[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] You have legal precedent for that claim? Uh.....surely you're not serious here? The right to privacy was established in Griswold v. Connecticut, whose precedents were applied in Roe v. Wade. :|
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][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? We've already discussed that and I've told you that is a bad analogy. If you are going that way then owning a car or home may mean a car thief or burglar may enter. By your thinking you are culpable. I don't buy that.
[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. But according to you, nobody has entered the property in the case of pregnancy, since the foetus is not a person. If you came home after leaving the window open and found a kitten had come through the window for the piece of meat that you'd left by the window (knowing full well that it's not an uncommon occurrence), would you then be justified in shooting the kitty simply because you can't be bothered to let it out the door or take it to animal welfare?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] We've already discussed that and I've told you that is a bad analogy. If you are going that way then owning a car or home may mean a car thief or burglar may enter. By your thinking you are culpable. I don't buy that. You didn't tell me, you claimed and then failed to prove. You established a general principle; a person is culpable for a potentiality of an act they commit. Well, there is a potential that a criminal comes through your window if you leave it open, doesn't make you culpable. Remember, this is from your own reasoning, not mine.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Of course humans feel pleasure or the species would have died out.:roll:
LJS9502_basic
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. the social implications of having sex is reason enough.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] But according to you, nobody has entered the property in the case of pregnancy, since the foetus is not a person. If you came home after leaving the window open and found a kitten had come through the window for the piece of meat that you'd left by the window (knowing full well that it's not an uncommon occurrence), would you then be justified in shooting the kitty simply because you can't be bothered to let it out the door or take it to animal welfare? Now now, the fetus may still be a person and the same analogy applies. Oh, and yes you could shoot that kitten. It more akin to you leaving a random peice of meat on the window knowing that there are cats in the neighbor, but not knowing whether they will or will not make it into the window. Having sex doesn't necessitate the sperm making it through.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][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? We've already discussed that and I've told you that is a bad analogy. If you are going that way then owning a car or home may mean a car thief or burglar may enter. By your thinking you are culpable. I don't buy that. Its not a bad analogy at all on his part.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] We've already discussed that and I've told you that is a bad analogy. If you are going that way then owning a car or home may mean a car thief or burglar may enter. By your thinking you are culpable. I don't buy that. You didn't tell me, you claimed and then failed to prove. You established a general principle; a person is culpable for a potentiality of an act they commit. Well, there is a potential that a criminal comes through your window if you leave it open, doesn't make you culpable. Remember, this is from your own reasoning, not mine. No I told you why it's illogical. Intercourse can result in conception. Therefore, the activity has some risk that is assumed when one engages in such behavior. While a criminal may enter your house....that is not the common outcome of leaving a window open nor is it the fault of the homeowner if someone breaks the law. You really shouldn't blame the victim of a crime.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And knowing that leaving your window open could let a burglar end would make you culpable for the burglar coming in?Major_Commie
We've already discussed that and I've told you that is a bad analogy. If you are going that way then owning a car or home may mean a car thief or burglar may enter. By your thinking you are culpable. I don't buy that. Its not a bad analogy at all on his part.Yes it is. He is comparing individual actions to the actions of a third party. They don't correlate.:|
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] We've already discussed that and I've told you that is a bad analogy. If you are going that way then owning a car or home may mean a car thief or burglar may enter. By your thinking you are culpable. I don't buy that. You didn't tell me, you claimed and then failed to prove. You established a general principle; a person is culpable for a potentiality of an act they commit. Well, there is a potential that a criminal comes through your window if you leave it open, doesn't make you culpable. Remember, this is from your own reasoning, not mine. No I told you why it's illogical. Intercourse can result in conception. Therefore, the activity has some risk that is assumed when one engages in such behavior. While a criminal may enter your house....that is not the common outcome of leaving a window open nor is it the fault of the homeowner if someone breaks the law. You really shouldn't blame the victim of a crime. " No I told you why it's illogical. Intercourse can result in conception." Leaving a window open can result in a burglar. If it becomes common, is it ok?
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] We've already discussed that and I've told you that is a bad analogy. If you are going that way then owning a car or home may mean a car thief or burglar may enter. By your thinking you are culpable. I don't buy that. LJS9502_basic
Its not a bad analogy at all on his part.Yes it is. He is comparing individual actions to the actions of a third party. They don't correlate.:| Hes talking about the individual action of leaving your window open while having a third party enter. Which can easily be applied to a fetus.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No I told you why it's illogical. Intercourse can result in conception. Therefore, the activity has some risk that is assumed when one engages in such behavior. While a criminal may enter your house....that is not the common outcome of leaving a window open nor is it the fault of the homeowner if someone breaks the law. You really shouldn't blame the victim of a crime. And I explained why you're wrong. Leaving a window open can lead to a theif coming into your window, just as intercourse can lead to conception. Therefore, leaving the window has some risk that is assumed when one engages in such behavior. It can and does happen if you leave your window open. A reasonable person could expect something like that occur.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] You have legal precedent for that claim? Uh.....surely you're not serious here? The right to privacy was established in Griswold v. Connecticut, whose precedents were applied in Roe v. Wade. :| I'm quoting Wikipedia here because it's been a while since I actually read all the details of Roe v Wade, but "The Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman's health." So it seems like it's not so much a woman's right to have an abortion, but a woman's right to make a medical decision that having an abortion would be better for the mother's health and carrying that out. Honestly, I'm too lazy to read the whole ruling again, but it seems like abortion is not a right, but abortion protecting the life and health of the mother is a right. Since I'm too lazy to read it, feel free to point out where Wikipedia is wrong.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] You have legal precedent for that claim? Uh.....surely you're not serious here? The right to privacy was established in Griswold v. Connecticut, whose precedents were applied in Roe v. Wade. :| I'm quoting Wikipedia here because it's been a while since I actually read all the details of Roe v Wade, but "The Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman's health." So it seems like it's not so much a woman's right to have an abortion, but a woman's right to make a medical decision that having an abortion would be better for the mother's health and carrying that out. Honestly, I'm too lazy to read the whole ruling again, but it seems like abortion is not a right, but abortion protecting the life and health of the mother is a right. Since I'm too lazy to read it, feel free to point out where Wikipedia is wrong. Depends what you mean by "right" if were talking about "rights" according to governments then it depends on where you live if you believe in objective morality, then a right is inalienable
" No I told you why it's illogical. Intercourse can result in conception." Leaving a window open can result in a burglar. If it becomes common, is it ok? Major_Commie
You've missed the point. One is the actions and consequences of the actor. Risk is assumed. Driving a car in an ice storm can result in damage. The risk was assumed by the individual behind the wheel so he is culpable for the consequences. Leaving a window open in no way commands an invitation to anyone to enter. One who enters is breaking the law. He is a third party actor and HE is culpable for breaking the law. Not the homeowner. It is NOT against the law to leave a window open. It is also not common nor accepted procedure for people to enter windows whether invited or not.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] I'm quoting Wikipedia here because it's been a while since I actually read all the details of Roe v Wade, but "The Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman's health." So it seems like it's not so much a woman's right to have an abortion, but a woman's right to make a medical decision that having an abortion would be better for the mother's health and carrying that out. Honestly, I'm too lazy to read the whole ruling again, but it seems like abortion is not a right, but abortion protecting the life and health of the mother is a right. Since I'm too lazy to read it, feel free to point out where Wikipedia is wrong. You're misreading that line. The mere fact that an abortion "must be available when X occurs" does not mean that an abotion "cannot be available when X does not occur". The right to an abortion is a penumbra. Read where they used the principles from Griswold. Heck, they use the words "right of abortion" in the actual legislation. " including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right"
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No I told you why it's illogical. Intercourse can result in conception. Therefore, the activity has some risk that is assumed when one engages in such behavior. While a criminal may enter your house....that is not the common outcome of leaving a window open nor is it the fault of the homeowner if someone breaks the law. You really shouldn't blame the victim of a crime.Vandalvideo
And I explained why you're wrong. Leaving a window open can lead to a theif coming into your window, just as intercourse can lead to conception. Therefore, leaving the window has some risk that is assumed when one engages in such behavior. It can and does happen if you leave your window open. A reasonable person could expect something like that occur.I'm not wrong. Creating a baby is the possible outcome of sex. Leaving a window open is a possible outcome of a third party CRIMINAL behavior. They are not the same. The analogy does not work. It is perfectly legal to leave a window open. It is NOT perfectly legal to enter a window univited.
I'm not wrong. Creating a baby is the possible outcome of sex. Leaving a window open is a possible outcome of a third party CRIMINAL behavior. They are not the same. The analogy does not work. It is perfectly legal to leave a window open. It is NOT perfectly legal to enter a window univited.LJS9502_basic
The mere fact that it is a criminal act that resulted does not change the fact that it is a potentiality that occured from your leaving the window open. But, if you want ti be fickle about it, I can easily revise the analogy to make it a non-criminal act. An old man, skateboarding down the side walk is not looking where he is going and flies through your window. That does not mean you're culpable for everything that happened because you opened your window. You're not culpable for his injuries.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"] " No I told you why it's illogical. Intercourse can result in conception." Leaving a window open can result in a burglar. If it becomes common, is it ok? LJS9502_basic
You've missed the point. One is the actions and consequences of the actor. Risk is assumed. Driving a car in an ice storm can result in damage. The risk was assumed by the individual behind the wheel so he is culpable for the consequences. Leaving a window open in no way commands an invitation to anyone to enter. One who enters is breaking the law. He is a third party actor and HE is culpable for breaking the law. Not the homeowner. It is NOT against the law to leave a window open. It is also not common nor accepted procedure for people to enter windows whether invited or not.
I agree with LJS on his points in this argument/debate/whatever. You take on the responsibility of having a child if you engage in the act.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"] " No I told you why it's illogical. Intercourse can result in conception." Leaving a window open can result in a burglar. If it becomes common, is it ok? LJS9502_basic
You've missed the point. One is the actions and consequences of the actor. Risk is assumed. Driving a car in an ice storm can result in damage. The risk was assumed by the individual behind the wheel so he is culpable for the consequences. Leaving a window open in no way commands an invitation to anyone to enter. One who enters is breaking the law. He is a third party actor and HE is culpable for breaking the law. Not the homeowner. It is NOT against the law to leave a window open. It is also not common nor accepted procedure for people to enter windows whether invited or not. Yes, risk is assumed. Just like risk is assumed when you open a window. You also risk getting eaten by a shark when you go deep sea diving. Doesnt mean you're inviting it.
Its very common, especially in cities. (window analogy)
If a woman does not want pregnancy, she is not inviting the pregnancy.
If I walk into a room where sick people are, i am not inviting germs to have any rights to my body, which is why I use medicine when im sick.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"] Its not a bad analogy at all on his part.Major_Commie
Yes it is. He is comparing individual actions to the actions of a third party. They don't correlate.:| Hes talking about the individual action of leaving your window open while having a third party enter. Which can easily be applied to a fetus.No it can't. The analogy fails on that level as well. The fetus is not able to create his own conception. Only the actions of the two parents can do so. Thus the fetus is not responsible for his existence.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not wrong. Creating a baby is the possible outcome of sex. Leaving a window open is a possible outcome of a third party CRIMINAL behavior. They are not the same. The analogy does not work. It is perfectly legal to leave a window open. It is NOT perfectly legal to enter a window univited.Vandalvideo
The mere fact that it is a criminal act that resulted does not change the fact that it is a potentiality that occured from your leaving the window open. But, if you want ti be fickle about it, I can easily revise the analogy to make it a non-criminal act. An old man, skateboarding down the side walk is not looking where he is going and flies through your window. That does not mean you're culpable for everything that happened because you opened your window. You're not culpable for his injuries. If you're told that it's a street where old men often fly through windows left open, I'd say that even further diminishes this right that you seem to think the homeowner should have to kill the old man just because he's on their property.
No it can't. The analogy fails on that level as well. The fetus is not able to create his own conception. Only the actions of the two parents can do so. Thus the fetus is not responsible for his existence.LJS9502_basic
And neither is the mother. And even if the mother is responsible, that does not obligate her to provide a womb.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] If you're told that it's a street where old men often fly through windows left open, I'd say that even further diminishes this right that you seem to think the homeowner should have to kill the old man just because he's on their property. Well thats the difference between British and American law. It doesn't matter how often old men fly through windows. It isn't your responsibility. Ain't mia culpa!
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yes it is. He is comparing individual actions to the actions of a third party. They don't correlate.:|
LJS9502_basic
Hes talking about the individual action of leaving your window open while having a third party enter. Which can easily be applied to a fetus.No it can't. The analogy fails on that level as well. The fetus is not able to create his own conception. Only the actions of the two parents can do so. Thus the fetus is not responsible for his existence. so, if a mentally retarded person punches me in the face I cant do anything about it? Many mentally retarded people cant control their actions.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No it can't. The analogy fails on that level as well. The fetus is not able to create his own conception. Only the actions of the two parents can do so. Thus the fetus is not responsible for his existence.Vandalvideo
And neither is the mother. And even if the mother is responsible, that does not obligate her to provide a womb.Of course the mother is culpable. She engaged in the act as well. As for the womb.....that is subject to opinion. Not everyone will agree with you there.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No it can't. The analogy fails on that level as well. The fetus is not able to create his own conception. Only the actions of the two parents can do so. Thus the fetus is not responsible for his existence.Vandalvideo
And neither is the mother. And even if the mother is responsible, that does not obligate her to provide a womb. Can a mother refuse to unlock the door to her childrens' room or refuse to allow them to be fed? A mother is under an obligation to prevent the avoidable death of her child until she relinquishes responsibility for its care.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] If you're told that it's a street where old men often fly through windows left open, I'd say that even further diminishes this right that you seem to think the homeowner should have to kill the old man just because he's on their property. Well thats the difference between British and American law. It doesn't matter how often old men fly through windows. It isn't your responsibility. Ain't mia culpa! And you don't think that's even a little absurd?
]Of course the mother is culpable. She engaged in the act as well. As for the womb.....that is subject to opinion. Not everyone will agree with you there.LJS9502_basic
Opinion? No, thats law. The right to privacy overrides, in many instances, the right to life in the American legal system. Not all rights are created equal.
I cant do anything about it? Many people cant control their actions.Major_Commie
You can alert the proper authorities. Unless your life is endangered and you cannot get away or constrain the person. You are allowed to defend yourself. :roll:
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]]Of course the mother is culpable. She engaged in the act as well. As for the womb.....that is subject to opinion. Not everyone will agree with you there.Vandalvideo
Opinion? No, thats law. The right to privacy overrides, in many instances, the right to life in the American legal system. Not all rights are created equal. Law does not change differing opinions dude. Not everyone has to agree with every law that is enacted. They only have to abide by them. Opinion is not legislated.;)
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Can a mother refuse to unlock the door to her childrens' room or refuse to allow them to be fed? A mother is under an obligation to prevent the avoidable death of her child until she relinquishes responsibility for its care. Once the child has come into the world, squatter's rights begins to apply. But squatter's rights do not apply inside the womb, because no court's locus is willing to go in there.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Can a mother refuse to unlock the door to her childrens' room or refuse to allow them to be fed? A mother is under an obligation to prevent the avoidable death of her child until she relinquishes responsibility for its care. Once the child has come into the world, squatter's rights begins to apply. But squatter's rights do not apply inside the womb, because no court's locus is willing to go in there.However, abortion did use to be illegal.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Law does not change differing opinions dude. Not everyone has to agree with every law that is enacted. They only have to abide by them. Opinion is not legislated.;) I never claimed to like or dislike the law, I merely claimed that this is the law. If you don't like it, elect someone to change it. Law is the law.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]]Of course the mother is culpable. She engaged in the act as well. As for the womb.....that is subject to opinion. Not everyone will agree with you there.LJS9502_basic
Opinion? No, thats law. The right to privacy overrides, in many instances, the right to life in the American legal system. Not all rights are created equal. Law does not change differing opinions dude. Not everyone has to agree with every law that is enacted. They only have to abide by them. Opinion is not legislated.;) Opinions are legislated all the time... many laws are created based upon opinions, and then you have activist judges...
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Law does not change differing opinions dude. Not everyone has to agree with every law that is enacted. They only have to abide by them. Opinion is not legislated.;) I never claimed to like or dislike the law, I merely claimed that this is the law. If you don't like it, elect someone to change it. Law is the law.No. When I said people had different opinions you waved the law flag which had nothing to do with opinion. As I stated.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Opinion? No, thats law. The right to privacy overrides, in many instances, the right to life in the American legal system. Not all rights are created equal. Major_Commie
Law does not change differing opinions dude. Not everyone has to agree with every law that is enacted. They only have to abide by them. Opinion is not legislated.;) Opinions are legislated all the time... many laws are created based upon opinions, and then you have activist judges...So which country do you live in where you can be taken to court for having an opinion?
No. When I said people had different opinions you waved the law flag which had nothing to do with opinion. As I stated.LJS9502_basic
No, you claimed that it was an opinion that the child didn't necessarily have a right to the womb. That is false, its the law. It has nothing to do with opinions. It is a factual matter of law that they don't.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]However, abortion did use to be illegal.Vandalvideo
Yeah, and so did many other things which by today's legal standards are legal. But back then the law wasn't the same as it is today. The law changed. That may be so but it was in response to your comment that no court would go there when they obviously had in the past.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Law does not change differing opinions dude. Not everyone has to agree with every law that is enacted. They only have to abide by them. Opinion is not legislated.;)LJS9502_basic
Opinions are legislated all the time... many laws are created based upon opinions, and then you have activist judges...So which country do you live in where you can be taken to court for having an opinion? Well some countries having blasphemy laws, which can come down to opinion. But what does that have to do with anything? Many laws in the USA are based upon personal opinions. If you cant see that then you cant see a lot of things...
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. When I said people had different opinions you waved the law flag which had nothing to do with opinion. As I stated.Vandalvideo
No, you claimed that it was an opinion that the child didn't necessarily have a right to the womb. That is false, its the law. It has nothing to do with opinions. It is a factual matter of law that they don't.I was not discussing legal precedent and you had not mentioned it in term of the law either. You merely said the woman didn't have to provide a womb. That does not in any way say legal. Perhaps you should have been more specific.;)
That may be so but it was in response to your comment that no court would go there when they obviously had in the past.LJS9502_basic
Pay attention to tense. I said would go there. It was a present/future tense. Unless the law drastically changes, and I mean a Consitutional ammendment, it isn't going to happen.
I was not discussing legal precedent and you had not mentioned it in term of the law either. You merely said the woman didn't have to provide a womb. That does not in any way say legal. Perhaps you should have been more specific.;)LJS9502_basic
And, as a matter of fact the woman does not have to provide a womb. That is a factual peice of law. Law is fact. It is a fact of society that women do not have to provide a womb.
Well some countries having blasphemy laws, which can come down to opinion. But what does that have to do with anything? Many laws in the USA are based upon personal opinions. If you cant see that then you cant see a lot of things...Major_Commie
That seems rather vague. Personal opinion? Laws are generally not based on one persons views. Collective society...yes. However, that is not the same as your stance that opinions are legislated against. Again I ask when someone has been taken to court solely for an opinion. In the US one can dissent against government authority. An opinion is not illegal. Only actions.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I was not discussing legal precedent and you had not mentioned it in term of the law either. You merely said the woman didn't have to provide a womb. That does not in any way say legal. Perhaps you should have been more specific.;)Vandalvideo
And, as a matter of fact the woman does not have to provide a womb. That is a factual peice of law. Law is fact. It is a fact of society that women do not have to provide a womb.No fact does not inherently apply to law. 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. You need to be specific is you are referring to legal fact.
Log in to comment