Originally Posted by Amadeus

Why is consent a false premise?

why are you trying to split consent into two parts?

****kkkkkkkk u guys messed w/ my timing

Originally Posted by -SS-

why are you trying to split consent into two parts?

Because if A and B are two different things, then consent to A and consent to B are also two different things?

Do you agree that a woman has, at any given point in time, a right to decide what her body is used for? Because if you do, then it necessarily follows that she has a right to consent to be pregnant at one time, then revoke that consent at a later time.

And if you don't, I'd love to hear you go on the record stating that.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Because if A and B are two different things, then consent to A and consent to B are also two different things?

Do you agree that a woman has, at any given point in time, a right to decide what her body is used for? Because if you do, then it necessarily follows that she has a right to consent to be pregnant at one time, then revoke that consent at a later time.

And if you don't, I'd love to hear you go on the record stating that.

they are not two different things

since when?

once you give consent, you accept *personal* responsibility regardless the outcome, pregnant or not, STD or not.

thats the risk involved and you are not absolved of it at any time. You can not give consent for one and not the other because they are part of the same decision.

would you like to try again? or do you concede?

You forgot to answer my question.

Do you agree that a woman has, at any given point in time, a right to decide what her body is used for?

yes/no

Originally Posted by Amadeus

You forgot to answer my question.

Do you agree that a woman has, at any given point in time, a right to decide what her body is used for?

yes/no

your other question was irrelevant and we both know this

the focus was your position that consent can be split when it can not

its firmly established it can not be

your argument was broken from the start, case closed. move on and get over it

=====

next q: do you consider money as personal property? y/n

Originally Posted by -SS-

your other question was irrelevant and we both know this

the focus was your position that consent can be split when it can not

its firmly established it can not be

your argument was broken from the start, case closed. move on and get over it

=====

next q: do you consider money as personal property? y/n

Except I just demonstrated why consent can in fact be "split" as a result of the woman's right to bodily freedom at all times. You haven't offered a counter to that argument, you just keep reasserting that it can't be split as if it was an axiom.

So, do you agree that a woman has, at any given point in time, a right to decide what her body is used for?

yes/no

Originally Posted by Groove

if a fetus is alive at X weeks we should have funerals for a fetus that dies before birth

Some christian hospitals actually give funerals for dead fetuses, then another funeral for the placenta.

Because, you know, that's not gonna be traumatic.

Oh wait, they prey on traumatised people. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Except I just demonstrated why consent can in fact be "split" as a result of the woman's right to bodily freedom at all times. You haven't offered a counter to that argument, you just keep reasserting that it can't be split as if it was an axiom.

So, do you agree that a woman has, at any given point in time, a right to decide what her body is used for?

yes/no

No, it cant and your position was clearly dismantled by sound reasoning and logic. trying to recover through other irrelevant fallacies only further weakens your position greatly and makes you look like a poor sport. Im not the one who foolishly chose to try to separate consent.

let it go, you lost that round. ive taught you something, youre welcome.

=====

now, is money personal property? y/n

amadeus what kind of logical fallacy do u think u made when u posited your first pseudo-intellectual question

Originally Posted by -SS-

No, it cant and your position was clearly dismantled by sound reasoning and logic. trying to recover through other irrelevant fallacies only further weakens your position greatly and makes you look like a poor sport. Im not the one who foolishly chose to try to separate consent.

let it go, you lost that round. ive taught you something, youre welcome.

=====

now, is money personal property? y/n

All you ever said (apart from baseless assertions) is that "once you give consent, you accept personal responsibility". It does not follow from that that you cannot revoke said consent. Indeed, it implies that if you revoke consent, you are also absolved of the personal responsibility, since the only reason you had responsibility is because you gave consent.

You have yet to present an actual argument for why consent is irrevocable.

Originally Posted by LGBR

amadeus what kind of logical fallacy do u think u made when u posited your first pseudo-intellectual question

you wanna take your balls out of your purse and make an actual point, or are you just gonna hide behind ambiguous language?

no its much more fun watching you reeeeeeeeee

besides, you're far too confident in yourself to admit any error in logic. you're not interested in considering any alternatives.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Some christian hospitals actually give funerals for dead fetuses, then another funeral for the placenta.

Because, you know, that's not gonna be traumatic.

Oh wait, they prey on traumatised people. Carry on.

as an athiest anything shy of a furnace is entirely absurd right?

treat the living the same way we treat the dead

i honestly don't know why we limit murder to just babies atm

in true communist fashion we know that all life means very little

in fact nothing.......unless it is somehow about that HOLOCAUST

Originally Posted by Amadeus

All you ever said (apart from baseless assertions) is that "once you give consent, you accept personal responsibility". It does not follow from that that you cannot revoke said consent. Indeed, it implies that if you revoke consent, you are also absolved of the personal responsibility, since the only reason you had responsibility is because you gave consent.

You have yet to present an actual argument for why consent is irrevocable.

imagine if you applied any of these standards to the fathers responsiblity



over say his ability to have sex with a woman then have no say over said reproductive rights or outcomes

but then spend the better part of 2 decades being forced to pay for that monthly

only some consent is irrevocable i suppose?

Originally Posted by Amadeus

All you ever said (apart from baseless assertions) is that "once you give consent, you accept personal responsibility". It does not follow from that that you cannot revoke said consent. Indeed, it implies that if you revoke consent, you are also absolved of the personal responsibility, since the only reason you had responsibility is because you gave consent.

You have yet to present an actual argument for why consent is irrevocable.

less is more. you attempted to prove that once you consent, consent only goes so far despite being it's a fact that once you do, you accept all risk, good or bad... or that you definitely struggle with the concept and common understanding of what *responsibility* is.

you dont get to pick and choose and apply different standards to the same word, thats childish and immature. indisputable.

you lost. gg

=====

next Q: money personal property or not? y/n

Originally Posted by Groove

if a fetus is alive at X weeks we should have funerals for a fetus that dies before birth

People do

We need less humans
We definitely need less unwanted humans
We absolutely need less unwanted humans raised by unwanted humans

Abortions for everyone!

Originally Posted by -SS-

less is more. you attempted to prove that once you consent, consent only goes so far despite being it's a fact that once you do, you accept all risk, good or bad...

Accepting risk is not the same as consent. When you get in your car, you accept the risk that you might get into an accident, but you're not consenting to getting into an accident.

So you still haven't got an argument for why consent is irrevocable. Try again?

Stop arguing with this putz