Political Crossfire Forums

[Gitana]

lumina: I simply asked you if you would allow abortion exceptions for rape, incest, mothers health, etc and contraceptive failure. I included that because your beliefs seem to rest on 'abortion for convenience.' It's not a difficult or trick question. Would you prefer not to answer it?

I disagree with your assumption regarding unmarried=convenience-abortion.

We are no longer a society where being unmarried carries some sort of stigma, nor does single parenthood. Perhaps for a minority perspective it still does, but for the majority of America, I don't think so. Married-couple households were only *51% of all US households in 2000, and that number has been in steady decline since the '50's. That's barely over half of our entire population - and in fact may be less than that now, six years later.

Like it or not, we are a progressive society, and have outgrown many older traditions that no longer serve many of us. My point to that is with most or all social 'stigma' removed from being unmarried or single & pregnant, one cannot reasonably argue that unmarried women are getting abortions 'for convenience' because they are unmarried.

*http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_house.html

[Harbinger]

Obilisk18 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Obilisk18 wrote:
The type of consent you're referring to cannot apply to pregnancy.

There is only one type of consent and it applies to any conceivable act.
Wrong. If I board a roller-coaster, my consent to the operators extends throughout the entire ride. I cannot withdraw my consent after the ride begins. I cannot sue the theme park afterwords, no matter how much I scream to be let off during the ride. Because the understanding that I've consented to the entire ride is tacit in the very nature of the activity itself.

This makes no sense. A roller-coaster is somebody elses property, not yours. By putting yourself (your body) into their roller-coaster, it is you who is using their property with their consent. They are not using you in any way, therefore, there is no consent for you to withdraw during the ride. By boarding the roller-coaster, you implicitly agree to complete the ride in advance but, because it is you who requires their consent, they can withdraw their consent from you at any time, stop the ride and kick you off.

Doesn't the logic sound familiar?

Obilisk18 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Obilisk18 wrote:
Pregnancy operates under these premises. It is physically impossible for the fetus to "stop" his habitation voluntarily upon entry into the womb.

Irrelevant. Consent to pregnancy does not depend on whether or not the fetus is able to stop. It only depends on whether or not the mother consents to allow the pregnancy to continue. It's her body, she has total authority over it.

No, see my vaccination thread. The government has every right to to violate a person's body.

The government doesn't have rights with respect to the people. It only has whatever powers the people allow it to have. Considering how brilliant my fellow Americans are, I'm not surprised at all that our government has the power to confiscate our property and violate our bodies. According to the law, the government effectively own us. We are all government property.

[Gitana]

Quote: It only has whatever powers the people allow it to have.

Bingo. :tu: Too bad so many have forgotten that, in a short 200+ years.

[Obilisk18]

Harbinger wrote: Obilisk18 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Obilisk18 wrote:
The type of consent you're referring to cannot apply to pregnancy.

There is only one type of consent and it applies to any conceivable act.
Wrong. If I board a roller-coaster, my consent to the operators extends throughout the entire ride. I cannot withdraw my consent after the ride begins. I cannot sue the theme park afterwords, no matter how much I scream to be let off during the ride. Because the understanding that I've consented to the entire ride is tacit in the very nature of the activity itself.

This makes no sense. A roller-coaster is somebody elses property, not yours. By putting yourself (your body) into their roller-coaster, it is you who is using their property with their consent. They are not using you in any way, therefore, there is no consent for you to withdraw during the ride. By boarding the roller-coaster, you implicitly agree to complete the ride in advance but, because it is you who requires their consent, they can withdraw their consent from you at any time, stop the ride and kick you off.

Doesn't the logic sound familiar?

You are agreeing to ride their ride. You are freeing them of any liability with respect to the ride. You are giving them domain over your body. What it does, how long it does it, etc. Consent is built into the ride itself. This is why there are so many safety signs and liability clauses associated with theme parks. The moment the ride begins, you've consented to the terms of the ride, and the theme park is no longer liable for any injuries you may incur.

But turning the analogy around, as ypu've suggested, may be even more illuminating. The theme park operators cannot, in fact, stop a roller coaster midway through and kick you off. You could sue the hell out of them if they did so. Because again, tacit in the very nature of the ride is the notion that consent is granted to a non-terminous discrete unit.

If a brain surgeon operates on you, he is obligated to complete the surgery. He cannot decide, as your hypothalmus lies dangling, that he'd rather go bowling. Because when he consents to perform the operation and you consent to undergo the operation, there is a tacit understanding as to what the procedure consists of and under what condiitions consent extends. He can do the procedure poorly of course. Or he can fail and your life may be forfeit. But no one has ever suggested women should be punished for involuntary miscarriages.

Harbinger wrote:
Obilisk18 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Obilisk18 wrote:
Pregnancy operates under these premises. It is physically impossible for the fetus to "stop" his habitation voluntarily upon entry into the womb.

Irrelevant. Consent to pregnancy does not depend on whether or not the fetus is able to stop. It only depends on whether or not the mother consents to allow the pregnancy to continue. It's her body, she has total authority over it.

No, see my vaccination thread. The government has every right to to violate a person's body.

The government doesn't have rights with respect to the people. It only has whatever powers the people allow it to have. Considering how brilliant my fellow Americans are, I'm not surprised at all that our government has the power to confiscate our property and violate our bodies. According to the law, the government effectively own us. We are all government property.

I agree with you here. All powers are derived from the people. My point is though, under current law and precedent, the government has been afforded to power to substantively violate our bodies if it has a legitimate interest in doing so. Abortion fits those criteria under any definition. I'm not nor have I ever argued that the government is required to ban abortion. Simply that it may.

[Selfish_Meme]

You may be kicked off a roller coaster for not obeying the rules stated in the implied consent signs.

[Harbinger]

Obilisk18 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Obilisk18 wrote:
If I board a roller-coaster, my consent to the operators extends throughout the entire ride. I cannot withdraw my consent after the ride begins. I cannot sue the theme park afterwords, no matter how much I scream to be let off during the ride. Because the understanding that I've consented to the entire ride is tacit in the very nature of the activity itself.

A roller-coaster is somebody elses property, not yours. By putting yourself (your body) into their roller-coaster, it is you who is using their property with their consent. They are not using you in any way, therefore, there is no consent for you to withdraw during the ride. By boarding the roller-coaster, you implicitly agree to complete the ride in advance but, because it is you who requires their consent, they can withdraw their consent from you at any time, stop the ride and kick you off.

You are agreeing to ride their ride.

Yes- you are accepting their consent to ride their ride. The agreement is mutual but the consent is from them to you, not from you to them.

Obilisk18 wrote:
You are freeing them of any liability with respect to the ride. This is why there are so many safety signs and liability clauses associated with theme parks. The moment the ride begins, you've consented to the terms of the ride, and the theme park is no longer liable for any injuries you may incur.

Only if you hurt yourself by breaking the rules or vandalizing the ride. If you follow the rules and still get hurt, then of course they are liable.

Obilisk18 wrote:
You are giving them domain over your body. What it does, how long it does it, etc. Consent is built into the ride itself.

Not if you board the ride by your own free will. If you are in full control of yourself when you board the ride than it is you who has domain over your body- you have only given consent to yourself, not to the owner or operator of the ride. You are using yourself to use the ride. So, if you change your mind about riding the roller-coaster midway through, you are not withdrawing your consent from the ride owner, you are withdrawing consent from yourself.

Obilisk18 wrote:
But turning the analogy around, as you've suggested, may be even more illuminating. The theme park operators cannot, in fact, stop a roller coaster midway through and kick you off.

Yes, they can. They have to be able to do that anyway in case of an emergency. If somebody decides to stand up in their seat on a suspended roller-coaster and fiddle with the bolt that is keeping your car hinged to the rail, I would call that an emergency. They have every right to stop the ride immediately and kick that person off.

Obilisk18 wrote:
You could sue the hell out of them if they did so. Because again, tacit in the very nature of the ride is the notion that consent is granted to a non-terminous discrete unit.

The owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. They have signs that say that too. By stopping the ride and asking you to get off, they are withdrawing their consent to you. If you refuse to get off, you are then violating their property. By doing that, you forfeit the legal protections of your life and limb and that gives them the right to initiate whatever force is necessary to remove you from their property- even lethal force if it comes to that. These are fundamental rights that come with ownership.

Obilisk18 wrote:
If a brain surgeon operates on you, he is obligated to complete the surgery. He cannot decide, as your hypothalamus lies dangling, that he'd rather go bowling. Because when he consents to perform the operation and you consent to undergo the operation, there is a tacit understanding as to what the procedure consists of and under what conditions consent extends. He can do the procedure poorly of course. Or he can fail and your life may be forfeit.

There shouldn't be anything 'tacit' between a patient and their surgeon. The obligations and commitments of both parties should be thoroughly detailed in a signed contract which embodies their mutual consent to each another. The risks to life is high for the patient but, that is part of what the patient is agreeing to in the contract. The level of risk involved is no excuse to infringe upon the surgeon's personal sovereignty and impose all kinds of moral and ethical obligations and consequences upon them through the law. If the patient dies or suffers brain damage due to even the most egregious malpractice (i.e. the surgeon decides to go bowling while your hypothalamus lies dangling), the consequences to the surgeon should be limited to what is stated in the contract.

Obilisk18 wrote:
My point is though, under current law and precedent, the government has been afforded the power to substantively violate our bodies if it has a legitimate interest in doing so. Abortion fits those criteria under any definition. I'm not nor have I ever argued that the government is required to ban abortion. Simply that it may.

Point taken. And I agree. The government is taking advantage of two popular notions; a) that the good of the community takes precedence over the rights of individuals; and b) that their obligation to protect peoples lives takes precedence over their obligation to protect the rights of individual. By these ideals, none of our rights are safe. We can and eventually will loose them all for the greater good of the community and in the interest of protecting life. It is all very unfortunate.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

I still don't see an answer :( Which definition is the legally applicable one? The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?

[Obilisk18]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I still don't see an answer :( Which definition is the legally applicable one? The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?

When two statutes conflict, and they're inreconciliable (as these would seem to be), the more recent one prevails.

[Obilisk18]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I still don't see an answer :( Which definition is the legally applicable one? The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?

When two statutes conflict, and they're irreconciliable (as these would seem to be), the more recent one prevails.

[Obilisk18]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I still don't see an answer :( Which definition is the legally applicable one? The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?

Yikes triple post.

[Obilisk18]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I still don't see an answer :( Which definition is the legally applicable one? The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?

When two statutes conflict, and they're irreconciliable (as these would seem to be), the more recent one prevails. Unless the more recent one is unconstitutional. As I noted in an earlier post, I can't imagine how the Supreme Court, under current precident, could uphold such a bizarre statute. But I have little doubt that they will. Because when you're playing with a "living" constitution, you're allowed to violate your non-existent constitutional principles whenever it suits you. I can just imagine Breyer now "Well, yes I know I've said fetuses actually have no rights and therefore are incapable of being murdered, but look at the consequences of this thing. We can't just allow people other then the mother to end the lives of fetuses...because...well...substantive due process!"

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Obilisk18 wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I still don't see an answer :( Which definition is the legally applicable one? The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?

When two statutes conflict, and they're irreconciliable (as these would seem to be), the more recent one prevails. Unless the more recent one is unconstitutional. As I noted in an earlier post, I can't imagine how the Supreme Court, under current precident, could uphold such a bizarre statute. But I have little doubt that they will. Because when you're playing with a "living" constitution, you're allowed to violate your non-existent constitutional principles whenever it suits you. I can just imagine Breyer now "Well, yes I know I've said fetuses actually have no rights and therefore are incapable of being murdered, but look at the consequences of this thing. We can't just allow people other then the mother to end the lives of fetuses...because...well...substantive due process!"
Are you sure? I wonder why the US Code website hasn't updated it after 2 years :( Maybe I will e-mail them and ask why! :lol: