Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

This opinion on the matter is irrelevant. A woman has a right to prevent her body from being invaded by the fetus, injected with hormones and drained of it's resources. You would have the same right to use whatever means necessary to protect your own bodily integrity. If an attacker advanced upon you, and injected you with unwanted hormones, you would have a right to end his life in order to make him stop if that was the only way to protect the integrity of your body. Obviously that's not often the case, but the analogy is applicable to the relationship between a woman and the fetus in her womb.

Oh, hell... why not... A few things...An abortion doesn't kill a baby, it removes an embryo or a fetus.Second, a woman's right to her own body integrity trumps the rights of the fetus to invade her body against her will. Unprotected sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. That's like saying an open door is consent to burglary. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person. Abortion is 1.) not unlawful and 2.) does not kill a person. It is therefore not murder.

And if you leave your front door unlocked of your own free will, you know darn well that there is a chance of being burgled. That doesn't establish consent to a burglary.Sex -- protected or not -- does not establish consent to pregnancy.

Really? Where might I find that information? Did you receive an instruction manual for the human body when you were born with yours? I sure didn't. Who wrote that manual anyway? It wouldn't happen to be the body's "designer," would it? I thought you weren't an ID advocate. Curious.The point is that we know what sex can do, but you are confusing function with purpose. So what? Unless you can support your implication that sex is specifically "for" getting pregnant, this statement is irrelevant. What does it matter? Sometimes. Again, what does that have to do with this argument?[This message has been edited by ::, 03-17-2004]

Irrelevant. The point is that pregnancy is not a necessary result of unprotected sex, and so a consensual link between the act and ONE OF it's possible consequences cannot be established. When I drive in my car I know that I am at risk of an accident, but that does not mean I consent to being rear-ended.

Sorry to dash your hopes. So callous of me, I know. How about nobody? What I think is comical is your implication that open doors imply consent to burglary. If you disagree I ask that you please explain to me how that is not a logical consequence of your rationale. Now THAT must be a joke. What part of not putting on my seatbelt implies that I want to fly through the windshield of my car? If a person is not wearing a hard hat, does that mean they consent to having their skull crushed with a hammer or falling brick? If am not wearing surgical gloves, does that mean I consent to picking up a staph infection from the public phone? If I am not wearing steel-toed boots, does that mean I consent to having my toes smashed? These are all possible consequences of not protecting myself, but failure to guard against an outcome does not imply a consent to that outcome.[This message has been edited by ::, 03-17-2004]

Purpose is too subjective of a thing to be basing laws upon. I don't think you really believe that. If your house was burgled through an unlocked door, I think you'd be quite glad that the law would still protect your rights not to be deprived of your possessions against your will.Would you agree that a person who does not chain his wallet to his belt deserves to have his wallet stolen? Or do you think that he has a basic right to keep his possessions in his personal space without having to endure invasion and theft?

Why, exactly? What else did you mean by stating that the person "consented" to flying through the windshield? Isn't that a reasonable implication of consent? If you truly don't want something to happen, then you've not consented to it, and conversely, if you've truly consented to something happening, then you must want it to happen to at least some extent. Actually so far you've offered only the continued insistance that your personal opinion is the fact of the matter. That hardly qualifies as an argument. Yes, but when those consequences occasionally happen, it is unreasonable to insist that the person consented to them. That was what the analogies demonstrated -- your refusal to acknowledge them notwithstanding. And in the case of a woman's right to refuse consent to pregnancy it will remain just that: your problem.[This message has been edited by ::, 03-17-2004]

You're right, you don't deserve that, and I apologize. My emotions got the better of me. I agree to your point about the continuum of choices. A person's choice to have unprotected sex WILL affect later choices, but I think we'll both agree that the choice to have or not have an abortion should still remain available.[This message has been edited by ::, 03-17-2004]