Jeez, another completely ridiculous analogy. And...

Quote:Pregnancy is a consequence of sex so the consent is implied.

Wow, no. Really no.

Unfortunately biology doesn't care about feelings.

If you have unprotected sex you are at a risk of getting pregnant.
If you jump off the roof of a building your bones will break.

You really can't make a post without an irrelevant, silly analogy, can you.

And I don't know what your fascination with biology is in this discussion, we're talking about the law.

"It's the law that would be confiscating her body, Pool. The law would be forcing her to remain pregnant and use her body for something which she does not want. That's what we're talking about. The law, not biology, and the law is supposed to be fair"

I would rather have law protect life than have it protect individuals from consequences of their actions. That's what I consider fair.

"Consequences of their actions"

Abso-fucking-lute proof that this is about punishing women, and not about the 'sanctity of life' bullshit virtue signaling that cuckservatives love so much.

Right, so bodily autonomy is not something pool puts very highly. Understood. Fetuses get special rights that literally nobody else gets. Understood.

(February 1, 2017 at 1:28 pm)pool the great Wrote: Pregnancy is a consequence of sex so the consent is implied. Will you give consent to throw you off a building and then sue because you didn't consent to have your bones broken?

A *possible* consequence of sex. Consent is most definitely not implied under any circumstances, even more so if precautions were taken, and failed (see my next point). Another possible consequence of sex is an STD. Does a person also give implied consent if they contract one of those?

Quote:Would've been true 20 something years ago. A wide variety of options are available today. Options for both men and women.

Bullshit.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/589221575fc0...ds_508.pdf

Quote:I like the idea but unfortunately it involves taking the life of another human so I don't agree with it.

And this is the crux of it. You believe that the rights of a foetus override the rights of the mother, presumably regardless of the stage of development. I believe the opposite (to a point, generally I feel that once a foetus is reliably viable abortion should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, on the basis of 'least harm'). Unlikely we will ever agree.

I don't consider not coddling women as punishing women. I also don't think it's fair for the baby to have the mother take away it's right to live.

Just consider yourself as an example. You absolutely love your life, right? Sure it has its ups and downs but at the end of the day you're happy you're alive. You're happy to see your children and their children and maybe even their children. You've experienced so much joy. You're seen wonders. How would you have felt if someone unilaterally decided to deny you all these experiences and your right to live because "whoops sorry lol"

Ahh yes, the misogynistic redpill bullshit that they love to spread. "coddling women". You need to grow the fuck up, and learn about the real world.

Why the fuck would i have a right to someone else's body? If I need a kidney transplant, I can't FORCE someone to give me a kidney. Even though it would only provide them would temporary inconvenience. I might DIE without it, but I can't force them to give it to me.

You don't give a fuck about the fetus. All you give a fuck about is punishing the woman. At least fucking own it instead of trying to spin your virtue signaling bullshit.

"A *possible* consequence of sex. Consent is most definitely not implied under any circumstances,
even more so if precautions were taken,"

Oh so you didn't consent? I'll instruct the sperms to take another route. Biology. Doesn't. Care.