U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[smf]

But in the movie he was already born. So she was already pregnant and had birth but then almost didn't.

I think I am beginning to understand how @smf thinks.

She had been pregnant. But we don't generally talk about children being aborted if they die after they are born.

 

[smf]

He nearly aborted himself from the timeline by interfering in their initial meeting.

Again, a rather obtuse choice of words and entirely missing from any marketing or synopsis of the film.

They went with erased.

 

[Foxi4]

Again, a rather obtuse choice of words and entirely missing from any marketing or synopsis of the film.

They went with erased.

A little levity wouldn’t kill us, though it might abort a rather funny bit. The erasure debate is next on the docket, right after the abortion debate.

 

[tabzer]

She had been pregnant. But we don't generally talk about children being aborted if they die after they are born.

I don't think that's the plot of "Back to the Future." Have you seen it?

 

[Lacius]

Consent becomes complicit when you play games that reward different prizes.

You should learn how consent works.

Is that your ideology or is this what your laws say?

Right now, it's both, and unless you want to set the precedent of allowing the state to violate bodily autonomy rights in order to save a lives, you should agree with me.

 

[smf]

I don't think that's the plot of "Back to the Future." Have you seen it?

It's not, I was responding to your point about how she'd been pregnant before 1985 & then in 1955 he almost stopped his parents getting married & that would have prevented him from being conceived in the first place.

He would have disappeared, but he had already been born in his time stream.

In either case that would not be classed as abortion.

 

[smf]

You should learn how consent works.

No means no.

 

[smf]

Consent becomes complicit when you play games that reward different prizes.

Do you mean implicit?

complicit: involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong.

You really want explicit consent, if you want to avoid ending up in court on a rape charge.

 

[tabzer]

You should learn how consent works.

Pregnancy happens through the active practice of making it happen. Consent is implied in willful practice.

Right now, it's both, and unless you want to set the precedent of allowing the state to violate bodily autonomy rights in order to save a lives, you should agree with me.

I was under the impression that there are limitations to which there are disagreements about.

Do you mean implicit?

Yes. I thought I wrote that.

You really want explicit consent, if you want to avoid ending up in court on rape charge.

We aren't talking about the act of sex itself. The activity itself lends to the outcome of another.

 

[smf]

Pregnancy happens through the active (willful) practice of making it happen. Consent is implied.

Rapists often think their victims have consented too.

Isn't it more important what the two people having sex actually thought?

 

[Lacius]

Pregnancy happens through the active practice of making it happen.

As we already discussed (and I thought you agreed), pregnancy usually isn't the goal of sex.

 

[tabzer]

As we already discussed (and I thought you agreed), pregnancy usually isn't the goal of sex.

The goal of playing games isn't losing, but you play by the rules even though you don't explicitly state it. In the case of pregnancy, it is because you gave bodily fluids the agency to decide for you. Getting pregnant isn't a violation if there was consensus in the manner of sex.

Rapists often think their victims have consented too.

We aren't talking about rape. We are talking about consensual sex being or not being a consent to (the possibility of) pregnancy.

 

[Lacius]

The goal of playing games isn't losing, but you play by the rules even though you don't explicitly state it. In the case of pregnancy, it is because you gave bodily fluids the agency to decide for you. Getting pregnant isn't a violation if there was consensus in the manner of sex.

The goal of driving my car isn't to get in a car accident. I acknowledge the risks, and I consent to those risks, but that doesn't mean I consent to getting in a car accident. You're just going in circles now.

The only way to consent to being pregnant is to consent to being pregnant.

 

[smf]

We aren't talking about rape. We are talking about consensual sex being or not being a consent to pregnancy.

How is consent different in either case?

A common rape excuse would be "look at her, she was dressed provocatively and she was drunk". i.e. consent was implied.
She chose to dress provocatively, she chose to be drunk. Surely she should have considered the logical conclusion to that? right?

Followed to that conclusion, his dick was inside her but she didn't necessarily consent to him ejaculating inside her. Maybe the condom fell off. Maybe he didn't pull out in time.

 

[tabzer]

The goal of driving my car isn't to get in a car accident. I acknowledge the risks, and I consent to those risks, but that doesn't mean I consent to getting in a car accident. You're just going in circles now.

The only way to consent to being pregnant is to consent to being pregnant.

Please explain how does one "consent to being pregnant"? If, while driving, you are taking risks and making mistakes, you are inviting the inevitable.

Then there are people who try to get pregnant and fail. How does consent work here?

Followed to that conclusion, his dick was inside her but she didn't necessarily consent to him ejaculating inside her. Maybe the condom fell off. Maybe he didn't pull out in time.

That appears to be nonconsensual, you can argue.

 

[AleronIves]

I guess the serious discussion is over, having been replaced with a deluge of back and forth "no u" responses, so thanks to everyone who contributed to the exploration of the issue earlier. It was both informative and enjoyable.

 

[SexiestManAlive]

i love how the discussion devolved into talking about what happened in back to the future

 

[Lacius]

Please explain how does one "consent to being pregnant"?

By choosing to get pregnant, or choosing to stay pregnant after becoming pregnant unexpectedly.

If, while driving, you are taking risks and making mistakes, you are inviting the inevitable.

Not wearing my seatbelt is not consent to get thrown out of my car, even if my decision to not wear my seatbelt was stupid. Not getting vaccinated against COVID-19 isn't consent to die of COVID-19, even if the decision to not get vaccinated is stupid and increases one's chances of dying of COVID-19.

Then there are people who try to get pregnant and fail. How does consent work here?

Consenting to something doesn't mean you get it. I am consenting right now to anybody in this thread giving me a million dollars. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Like I said earlier, respectfully, I think you need to learn what consent is.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

@JonhathonBaxster you've got it wrong, the whole post. I was criticizing your sourcing for your own sake. Your links I made the post in response to were all blog post opinion pieces - the actual sources were below the footnotes on those articles.



No, I was criticizing your sourcing, not the actual source. I've already sourced the Guttmacher surveys in this thread myself, along with other users.



I know. That's why I specifically addressed it (from my previous response):




^^I'm reiterating to make myself clear, not to bash you.

Point being, if you want to use a source to back up an argument, googling and throwing in the first links you see is likely going to poison the well of information. You've got to check the sources from the blogs if you want an actually reliable source. If you're sourcing something that was said or an opinion from the blog post, that's fine. The links you posted didn't help your post - they held it back.

If you actually wanted to discuss why you would draw different conclusions from Guttmacher Institute's findings, then that third link would be completely relevant for you to post here and we can see what you mean.

If you want us to look at numbers, it'd best serve you to post the source of those numbers. Again, I've sourced the Guttmacher surveys myself.

I'm not commenting on your take at all right now, just your sourcing.

Like I said previously, easy to lump opinions together in a thread this big. You were mistaken in your interpretation of my post, though.

I'm sorry for accusing you of attacking me. If you look at the original sources I listed along with the Guttmacher and other search results you'll notice that most of the reasons for abortions are the same regardless of the source. I even quoted a Guttmacher studies results in my last reply to you and all of the reasons are about the same as the other pages I linked to. It basically comes down to most abortions are done because the mother simply doesn't want the baby for reasons that are trivial or needs her to put in effort. Actual abortions that are done to save the mothers life or are done because of rape/incest are a small percentage of why women have abortions. Not that any of this matters to me and how I feel about abortions; I was just trying to answer smf's question.

 

[Foxi4]

The goal of driving my car isn't to get in a car accident. I acknowledge the risks, and I consent to those risks, but that doesn't mean I consent to getting in a car accident.

Wait a minute. What you’re describing is called a waiver. If you acknowledge the risks involved in a specific activity and sign a waiver, that contract nullifies rights you would’ve otherwise had - you’ve waived them in favour of participating in the risky activity in question. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to “un-accident” you in the event of a collision - you’ve had an accident, your consent is irrelevant. Now, you may seek legal remedy if the accident wasn’t your fault, or you may face some penalties if it was in fact your fault, but at no point is your “consent” relevant - the accident happened, and there is no way to undo it. The best you can hope for is to accurately determine the guilty party and seek restitution for damages, but that happens after the fact. You can’t exit your vehicle after a collision, look at the other guy and say “wow, I’m sorry about that tail light. I didn’t consent to this though, so… ciao?” - that’s not how it works. Once you acknowledge risk, you de facto “consent” to any and all consequences of your decisions. You don’t get to “bail”.