[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[Aroostook-Penobscot]

I believe the fetus is a human being with unalienable rights. Therefore I would make abortion illegal across the board.

[Godular]

I believe the fetus is a human being with unalienable rights. Therefore I would make abortion illegal across the board.

So the woman is... what? A unnecessarily complicated uterus with legs?

[Aroostook-Penobscot]

I believe the fetus is a human being with unalienable rights. Therefore I would make abortion illegal across the board.

So the woman is... what? A unnecessarily complicated uterus with legs?

I did not say that, please explain why you would misrepresent my argument in such a way, or why you believe that to be my argument.

[Torrocca]

So the woman is... what? A unnecessarily complicated uterus with legs?

I did not say that, please explain why you would misrepresent my argument in such a way, or why you believe that to be my argument.

I'd assume it has to do with the fact that you stated a fetus is a human being with unalienable rights, which I'd assume includes the right to life, which I'd also assume doesn't account for a woman's own right to life according to how she wants to live it. Especially not if her right to life is threatened by the fetus.

[Aroostook-Penobscot]

I'd assume it has to do with the fact that you stated a fetus is a human being with unalienable rights, which I'd assume includes the right to life, which I'd also assume doesn't account for a woman's own right to life according to how she wants to live it. Especially not if her right to life is threatened by the fetus.

In the rare case her life is indeed threatened, I suppose it's then a sort of self defense, in which case I guess I agree. For instance, if she were in need of some sort of life saving medicine, and taking this medicine would result in the death of the fetus, I would be okay with that.

[Godular]

So the woman is... what? A unnecessarily complicated uterus with legs?

I did not say that, please explain why you would misrepresent my argument in such a way, or why you believe that to be my argument.

Yes, in point of fact you did.

1. Making it illegal across the board effectively denies the woman the option of terminating a frequency even in the case of imminent danger, at which point you essentially say you'd rather both the woman AND the fetus die rather than give her that option. Apparently HER right to life does not exist.

2. A fetus is occupying the woman's body and is drawing resources from her body. If this is done without her consent, it presents an imposition upon the woman's rights AND a harm upon her person. You may consider the fetus to be a 'human being with unalienable rights', but that does not give it the right to use another person's body without their consent. So, you're either elevating a fetus to a class above born persons by providing them with rights that no born person possesses right up until their head peeks out, or relegating the woman to second-class citizenship the instant a zygote happens latch on to her uterine wall. In either case, the position is hardly egalitarian in nature.

Soooo... yeah... not really a misrepresentation under those circumstances.

[Gavia Penguis]

You oughtta add another option to the poll: Allow abortions, but halt tax-payer funding to it or create some type of waiver for Catholics or other faiths who believe simply having their tax money go to fund abortion is a sin.

Some people believe abortion is murder and some believe abortion is not. From state to state and county to county feelings are very different, and a single federal "outlaw" or "legalization" of abortion will upset the entire nation. Let Counties or states decide.

[Godular]

You oughtta add another option to the poll: Allow abortions, but halt tax-payer funding to it or create some type of waiver for Catholics or other faiths who believe simply having their tax money go to fund abortion is a sin.

Some people believe abortion is murder and some believe abortion is not. From state to state and county to county feelings are very different, and a single federal "outlaw" or "legalization" of abortion will upset the entire nation. Let Counties or states decide.

Abortion does not receive taxpayer funding anyway, so the option would be moot.

[Neutraligon]

You oughtta add another option to the poll: Allow abortions, but halt tax-payer funding to it or create some type of waiver for Catholics or other faiths who believe simply having their tax money go to fund abortion is a sin.

Some people believe abortion is murder and some believe abortion is not. From state to state and county to county feelings are very different, and a single federal "outlaw" or "legalization" of abortion will upset the entire nation. Let Counties or states decide.

First there is plenty of things that I do not support Catholics doing (confession being one) and Churches get a giant tax break. Should I get to deny them having any access to anything my taxes fund...like say roads and the such? And no, the counties and states should no more get to decide that a woman cannot have an abortion then they get to decide that slavery is legal.

[Great Minarchistan]

Personally, I think that abortion should be limited solely to rape and mom's death risk in pregnancy. Any other way can be considered straightforward murder.

[Godular]

Personally, I think that abortion should be limited solely to rape and mom's death risk in pregnancy. Any other way can be considered straightforward murder.

How so?

[Great Minarchistan]

Personally, I think that abortion should be limited solely to rape and mom's death risk in pregnancy. Any other way can be considered straightforward murder.

How so?

There's no actual need for the mother to abort except in cases she didn't want the pregnancy or when her pregnancy may kill her. Which is why I consider it murder.

[Aroostook-Penobscot]

Yes, in point of fact you did.

No, I did not. I believe people have consciousnesses and are more than vessels of flesh. I would much appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting what I said, and preassuming my beliefs.

1. Making it illegal across the board effectively denies the woman the option of terminating a frequency even in the case of imminent danger, at which point you essentially say you'd rather both the woman AND the fetus die rather than give her that option. Apparently HER right to life does not exist.

Another user brought up this point and I elaborated on this point in a second post in this thread.

2. A fetus is occupying the woman's body and is drawing resources from her body. If this is done without her consent, it presents an imposition upon the woman's rights AND a harm upon her person.

I understand it draws resources, but I'm not so sure in this situation it constitutes a violation of her rights. How exactly does it present a harm on her person? Birth is natural and most women don't die from it. This is a tricky situation, I will admit. Though if men could birth children I think I'd still hold the same position.

You may consider the fetus to be a 'human being with unalienable rights', but that does not give it the right to use another person's body without their consent.

I don't believe it gives her the right to kill it simply for her own convenience.

So, you're either elevating a fetus to a class above born persons by providing them with rights that no born person possesses right up until their head peeks out,

Everyone has that same right. Could you restate your argument or clarify?

Soooo... yeah... not really a misrepresentation under those circumstances.

A gross and fairly rude misrepresentation, actually. I don't think you can reasonably draw what you said in your prior response to what I stated.

[Torrocca]

How so?

There's no actual need for the mother to abort except in cases she didn't want the pregnancy or when her pregnancy may kill her. Which is why I consider it murder.

So a poor woman that did want the pregnancy at first but doesn't later on can't get an abortion?

I mean, purely from an economic standpoint that's pretty stupid, never mind a moral standpoint.

[Great Minarchistan]

So a poor woman that did want the pregnancy at first but doesn't later on can't get an abortion?

I mean, purely from an economic standpoint that's pretty stupid, never mind a moral standpoint.

She wanted the baby and voluntarily got pregnant. If she doesn't want the baby, give him to foster care or just to anyone you know that wants babies.

But hey, since you like to debate morals, kill a fetus that will become a human in a matter of a few months just to comfort yourself is something pretty immoral, don't you think? Moreover, abortions can be traumatic.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So a poor woman that did want the pregnancy at first but doesn't later on can't get an abortion?

I mean, purely from an economic standpoint that's pretty stupid, never mind a moral standpoint.

She wanted the baby and voluntarily got pregnant. If she doesn't want the baby, give him to foster care or just to anyone you know that wants babies.

But hey, since you like to debate morals, kill a fetus that will become a human in a matter of a few months just to comfort yourself is something pretty immoral, don't you think? Moreover, abortions can be traumatic.

What if she didn't want the baby and didn't voluntarily get pregnant?

[Great Minarchistan]

She wanted the baby and voluntarily got pregnant. If she doesn't want the baby, give him to foster care or just to anyone you know that wants babies.

But hey, since you like to debate morals, kill a fetus that will become a human in a matter of a few months just to comfort yourself is something pretty immoral, don't you think? Moreover, abortions can be traumatic.

What if she didn't want the baby and didn't voluntarily get pregnant?

Personally, I think that abortion should be limited solely to rape and mom's death risk in pregnancy. Any other way can be considered straightforward murder.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What if she didn't want the baby and didn't voluntarily get pregnant?

Personally, I think that abortion should be limited solely to rape and mom's death risk in pregnancy. Any other way can be considered straightforward murder.

Which doesn't answer my question. What if the mother didn't want a baby but still became pregnant for whatever reason? Should she be stripped of her right to choose what happens with her own body?

[Great Minarchistan]

Which doesn't answer my question. What if the mother didn't want a baby but still became pregnant for whatever reason?

How?

Should she be stripped of her right to choose what happens with her own body?

You should watch out that abortion is killing another body, too.

[Torrocca]

So a poor woman that did want the pregnancy at first but doesn't later on can't get an abortion?

I mean, purely from an economic standpoint that's pretty stupid, never mind a moral standpoint.

She wanted the baby and voluntarily got pregnant. If she doesn't want the baby, give him to foster care or just to anyone you know that wants babies.

But hey, since you like to debate morals, kill a fetus that will become a human in a matter of a few months just to comfort yourself is something pretty immoral, don't you think? Moreover, abortions can be traumatic.

The current state of the foster care system in the United States is incredibly messed up - tossing more kids into there isn't going to help. All that would do would very likely cause the kid to grow up with a horrible childhood.

But what about a poor woman who's forced to keep a child to term that she decided, after getting pregnant, that she didn't want, if she decides that foster care isn't right for the child, and that she wants to try and raise it herself? This again leads to both the fact that preventing abortions is both stupid economically and morally. Morally, a poor woman would have a hellish time raising a child, and that child would likely have a hellish childhood. Economically, the woman would be too busy rearing said child - for eighteen years, mind you - to be a productive member of the economy, in turn hurting the economy.

A fetus can't think, feel, or anything of that nature for most of the time it's developing, not really until the third trimester. Until then it's just a clump of developing cells. There's nothing morally wrong in killing a clump of cells - hell, cells across the body die all the time. Should we start petitioning for their right to life too?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which doesn't answer my question. What if the mother didn't want a baby but still became pregnant for whatever reason?

How?

Birth control can fail, consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy etc etc.

You should watch out that abortion is killing another body, too.

A body that is within a womans and is entirely reliant on her to survive. It should ultimately be the womans choice what happens with the fetus, nobody elses. Especially not the state.

[Torrocca]

A body that is within a womans and is entirely reliant on her to survive. It should ultimately be the womans choice what happens with the fetus, nobody elses. Especially not the state.

Basically this.

[Neutraligon]

Should a pregnant woman be prevented from doing contact sports or drinking, after all these things could also harm the fetus?

[Rusozak]

Of course prevention is better, but I would endorse making it available to everyone as a plan B solution. Too many people, and too many of those people being raised poorly because the parents couldn't/didn't want to raise them properly. I would even promote it above adoption if you don't already have adoptive parents lined up.

[Great Minarchistan]

The current state of the foster care system in the United States is incredibly messed up - tossing more kids into there isn't going to help. All that would do would very likely cause the kid to grow up with a horrible childhood.

Then give it to someone you know. There are several couples out there which are infertile and wish some kids. No need to deliver them to State care.

But what about a poor woman who's forced to keep a child to term that she decided, after getting pregnant, that she didn't want

People regret decisions all the time. That's no excuse to kill a soon-to-be human being so you can alleviate your suffering.

if she decides that foster care isn't right for the child, and that she wants to try and raise it herself?

Her decision, her problem lol

Morally, a poor woman would have a hellish time raising a child, and that child would likely have a hellish childhood.

But wasn't it her choice to raise the child?

A fetus can't think, feel, or anything of that nature for most of the time it's developing, not really until the third trimester. Until then it's just a clump of developing cells. There's nothing morally wrong in killing a clump of cells - hell, cells across the body die all the time. Should we start petitioning for their right to life too?

Except the billions of cells that are created and destroyed daily on our body won't become human beings in a few months. Compare ordinary body cells to a fetus that is an unique group of cells is nonsense.