[QUOTE="Major_Commie"] that doesnt have any connection to what I said. It's a pretty apt example actually. The baby doesn't have any choice in being there, because you put her there. It's just like you can't stand out on the curb and push people onto your property and then shoot them for trespassing, or you can't invite your enemy over for tea and then shoot them for trespassing.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] that doesnt have any connection to what I said. It's a pretty apt example actually. The baby doesn't have any choice in being there, because you put her there. It's just like you can't stand out on the curb and push people onto your property and then shoot them for trespassing, or you can't invite your enemy over for tea and then shoot them for trespassing. But, if one uses contraception, then you're not necessarily inviting them over. Its like installing Brink's home security on your premises but leave the window open to get some fresh air.. It doesn't mean that if a Theif slipps through Brinks that he can make himself at home.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] that doesnt have any connection to what I said.Vandalvideo
It's a pretty apt example actually. The baby doesn't have any choice in being there, because you put her there. It's just like you can't stand out on the curb and push people onto your property and then shoot them for trespassing, or you can't invite your enemy over for tea and then shoot them for trespassing. But, if one uses contraception, then you're not necessarily inviting them over. Its like installing Brink's home security on your premises but leave the window open to get some fresh air.. It doesn't mean that if a Theif slipps through Brinks that he can make himself at home. I think if you repeatedly ask people to rob your home and then you killed someone that actually did, it would probably get the same verdict as you just pushing them. The examples are stretching a little thin now though lol.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] that doesnt have any connection to what I said. It's a pretty apt example actually. The baby doesn't have any choice in being there, because you put her there. It's just like you can't stand out on the curb and push people onto your property and then shoot them for trespassing, or you can't invite your enemy over for tea and then shoot them for trespassing. But, if one uses contraception, then you're not necessarily inviting them over. Its like installing Brink's home security on your premises but leave the window open to get some fresh air.. It doesn't mean that if a Theif slipps through Brinks that he can make himself at home. Ah but sex can indeed cause reproduction so the risk is still on the individual. So I don't see the fit to your analogy.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Ah but sex can indeed cause reproduction so the risk is still on the individual. So I don't see the fit to your analogy. And leaving your window open at night can cause a theif to enter your home, but that doesn't mean he has a right to be there.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Ah but sex can indeed cause reproduction so the risk is still on the individual. So I don't see the fit to your analogy. And leaving your window open at night can cause a theif to enter your home, but that doesn't mean he has a right to be there. Leaving a window is not an invitation nonetheless. The actions in the first case can lead to pregnancy. They are voluntary actions. In the second case it's still trespassing unless you tell people to enter into your windows. I find the analogy flawed. *shrugs*
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Leaving a window is not an invitation nonetheless. The actions in the first case can lead to pregnancy. They are voluntary actions. In the second case it's still trespassing unless you tell people to enter into your windows. I find the analogy flawed. *shrugs* And again, having sex isn't necessarily an invitation to pregnancy either, especially if those people are using contraceptives. If anything, the contraceptives are a sign that they don't want that baby inside them. Sex doesn't always necessarily lead to pregnancy either. And in my analogy, is still a voluntary action that you both leave the window open and that the thief come through your window.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Leaving a window is not an invitation nonetheless. The actions in the first case can lead to pregnancy. They are voluntary actions. In the second case it's still trespassing unless you tell people to enter into your windows. I find the analogy flawed. *shrugs* And again, having sex isn't necessarily an invitation to pregnancy either, especially if those people are using contraceptives. If anything, the contraceptives are a sign that they don't want that baby inside them. Sex doesn't always necessarily lead to pregnancy either. And in my analogy, is still a voluntary action that you both leave the window open and that the thief come through your window. *sigh* The possiblity exists for conception. And it is voluntary actions of the individuals so....yes they are responsible if that happens. A homeowner is not responsible for another individual illegally entering his premises. :|
]*sigh* The possiblity exists for conception. And it is voluntary actions of the individuals so....yes they are responsible if that happens. A homeowner is not responsible for another individual illegally entering his premises. :|LJS9502_basic
And the possibility exists that a theif enter your window if you leave the window open. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is with intent of them entering that you left the window open. Likewise, it is not with intent that you are going to have a baby by having sex. Sex is not necessarily an invitation for a baby to be inside you. Sex does not necessitate pregnancy. It is merely one potentiality of the act. In the case of theft, it is also a voluntary action of the individuals as well. A someone illegaly entering your premises is a potentiality of leaving your windows open, just as getting pregnant is a potentiality of having sex. they are one in the same. You want to hold the woman responsible for her pregnancy, hold the homeowner responsible for the burglar.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]]*sigh* The possiblity exists for conception. And it is voluntary actions of the individuals so....yes they are responsible if that happens. A homeowner is not responsible for another individual illegally entering his premises. :|Vandalvideo
And the possibility exists that a theif enter your window if you leave the window open. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is with intent of them entering that you left the window open. Likewise, it is not with intent that you are going to have a baby by having sex. Sex is not necessarily an invitation for a baby to be inside you. Sex does not necessitate pregnancy. It is merely one potentiality of the act. In the case of theft, it is also a voluntary action of the individuals as well. A someone illegaly entering your premises is a potentiality of leaving your windows open, just as getting pregnant is a potentiality of having sex. they are one in the same. You want to hold the woman responsible for her pregnancy, hold the homeowner responsible for the burglar. Sorry you can explain it that way all you want but the analogy does not stand up under logic.
Sorry you can explain it that way all you want but the analogy does not stand up under logic.LJS9502_basic
Another baseless accusations. I've explained how it is not a faulty analogy. In both instances, it is a voluntary act which leads to a potentiality. In both cases, the person isn't necessarily openly inviting the potentiality. Despite these congruencies, you are holding double standards for the case of the pregnant woman than in the case of the homeowner.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Sorry you can explain it that way all you want but the analogy does not stand up under logic.Vandalvideo
Another baseless accusations. I've explained how it is not a faulty analogy. In both instances, it is a voluntary act which leads to a potentiality. In both cases, the person isn't necessarily openly inviting the potentiality. Despite these congruencies, you are holding double standards for the case of the pregnant woman than in the case of the homeowner. No you just assume your explanation is able to stand up to scrutiny. There is a difference between engaging in an act that is for reproduction and having that outcome and the actions of another committing a crime. Other than that I don't know what to tell you if you aren't getting that. Personal consequences against the actions of another. NOT the same.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No you just assume your explanation is able to stand up to scrunity. There is a difference between engaging in an act that is for reproduction and having that outcome and the actions of another committing a crime. But that is the thing, the act of sex isn't necessarily only for reproduction. The mere fact that many humans, naturally, are infertile and yet can still take pleasure from the act of sex shows that it naturally has other uses than merely reproduction. There are many reasons one might engage in sex; fun, reproduction, intellectual reasons, or mutual attractions. Reproduction isn't the only one. Likewise, leaving a window open won't necessarily lead to a theif coming in. It allows for your house to cool down, for sound to travel better, or to communicate with other people. In both instances, there are many uses for said act. The general principle is the same in both instances.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Sorry you can explain it that way all you want but the analogy does not stand up under logic.Vandalvideo
Another baseless accusations. I've explained how it is not a faulty analogy. In both instances, it is a voluntary act which leads to a potentiality. In both cases, the person isn't necessarily openly inviting the potentiality. Despite these congruencies, you are holding double standards for the case of the pregnant woman than in the case of the homeowner. No analogy is perfect, why should this case be any different. Whether the law holds a person culpable for leaving a door open, in Britain, a homeowner has no right to kill an intruder (especially an innocent "intruder"). Is that different in America?
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] No analogy is perfect, why should this case be any different. Whether the law holds a person culpable for leaving a door open, in Britain, a homeowner has no right to kill an intruder (especially an innocent "intruder"). Is that different in America? Yeah, it is. In Texas, you can kill them for merely stepping foot on your lawn. Although, in more moderate states like mine, they must be in your home and you must reasonably expect danger.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] that doesnt have any connection to what I said. It's a pretty apt example actually. The baby doesn't have any choice in being there, because you put her there. It's just like you can't stand out on the curb and push people onto your property and then shoot them for trespassing, or you can't invite your enemy over for tea and then shoot them for trespassing. Using libertarian or typical american right wing ethics (against its self in this case) you can tell the person to leave. If they dont leave they are coercing you and your reaction comes afterwards. No living being has a right to another living being without consent from both parties. Regardless of whether personA wants anything to do with me, I have the right to disassociate. I can invite someone onto my property and tell them to get off for any rational or irrational reason I can think of. a woman owns her body, and has the right to say whether she gets impregnated or not. if she cant stop the sperm from impregnating her she has the right to abort the fetus. Im not a right wing libertarian at all. but I do believe in self ownership.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] No analogy is perfect, why should this case be any different. Whether the law holds a person culpable for leaving a door open, in Britain, a homeowner has no right to kill an intruder (especially an innocent "intruder"). Is that different in America? Yeah, it is. In Texas, you can kill them for merely stepping foot on your lawn. Although, in more moderate states like mine, they must be in your home and you must reasonably expect danger. But having sex is inviting an element of risk. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant was held responsible for the escape of any potentially harmful substance from his land, deliberate of accidental. I don't see why accidental pregnancy shouldn't also be a strict liability case. Being aware of the risk, a couple owe a strict duty of care to avoid injury to another ie. the foetus.
Abortion laws are totally dependent on whether or not the Embryo is a human person or not.. If it is indeed a Human Person than abortion should be illegal everywhere because most people would agree that killing a human person is wrong. But if the human embryo is not a human person than there should be no problem with aborting it. You cannot justify abortion based on Social aspects or personal interpretation. Again it's all dependent only on whether or not that Embryo is human.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]]*sigh* The possiblity exists for conception. And it is voluntary actions of the individuals so....yes they are responsible if that happens. A homeowner is not responsible for another individual illegally entering his premises. :|LJS9502_basic
And the possibility exists that a theif enter your window if you leave the window open. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is with intent of them entering that you left the window open. Likewise, it is not with intent that you are going to have a baby by having sex. Sex is not necessarily an invitation for a baby to be inside you. Sex does not necessitate pregnancy. It is merely one potentiality of the act. In the case of theft, it is also a voluntary action of the individuals as well. A someone illegaly entering your premises is a potentiality of leaving your windows open, just as getting pregnant is a potentiality of having sex. they are one in the same. You want to hold the woman responsible for her pregnancy, hold the homeowner responsible for the burglar. Sorry you can explain it that way all you want but the analogy does not stand up under logic. for the record, hes winning.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] But having sex is inviting an element of risk. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant was held responsible for the escape of any potentially harmful substance from his land, deliberate of accidental. I don't see why accidental pregnancy shouldn't also be a strict liability case. Being aware of the risk, a couple owe a strict duty of care to avoid injury to another ie. the foetus. And likewise, leaving a window open is inviting an element of risk. Keep in mind though, English tort law is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar haaaar different than American tort law. All we have to show is an obligation, risk from neglect, and direct result. Oh and let it be said, I have no delusion that my arguments work in the UK. My arguments are strictly American in nature. They do not apply to your legal system.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Sorry you can explain it that way all you want but the analogy does not stand up under logic.LJS9502_basic
Another baseless accusations. I've explained how it is not a faulty analogy. In both instances, it is a voluntary act which leads to a potentiality. In both cases, the person isn't necessarily openly inviting the potentiality. Despite these congruencies, you are holding double standards for the case of the pregnant woman than in the case of the homeowner. No you just assume your explanation is able to stand up to scrutiny. There is a difference between engaging in an act that is for reproduction and having that outcome and the actions of another committing a crime. Other than that I don't know what to tell you if you aren't getting that. Personal consequences against the actions of another. NOT the same. "There is a difference between engaging in an act that is for reproduction" Sex is just as much about pleasure as it is reproduction. The reason for sex is important. Everytime ive had sex it was not in any way a reproductive act. it has always been a source of pleasure.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And the possibility exists that a theif enter your window if you leave the window open. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is with intent of them entering that you left the window open. Likewise, it is not with intent that you are going to have a baby by having sex. Sex is not necessarily an invitation for a baby to be inside you. Sex does not necessitate pregnancy. It is merely one potentiality of the act. In the case of theft, it is also a voluntary action of the individuals as well. A someone illegaly entering your premises is a potentiality of leaving your windows open, just as getting pregnant is a potentiality of having sex. they are one in the same. You want to hold the woman responsible for her pregnancy, hold the homeowner responsible for the burglar. Sorry you can explain it that way all you want but the analogy does not stand up under logic. for the record, hes winning. No. Taking a risk means you are guilty of the consequences. A criminal entering your property is not your fault. Or do you blame victims of crime?
"There is a difference between engaging in an act that is for reproduction" Sex is just as much about pleasure as it is reproduction. The reason for sex is important. Everytime ive had sex it was not in any way a reproductive act. it has always been a source of pleasure.Major_Commie
Um. No. The reason may not be reproduction but that is inherently what sex is for. Just because it happens a small percentage of time doesn't mean the biological basics are not there.:lol:
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Sorry you can explain it that way all you want but the analogy does not stand up under logic.LJS9502_basic
for the record, hes winning. No. Taking a risk means you are guilty of the consequences. A criminal entering your property is not your fault. Or do you blame victims of crime? Sounds like youre blaming the victim, not me. if i am my own property, and my land is my own property then leaving a window open and having sex for pleasure is ultimately the same thing. neither a robber or a fetus has any right to me or my property without my consent,
Abortion laws are totally dependent on whether or not the Embryo is a human person or not.. If it is indeed a Human Person than abortion should be illegal everywhere because most people would agree that killing a human person is wrong. But if the human embryo is not a human person than there should be no problem with aborting it. You cannot justify abortion based on Social aspects or personal interpretation. Again it's all dependent only on whether or not that Embryo is human. ferrari2001
Fun legal reasoning time. Even if we accept that an embryo is a human person, that doesn't necessarily mean that our penumbra of privacy is overriden by the right to life. In America, we have a staggered legal system. One right is actually less important than another. Take for instance the right to abortion v. the right to an attorney. In the latter case, the state actually provides for that right. In the former case, it doesn't. It places more importance on right to an attorney than right to abortion. In the case of abortion, while we do have a right to life, it is many times overriden by a right to privacy. I cannot kidnap you, hook you up to my dieing grandmother, and then sue you if you run and leave her to die. You have a right to bodily autonomy.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] that doesnt have any connection to what I said. It's a pretty apt example actually. The baby doesn't have any choice in being there, because you put her there. It's just like you can't stand out on the curb and push people onto your property and then shoot them for trespassing, or you can't invite your enemy over for tea and then shoot them for trespassing. Using libertarian or typical american right wing ethics (against its self in this case) you can tell the person to leave. If they dont leave they are coercing you and your reaction comes afterwards. No living being has a right to another living being without consent from both parties. Regardless of whether personA wants anything to do with me, I have the right to disassociate. I can invite someone onto my property and tell them to get off for any rational or irrational reason I can think of. a woman owns her body, and has the right to say whether she gets impregnated or not. if she cant stop the sperm from impregnating her she has the right to abort the fetus. Im not a right wing libertarian at all. but I do believe in self ownership. How many roads does this analogy have to go down? The baby is not able to leave or I'm sure they would. If you invite a paraplegic person to watch tv or something, and you cart them in with their wheelchair, and you then decide that you don't want them there and order them to leave, and at that point decide that they are just provoking you and you shoot them, you would still be charged with manslaughter or be sentenced to a mental institution.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] for the record, hes winning.Major_Commie
No. Taking a risk means you are guilty of the consequences. A criminal entering your property is not your fault. Or do you blame victims of crime? Sounds like youre blaming the victim, not me. if i am my own property, and my land is my own property then leaving a window open and having sex for pleasure is ultimately the same thing. neither a robber or a fetus has any right to me or my property without my consent,No. Did you not understand the analogy he presented because i'm the one stating leaving a window open is not the fault of the homeowner when someone illegally enters. You agreed with him....who said otherwise dude.:|
Second the fetus ONLY arrives by the actions of the individuals. They ARE responsible for him.
Um. No. The reason may not be reproduction but that is inherently what sex is for. Just because it happens a small percentage of time doesn't mean the biological basics are not there.:lol:
LJS9502_basic
Sex is a social act of pleasure for humans. its why humans feel pleasure during sex and many of species do not. most times, reproduction is not the reason for sex.
Sex is a social act of pleasure for humans. its why humans feel pleasure during sex and many of species do not. most times, reproduction is not the reason for sex.
Major_Commie
Of course humans feel pleasure or the species would have died out.:roll:
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]Abortion laws are totally dependent on whether or not the Embryo is a human person or not.. If it is indeed a Human Person than abortion should be illegal everywhere because most people would agree that killing a human person is wrong. But if the human embryo is not a human person than there should be no problem with aborting it. You cannot justify abortion based on Social aspects or personal interpretation. Again it's all dependent only on whether or not that Embryo is human. Vandalvideo
Fun legal reasoning time. Even if we accept that an embryo is a human person, that doesn't necessarily mean that our penumbra of privacy is overriden by the right to life. In America, we have a staggered legal system. One right is actually less important than another. Take for instance the right to abortion v. the right to an attorney. In the latter case, the state actually provides for that right. In the former case, it doesn't. It places more importance on right to an attorney than right to abortion. In the case of abortion, while we do have a right to life, it is many times overriden by a right to privacy. I cannot kidnap you, hook you up to my dieing grandmother, and then sue you if you run and leave her to die. You have a right to bodily autonomy. Abortion isn't a right, it's a privilege.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] How many roads does this analogy have to go down? The baby is not able to leave or I'm sure they would. If you invite a paraplegic person to watch tv or something, and you cart them in with their wheelchair, and you then decide that you don't want them there and order them to leave, and at that point decide that they are just provoking you and you shoot them, you would still be charged with manslaughter or be sentenced to a mental institution. Unless, more aptly, that paraplegic wasn't invited and happened to roll in through the front door by sheer act of randomness. You can't know for sure if that man is truly paraplegic.
Sex is a social act of pleasure for humans. its why humans feel pleasure during sex and many of species do not. most times, reproduction is not the reason for sex.
LJS9502_basic
Of course humans feel pleasure or the species would have died out.:roll: Many species dont feel pleasure from sex.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] Abortion isn't a right, it's a privilege. No its a right, a negative right. There is a difference between a right to do something and a right to not be stopped from doing something. Abortion falls under the latter. It is still most certainly a right. It just isn't a positive right.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] But having sex is inviting an element of risk. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant was held responsible for the escape of any potentially harmful substance from his land, deliberate of accidental. I don't see why accidental pregnancy shouldn't also be a strict liability case. Being aware of the risk, a couple owe a strict duty of care to avoid injury to another ie. the foetus. And likewise, leaving a window open is inviting an element of risk. Keep in mind though, English tort law is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar haaaar different than American tort law. All we have to show is an obligation, risk from neglect, and direct result. Oh and let it be said, I have no delusion that my arguments work in the UK. My arguments are strictly American in nature. They do not apply to your legal system. But I'm sure the US also has a doctrine of contributory negligence. Your window analogy discusses a criminal case where another party can be held responsible for the victim's loss. Surely if anyone is to be held responsible in the case of the pregnancy, it is the parents on the grounds of reasonableness of care and foreseeability.
Sex is a social act of pleasure for humans. its why humans feel pleasure during sex and many of species do not. most times, reproduction is not the reason for sex.
Major_Commie
Of course humans feel pleasure or the species would have died out.:roll: Many species dont feel pleasure from sex. And there is no reason for that particular pleasure except to continue the species. As for your assertion.....Many do feel pleasure.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] How many roads does this analogy have to go down? The baby is not able to leave or I'm sure they would. If you invite a paraplegic person to watch tv or something, and you cart them in with their wheelchair, and you then decide that you don't want them there and order them to leave, and at that point decide that they are just provoking you and you shoot them, you would still be charged with manslaughter or be sentenced to a mental institution. Unless, more aptly, that paraplegic wasn't invited and happened to roll in through the front door by sheer act of randomness. You can't know for sure if that man is truly paraplegic.Yes I can because I said he was paraplegic. If I make up an imaginary man, he is whatever I say he is. Also, sperm doesn't magically teleport from the man to the woman, the man puts it there. I'm starting to wonder if this is just trolling.
Sex is a social act of pleasure for humans. its why humans feel pleasure during sex and many of species do not. most times, reproduction is not the reason for sex.
Major_Commie
Of course humans feel pleasure or the species would have died out.:roll: Many species dont feel pleasure from sex. That's because it is an incentive for humans to engage in it; a species which is highly capable of diverting from natural instincts.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] But I'm sure the US also has a doctrine of contributory negligence. Your window analogy discusses a criminal case where another party can be held responsible for the victim's loss. Surely if anyone is to be held responsible in the case of the pregnancy, it is the parents on the grounds of reasonableness of care and foreseeability. Even if you want to apply something like contributory negligence(more of a UK idea), abortion isn't considered a tort case in the first place. It would be a crminal case, if it were to ever be a case at all. Thus, criminal legal reasoning applies to it. (In America)
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] Abortion isn't a right, it's a privilege. No its a right, a negative right. There is a difference between a right to do something and a right to not be stopped from doing something. Abortion falls under the latter. It is still most certainly a right. It just isn't a positive right. By referring to right, I of course meant a Constitutional right. That was my mistake, because you might not have the same constitution that I do. There is a difference between something that you can do, and something which absolutely can not be taken away from you, even though the second criteria assumes the first criteria.
Yes I can because I said he was paraplegic. If I make up an imaginary man, he is whatever I say he is. Also, sperm doesn't magically teleport from the man to the woman, the man puts it there. I'm starting to wonder if this is just trolling.guynamedbilly
We're creating hypotheticals here. In the case I'm speaking, which is closer to the legal status of abortion, it would be akin to a person rolling into your house because you left the door open in a wheel chair. We don't know if he is truly paraplegic at the time, and one could truly reasonably fear. Oh, and the woman doesn't necessarily want the sperm there. Contraceptives ftw.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] By referring to right, I of course meant a Constitutional right. That was my mistake, because you might not have the same constitution that I do. There is a difference between something that you can do, and something which absolutely can not be taken away from you, even though the second criteria assumes the first criteria. Oh, its a Constituional right if you're speaking about the US constituion. It is a penumbra of a penumbra; a penumbra of the right to privacy....which is a penumbra of the freedom from quartering soldiers, illegal search and seizures, and other measures.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Yes I can because I said he was paraplegic. If I make up an imaginary man, he is whatever I say he is. Also, sperm doesn't magically teleport from the man to the woman, the man puts it there. I'm starting to wonder if this is just trolling.Vandalvideo
We're creating hypotheticals here. In the case I'm speaking, which is closer to the legal status of abortion, it would be akin to a person rolling into your house because you left the door open in a wheel chair. We don't know if he is truly paraplegic at the time, and one could truly reasonably fear. Oh, and the woman doesn't necessarily want the sperm there. Contraceptives ftw.Then she should know there is only one way to be sure contraception doesn't occur. Abstinence. Anything else and there is a possibility.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] But I'm sure the US also has a doctrine of contributory negligence. Your window analogy discusses a criminal case where another party can be held responsible for the victim's loss. Surely if anyone is to be held responsible in the case of the pregnancy, it is the parents on the grounds of reasonableness of care and foreseeability.Vandalvideo
Even if you want to apply something like contributory negligence(more of a UK idea), abortion isn't considered a tort case in the first place. It would be a crminal case, if it were to ever be a case at all. Thus, criminal legal reasoning applies to it. (In America)If abortion is a criminal case, then who is the criminal? The child for being conceived?
Then she should know there is only one way to be sure contraception doesn't occur. Abstinence. Anything else and there is a possibility.LJS9502_basic
Mere possibility of something occuring from an act doesn't necessarily mean you are culpable. It is all about intent. I can't be held responsible if a theif comes into my window and falls on a bed of nails that were right under the window. While it could happen, it doesn't mean im responsible.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] By referring to right, I of course meant a Constitutional right. That was my mistake, because you might not have the same constitution that I do. There is a difference between something that you can do, and something which absolutely can not be taken away from you, even though the second criteria assumes the first criteria. Oh, its a Constituional right if you're speaking about the US constituion. It is a penumbra of a penumbra; a penumbra of the right to privacy....which is a penumbra of the freedom from quartering soldiers, illegal search and seizures, and other measures. You have legal precedent for that claim?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then she should know there is only one way to be sure contraception doesn't occur. Abstinence. Anything else and there is a possibility.Vandalvideo
Mere possibility of something occuring from an act doesn't necessarily mean you are culpable. It is all about intent. I can't be held responsible if a theif comes into my window and falls on a bed of nails that were right under the window. While it could happen, it doesn't mean im responsible. Well knowing that sex can cause pregnancy...I'd say they are culpable.
If abortion is a criminal case, then who is the criminal? The child for being conceived?jimmyjammer69
It depends. Abortion isn't currently a crime, so speculating as to who would be the criminal is just that, speculation. I mean, it could go a number of different ways. A person who isn't familiar with law would immediately say "the mother" or "the doctor". Yes, maybe, but not necessarily. There isn't an established doctrine for it yet.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well knowing that sex can cause pregnancy...I'd say they are culpable. And knowing that leaving your window open could let a burglar end would make you culpable for the burglar coming in?
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]If abortion is a criminal case, then who is the criminal? The child for being conceived?Vandalvideo
It depends. Abortion isn't currently a crime, so speculating as to who would be the criminal is just that, speculation. I mean, it could go a number of different ways. A person who isn't familiar with law would immediately say "the mother" or "the doctor". Yes, maybe, but not necessarily. There isn't an established doctrine for it yet. Could be both in that case.....
Log in to comment