Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Belk]

consent (v.)

"c. 1300, "agree, give assent; yield when one has the right, power, or will to oppose," from Old French consentir "agree; comply" (12c.) and directly from Latin consentire "agree, accord," literally "feel together," from assimilated form of com "with, together" (see con-) + sentire "to feel" (see sense (n.)).

"Feeling together," hence, "agreeing, giving permission," a sense evolution that apparently took place in French before the word reached English." Source

By that definition, the consent given to have unprotected sex is a free will choice to engage in risky behaviour, regardless of the outcome. I'm not talking about your analogy, I'm talking about 2 consenting adults. this is the group of people that have the highest amount of abortions according to the statistics.

Yes, the consent given to sex. This is different then consent to being pregnant.

I'm curious, if the people having sex are using contraceptives does your opinion of them giving consent to pregnancy change? If not then the state of their using contraceptives or not is superfluous to your claim.

 

[Belk]

Are you kidding? What happens to people if they or their passengers aren't wearing a seatbelt in the event of an accident? 》illogical

No, I am not kidding. Yet again, consent is not the same as consequence. That the consequences might or might not be worse does not change consent

Bodily autonomy is a term coined by the "human rights" movement. There are separate dictionary definitions for both those words.

I don't care who coined it. It still relies on the idea of consent. Consent that even transcends death.

Really?

Yes, really.

How have I "dragged you into this"? You're on a thread about abortion, arguing for abortion. Are you retracting all of your previous posts now?

You keep trying to make my arguments about abortion. The discussion on abortion is periphery to the discussion I am trying to have which is about consent. My point this whole time and the only thing I am disputing is your consistent equation of consequence with consent.

 

[Belk]

self-reflection
noun

Self-examination; introspection.

I am aware of what the phrase means. Perhaps You can explain what your question has to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Belk]

He's on a thread arguing for abortion.

If you go back to where the conversation on consent started, here is the link:


He is in agreement with the poster who @coffee4u was responding to. Who said quote: "Cause and effect are not the issue. Permission is the issue, which can't be granted to "someone" who does not exist."

You are incapable of separating the argument I am making (Consent is not consequence) from the larger discussion (abortion)?

 

[ralliann]

You are incapable of separating the argument I am making (Consent is not consequence) from the larger discussion (abortion)?

Sorry Belk. If you want separation why post in an abortion thread? Separate the issue in making another thread.

 

[Belk]

Sorry Belk. If you want separation why post in an abortion thread? Separate the issue in making another thread.

Because the claim is being made in this thread.

 

[NxNW]

Do you know what the word "splitting" means? You can, by definition, not end up with only one entity after splitting.

Which proves that life begins after conception. QED.

 

[NxNW]

Trolling much?

Not in the slightest. I was refuting a nonsensical argument.

 

[NxNW]

Grant to their own bodies. The Zygote is half the mother and half the father, it isn't an alien entity.

But it doesn't exist yet at the time in question.

 

[NxNW]

They give consent when they have sex.

As I keep explaining, you can't give consent to an entity that does not yet exist.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Which proves that life begins after conception. QED.

No, it doesn't prove that We've already proven - with sources, unlike any of your claims - that a zygote is a human life. For you to be right you would have to argue that there is no zygote at conception. But that would obviously be untrue. The number of zygotes is completely irrelevant to the question whether a human life begins at conception - as long as there is a zygote there is a human life.

 

[NxNW]

No, it doesn't prove that We've already proven - with sources, unlike any of your claims - that a zygote is a human life

We know the lives of twins don't begin at conception, because you can't have two "humans" in one cell.

you to be right you would have to argue that there is no zygote at conception.

Not at all. Human beings are quantifiable, by definition. If you can't quantify them/it, you don't have a human being. The fact that you can't quantify, at conception, the number of humans who will eventually result proves it's not a human being. Humans are distinct. Zygotes have the potential to be zero, one, two, three, etc.

The number of zygotes is completely irrelevant to the question whether a human life begins at conception - as long as there is a zygote there is a human life.

But there can't be two lives, which is what you seem to refuse to understand. And if two lives eventually result, clearly life does not necessarily begin at conception.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

But there can't be two lives, which is what you seem to refuse to understand. And if two lives eventually result, clearly life does not necessarily begin at conception.

I already explained it to you via the amoeba-example (which you consistently ignored). You can argue whether the zygote is one life or two lives before splitting, but saying that it is zero lives is absurd.

Human beings are quantifiable, by definition. If you can't quantify them/it, you don't have a human being.

And amoebae are not quantifiable, by definition, or what?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I'm curious, if the people having sex are using contraceptives does your opinion of them giving consent to pregnancy change? If not then the state of their using contraceptives or not is superfluous to your claim.

If you're going to argue failed contraception, that doesn't happen as often as people make the excuse for. I've already stated the reasons contraception can fail on this thread, and it's often improper usage.

My opinion doesn't change. Actions have consequences. 2 consenting people engaging in unprotected sex know what the risks are. If they fail to acknowledge it in the heat of the moment or don't care either way, how is that not selfish? There is a lack of personal accountability in this day and age and I believe it's the root cause of why we are where we are in society as a whole.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Consent that even transcends death

Explain what you mean there^

You keep trying to make my arguments about abortion. The discussion on abortion is periphery to the discussion I am trying to have which is about consent.

You're on a thread about abortion, arguing an angle of why abortion is OK. Tell me you're not saying what you've been saying peripherally? The mother did not give "consent" to the baby growing in her womb, therefore, she has the "right" to "bodily autonomy" by aborting it.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I am aware of what the phrase means. Perhaps You can explain what your question has to do with the topic at hand?

More than your definition of consent has to do with the topic at hand, obviously.

 

[YahuahSaves]

You are incapable of separating the argument I am making (Consent is not consequence) from the larger discussion (abortion)?

Post #1,181

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disputed the other posters use of the "breath" of life. It refers to our soul, not respiration. Something that you may deem irrelevant because you can't measure it. The embryology has proven the unborn are living, individual human beings. If you dispute that, that's your prerogative, but you'd be going against facts.

Does not the sacred text speak of infants taking the "breath of life" when they are born? (At the same time they begin breathing.)

 

[NxNW]

You can argue whether the zygote is one life or two lives before splitting, but saying that it is zero lives is absurd.

So you're stipulating that at least one life begins after conception in the case of identical twins?

And amoebae are not quantifiable, by definition, or what?

Never thought about it, but they are not human beings, so not really relevant.

 

[NxNW]

Are you kidding? What happens to people if they or their passengers aren't wearing a seatbelt in the event of an accident?

They go to the hospital for medical care. You seemingly would deny them this care.