I don't like it but I have to concede this point. I want to talk longer but I have to go to work tomorrow. Not trying to weasel out here but it's bedtime. I will try to come back tomorrow. It was fun Chuz.The legal nature of assumption of risk has been established. You just fail too make an argument to make it apply too abortion.Sure but I gave you a clear argumentation to challenge the voluntarily nature of getting pregnant in light of birth control. It flatters me that you think it takes a member of the supreme court to answer me but it's a bit of a cop out isn't it?-Lol now you are missing my point. Probably my fault since a movie reference isn't universal. The Saw analogy I put out because the premise of those movies is that someone kidnaps people the killer deems immoral in some way and then gives them moral dilemmas they have to work trough by blood and pain. Sometimes it involves several people of who only one survives, usually by condemning the other ones. It's pretty sadistic and I only watched I believe parts of the second one but it is apt to this conversation. Anyways in the movies the people saving themselves are the victims, not the ones doing the kidnapping.
- I'm also noticing that again you are not trying to address the clear challenge I gave.
Please establish that someone who gets pregnant voluntarily takes responsibility for the risks that pregnancy entails?
It's called an "assumption of risks" and it is precisely what the Supreme Courts justices have been mindful of, when they commented that "once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make."
Those are THEIR words, not mine.
It's not a cop out when the legal nature of "assumptions of risks" have already long been established and no one is challenging them
Is it not common sense to conclude that no birth control is 100% effective and that intercourse has a certain risk for pregnancy that one must assume the risks for, before having sex?