House Passes Anti-Abortion Bill

[Itandene]

All abortion should be banned. It is a Goddamn unborn Baby for Christ's sake!!!!!

[Nulono]

Well hurr.

But people keep acting as if the embryo is part of the body as much as the uterus is, which is patently wrong.

It's...not really patently wrong. Saying "this thing that is contained within X, built entirely from X, and sustained by X is a part of X" is hardly a ridiculous statement. It is probably most accurate to say that the embryo is both part of her body AND distinct from her body, in much the same way that a cyst or a tumor is part of but distinct from the organ(s) it exists within.

Still, though, whether the embryo is "her body" or not does not matter, any more than whether it is a person or not. No person, however distinct, however endowed with human rights, gets to use my body against my will.

The fetus is dependent on her body, but is a distinct organism.

All abortion should be banned. It is a Goddamn unborn Baby for Christ's sake!!!!!

Thank you, A. A. Milne.

[Britanania]

Now, I am against abortion in every way, unless both the mother and child are in danger. Let me relate a scenario for all of you.

Pretend you are an abortion doctor, and you have two patients today who want your advice.

The first women cant be more than 15. She was date raped, so to speak. She comes from a very poor family, but is also very catholic. She is afraid because the father is a very important person and she has not told him yet. What is your advice?

Now the second women is married, but has a family history of illness; her first two children were miscarried and the next two died within a month. Her cousin's children are all deformed, and she is afraid this will happen to her child. What is your advice?



[spoilerIf you choose to give these women abortions, you would have denied the world the art of da Vinci, and spared the world of the evil of Hitler.][/spoiler]

[Nulono]

Well hurr.

But people keep acting as if the embryo is part of the body as much as the uterus is, which is patently wrong.

It's...not really patently wrong. Saying "this thing that is contained within X, built entirely from X, and sustained by X is a part of X" is hardly a ridiculous statement. It is probably most accurate to say that the embryo is both part of her body AND distinct from her body, in much the same way that a cyst or a tumor is part of but distinct from the organ(s) it exists within.

Still, though, whether the embryo is "her body" or not does not matter, any more than whether it is a person or not. No person, however distinct, however endowed with human rights, gets to use my body against my will.

The fetus is dependent on her body, but is a distinct organism.

All abortion should be banned. It is a Goddamn unborn Baby for Christ's sake!!!!!

Thank you, A. A. Milne.

My issue is that if a child is born to a parent who doesn't want it, chances are it's not going to grow up to be a particularly physically and mentally healthy human being. You can go on and on about whether or not a fetus has sentience, or whether abortion is an eraser that will be overused, or whatever, but the simple fact is that we don't want individuals who have grown up in abusive homes that could care less for their moral, intellectual, and emotional integrity. So I'm frankly of the opinion that if a would-be mother wishes to have an abortion, that's a sign that she should have an abortion. And if said parent can be proven to be incapable of properly raising a child, whether or not she wants the abortion, she should be required to have it anyway for the sake of my freedom, and all of yours, from those individuals who make our lives more difficult on account of being inept human beings in the aforementioned ways.

If a mother decides to kill her newborn, is that a sign that the newborn should die?

[Nulono]

Now, I am against abortion in every way, unless both the mother and child are in danger. Let me relate a scenario for all of you.

Pretend you are an abortion doctor, and you have two patients today who want your advice.

The first women cant be more than 15. She was date raped, so to speak. She comes from a very poor family, but is also very catholic. She is afraid because the father is a very important person and she has not told him yet. What is your advice?

Now the second women is married, but has a family history of illness; her first two children were miscarried and the next two died within a month. Her cousin's children are all deformed, and she is afraid this will happen to her child. What is your advice?

If you choose to give these women abortions, you would have denied the world the art of da Vinci, and spared the world of the evil of Hitler.]

Since when is your right to live based on your future contributions to society?

[The Norwegian Blue]

Well, technically, yeah... But in a sense, it's HER right. Not most women would like to have her unborn fetus killed... And sense technically the fetus is unborn, it doesn't have a voice in this matter. I know it sounds cold and shit, but it's really her choice. Not ours.

Huh?

The moment it actually is a sentient, sapient human. Sapience it certainly has from the zygote phase, but sentience? Not until week 15-ish to my knowledge. Until then, it's just a eukaryotic organism with a lack of a central nervous system capable of synaptic activity, nevermind cognitive thought.

Um, there's no sapience until several months after birth. There's no sentience until a while into pregnancy.

...yes, it does. That's precisely my point. Even if the fetus has all the rights of any born person, those rights do not extend to using another person's body against their will. The fetus's "right to live" ends where it requires using someone else's body without their consent.

The mother DOES have a right to bodily autonomy, but that does not grant her a license to kill.

Completely untrue. Your right to bodily autonomy, and hers, absolutely gives you the right to use what force is necessary to prevent someone from using your body against your will. If, for example, someone is trying to rape you, you are absolutely legally entitled to kill them if it is the only way to get them to stop. If the only way to stop an entity from continuing to occupy your uterus against your will is to kill it, you have every right to do so.

[Aeronos]

My issue is that if a child is born to a parent who doesn't want it, chances are it's not going to grow up to be a particularly physically and mentally healthy human being. You can go on and on about whether or not a fetus has sentience, or whether abortion is an eraser that will be overused, or whatever, but the simple fact is that we don't want individuals who have grown up in abusive homes that could care less for their moral, intellectual, and emotional integrity. So I'm frankly of the opinion that if a would-be mother wishes to have an abortion, that's a sign that she should have an abortion. And if said parent can be proven to be incapable of properly raising a child, whether or not she wants the abortion, she should be required to have it anyway for the sake of my freedom, and all of yours, from those individuals who make our lives more difficult on account of being inept human beings in the aforementioned ways.

If a mother decides to kill her newborn, is that a sign that the newborn should die?

No, but it's a sign the mother doesn't care for the newborn and will almost certainly not care for the baby.

[Nulono]

Huh?



Um, there's no sapience until several months after birth. There's no sentience until a while into pregnancy.


The mother DOES have a right to bodily autonomy, but that does not grant her a license to kill.

Completely untrue. Your right to bodily autonomy, and hers, absolutely gives you the right to use what force is necessary to prevent someone from using your body against your will. If, for example, someone is trying to rape you, you are absolutely legally entitled to kill them if it is the only way to get them to stop. If the only way to stop an entity from continuing to occupy your uterus against your will is to kill it, you have every right to do so.

And here I thought that we were past the demonization of the fetus, blaming the fetus for the actions of his parents. Fetuses are NOT rapists or trespassers, and do NOT deserve to be killed.

[Britanania]

Now, I am against abortion in every way, unless both the mother and child are in danger. Let me relate a scenario for all of you.

Pretend you are an abortion doctor, and you have two patients today who want your advice.

The first women cant be more than 15. She was date raped, so to speak. She comes from a very poor family, but is also very catholic. She is afraid because the father is a very important person and she has not told him yet. What is your advice?

Now the second women is married, but has a family history of illness; her first two children were miscarried and the next two died within a month. Her cousin's children are all deformed, and she is afraid this will happen to her child. What is your advice?

If you choose to give these women abortions, you would have denied the world the art of da Vinci, and spared the world of the evil of Hitler.]

Since when is your right to live based on your future contributions to society?

Considering all of us have potential. All of you who ARE ALIVE should be pro-life.

[Nulono]

Since when is your right to live based on your future contributions to society?

Considering all of us have potential. All of you who ARE ALIVE should be pro-life.

If you don't contribute anything, or end up being a bad person, would that justify having been killed as a child?

[Aeronos]

Since when is your right to live based on your future contributions to society?

Considering all of us have potential. All of you who ARE ALIVE should be pro-life.

Ironically, many of these so-called "pro-lifers" are also opposed to universal health care for actually living people. Clearly the loaded-term "Pro-life" is just like every other loaded term: a double-edged sword

[The Norwegian Blue]

Completely untrue. Your right to bodily autonomy, and hers, absolutely gives you the right to use what force is necessary to prevent someone from using your body against your will. If, for example, someone is trying to rape you, you are absolutely legally entitled to kill them if it is the only way to get them to stop. If the only way to stop an entity from continuing to occupy your uterus against your will is to kill it, you have every right to do so.

And here I thought that we were past the demonization of the fetus, blaming the fetus for the actions of his parents. Fetuses are NOT rapists or trespassers, and do NOT deserve to be killed.

I'm in no way blaming the fetus for anything. This has nothing whatsoever to do with blame, or with what anyone "deserves." It has to do solely with the simple fact that no born person has the right to use my body against my will, and so even were fetuses to be given all the rights of born humans, they would still have no right to remain in a woman's uterus against her will. Please try rereading the post, since I did not say "fetuses are rapists," but rather that self-defense during rape is one obvious example of the fact that your right to bodily autonomy does indeed extend to the right to kill when necessary.

Also, I think you missed this post:

When does the child get a right to live?

Am I arguing against birth? No. I'm only arguing against killing the fetus.

So you have no objection to methods of abortion which simply induce miscarriage, i.e. chemical abortion? All they typically do is remove the embryo from the woman's body.

[Norstal]

I corrected myself, I apologize.


With the advent of mechanized farming, it would be foolhardy to allow slaves work with expensive equipment (and everyone, including third world nations, have to rely on mechanized farming for obvious reasons). Slavery is then totally useless and inhibits automation, even before the advent of mechanized farming. Not to mention that, if you pay them, they will contribute more to the economy.

The cotton gin actually increased slavery, because it allowed slaves to do more work. But are you really saying slavery was wrong because it wasn't the best option economically?

Yes, but if slavery were used by slaves perpetually, as I've said before, it will inhibit automation. Slaves can steal tractors, kill their owners with a combine, etc.

No, that's not my only reason. Another reason is because it violates the godhood of each human being.

Yes, but each person is a god of their own body. Fetuses, are not. With that in mind, there are possible instances where fetuses can survive abortion; these fetuses are allowed to live because they have resisted death the same manner a man can avert being eaten by a lion by driving away in a car.

That's why people can't die and that's why (some) fetuses can.

Does a premature baby that needs an incubator not have a right to live? I fail to see how the rights lost by "being forced to live" magically reappear by being viable.

Who's responsibility is it to keep them alive? If it was born in a hospital, it is the hospital's job to keep them alive. If it was born outside of a hospital, then it is the responsibility of the mother. If the mother fails to do this and the baby dies, then what more could you do? Unless of course, if it was out of neglect, and I already pointed out why child neglect is "bad".

[Britanania]

Considering all of us have potential. All of you who ARE ALIVE should be pro-life.

If you don't contribute anything, or end up being a bad person, would that justify having been killed as a child?

That is based on pure conjecture. Are you a prophet now?

[Nulono]

Considering all of us have potential. All of you who ARE ALIVE should be pro-life.

Ironically, many of these so-called "pro-lifers" are also opposed to universal health care for actually living people. Clearly the loaded-term "Pro-life" is just like every other loaded term: a double-edged sword

I'm for universal health care for all living people, born or unborn.

But don't get me started on the choices you're against.

[Wiztopia]

Ironically, many of these so-called "pro-lifers" are also opposed to universal health care for actually living people. Clearly the loaded-term "Pro-life" is just like every other loaded term: a double-edged sword

I'm for universal health care for all living people, born or unborn.

But don't get me started on the choices you're against.

We support all choices. Fetuses are too stupid to have a choice so they don't deserve a choice.

[Britanania]

I'm for universal health care for all living people, born or unborn.

But don't get me started on the choices you're against.

We support all choices. Fetuses are too stupid to have a choice so they don't deserve a choice.

So should we kill retards?

[Conserative Morality]

We support all choices. Fetuses are too stupid to have a choice so they don't deserve a choice.

Trololololol

[Nulono]

And here I thought that we were past the demonization of the fetus, blaming the fetus for the actions of his parents. Fetuses are NOT rapists or trespassers, and do NOT deserve to be killed.

I'm in no way blaming the fetus for anything. This has nothing whatsoever to do with blame, or with what anyone "deserves." It has to do solely with the simple fact that no born person has the right to use my body against my will, and so even were fetuses to be given all the rights of born humans, they would still have no right to remain in a woman's uterus against her will. Please try rereading the post, since I did not say "fetuses are rapists," but rather that self-defense during rape is one obvious example of the fact that your right to bodily autonomy does indeed extend to the right to kill when necessary.

Deadly force is not justified against a rapist, and is not analogous to abortion.

Also, I think you missed this post:

So you have no objection to methods of abortion which simply induce miscarriage, i.e. chemical abortion? All they typically do is remove the embryo from the woman's body.

If the abortion kills the fetus, I'm against it.

I'm for universal health care for all living people, born or unborn.

But don't get me started on the choices you're against.

We support all choices. Fetuses are too stupid to have a choice so they don't deserve a choice.

Do you support the choice to rape? To murder? To own a slave? To commit arson? To rob a bank? To commit infanticide? To assault someone? No? I didn't think so.

[Euronion]

It's not going anywhere. Senate won't pass it and Obama would veto it anyway. In other words, pointless pandering to the base for the election.

not necessarily if Obama vetos it they could pass it again with a 3/4 majority (which probably won't happen) however I am pro-life I agree with what the republicans are proposing except I do not think we should ban abortion completely, I think that we should allow it for women who are having life threatening situations, when the woman cannot support the child, not when she gets pregnant and says to herself "I don't want another kid so I'm just going to kill it" basically I agree that we should have abortion for the reasons states in GA resolution #128 http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=88073&p=4233825&hilit=abortion#p4233825

[Allanea]

Because obviously a bill against taxpayer funding of abortion has nothing to do with cutting spending whatever. No sirree Bob.

[Nulono]

It's not going anywhere. Senate won't pass it and Obama would veto it anyway. In other words, pointless pandering to the base for the election.

not necessarily if Obama vetos it they could pass it again with a 3/4 majority (which probably won't happen) however I am pro-life I agree with what the republicans are proposing except I do not think we should ban abortion completely, I think that we should allow it for women who are having life threatening situations, when the woman cannot support the child, not when she gets pregnant and says to herself "I don't want another kid so I'm just going to kill it" basically I agree that we should have abortion for the reasons states in GA resolution #128 http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=88073&p=4233825&hilit=abortion#p4233825

So the fetus has a right to live, except if he was conceived in rape or if his parents are poor?

[Norstal]

Because obviously a bill against taxpayer funding of abortion has nothing to do with cutting spending whatever. No sirree Bob.

How much do you think an abortion costs?

And no, abortions don't need to kill the fetus.

[Nulono]

Because obviously a bill against taxpayer funding of abortion has nothing to do with cutting spending whatever. No sirree Bob.

How much do you think an abortion costs?

And no, abortions don't need to kill the fetus.

If the abortion doesn't kill the fetus, it's called a live birth.

[Kalibarr]

Tell me again why there are women who are part of the republican party?