[Abortion Thread] A Matter of Choice (NEW POLL!)

[Necroghastia]

Did I say we did?

The logical conclusion of this train of thought is rape upon the comatose. For God and Country, of course.

I'm absolutely against rape, if that's what you're alluding to. Being anti-abortion and anti-sexual assault are not and should thus not be viewed as antonymous.

Huh? I'm sorry, did you not just say that...

But should they be forced to give up any control at all over their bodies so someone else can live?

For the sake of human reproduction, yes.

No, human reproduction in the general sense has proven to continue quite fine even with legal abortion. I'll also remind you that you have stated opposition to IVF which causes further reproduction.

In the general sense, yes, but not for those lost to abortion.

And under """""pro-life""""" tyranny, human reproduction suffers.

And, I shall reiterate, IVF also causes further casualty.

Not in any way that matters.

[Spirit of Hope]

No, human reproduction in the general sense has proven to continue quite fine even with legal abortion. I'll also remind you that you have stated opposition to IVF which causes further reproduction.

In the general sense, yes, but not for those lost to abortion. And, I shall reiterate, IVF also causes further casualty.

Yes, but abortion happens when a person does not want to be pregnant. The person in that case is exercising control over who gets to use their body. To have it be otherwise privileges the fetus over the pregnant person.

IVF only results in "casualties" if you include embryos that wouldn't have existed without IVF and have not been implanted into a uterus. They have no ability to develop into anything in that status and would die absent intervention.

[Ors Might]

You're good.

But should they be forced to give up any control at all over their bodies so someone else can live?

For the sake of human reproduction, yes.

You'd sacrifice a person's rights for the sake of reproduction? I don't want to jump to conclusions but you can see how bad that comes off?

[Mutualist Chaos]

Miscarriages are a problem for the anti-abortion lot. There isn’t a test to show if it was a “natural” miscarriage. Though they probably don’t care about that.

Oh, there's definitely a test, and they certainly care. Here's how it works:

A megachurch pastor's wife has an unfortunate miscarriage and it wasn't God's will for her to have this baby right now, but we'll pray on it and hope He blesses us with a full-term baby.

A poor woman who plays the harlot and gets pregnant out of wedlock was leading an irresponsible life that led to the spontaneous abortion (you and I know that's not what that term means, but brace yourselves...) of her beautiful child.

See, it's quite simple and easily applied.

And you are defending a world where the women using abortion willy-nilly are never to blame.

There is no one to blame and nothing to be blamed for, in my and many others' eyes; and your beliefs are no more special or valid than mine. You haven't the right to impose them on others. Harangue all you want, but when you seek to use the power of the state (that is, commands enforced at gunpoint) to set your opinion about morality and metaphysics up above mine, that is the most refined tyranny - refined because you're so smitten with how correct you think you are that you can't conceive of anyone disagreeing. So they must be aberrant, delinquent, or psychotic (if you were more religious you might substitute satanic) and thus your use of force is justified.

It is not.

...persons like this?

I am continually astounded by the human capacity for fetishizing each other's pain. If I had bought this for my wife to "commemorate" (or whatever) her miscarriage I would be divorced faster than you can say "What in the actual fuck could you possibly have been thinking?"

[Ineva]

I'm absolutely against rape, if that's what you're alluding to. Being anti-abortion and anti-sexual assault are not and should thus not be viewed as antonymous.

Huh? I'm sorry, did you not just say that...

Synonymous? I am really bad with double negatives; I apologize. My point is I do not condone rape.

[Ineva]

For the sake of human reproduction, yes.

You'd sacrifice a person's rights for the sake of reproduction? I don't want to jump to conclusions but you can see how bad that comes off?

Okay, perhaps on its own, that sentence seems sinister. But, hopefully within the greater context of this conversation, you understand that it is more about conserving life rather than exploiting reproduction as a means of productivity. I am not a hard-core utilitarian, as that sentence may initially insinuate.

[The Black Forrest]

(As if we have any reason to value adult human childbearers the same as an organism that, during most of its development, cannot have sentience of any kind)

You speak of the fetus as if it is not human and will never develop sentience.

Some never do. Ectopic pregnancies and conditions like Nonsyndromic holoprosencephaly. My mother spoke of a situation where the skull never developes. Just enough of a brain stem which keeps the fetus going. It of course dies right after birth. Well it used to be aborted but that ability is gone in many states. There are great many conditions which cause pregnancies to end.

[Ineva]

You speak of the fetus as if it is not human and will never develop sentience.

Some never do. Ectopic pregnancies and conditions like Nonsyndromic holoprosencephaly. My mother spoke of a situation where the skull never developes. Just enough of a brain stem which keeps the fetus going. It of course dies right after birth. Well it used to be aborted but that ability is gone in many states. There are great many conditions which cause pregnancies to end.

You're right; some never do. Some. That is not what Cessarea was implying--nor, also, explicitly stating.

[The Black Forrest]

You're good.

But should they be forced to give up any control at all over their bodies so someone else can live?

For the sake of human reproduction, yes.

Not really an issue when you consider how many humans are on this planet.

[Ineva]

For the sake of human reproduction, yes.

Not really an issue when you consider how many humans are on this planet.

Murder isn't excusable just because there's over-population.

[The Black Forrest]

Not really an issue when you consider how many humans are on this planet.

Murder isn't excusable just because there's over-population.

Then there really isn’t a need for women to give up control of their bodies for the sake of human reproduction.

[Ineva]

Murder isn't excusable just because there's over-population.

Then there really isn’t a need for women to give up control of their bodies for the sake of human reproduction.

There are consequences to partaking in unprotected sex, and I'm afraid pregnancy is one of them.

[Spirit of Hope]

Then there really isn’t a need for women to give up control of their bodies for the sake of human reproduction.

There are consequences to partaking in unprotected sex, and I'm afraid pregnancy is one of them.

That is a problematic framing to the issue, equating pregnancy as a punishment for unprotected sex. Notably about half of abortions in the US are from cases where the person was using birth control. In a large number of cases they were using more than one method. This also does not engage with the issue of sexual assault.

Further consent to sex does not equate to consent to pregnancy and consent is not just given once but is a continuous requirement.

[The Black Forrest]

Then there really isn’t a need for women to give up control of their bodies for the sake of human reproduction.

There are consequences to partaking in unprotected sex, and I'm afraid pregnancy is one of them.

There are consequences for relegating women to brood mares as well.

That view is why women are being forced to carry a dead fetus, hospitals are debating abortions for an ectopic pregnancy, and forced to deliver children which die soon after birth.

Here is the thing of it. Abortion used for “contraception” is pretty much a lie told by pro-life. A majority of abortions are not simply because of an “inconvenience”.

Do you even know what is involved with an abortion? It’s not a simple action of the female body. It’s not a process taken lightly.

[Ineva]

There are consequences to partaking in unprotected sex, and I'm afraid pregnancy is one of them.

That is a problematic framing to the issue, equating pregnancy as a punishment for unprotected sex. Notably about half of abortions in the US are from cases where the person was using birth control. In a large number of cases they were using more than one method. This also does not engage with the issue of sexual assault.

Further consent to sex does not equate to consent to pregnancy and consent is not just given once but is a continuous requirement.

Well, I would agree with the under-lined portion; pregnancy is not a punishment.

[Ors Might]

You'd sacrifice a person's rights for the sake of reproduction? I don't want to jump to conclusions but you can see how bad that comes off?

Okay, perhaps on its own, that sentence seems sinister. But, hopefully within the greater context of this conversation, you understand that it is more about conserving life rather than exploiting reproduction as a means of productivity. I am not a hard-core utilitarian, as that sentence may initially insinuate.

I didn't think that's what you were suggesting but you definitely worded your post poorly. Regardless, with that clarification I do have a follow up. What rights are you willing and what rights are you unwilling to sacrifice for the unborn?

[Ineva]

Okay, perhaps on its own, that sentence seems sinister. But, hopefully within the greater context of this conversation, you understand that it is more about conserving life rather than exploiting reproduction as a means of productivity. I am not a hard-core utilitarian, as that sentence may initially insinuate.

I didn't think that's what you were suggesting but you definitely worded your post poorly. Regardless, with that clarification I do have a follow up. What rights are you willing and what rights are you unwilling to sacrifice for the unborn?

The supposed right to hard drugs and substance abuse would likely be the key one.

[Ors Might]

I didn't think that's what you were suggesting but you definitely worded your post poorly. Regardless, with that clarification I do have a follow up. What rights are you willing and what rights are you unwilling to sacrifice for the unborn?

The supposed right to hard drugs and substance abuse would likely be the key one.

Any other spring to mind?

[Ineva]

The supposed right to hard drugs and substance abuse would likely be the key one.

Any other spring to mind?

I suppose things along that same vein, where it would deliberately cause irreversible detriment/death to the child. Not seafood or exercise, but if they're used for the intent of killing the baby--which would be pretty nearly impossible to ever prove--then in that case, I would take issue with how those things were manipulated, rather than the things themselves--slight run-on, I know...

[Neanderthaland]

Some never do. Ectopic pregnancies and conditions like Nonsyndromic holoprosencephaly. My mother spoke of a situation where the skull never developes. Just enough of a brain stem which keeps the fetus going. It of course dies right after birth. Well it used to be aborted but that ability is gone in many states. There are great many conditions which cause pregnancies to end.

You're right; some never do. Some. That is not what Cessarea was implying--nor, also, explicitly stating.

It's estimated that roughly 50% of all fertilized eggs miscarry. Usually before the woman even realizes she is pregnant.

If your goal is to prevent fertilized eggs from dying, then people should cease getting pregnant altogether.

[The Black Forrest]

I didn't think that's what you were suggesting but you definitely worded your post poorly. Regardless, with that clarification I do have a follow up. What rights are you willing and what rights are you unwilling to sacrifice for the unborn?

The supposed right to hard drugs and substance abuse would likely be the key one.

There is a problem with that.

Women in general give up things that might be harmful during pregnancy. An addict’s ability is vastly diminished when it comes to the addiction. My mother once told a case of young addict. It was sad. She vowed to cut her wine intake to a 1/2 gallon a day.

[Ors Might]

Any other spring to mind?

I suppose things along that same vein, where it would deliberately cause irreversible detriment/death to the child. Not seafood or exercise, but if they're used for the intent of killing the baby--which would be pretty nearly impossible to ever prove--then in that case, I would take issue with how those things were manipulated, rather than the things themselves--slight run-on, I know...

This would all require a fairly intrusive investigation to take place, would it not? There are instances where miscarriage can be caused, or at least partially caused, by things that the mother likely had no clue would increase the likelihood of miscarriage or had little choice but to take such substances for their health, such as the case of certain medications.

If we treat miscarriages as potential murders and investigate them as such, we'd be heaping misery upon an immense number of innocent people already going through one of the worst periods of their lives. All to catch what would likely be a small number of, in your view, murderers.

[Ineva]

I suppose things along that same vein, where it would deliberately cause irreversible detriment/death to the child. Not seafood or exercise, but if they're used for the intent of killing the baby--which would be pretty nearly impossible to ever prove--then in that case, I would take issue with how those things were manipulated, rather than the things themselves--slight run-on, I know...

This would all require a fairly intrusive investigation to take place, would it not? There are instances where miscarriage can be caused, or at least partially caused, by things that the mother likely had no clue would increase the likelihood of miscarriage or had little choice but to take such substances for their health, such as the case of certain medications.

If we treat miscarriages as potential murders and investigate them as such, we'd be heaping misery upon an immense number of innocent people already going through one of the worst periods of their lives. All to catch what would likely be a small number of, in your view, murderers.

Sticking to drugs and alcohol for now, an autopsy would likely stop any unwarranted breaches of privacy.

[Ors Might]

This would all require a fairly intrusive investigation to take place, would it not? There are instances where miscarriage can be caused, or at least partially caused, by things that the mother likely had no clue would increase the likelihood of miscarriage or had little choice but to take such substances for their health, such as the case of certain medications.

If we treat miscarriages as potential murders and investigate them as such, we'd be heaping misery upon an immense number of innocent people already going through one of the worst periods of their lives. All to catch what would likely be a small number of, in your view, murderers.

Sticking to drugs and alcohol for now, an autopsy would likely stop any unwarranted breaches of privacy.

Medications are drugs. Its silly to assume that what you're proposing would stop at just hard drugs and alcohol once it reached the point where it's being legislated.

[Spirit of Hope]

This would all require a fairly intrusive investigation to take place, would it not? There are instances where miscarriage can be caused, or at least partially caused, by things that the mother likely had no clue would increase the likelihood of miscarriage or had little choice but to take such substances for their health, such as the case of certain medications.

If we treat miscarriages as potential murders and investigate them as such, we'd be heaping misery upon an immense number of innocent people already going through one of the worst periods of their lives. All to catch what would likely be a small number of, in your view, murderers.

Sticking to drugs and alcohol for now, an autopsy would likely stop any unwarranted breaches of privacy.

To reiterate the government already used bad science to accuse people suffering from miscarriage of commiting murder. You would just be giving them another tools where they can punish any person suffering from a miscarriage. You have even held that authorities shouldn't even have to prove the substance caused the miscarriage, just that it was possibly detrimental.