NationStates

Luminesa wrote:

Merizoc wrote:Let's imagine they can't be removed without killing them.

So you're saying that if I do pry you off you would chase me to the ends of the earth until you were able to physically attach yourself to me again? :/

No, what they're saying is that if you remove WRM you'd end up killing them, but if you keep them attached they'd live.

Would you pry them off and kill them off?

Arcturus Novus wrote:I would share my opinions, but being an individual who is incapable of carrying and birthing a child, I don't think my opinion is really valid. It is a pregnant person's choice whether or not they wish to develop a fetus inside of their body for nine months; let them decide.

Bollox. Anyone's opinion is relevant. Your gender doesn't matter. I really dislike the "Males have no right to decide on something that they never go through" line of thought, because it implies that other females have the right to decide that, which, in my opinion, they do not.

Luminesa wrote:
So if I can't talk, I have little-to-no experience at...something, and I have trouble expressing myself, does that make me not a person?

The capability to experience things is what I'm talking about.

And we're discussing the presence or absence of a thing, not scale. A person experiences, a rock does not.

Merizoc wrote:

Arcturus Novus wrote:I would share my opinions, but being an individual who is incapable of carrying and birthing a child, I don't think my opinion is really valid. It is a pregnant person's choice whether or not they wish to develop a fetus inside of their body for nine months; let them decide.

Bollox. Anyone's opinion is relevant. Your gender doesn't matter. I really dislike the "Males have no right to decide on something that they never go through" line of thought, because it implies that other females have the right to decide that, which, in my opinion, they do not.

As we can witness at times in the news, some women can truly pack a punch when it comes to punishing other women.

But no, the choice should be the woman's only. No other woman and no man have any rights to decide on something that doesn't affect them.

It's the same as my case with circumcision, you can't tell me how to live as a guy with a penis and I can definitely ignore your opinion as to why should I circumcise.

Merizoc wrote:

Arcturus Novus wrote:I would share my opinions, but being an individual who is incapable of carrying and birthing a child, I don't think my opinion is really valid. It is a pregnant person's choice whether or not they wish to develop a fetus inside of their body for nine months; let them decide.

Bollox. Anyone's opinion is relevant. Your gender doesn't matter. I really dislike the "Males have no right to decide on something that they never go through" line of thought, because it implies that other females have the right to decide that, which, in my opinion, they do not.

Valid point. But still, I don't really think anybody but child-bearing individuals should get to make decisions about this kind of thing. Let's assume for a moment that I am a legislator. I don't think it would be right for me, being an individual who can't get pregnant, to make laws specifically about people who can get pregnant. I just think that isn't right.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Merizoc wrote:Bollox. Anyone's opinion is relevant. Your gender doesn't matter. I really dislike the "Males have no right to decide on something that they never go through" line of thought, because it implies that other females have the right to decide that, which, in my opinion, they do not.

As we can witness at times in the news, some women can truly pack a punch when it comes to punishing other women.

But no, the choice should be the woman's only. No other woman and no man have any rights to decide on something that doesn't affect them.

It's the same as my case with circumcision, you can't tell me how to live as a guy with a penis and I can definitely ignore your opinion as to why should I circumcise.

Well, yes, obviously it's up to the individual. But I think that the notion that "Female X's opinion on whether or not Female A should get an abortion is more important than Male Y" is absolutely ridiculous.

Mavorpen wrote:

Luminesa wrote:If we were comparing this to abortion, then abortion in this case would be like taking out a pistol and shooting you in the head for attaching yourself to me. Which would be inhumane and unreasonable, when, again, I can just pry you off and go along my merry way. Meanwhile, you are still living and capable of going on with your life.

No it wouldn't. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If you could, for example, remove a fetus from the mother before viability and place it into an incubator of some kind without it dying, that would still be an abortion. The analogy to an abortion applies if you just pry them off of you.

Hi, Mav! See you changed your flag.

Well, what is the pregnancy? And as far as I knew, abortion involved someone's death.

All in all, it's kind of a weird analogy. So, in this analogy, has the person in question lost all capacity for independent thought and function? I'm really kinda confused...

Luminesa wrote:Well, what is the pregnancy? And as far as I knew, abortion involved someone's death.

No, not really. It's just that we have no way of having fetuses live when they're removed before viability. "Killing" isn't a necessary part of abortion.

Arcturus Novus wrote:

Merizoc wrote:Bollox. Anyone's opinion is relevant. Your gender doesn't matter. I really dislike the "Males have no right to decide on something that they never go through" line of thought, because it implies that other females have the right to decide that, which, in my opinion, they do not.

Valid point. But still, I don't really think anybody but child-bearing individuals should get to make decisions about this kind of thing. Let's assume for a moment that I am a legislator. I don't think it would be right for me, being an individual who can't get pregnant, to make laws specifically about people who can get pregnant. I just think that isn't right.

See, the problem with your line of thought is that you are comparing "it is the woman's choice and she can ignore your opinion" to "only women can make policy affecting other women".

One is true, the other isn't. Legislators and policy makers are not strictly separated by gender. Usually though, a man or a woman can have an idea that benefits the opposite sex by virtue of being educated about the issue at hand and talking to the opposite sex rather than just assuming what the opposite sex thinks.

I'm in favor of letting the woman choose. Unless she allows it, noone else has a vote over her.

Luminesa wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:No it wouldn't. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If you could, for example, remove a fetus from the mother before viability and place it into an incubator of some kind without it dying, that would still be an abortion. The analogy to an abortion applies if you just pry them off of you.

Hi, Mav! See you changed your flag.

Well, what is the pregnancy? And as far as I knew, abortion involved someone's death.

All in all, it's kind of a weird analogy. So, in this analogy, has the person in question lost all capacity for independent thought and function? I'm really kinda confused...

Luminesa, abortion is the process of ending a pregnancy before the fetus is fully developed. It only results in death of the fetus because of our blunt instruments and...personal factors.

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
So if I can't talk, I have little-to-no experience at...something, and I have trouble expressing myself, does that make me not a person?

The capability to experience things is what I'm talking about.

And we're discussing the presence or absence of a thing, not scale. A person experiences, a rock does not.

A fetus can experience things. It has a heartbeat pretty early, it can dream, it can suck its thumb, it can swim around in the womb, it can hear its mother's voice (to some degree), it can eat, and it can experience contentment or fear. Of course, I'm putting all these things down in random order, rather than in the order in which the fetus develops all these abilities, but you get the picture. A fetus can experience things. Thus, it is not a rock, which...as we both know...just sits there.

Merizoc wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
As we can witness at times in the news, some women can truly pack a punch when it comes to punishing other women.

But no, the choice should be the woman's only. No other woman and no man have any rights to decide on something that doesn't affect them.

It's the same as my case with circumcision, you can't tell me how to live as a guy with a penis and I can definitely ignore your opinion as to why should I circumcise.

Well, yes, obviously it's up to the individual. But I think that the notion that "Female X's opinion on whether or not Female A should get an abortion is more important than Male Y" is absolutely ridiculous.

That I will agree on because bodily sovereignty is a personal matter. Women can of course ask who they want, but in the end all opinions are equally the same because from an objective perspective even women are not that particular woman and they don't have the same life as the woman who is trying to make a choice and seeking advice.

Luminesa wrote:

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:The capability to experience things is what I'm talking about.

And we're discussing the presence or absence of a thing, not scale. A person experiences, a rock does not.

A fetus can experience things. It has a heartbeat pretty early, it can dream, it can suck its thumb, it can swim around in the womb, it can hear its mother's voice (to some degree), it can eat, and it can experience contentment or fear. Of course, I'm putting all these things down in random order, rather than in the order in which the fetus develops all these abilities, but you get the picture. A fetus can experience things. Thus, it is not a rock, which...as we both know...just sits there.

A fetus just sits there for the majority of its development though.

Merizoc wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Though the idea of entering a vegetable state is interesting. Is it only carrots, or can we be other things? And what about tomatoes?

I'd rather enter into a Dairy state.

Wisconsin?

Mavorpen wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Well, what is the pregnancy? And as far as I knew, abortion involved someone's death.

No, not really. It's just that we have no way of having fetuses live when they're removed before viability. "Killing" isn't a necessary part of abortion.

So are you talking about, like, when a woman has a miscarriage?

As far as the procedure itself goes, abortion usually involves the ending of a pregnancy by killing a human baby. But if you're talking about a miscarriage, that's different, because the baby is already dead.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Arcturus Novus wrote:Valid point. But still, I don't really think anybody but child-bearing individuals should get to make decisions about this kind of thing. Let's assume for a moment that I am a legislator. I don't think it would be right for me, being an individual who can't get pregnant, to make laws specifically about people who can get pregnant. I just think that isn't right.

See, the problem with your line of thought is that you are comparing "it is the woman's choice and she can ignore your opinion" to "only women can make policy affecting other women".

One is true, the other isn't. Legislators and policy makers are not strictly separated by gender. Usually though, a man or a woman can have an idea that benefits the opposite sex by virtue of being educated about the issue at hand and talking to the opposite sex rather than just assuming what the opposite sex thinks.

...This makes more sense than my current perception of the situation. Thanks.

Luminesa wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:No, not really. It's just that we have no way of having fetuses live when they're removed before viability. "Killing" isn't a necessary part of abortion.

So are you talking about, like, when a woman has a miscarriage?

As far as the procedure itself goes, abortion usually involves the ending of a pregnancy by killing a human baby. But if you're talking about a miscarriage, that's different, because the baby is already dead.

Sounded like Mav was talking solidly about abortion.

Killing a human being...eh, no. But we do that anyway.
Killing something that will be a human being...eh, no. But we still do that anyway.

What is it with people and killing?

Luminesa wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:No, not really. It's just that we have no way of having fetuses live when they're removed before viability. "Killing" isn't a necessary part of abortion.

So are you talking about, like, when a woman has a miscarriage?

As far as the procedure itself goes, abortion usually involves the ending of a pregnancy by killing a human baby. But if you're talking about a miscarriage, that's different, because the baby is already dead.

Miscarriages happen even to live fetuses.

It simply is a natural way to eliminate things the body considers foreign objects and not all pregnancies end up in miscarriage, although successful pregnancies that don't result in miscarriage are very uncommon for a woman if you consider the pregnancy/ovum ratio.

Luminesa wrote:

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:The capability to experience things is what I'm talking about.

And we're discussing the presence or absence of a thing, not scale. A person experiences, a rock does not.

A fetus can experience things. It has a heartbeat pretty early, it can dream, it can suck its thumb, it can swim around in the womb, it can hear its mother's voice (to some degree), it can eat, and it can experience contentment or fear. Of course, I'm putting all these things down in random order, rather than in the order in which the fetus develops all these abilities, but you get the picture. A fetus can experience things. Thus, it is not a rock, which...as we both know...just sits there.

Provide a source that says it can dream. Provide a source that those motions are anything other than reflexes. Source that it can hear the mothers voice. Source that it can eat. Source that ic can experience contentment or fear.

Ifreann wrote:

Merizoc wrote:I'd rather enter into a Dairy state.

Wisconsin?

AQ'd.

Harrisvile wrote:I'm pro-choice. It's the woman's body, she is a autonomous human being, she can do whatever the hell she want's to do with her body.

By definition, the fetus isn't her body, genetically it's only 50% hers.

Vatragii wrote:Killing a human being...eh, no. But we do that anyway.
Killing something that will be a human being...eh, no. But we still do that anyway.

What is it with people and killing?

Usually, it's justified by saying that it's the only option besides death and/or misery.

Luminesa wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:No, not really. It's just that we have no way of having fetuses live when they're removed before viability. "Killing" isn't a necessary part of abortion.

So are you talking about, like, when a woman has a miscarriage?

As far as the procedure itself goes, abortion usually involves the ending of a pregnancy by killing a human baby. But if you're talking about a miscarriage, that's different, because the baby is already dead.

No, I'm talking about an abortion.

Because we have no way for the fetus to survive, and it's safer that way. Like I said, abortion has utterly no necessity to kill the fetus. A pregnancy being terminated before viability without killing the fetus is still an abortion.

East Catalina wrote:

Vatragii wrote:Killing a human being...eh, no. But we do that anyway.
Killing something that will be a human being...eh, no. But we still do that anyway.

What is it with people and killing?

Usually, it's justified by saying that it's the only option besides death and/or misery.

No usually it is justified because to do otherwise is to give the fetus rights no born person has.