This, more or less. Though it would depend upon how it was implemented.
EDIT: So that I have a way to back out when I start feeling guilty about it.
Advertisement
by Quokkastan » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:14 pm
by Neo Bavaria » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:15 pm
by The V O I D » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:18 pm
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:20 pm
The V O I D wrote:I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.
This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"
And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.
by The V O I D » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:29 pm
Wallenburg wrote:The V O I D wrote:I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.
This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"
And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.
Unfortunately, some faction would probably arise that wants to ban transplants because they are "unnatural".
by Mattopilos » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:34 pm
Neo Bavaria wrote:Mattopilos wrote:
They control women's lives by limiting their choices through their moral bullshittery.
No one claims it is necessary all the time. They claim it is a choice they can make as an adult, and that removing that right is wrong. It isn't like they are going up to new-borns and stabbing them or anything: they are not yet babies, and very few abortions occur in the late stages.
How is it "moral bullshittery"? They legitimately believe that abortion is murder, you don't. The fact that you have a difference of opinion in regard to this issue does not mean they're committing "moral bullshittery" for the sake of some kind of conspiracy to control the lives of all women everywhere through their uterus.
by Stellonia » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:39 pm
Godular wrote:attack: "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with."
Note the use of 'or'. In this situation, the fact that the fetus simply is taking resources from the woman within which it resides is a matter of force. So yes, a fetus can be deemed an attacker.
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:40 pm
Stellonia wrote:Godular wrote:attack: "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with."
Note the use of 'or'. In this situation, the fact that the fetus simply is taking resources from the woman within which it resides is a matter of force. So yes, a fetus can be deemed an attacker.
Note the first part of the definition, "to set upon." The fetus is not "setting upon" anyone; rather, it is being placed into this situation against its volition.
by New Edom » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:09 pm
Stellonia wrote:
I invoke Dictionary.com and its definition of self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant." Said source defines "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with." According to the latter definition, a fetus cannot attack its mother; ergo, "self-defense" is not a valid argument.In any event, you don't need to ban abortion to reduce the number of abortions. That just attempts to slap a band-aid on the gushing artery wound.
I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.
by The V O I D » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:15 pm
New Edom wrote:Stellonia wrote:I invoke Dictionary.com and its definition of self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant." Said source defines "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with." According to the latter definition, a fetus cannot attack its mother; ergo, "self-defense" is not a valid argument.
I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.
I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed, so I don't see how that makes me against women's bodily rights or denying them choices. I would just like to see better choices than abortion outweigh any need for abortion. So I would not suppor banning it while there is a lack of the best available medical support, birth control, sex education and acceptance for women who are pregnant out of wedlock. I would also want there to be means by which women could still attend school or not lose credibility in a profession if pregnancy was about to get in the way.
However as far as I'm concerned if all of that was in place and women chose to have sex that could result in pregnancy anyway and just didn't want to deal with that consequences--no, that's not good enough. Sexual morality and making intelligent decisions is demanding constraint, yes--and that's part of what it is to be a civilized person, is to consider the consequences of one's actions and make wise choices.
by Godular » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:32 pm
Stellonia wrote:Godular wrote:attack: "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with."
Note the use of 'or'. In this situation, the fact that the fetus simply is taking resources from the woman within which it resides is a matter of force. So yes, a fetus can be deemed an attacker.
Note the first part of the definition, "to set upon." The fetus is not "setting upon" anyone; rather, it is being placed into this situation against its volition.
by New Edom » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:32 pm
The V O I D wrote:New Edom wrote:
I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed, so I don't see how that makes me against women's bodily rights or denying them choices. I would just like to see better choices than abortion outweigh any need for abortion. So I would not suppor banning it while there is a lack of the best available medical support, birth control, sex education and acceptance for women who are pregnant out of wedlock. I would also want there to be means by which women could still attend school or not lose credibility in a profession if pregnancy was about to get in the way.
However as far as I'm concerned if all of that was in place and women chose to have sex that could result in pregnancy anyway and just didn't want to deal with that consequences--no, that's not good enough. Sexual morality and making intelligent decisions is demanding constraint, yes--and that's part of what it is to be a civilized person, is to consider the consequences of one's actions and make wise choices.
You seem to not understand. Choosing abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions, and being wise. It is acknowledging that they are either not ready to be a mother, or that they somehow got pregnant despite the fact they used protection in a recreational sexual act.
Also, what are your thoughts on advancing artificial womb and fetus transplant technologies and methods? Do you think, if we get them, that this debate will be unnecessary - as it satisfies both the pro-life needs of the fetus to live, and the pro-choice needs of the woman to control her own body?
by Godular » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:36 pm
New Edom wrote:The V O I D wrote:
You seem to not understand. Choosing abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions, and being wise. It is acknowledging that they are either not ready to be a mother, or that they somehow got pregnant despite the fact they used protection in a recreational sexual act.
Also, what are your thoughts on advancing artificial womb and fetus transplant technologies and methods? Do you think, if we get them, that this debate will be unnecessary - as it satisfies both the pro-life needs of the fetus to live, and the pro-choice needs of the woman to control her own body?
Sexual reproduction is arguably one of the strongest biological forces we deal with. Its very existence is a remarkable overcoming of odds. So I think we should presume that sexual intercourse is likely to lead to ipregnation and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.
Anyway I'm not up to date on the latest research for artificial womb and fetus transplant, but I generally agree with those and I'd add them to my list of things I would think ought to become available to reduce the necessity for abortion. As I've said, I'm actually against denying legal abortions where there are insufficient measures in place to offer women other choices, but I'm not really happy about it.
by New Edom » Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:27 pm
Godular wrote:New Edom wrote:
Sexual reproduction is arguably one of the strongest biological forces we deal with. Its very existence is a remarkable overcoming of odds. So I think we should presume that sexual intercourse is likely to lead to ipregnation and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.
Actually, it is pretty unlikely if we consider it a matter of probabilities. Now, it is infinitely more likely than not having sex, but that doesn't mean that procreation is all that sex is for.Anyway I'm not up to date on the latest research for artificial womb and fetus transplant, but I generally agree with those and I'd add them to my list of things I would think ought to become available to reduce the necessity for abortion. As I've said, I'm actually against denying legal abortions where there are insufficient measures in place to offer women other choices, but I'm not really happy about it.
The entertaining thing here is we'd probably be a lot further along in that area if fetal stem-cell research were permitted. A certain lobby that shall not be named seems to have a hate-on for that kind of research though.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:40 pm
New Edom wrote:Sexual reproduction is arguably one of the strongest biological forces we deal with. Its very existence is a remarkable overcoming of odds. So I think we should presume that sexual intercourse is likely to lead to ipregnation and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Godular » Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:53 pm
New Edom wrote:Godular wrote:
Actually, it is pretty unlikely if we consider it a matter of probabilities. Now, it is infinitely more likely than not having sex, but that doesn't mean that procreation is all that sex is for.
The entertaining thing here is we'd probably be a lot further along in that area if fetal stem-cell research were permitted. A certain lobby that shall not be named seems to have a hate-on for that kind of research though.
What kind are you talking about? Adult stem cells? Umbilical stem cells? Amniotic? I'm not against any of those.
by New Edom » Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:15 pm
by Kshrlmnt » Tue Aug 30, 2016 2:53 am
The V O I D wrote:...a borderline parasitic organism...
Socialist Nordia wrote:It receives all of its nutrients from the woman, uses the woman as waste disposal, and uses space within her body. If that foetus does not have consent from the woman, then she is having her body taken advantage of against her will. Any other human does not have the right to use another's body against their will, so naturally a foetus also does not have that right, due to the principle of bodily sovereignty.
The V O I D wrote:I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.
New Edom wrote:Stellonia wrote:I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.
I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed...
by Godular » Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:51 am
Kshrlmnt wrote:The V O I D wrote:...a borderline parasitic organism...Socialist Nordia wrote:It receives all of its nutrients from the woman, uses the woman as waste disposal, and uses space within her body. If that foetus does not have consent from the woman, then she is having her body taken advantage of against her will. Any other human does not have the right to use another's body against their will, so naturally a foetus also does not have that right, due to the principle of bodily sovereignty.
Ok, speaking as a woman, my body has the ability to nurture and create a new human being. Gross and weird as it can get, that's still pretty cool. This isn't an alien chestburster we're talking about here. This is an organism that, even if it's "taking my resources", and even if it's not yet life (though we could argue that), will be human. That's not a parasite in my body, or something out to hurt me--that's my body being a lean green person-creating machine... er, maybe not lean at that point, but come on, I can make a human! How cool is that?
The V O I D wrote:I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.
I'll agree with Neo-Bavaria: I respect your honesty. I also think that taking the option would be a scummy thing to do, even if it might be fair. And judging by the reluctance of some of the other supporters of the idea here, I think some of you might even agree with me.New Edom wrote:
I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed...
Perhaps that's at least a small good in the legalization and availability of abortion--you're seeing many of those who deplore it supporting and working to provide alternatives, so that women have an actual choice. If choosing not to abort means losing your education, or job, or family, or health, there's no good option.
On a side note, but perhaps one worth mentioning, I strongly suspect none of us would disagree all that much if it weren't for the matter of whether a fetus is a child or not. We pro-lifers aren't all out to take women's choices away, and you pro-choicers aren't all out to kill babies. One side thinks it's a life worth saving, and the other, since they don't believe it is a life, wants to support women.
Yes, the difference is extremely important, but I don't think either side can truly be described as monsters or anything of that sort, and I hope we can remember that.
And with that, I'm fleeing NSG for another few years (hopefully). See you in Gameplay!
by Internationalist Bastard » Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:53 am
by Mattopilos » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:09 am
Internationalist Bastard wrote:I think pro choice is the key word here.
I've never been comfortable with it, but I aint gonna stop someone else from doing it
by Ashmoria » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:21 am
The V O I D wrote:I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.
This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"
And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.
by The V O I D » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:55 am
Ashmoria wrote:The V O I D wrote:I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.
This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"
And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.
1. who would pay for this amazingly expensive medical procedure?
2. what would we DO with all the unwanted children?
3. do you mean that the argument would disappears forever because everyone will see the wisdom of abortion on demand?
by The V O I D » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:07 am
Kshrlmnt wrote:The V O I D wrote:...a borderline parasitic organism...Socialist Nordia wrote:It receives all of its nutrients from the woman, uses the woman as waste disposal, and uses space within her body. If that foetus does not have consent from the woman, then she is having her body taken advantage of against her will. Any other human does not have the right to use another's body against their will, so naturally a foetus also does not have that right, due to the principle of bodily sovereignty.
Ok, speaking as a woman, my body has the ability to nurture and create a new human being. Gross and weird as it can get, that's still pretty cool. This isn't an alien chestburster we're talking about here. This is an organism that, even if it's "taking my resources", and even if it's not yet life (though we could argue that), will be human. That's not a parasite in my body, or something out to hurt me--that's my body being a lean green person-creating machine... er, maybe not lean at that point, but come on, I can make a human! How cool is that?
Kshrlmnt wrote:The V O I D wrote:I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.
I'll agree with Neo-Bavaria: I respect your honesty. I also think that taking the option would be a scummy thing to do, even if it might be fair. And judging by the reluctance of some of the other supporters of the idea here, I think some of you might even agree with me.
Kshrlmnt wrote:1. On a side note, but perhaps one worth mentioning, I strongly suspect none of us would disagree all that much if it weren't for the matter of whether a fetus is a child or not. 2. We pro-lifers aren't all out to take women's choices away, and you pro-choicers aren't all out to kill babies. 3. One side thinks it's a life worth saving, and the other, since they don't believe it is a life, wants to support women. 4. Yes, the difference is extremely important, but I don't think either side can truly be described as monsters or anything of that sort, and I hope we can remember that.
Kshrlmnt wrote:And with that, I'm fleeing NSG for another few years (hopefully). See you in Gameplay!
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bupkiss, El Lazaro, Elejamie, Eragon Island, Ethel mermania, Grinning Dragon, Simonia, Stratonesia, The Holy Therns, Tiami
Advertisement