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

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Also should we go start a first degree murder investigation every time a miscarriage that the Sword of the State is able to detect happens?

[Spirit of Hope]

How is the former different in a meaningful sense from seeking an abortion?

Why are you apposed to IVF? It is a process that seeks to help those suffering from a number of different issues have wanted children.

Because often, abortion is not done immediately after implantation. At least with birth control, it is minimizing the scale of suffering.

Except there is no difference in the scale of the suffering. A fetus is without any capacity to feel until well after the vast majority of abortions occur. The only person who could be said to "suffer" more is the pregnant person, but the evidence is that they seek an abortion as soon as they know they are pregnant.

While I do commend the purpose of IVF, which is largely to offer parents and couples who cannot conceive children through the normal means, its death toll is simply staggering. 1.7 million discarded fetuses compared to the 100.000 born through IVF is not enough for me to justify its application. Adoption is a viable alternative, even if it lacks the blood connection.

So you apposed it because it destroys fetuses that wouldn't have existed without it while leading to births that wouldn't have existed without it.

Also adoption isn't a viable alternative, in the US there are more people looking to adopt than there are babies to adopt. To use your own numbers, there are 100,000 children born through IVF, there are only about 18,000 children relinquished for adoption in a year.

Now you can also look to adoption from foster care, where there are around 100,000 at any given time, but these are generally have special needs, such as being older, being in sibling groups, medical conditions, or disabilities.

You may notice that those numbers don't add up to allowing every family who has a child through IVF to be able to adopt a child.

[Empire of Lettuce]

Also should we go start a first degree murder investigation every time a miscarriage that the Sword of the State is able to detect happens?

Are you joking?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Also should we go start a first degree murder investigation every time a miscarriage that the Sword of the State is able to detect happens?

Are you joking?

If fetuses are actually endowed with the rights of born persons then wouldn't it be natural to investigate every wrongful death even for persons like this?

[Empire of Lettuce]

Are you joking?

If fetuses are actually endowed with the rights of born persons then wouldn't it be natural to investigate every wrongful death even for persons like this?

That idea I think would fail because there are so many miscarriages such as my mom having one. I find these rather a dumb idea as it spends to much money on an idea that is useless.

[Godular]

Why should the defender have to determine intent to cause harm before they can defend themselves? Is it not sufficient that they are simply trying to prevent themselves from being harmed?

Aside from excessive or lethal force, the defender should still at least attempt to diagnose intent, as we all subconsciously do. If I step on your foot without malicious intent, I doubt you would shove me nearly as hard as you would if I jumped on it repeatedly to evoke a response.

Generally, the primary assumption of Self defense is that a reasonable person is expected to be fucking terrified. The expectation that the defender be capable of doing anything rationally in the heat of the moment is decidedly not reasonable.

[Ineva]

Aside from excessive or lethal force, the defender should still at least attempt to diagnose intent, as we all subconsciously do. If I step on your foot without malicious intent, I doubt you would shove me nearly as hard as you would if I jumped on it repeatedly to evoke a response.

Generally, the primary assumption of Self defense is that a reasonable person is expected to be fucking terrified. The expectation that the defender be capable of doing anything rationally in the heat of the moment is decidedly not reasonable.

I reckon those pregnant and desiring to terminate their child(ren) would thus have more than enough time to diagnose intent, true?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Generally, the primary assumption of Self defense is that a reasonable person is expected to be fucking terrified. The expectation that the defender be capable of doing anything rationally in the heat of the moment is decidedly not reasonable.

I reckon those pregnant and desiring to terminate their child(ren) would thus have more than enough time to diagnose intent, true?

What if a strict abortion ban is preventing her medical team from arriving at the appropriate diagnosis and treatment?

[Ineva]

I reckon those pregnant and desiring to terminate their child(ren) would thus have more than enough time to diagnose intent, true?

What if a strict abortion ban is preventing her medical team from arriving at the appropriate diagnosis and treatment?

I am strictly speaking to intent at the moment. I will not deny that Savita Halappanavar's was a tragedy. Partially why I tolerate abortion in cases where the mother is facing a high risk of death.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What if a strict abortion ban is preventing her medical team from arriving at the appropriate diagnosis and treatment?

I am strictly speaking to intent at the moment. I will not deny that Savita Halappanavar's was a tragedy. Partially why I tolerate abortion in cases where the mother is facing a high risk of death.

Have you heard of the term "chilling effect"?

[Spirit of Hope]

Generally, the primary assumption of Self defense is that a reasonable person is expected to be fucking terrified. The expectation that the defender be capable of doing anything rationally in the heat of the moment is decidedly not reasonable.

I reckon those pregnant and desiring to terminate their child(ren) would thus have more than enough time to diagnose intent, true?

Intent isn't required to cause harm. The fetus is harming the pregnant person in an unwanted pregnancy. The remedy to this harm is an abortion.

[Ineva]

I reckon those pregnant and desiring to terminate their child(ren) would thus have more than enough time to diagnose intent, true?

Intent isn't required to cause harm. The fetus is harming the pregnant person in an unwanted pregnancy. The remedy to this harm is an abortion.

Killing anything/anyone that bothers you is a great remedy for yourself, but not the thing/person on the receiving end.

[Ineva]

I am strictly speaking to intent at the moment. I will not deny that Savita Halappanavar's was a tragedy. Partially why I tolerate abortion in cases where the mother is facing a high risk of death.

Have you heard of the term "chilling effect"?

I'm familiar with the basics.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Have you heard of the term "chilling effect"?

I'm familiar with the basics.

Then you understand why, under Ireland's strict abortion ban (with threat to life exceptions), Savita still died, right?
Because her medical team didn't want to go to prison or fight a emotionally devastating court case that had nothing to do with their profession. So they refused to extricate the dead fetus, and so Savita contracted sepsis, and so she died in agony.

[Ineva]

I'm familiar with the basics.

Then you understand why, under Ireland's strict abortion ban (with threat to life exceptions), Savita still died, right?
Because her medical team didn't want to go to prison or fight a emotionally devastating court case that had nothing to do with their profession. So they refused to extricate the dead fetus, and so Savita contracted sepsis, and so she died in agony.

We're dealing with the exceptions of the exceptions now. Again, while her case was a tragedy, we ought to look at the picture as a whole.

[The Black Forrest]

What if a strict abortion ban is preventing her medical team from arriving at the appropriate diagnosis and treatment?

I am strictly speaking to intent at the moment. I will not deny that Savita Halappanavar's was a tragedy. Partially why I tolerate abortion in cases where the mother is facing a high risk of death.

That’s nice.

The problem? It’s as valuable as the often repeated phrase “thoughts and prayers”

Most of the shitty laws that replaced or reactivated after ROE was removed are still in place or unaltered. Why does a woman have to carry to term a child that will die right after birth? Why are women forced to carry dead children while the system and the courts figure out what to do? Why are hospitals debating if an abortion is wrong for an ectopic pregnancy?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Then you understand why, under Ireland's strict abortion ban (with threat to life exceptions), Savita still died, right?
Because her medical team didn't want to go to prison or fight a emotionally devastating court case that had nothing to do with their profession. So they refused to extricate the dead fetus, and so Savita contracted sepsis, and so she died in agony.

We're dealing with the exceptions of the exceptions now. Again, while her case was a tragedy, we ought to look at the picture as a whole.

Despite whatever a russian dictator may have once said, every death matters. And you cannot brush them aside as "collateral damage" or "acceptable casualties" if you advocate for a strict abortion ban.

[Ineva]

I am strictly speaking to intent at the moment. I will not deny that Savita Halappanavar's was a tragedy. Partially why I tolerate abortion in cases where the mother is facing a high risk of death.

That’s nice.

The problem? It’s as valuable as the often repeated phrase “thoughts and prayers”

Most of the shitty laws that replaced or reactivated after ROE was removed are still in place or unaltered. Why does a woman have to carry to term a child that will die right after birth? Why are women forced to carry dead children while the system and the courts figure out what to do? Why are hospitals debating if an abortion is wrong for an ectopic pregnancy?

If the baby is already dead, there is no reason a woman should have to carry him.

[Spirit of Hope]

Intent isn't required to cause harm. The fetus is harming the pregnant person in an unwanted pregnancy. The remedy to this harm is an abortion.

Killing anything/anyone that bothers you is a great remedy for yourself, but not the thing/person on the receiving end.

I would call forced pregnancy more than a bother, what with maternal mortality, high chance of major surgery, major changes to the body, and high medical expenses. Denied abortions, and being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, has proven to have negative effects on women, and their other children, for years after.

Put frankly the fetus doesn't get to use the pregnant persons body without consent. If the pregnant person doesn't consent to being pregnant then they can remove the fetus.

[Ineva]

We're dealing with the exceptions of the exceptions now. Again, while her case was a tragedy, we ought to look at the picture as a whole.

Despite whatever a russian dictator may have once said, every death matters. And you cannot brush them aside as "collateral damage" or "acceptable casualties" if you advocate for a strict abortion ban.

Again, I am not against every single case of abortion. Though if I had to choose, I'd rather there be no abortions than all abortions. Eight million plus dead is unjustifiable.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

That’s nice.

The problem? It’s as valuable as the often repeated phrase “thoughts and prayers”

Most of the shitty laws that replaced or reactivated after ROE was removed are still in place or unaltered. Why does a woman have to carry to term a child that will die right after birth? Why are women forced to carry dead children while the system and the courts figure out what to do? Why are hospitals debating if an abortion is wrong for an ectopic pregnancy?

If the baby is already dead, there is no reason a woman should have to carry him.

But the medical team won't do an abortion now until the woman's circulatory system is literally falling apart, because they do not want to end up charged with murder by a jealous State.

[Ineva]

Killing anything/anyone that bothers you is a great remedy for yourself, but not the thing/person on the receiving end.

I would call forced pregnancy more than a bother, what with maternal mortality, high chance of major surgery, major changes to the body, and high medical expenses. Denied abortions, and being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, has proven to have negative effects on women, and their other children, for years after.

Put frankly the fetus doesn't get to use the pregnant persons body without consent. If the pregnant person doesn't consent to being pregnant then they can remove the fetus.

This is circling back to a discussion I believe we've had previously (unless I am mistaking you for another user). It seems futile to hash that out once more.

[Godular]

Intent isn't required to cause harm. The fetus is harming the pregnant person in an unwanted pregnancy. The remedy to this harm is an abortion.

Killing anything/anyone that bothers you is a great remedy for yourself, but not the thing/person on the receiving end.

It amuses me how you use 'bothers you' as a synonym for 'harm'. It is incorrect to do so.

In any event, there is a concept known as 'necessary force', which is generally described as 'whatever force is necessary to resolve the situation as quickly as possible'. For other born persons this could simply involve swatting a hand out of the way or screaming to alert others nearby. In regards to an unwanted pregnancy, the only means of resolving the situation with immediacy is inherently lethal to the entity causing the harm.

It is unfortunate, but that does not give cause to place further onus on the woman to justify her desire to terminate the pregnancy.

[Ineva]

Killing anything/anyone that bothers you is a great remedy for yourself, but not the thing/person on the receiving end.

It amuses me how you use 'bothers you' as a synonym for 'harm'. It is incorrect to do so.

In any event, there is a concept known as 'necessary force', which is generally described as 'whatever force is necessary to resolve the situation as quickly as possible'. For other born persons this could simply involve swatting a hand out of the way or screaming to alert others nearby. In regards to an unwanted pregnancy, the only means of resolving the situation with immediacy is inherently lethal to the entity causing the harm.

It is unfortunate, but that does not give cause to place further onus on the woman to justify her desire to terminate the pregnancy.

Is harm not bothersome?

[Spirit of Hope]

I would call forced pregnancy more than a bother, what with maternal mortality, high chance of major surgery, major changes to the body, and high medical expenses. Denied abortions, and being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, has proven to have negative effects on women, and their other children, for years after.

Put frankly the fetus doesn't get to use the pregnant persons body without consent. If the pregnant person doesn't consent to being pregnant then they can remove the fetus.

This is circling back to a discussion I believe we've had previously (unless I am mistaking you for another user). It seems futile to hash that out once more.

Well it would be a continuation of your refusal to confront the harm caused by your various proposals, from punishing women for miscarriages they can't control, to deny people the ability to have families, to killing women by denying them abortions. Done for a perspective that privileges the fetus over the pregnant person.