is *indirectly* caused by sex. "No she didn't. She was just driving along. She got in the car, that's all she did. The tire blew up while she was driving." I disagree. Cuz she didnt just get pregnant. She caused it to happen. Regardless, if you wanted to say she was violating their rights by driving, they were equally violating her rights by driving, so it cancels out. "The environment is safe until she makes the appointment for the abortion (or talks to someone about it in terms of that specific pregnancy) but she can remove her consent BEFORE she makes that appointment... 2. Woman removes consent (womb = safe)" not at all. The environment is in no way safe if the woman intends to kill it. Just because she doenst have specific plans doesnt mean she doesnt plan to kill it. And as soon as she removes consent, she is planning to kill it, because she cannot remove it from herself without killing it. you cant tell me she removed consent but didnt yet decide to remove the fetus; that's not removing consent at all. Thus woman removes consent (womb=dangerous) "But it doesn't matter if it is her fault or not." It really does. I cant start making out with my friend (my fault we're making out) and then say i didnt consent to it, so its sexual harrassment. By causing it to happen, she consented to it, if only for the moment she got pregnant. "The fetus doesn't GET the right to use the woman's body without her consent" Again, she consented to it by causing it to be put it there. no, she did not shove a fetus inside of her. But she still caused it, making it her fault the fetus is inside of her, so that it is not violating her rights. If it appeared out of nowhere, it would be violating her rights. But it didnt. "Yes she can. She can verbally say "I do not consent to have this fetus in my uterus." She can even think it. She doesn't have to take physical action to remove it to prove that she does not consent. Otherwise, rape victims who don't fight back couldn't prove they were raped." By not doing anything to remove it from her, she consents to let it stay in her. She cannot think "Get out of me" because that doesnt DO anything. Much the same way I cant think "I dont want to do this" in the middle of sex and call it non consensual. if the rape victim is incapable of fighting back, they were still raped. But if they had every ability to stop the rapist, and didnt even say "No!" they didnt remove consent. Saying "no" works on rapists because they can hear you and understand that they are violating your rights. A fetus has no way of understanding or responding to "no", so it cant possibly help the situation. The only think the woman can do to remove consent is to take action against the fetus, which would violate it's rights. "Yes they can. As long as that person wasn't actively pursuing the sex (like the guy climbed off her and she jumped him and kept having sex" That's kinda what I meant. She is keeping the fetus in her body, the same way the woman is keeping the man having sex with her. Since saying no to a person is an acceptable way to remove consent, it works. Saying no to a fetus doesnt make any sense at all; it cant do anything about it. The womans rights would be violated if the man continues having sex with her, after removing consent, because he had the chance to stop, as he knew he no longer had the right to be inside of her. Saying no to a fetus does not give it any power to keep from violating the womans rights, so it is not. The only thing the woman can do is to kill the fetus, which would violate its rights. "So rape victims who are frozen in fear and don't fight back weren't really raped?" Why are they frozen with fear? Because they were threatened. Thus they did not have the ability to fight back, so they cant be blamed for not fighting back. However, the rapist needs to have the knowledge that his actions are violating someone elses rights, which generally he does. The fetus does not know that he is no longer allowed to be in the body. The only way she could "let it know", so to speak, is to kill it, which she does not have the right to do. If I am pregnant, then I the fertilized egg attached to my uterus. If the fertilized egg attached to my uterus, then the egg was fertilized. If the egg was fertilized, then the sperm touched the egg. If the sperm touched the egg, then the sperm was put somewhere it could get to the egg. If the sperm was put somewhere it could get to the egg, then I had sex(ual activity). Therefore, if I get pregnant i had sex. So because i had sex, I am pregnant (doesnt mean that because i sex, that i must become pregnant, but that since i already am pregnant, I must have had sex) Since pregnancy is caused by sex, If I caused sex, I caused pregnancy. And if i caused sex, then I consented to it. "sex is not pregnancy. " Nope. But pregnancy is sex... you cant be pregnant unless you had sex (or combined the egg and sperm in some similar fashion. So If i dont have sex, I cannot be pregnant, and thus i have the control to not be pregnant. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 5, 2008 at 3:34pm Okay, I just wrote up a whole post and my internet had issues so it didn't send... sorry if this version seems a bit short/confusing. "No, sex is not the same as getting pregnant. But pregnancy is caused by sex. So if the woman chooses to have sex, its her fault she got pregnant. Do you disagree that by not having sex a woman can choose to not get pregnant. controlling sex does not give you the control to get pregnant, but it gives you the control to not get pregnant." A woman can still get pregnant without consenting to sex. If she cannot control becoming pregnant, then she cannot control the fetus being put inside her, which means it isn't her fault if it's put inside her. "I disagree. Cuz she didnt just get pregnant. She caused it to happen. Regardless, if you wanted to say she was violating their rights by driving, they were equally violating her rights by driving, so it cancels out." The woman didn't cause the pregnancy anymore than the woman caused her tired to blow up. You aren't violating anyone's rights just by driving, unless perhaps you're drunk driving. o.o; "The environment is in no way safe if the woman intends to kill it. Just because she doenst have specific plans doesnt mean she doesnt plan to kill it." Who said anything about the woman intending to kill anything? She doesn't have to intend to 'kill' the fetus when she removes consent. Otherwise anyone who was raped had the intention of killing their rapist, and I doubt that. "It really does. I cant start making out with my friend (my fault we're making out) and then say i didnt consent to it, so its sexual harrassment." You're making it sound like the woman is interacting with the fetus when she's really not. She's interacting with a man. If you start making out with your friend, and then a third person comes over and tries to have sex with you, you can call it sexual harassment/rape because it's a completely different person and completely different act (even if the third person though it would be okay because they saw you two making out). "By not doing anything to remove it from her, she consents to let it stay in her." So all the rape victims who didn't fight back against their rapists... those people were never really raped? They actually had consensual sex because they didn't do anything to stop the man from raping them? "A fetus has no way of understanding or responding to "no", so it cant possibly help the situation. The only think the woman can do to remove consent is to take action against the fetus, which would violate it's rights." A fetus can't understand or respond to a woman making an abortion appointment either. So why is it that saying "no" doesn't count because the fetus doesn't understand, but making an abortion appointment does, even though the fetus doesn't understand that either. "Yes they can. As long as that person wasn't actively pursuing the sex (like the guy climbed off her and she jumped him and kept having sex" That's kinda what I meant. She is keeping the fetus in her body, the same way the woman is keeping the man having sex with her." But my situation is very different, in that when the consent is revoked, the man climbs off the woman and stops the interaction. With the fetus, when the consent is revoked, the fetus doesn't stop the interaction. The woman is in no way forcing the fetus to stay in her body. "Why are they frozen with fear? Because they were threatened. Thus they did not have the ability to fight back, so they cant be blamed for not fighting back." A person who is frightened still has the physical ability to fight back. o.o; They were capable of fighting back but didn't. "However, the rapist needs to have the knowledge that his actions are violating someone elses rights, which generally he does." Generally, but not always. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean you get to break the law. "The only way she could "let it know", so to speak, is to kill it, which she does not have the right to do." It's not the woman's fault if the fetus cannot understand that consent has been revoked. I mean, if that were the case, a man could but ear plugs in and rape me, so that when I said no he couldn't hear me and just keep doing it... but he would still be at fault for raping me because my consent was still removed. In the same way, the fetus is still infringing upon my rights if I revoke consent. "Therefore, if I get pregnant i had sex." Yes (well, except for in virto but that's not what you meant). However, just because you can go backwards does not mean that you can go forwards. A square is ALWAYS a rectangle. A rectangle is NOT always a square. If you are pregnant, you always had sex/in virto. If you have sex, you are not always going to end up pregnant. "And if i caused sex, then I consented to it." Absolutely not. Just because I cause something to happen does not at ALL mean that I consented for it to happen! Otherwise there would be no such thing as accidental killing, it would be intentional because the person consented to do it. You replied to Linda's poston December 5, 2008 at 7:07pm "A woman can still get pregnant without consenting to sex. If she cannot control becoming pregnant, then she cannot control the fetus being put inside her, which means it isn't her fault if it's put inside her." I don't know if you mean crazy, sex-like things, or rape. Because my point is if she caused the pregnancy by doing something sex or sex like, she has control over it. If she was raped she did not have control over it, so she did not ever consent to being pregnant, so she would have the right to an abortion. I still think its wrong, but I dont think she should be forced to carry the baby. "The woman didn't cause the pregnancy anymore than the woman caused her tired to blow up." I was thinking about this, and you have a point. The woman caused the pregnancy by having sex, the other woman caused the tire to blow by driving on it. So whats the difference? The driver was on the exact same level as anyone she might harm - everyone is as equally likely to have an accident as she is. Even a pedestrian can cause an accident. So they're all kinda violating each others rights in a way so that it all balances out. The woman having sex is causing the fetus to be in danger, but the fetus is not another "driver"; it is not as likely to cause the "accident". There is no possible way the fetus could have caused the pregnancy - only the woman can do it. Kinda the same way you cant cause a car accident if you're just sitting in your house, and then the driver drives through your wall. "Who said anything about the woman intending to kill anything? She doesn't have to intend to 'kill' the fetus when she removes consent. Otherwise anyone who was raped had the intention of killing their rapist, and I doubt that." The rapist isnt always killed because theyre are other ways to stop him from taking away your rights. If you can find a way to take the fetus out of you that doesnt kill it, youre fine. But thats the only way to do it (unless you wanna, you know, give birth). "but making an abortion appointment does, even though the fetus doesn't understand that either. " because the other person doesnt need to know that theyre rights are being violted, but the violater has to know that they are violating. The woman knows she is endangering the fetus. The fetus doesnt need to know this, much the same way I can't light a fire in a room of my house that my child is in, and say I didnt violate his rights, because he didnt know I lit the fire. "With the fetus, when the consent is revoked, the fetus doesn't stop the interaction. The woman is in no way forcing the fetus to stay in her body." Because the fetus cant stop the interaction; you cant blame someone for doing something they cannot do. So, since the woman is the only way the fetus can get out, but she doesnt not do it, she is kinda forcing it to stay in her, since she's not removing it. But she can only remove it by killing it, which would violate its rights. "A person who is frightened still has the physical ability to fight back. o.o; They were capable of fighting back but didn't. " Not really. They were frozen with fear because they felt threatened. If they were in danger, they really couldn't fight back, just like I cant fight back against a guy who is pointing a gun at me. "Generally, but not always. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean you get to break the law. " Ah, but he's not ignorant of the law, or rather if he is, it doesnt matter. He's fully aware that he is raping this person, which, whether or nor he knows is a law, is clearly violating someone. "t's not the woman's fault if the fetus cannot understand that consent has been revoked." It doesnt matter so much that the fetus cant understand but that he cant do anything. The only way to correct the problem would be to kill the fetus, which would violate its rights, which would be wrong. Its like if a woman is having sex with a man... and he somehow gets stuck. She can say "get out of me" all she wants, he's stuck, and it's not his fault, so he's not violating her rights. "a man could but ear plugs in and rape me," He still knows he's violating your rights... else he wouldnt have plugged his ears. "If you are pregnant, you always had sex/in virto. If you have sex, you are not always going to end up pregnant. " Right. Which is why its not a crime to have sex. I'm not proposing we arrest people who are having sex. But if I get pregnant, its still my fault, since I did have sex. "Otherwise there would be no such thing as accidental killing, it would be intentional because the person consented to do it." Sorry, thats my fault for being vague. She's purposefully causing the sex. Its not like she accidentally fell onto the man or anything. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your poston December 5, 2008 at 9:50pm "Because my point is if she caused the pregnancy by doing something sex or sex like, she has control over it." But you said before that she can't control becoming pregnant. And if she can't control it, then it's NOT her fault. "The driver was on the exact same level as anyone she might harm - everyone is as equally likely to have an accident as she is. Even a pedestrian can cause an accident. So they're all kinda violating each others rights in a way so that it all balances out." You're seriously going to take it that way? It's supposed to go the other way. We can't be constantly violating people's rights 24/7 just by existing. No one is violating anyone's rights by driving or by walking. It's only until something bad happens- a tire blowing, an unwanted pregnancy- that rights start to be violated. "The rapist isnt always killed because theyre are other ways to stop him from taking away your rights. If you can find a way to take the fetus out of you that doesnt kill it, youre fine. But thats the only way to do it (unless you wanna, you know, give birth)." Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying a woman CAN remove consent WITHOUT wanting to kill a fetus. A woman CAN remove consent without intending to remove the person(/fetus) from her body. If a 6'3" 250 lb guy comes and decides to have sex with me, I know I can't fight against him. But I'm still going to remove my consent and tell him "no" even though I don't intend to physically stop him from raping me. "because the other person doesnt need to know that theyre rights are being violted, but the violater has to know that they are violating." Whaaaaaat? Where did you get this idea? A violator doesn't have to know that they are violating someone's rights in order to violate someone's rights. A physical act of violating doesn't require a mental thought of violation. And in order to defend their rights, I'd say the person being violated has to know their rights are being violated. Otherwise they'll be all fine and dandy and wont do anything about it. Now, can you violate their rights without them knowing? Yes. But in order to defend themselves, they have to know. "Because the fetus cant stop the interaction; you cant blame someone for doing something they cannot do. " I'm not blaming the fetus. But just because it is physically incapable of removing itself from my body doesn't mean it isn't violating my rights by staying there. If a man stuck his arm into my mouth and got stuck on my teeth or something, he's still violating my rights even though he can't get out. "Not really. They were frozen with fear because they felt threatened. If they were in danger, they really couldn't fight back, just like I cant fight back against a guy who is pointing a gun at me." But they still have the physical body that is capable of fighting back. They still have legs that can kick and hands that can grab or push. If a guy is pointing a gun at you, you still are physically capable of pushing the gun away or grabbing his arm. You just choose not to. "He's fully aware that he is raping this person, which, whether or nor he knows is a law, is clearly violating someone." Not always. A man could have sex with a woman who was drunk, but not enough to show that she was drunk. Technically she could say yes and he could think he was having consensual sex, but when she woke up the next morning she could say he raped her because she was drunk and you can't consent when you're drunk. "The only way to correct the problem would be to kill the fetus, which would violate its rights, which would be wrong." It's not wrong because the fetus violated her rights FIRST. Fiiiiiiirst. And if it violates her rights (by being in her body after she has removed consent) she is allowed to violate it's rights in her own defense. "She can say "get out of me" all she wants, he's stuck, and it's not his fault, so he's not violating her rights. " Yes he is. =\ "He still knows he's violating your rights... else he wouldnt have plugged his ears." Oh jeeze. Fine, say he's deaf. "But if I get pregnant, its still my fault, since I did have sex." Curious, do you think people are at fault when they have heart attacks? What about if they get cancer? "She's purposefully causing the sex. Its not like she accidentally fell onto the man or anything." And purposefully causing sex is NOT purposefully causing pregnancy. They are NOT the same thing. Either way, I think we're getting off track with a lot of our ideas. So a re cap. 1. It doesn't matter who is at fault for the pregnancy, because a woman does not consent to something just because she caused it. 2. Even if she did consent, consent can be revoked. 3. Consent can be revoked without the intention to remove or harm the fetus. 4. Once consent is revoked, the fetus is infringing upon the woman's rights- FIRST. 5. If the fetus is infringing upon her rights, the woman can infringe upon it's rights without it being wrong. You wrote on December 6, 2008 at 7:00am "But you said before that she can't control becoming pregnant. And if she can't control it, then it's NOT her fault." Its very hard for me to articulate it. She cant force herself to become pregnant, but she can force hersels to not become pregnant. So she does have control, not complete, but enough so that the pregnancy is her fault. "You're seriously going to take it that way? It's supposed to go the other way. We can't be constantly violating people's rights 24/7 just by existing. No one is violating anyone's rights by driving or by walking. It's only until something bad happens- a tire blowing, an unwanted pregnancy- that rights start to be violated." No. I knew you didnt mean it. But you were saying how is A different from B, and I explained. But a tire blowing is different from an unwanted pregnancy. A tire blowing cannot be prevented. An unwanted pregnancy can (no sex). "Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying a woman CAN remove consent WITHOUT wanting to kill a fetus. A woman CAN remove consent without intending to remove the person(/fetus) from her body." Yea, this point wasn't as strong as one where I say that its not the fetus's fault because he cant get out. So, the fetus is not violating the mothers rights because it does not have the option to get out, and besides, she *put* it there, so he can't be blamed for being their in the first place either. So the fetus is not violating the woman's rights because he is physically inable to get out. Much the same way you can tie someone to a chair in your house, then order them to get off your property, and then shoot them when they don't. "Whaaaaaat? Where did you get this idea? A violator doesn't have to know that they are violating someone's rights in order to violate someone's rights." Okay, perhaps anyone can violate anyones rights, under any circumstance. But if personA doesnt want to have sex with personB, but doesnt tell him, then its not personB's fault. He cannot be blamed. "And in order to defend their rights, I'd say the person being violated has to know their rights are being violated." Beg to differ. Two words: Child molester. Child doesnt have to know he's being molested for it to be wrong. "If a man stuck his arm into my mouth and got stuck on my teeth or something, he's still violating my rights even though he can't get out. " But not, because you stuck his arm in your mouth. And then it gets stuck. He's not vioalting your rights, and you dont have the right to kill him. "Not always. A man could have sex with a woman who was drunk, but not enough to show that she was drunk. Technically she could say yes and he could think he was having consensual sex, but when she woke up the next morning she could say he raped her because she was drunk and you can't consent when you're drunk." i don't think the man is at fault here. I don't know what the legal thingamajig would be, but the woman is definitely still at fault for her actions because she chose to be intoxicated. Not that men should look for drunk women to have sex with. But in your story the man didnt know she was drunk... So, being drunk when you got pregnant is no exuse, because it's still your fault that you got pregnant, even if you didnt consent to it. Since its your fault the fetus is in you, he didnt violate your rights by being put in you. And since you put him in a situation he cant get out of, he isnt violating your rights later by not getting out of it. "Curious, do you think people are at fault when they have heart attacks? What about if they get cancer?" If they caused it, then yes (not hereditary). That doesnt mean they cant have medical treatment, because they are not harming anyone else with the treatment. "And purposefully causing sex is NOT purposefully causing pregnancy. They are NOT the same thing." *sigh*, no not the same thing. But because she purposley cause sex, she caused the pregnancy, so it is not the fetus's fault he is in her, it's hers, so it is not violating her rights at conception. "And if it violates her rights (by being in her body after she has removed consent)" I no longer think it is violating her rights at all. See back to the "she put his arm in her mouth" argument. "Oh jeeze. Fine, say he's deaf." Then you mouth "NO". "1. It doesn't matter who is at fault for the pregnancy, because a woman does not consent to something just because she caused it." Nope. It doesnt matter if she consented to pregnancy; just because she didnt want it to happen doesnt mean its not her fault, and not the fetuses. Thus, the fetus is not violating her rights at conception, since she caused it to be there. It completely matters whose fault the pregnancy was, because if she was raped, it was not her fault, and she did not cause the fetus to be in her, so she would have the right to remove it. "2. Even if she did consent, consent can be revoked." Yes, consent can be revoked, assuming that by acting on your rights you are not violating anyone elses. "3. Consent can be revoked without the intention to remove or harm the fetus." Not sure how you got this one. "I no longer wish to have sex with you, but Im not gonna tell you, or do anything about it, and call it removing consent." ..? "4. Once consent is revoked, the fetus is infringing upon the woman's rights- FIRST." Nope. The fetus is not infringing on her rights by being stuck in a situation that the woman made him be stuck in. "5. If the fetus is infringing upon her rights, the woman can infringe upon it's rights without it being wrong." Dont think the fetus can violate her rights anymore, sorry. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your post6 hours ago "Its very hard for me to articulate it. She cant force herself to become pregnant, but she can force hersels to not become pregnant. So she does have control, not complete, but enough so that the pregnancy is her fault." If she cannot become pregnant by will, then she CANNOT control becoming pregnant, and becoming pregnant is not her fault. "A tire blowing cannot be prevented. An unwanted pregnancy can (no sex)." The tire blowing could have been avoided by not driving that day, just like you think unwanted pregnancy can be avoided by no sex. "So, the fetus is not violating the mothers rights because it does not have the option to get out, and besides, she *put* it there, so he can't be blamed for being their in the first place either." Sorry, no. Someone can still violate my rights even if they can't choose to stop violating my rights. I mean, imagine a scenario a la the Saw movies. You get knocked out and when you come to, some crazy doctor has sewn some guys hands into your stomach. You never consented to him being there, so he's violating your rights by having his hands in your stomach. It's not his fault cause he was knocked out too, but he's still physically inside of you without your consent and therefore violating your rights. He can't take his hands out, cause they're sewn to your skin... but he's still violating your rights. "Much the same way you can tie someone to a chair in your house, then order them to get off your property, and then shoot them when they don't." But that's again a person FORCING someone to stay on their property. The woman in no way FORCES the fetus to stay inside her. "But if personA doesnt want to have sex with personB, but doesnt tell him, then its not personB's fault. He cannot be blamed." I'm not blaming the fetus. o.o ""And in order to defend their rights, I'd say the person being violated has to know their rights are being violated." Beg to differ. Two words: Child molester. Child doesnt have to know he's being molested for it to be wrong." I NEVER said it wasn't still wrong. I said that in order to DEFEND their rights, they have to know their right is being violated. It can still be wrong even if the person doesn't defend themselves. "i don't think the man is at fault here. I don't know what the legal thingamajig would be, but the woman is definitely still at fault for her actions because she chose to be intoxicated. Not that men should look for drunk women to have sex with. But in your story the man didnt know she was drunk..." Personally, I kind of agree with you (in that the man isn't at fault). But regardless, legally he CAN be found guilty. Choosing to become drunk does NOT mean you give someone permission to take advantage of you. "Nope. It doesnt matter if she consented to pregnancy; just because she didnt want it to happen doesnt mean its not her fault, and not the fetuses. Thus, the fetus is not violating her rights at conception, since she caused it to be there." But cause doesn't matter! If I cause someone to lose a pint of blood in a car accident, I don't have to donate blood just because I caused their loss. It doesn't matter HOW the fetus got there, if she does not WANT it there it IS violating her rights. "Not sure how you got this one. "I no longer wish to have sex with you, but Im not gonna tell you, or do anything about it, and call it removing consent." ..?" Telling the fetus she doesn't consent to it being there can be done without the intent to remove or harm the fetus. A woman can say "I don't consent to sex with you" without fighting back against the man or trying to push him away. "Nope. The fetus is not infringing on her rights by being stuck in a situation that the woman made him be stuck in." Yes. It is. You replied to Linda's post on December 6, 2008 at 11:40pm "If she cannot become pregnant by will, then she CANNOT control becoming pregnant, and becoming pregnant is not her fault." Umm no. Not getting pregnant is not her fault, since she cannot force herself to get pregnant. Getting pregnant is definitely her fault, since she can force herself to not get pregnant. "The tire blowing could have been avoided by not driving that day, just like you think unwanted pregnancy can be avoided by no sex." Right, which goes back to my everyone is violating everyone point. The other guy is driving too, he is putting you at just as much risk. The fetus is not equally putting you at risk to be inside of its uterus.... "Sorry, no. Someone can still violate my rights even if they can't choose to stop violating my rights. " Um, when did the fetus start violating your rights? What you said would be true if the fetus crawled itself up into your womb, and then couldn't get out; that would be violating your rights. But you *put* it into your womb, and it cant get out. "You get knocked out and when you come to, some crazy doctor has sewn some guys hands into your stomach. You never consented to him being there, so he's violating your rights by having his hands in your stomach." Except, no. Because you're the one who sewed his hands to your stomach. Its your fault. And you weren't knocked out. "But that's again a person FORCING someone to stay on their property. The woman in no way FORCES the fetus to stay inside her. " She's doing the exact same thing the crazy chair-tying-to person is. She tied the person to a chair, which they cant get out of. The mother *put* the fetus in her womb, which it cant get out of. "I'm not blaming the fetus. o.o" yes, yes, arguments over semantics are fun. Rather: But if personA doesnt want to have sex with personB, but doesnt tell him, then its not personB's fault. He isnt violating her rights. "I NEVER said it wasn't still wrong. I said that in order to DEFEND their rights, they have to know their right is being violated." Okay, how about: the Child doesn't have to know he's being molested for his rights to be violated. You don't have to know youre being violated, and you dont have to defend your own rights, if someone is can and is willing to defend them for you. Thats what the government is FOR, to defend the rights of the people. "Choosing to become drunk does NOT mean you give someone permission to take advantage of you." Im not sure where this argument started out anymore. Regardless, if it were rape, then abortion would be permissible, legally. I'd probably throw red paint on her though. and maybe there'd be some kind of exception for drunkenness... I dont know. At this point we both agree that legally rape is permissible in the case of rape. "It doesn't matter HOW the fetus got there, if she does not WANT it there it IS violating her rights. " Except that she is the reason it cant get out. I refer you back to the chair-tier-to. Its more like the other the one person is forcing another to violate her rights. It doesn't work like that. "Telling the fetus she doesn't consent to it being there can be done without the intent to remove or harm the fetus. A woman can say "I don't consent to sex with you" without fighting back against the man or trying to push him away." Saying "I don't consent to sex with you" to the rapist is telling him. How do you propose to tell a fetus something? If you start having sex with a man who is deaf and blind, and then cant figure out how to tell him to stop, that's your own fault, not rape. "Yes. It is." ...not the strongest argument Ive seen from you, to be honest. Could you clarify? Cuz Im still thinking chair-tier. Linda Manville (Bentley) replied to your post on December 6, 2008 at 11:58pm "Umm no. Not getting pregnant is not her fault, since she cannot force herself to get pregnant. Getting pregnant is definitely her fault, since she can force herself to not get pregnant." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. She's not at fault just because she can avoid something. If she can't make it happen, then she can't be at fault. "Right, which goes back to my everyone is violating everyone point. The other guy is driving too, he is putting you at just as much risk. The fetus is not equally putting you at risk to be inside of its uterus...." Putting me at risk or violating my rights? Yes, people are putting people at risk, but they don't get in trouble for just that. It's when they take away someone's right- such as a fetus in my body without my consent- that they get in trouble. "Um, when did the fetus start violating your rights? " *sigh.* The fetus violates my rights when I either 1. realize it's there without my consent for it to be there or 2. realize it's there and revoke my consent for it to be there. Which ever way works for you. "But you *put* it into your womb, and it cant get out." I didn't PUT it anywhere. The fetus formed on it's OWN and then smacked into my uterus and started implanting there. "Okay, how about: the Child doesn't have to know he's being molested for his rights to be violated." Of course. Like a woman who is knocked out doesn't have to know she's being raped to know her rights are violated. I honestly don't remember what the point of this idea was. "Except that she is the reason it cant get out. " No, she's not. She is NOT forcing it to stay in her body. She wants it out, clearly forcing it to stay in is a complete contradiction. The fetus's inability to do anything is the reason it can't get out. "I refer you back to the chair-tier-to. Its more like the other the one person is forcing another to violate her rights. It doesn't work like that." The woman does not make any sort of conscious action to force the fetus into her body, to force the fetus to violate her rights, to force the fetus to stay inside of her. To think that a woman who does NOT want to be pregnant would do so is just crazy. She is innocent, and her rights are being violated by the fetus inside of her. You replied to Linda's post on December 7, 2008 at 12:36am "If she can't make it happen, then she can't be at fault. " She can make it happen. She can and did make it happen. She just cannot make it happen 100% of the time; that doesnt mean she didnt make it happen when it does... happen. "Putting me at risk or violating my rights? Yes, people are putting people at risk, but they don't get in trouble for just that." So we'll agree that driving on the street is not taking away someones rights. *sigh* I dont remember the relevancy of this argument either. I think we need to cut back. "1. realize it's there without my consent for it to be there or 2. realize it's there and revoke my consent for it to be there. Which ever way works for you. " Still, not violating your rights since your the reason its stuck there. Much like being tied to a chair. "I didn't PUT it anywhere. The fetus formed on it's OWN and then smacked into my uterus and started implanting there. " yes, that is why i said *put*, because no she didnt shove it into herself, but she caused it to be there, which is essentially putting it there. I was trying to avoid a semantics battle. "I honestly don't remember what the point of this idea was." You definately told me the fetus's rights werent being violated if it didnt know they were being violated. "No, she's not. She is NOT forcing it to stay in her body. She wants it out, clearly forcing it to stay in is a complete contradiction. The fetus's inability to do anything is the reason it can't get out." Just because she's not forcing it to stay in her, doesnt mean she's not the reason it is stuck in her. If I tie you to a chair on my property, I am the reason you are stuck on my property. I am holding you down and forcing you to stay? no. Is your inability to do anything the reason you cant get out? yes. I am I the reason you arent able to do anything? yes. Do I have the right to kill you because youre on m property? no. "The woman does not make any sort of conscious action to force the fetus into her body, to force the fetus to violate her rights, to force the fetus to stay inside of her." I think the above argument covers the whole "forced" issue. I think we both agree that this argument has become to spread out to the point we don't remember why we are arguing. So here is what I think are the main to questions we are debating: Is the mother at fault for the fetus being in her? and Is the fetus violating her rights by being in her?