So, Abortion.

[Asuiop]

I think this deserves a:


Yes, it is her choice. I know a guy who is alive today because his teenage mother decided not to abort him.

Who cares?

The reason I said that was because he said that woman automatically had to get an abortion no matter how unsafe or illegal it is.

[Olthar]

Don't get one. Duh.

Making abortion illegal harms women. Unsafe abortions kills people -- actual, living, breathing people. To deny women the right to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not is like giving her a death sentence.

I don't care if a woman getting an abortion dies from it. I'm against her getting one anyway.

So you admit to supporting murder?

[Avenio]

Indeed. But laws are rooted in a combination of reason, empirical evidence, and ethics. So our definition of "legal person" should really match our definition of "human being".

No, it really shouldn't. Mostly because doing so actively impinges on human rights at both 'ends' of our lifespans and opens up an enormous can of ethical worms.

[Atollus]

That's not really a choice at all. By making abortion illegal, you kill people.

I think this deserves a:


Yes, it is her choice. I know a guy who is alive today because his teenage mother decided not to abort him.

I'm alive today because my mother didn't get an abortion in time. Does that mean I suddenly have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies?

HELL NO!

[Frisivisia]

Don't get one. Duh.

Making abortion illegal harms women. Unsafe abortions kills people -- actual, living, breathing people. To deny women the right to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not is like giving her a death sentence.

I don't care if a woman getting an abortion dies from it. I'm against her getting one anyway.

The point is that abortion happens. We can make it safer and rarer by legalizing it. Why not, then?

See the above response.

So, your answer is "I hate women and want to look like a dick on the internet."?

[United Marxist Nations]

Who cares?

The reason I said that was because he said that woman automatically had to get an abortion no matter how unsafe or illegal it is.

You're the one in favor of forcing women to have children they don't want.

[Asuiop]

I don't care if a woman getting an abortion dies from it. I'm against her getting one anyway.

So you admit to supporting murder?

The problem with allowing the woman to die is that the fetus dies too most times, and then you have 2 dead bodies on your hands.

[Individuality-ness]

That's not really a choice at all. By making abortion illegal, you kill people.

I think this deserves a:


Yes, it is her choice. I know a guy who is alive today because his teenage mother decided not to abort him.

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

[Auralia]

I would argue that human beings have rights because they are human beings.

Which is, of course, as circular an argument as they come.

Fair enough. That particular conviction stems from a religious belief that humans have souls, which is sufficient to justify human rights.

From a secular perspective, I would argue that any entity with the inherent capacity for sapience (i.e. the ability to develop sapience over time) should have rights.

[Asuiop]

The reason I said that was because he said that woman automatically had to get an abortion no matter how unsafe or illegal it is.

You're the one in favor of forcing women to have children they don't want.

You're the one in favor of killing human beings to spare the mother of taking care of a child.

[United Marxist Nations]

So you admit to supporting murder?

The problem with allowing the woman to die is that the fetus dies too most times, and then you have 2 dead bodies on your hands.

So, you're okay with the woman being killed by her pregnancy as long as the fetus survives?

[Mavorpen]

I don't care if a woman getting an abortion dies from it. I'm against her getting one anyway.

So you admit to supporting murder?

To be fair, he's never denied adhering to this pathetic and childish belief of his.

[Asuiop]

I think this deserves a:


Yes, it is her choice. I know a guy who is alive today because his teenage mother decided not to abort him.

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Ever heard of adoptions?

[Planeia]

I think this deserves a:


Yes, it is her choice. I know a guy who is alive today because his teenage mother decided not to abort him.

Who cares?

People who agree that fetuses literally only have one chance at experiencing life.

[Frisivisia]

Which is, of course, as circular an argument as they come.

Fair enough. That particular conviction stems from a religious belief that humans have souls, which is sufficient to justify human rights.

From a secular perspective, I would argue that any entity with the inherent capacity for sapience (i.e. the ability to develop sapience over time) should have rights.

How do you suppose we should define sentience?

[Frisivisia]

Who cares?

People who agree that fetuses literally only have one chance at experiencing life.

ABORTIONS BAD YOLO

[Asuiop]

The problem with allowing the woman to die is that the fetus dies too most times, and then you have 2 dead bodies on your hands.

So, you're okay with the woman being killed by her pregnancy as long as the fetus survives?

No, I never said I was. I'm okay with abortions when it threatens the mother's life.

[Olthar]

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Ever heard of adoptions?

Getting this in before someone says adoption can replace abortion:

Adoption is not a legitimate or viable alternation to abortion. Getting away from the whole bodily sovereignty argument, it's just not practical.

According to the CDC, 827,609 abortions occurred in America in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available. Now, aside from 2007 having the second lowest number of abortions since 1974, in 2005 there were 513,000 children in foster care in the United States. Assuming that number stayed exactly the same (unlikely), that is 1,340,609 more children in foster, and that's just in 2007.

Now, let's factor in how many children are adopted each year. In 2001, 127,407 adoptions occurred in the US. Two fifths were kinship, tribal or private agency adoptions, with kinship adoptions likely being the vast majority (in 1992 Stepparent adoptions, a form of kinship adoption, made up 42% of all adoptions), so let's take off 50,000 or so from that.

Assuming that adoption statistics made a jump of 13,000 or so in the ten years since 2001, let's put the figure of adoptions that weren't kinship or tribal adoptions at 100,000. So, for every 1 adoption, 7 children would be added to the care system.

In ten years, the number of children in care wouldn't 1.3 million, it would be knocking on for 7.5 million, perhaps more. So, unless the US government bans giving children up for adoption, the already overstretched and underfunded care system will collapse from the strain of the better part of three quarters of a million unwanted children added each year.

If you are against abortion then you should do your part, before the government has to start billeting children in people's homes, and adopt 10 unwanted babies.

[Frisivisia]

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Ever heard of adoptions?

Well fuck, why didn't we think of that?

[Auralia]

Indeed. But laws are rooted in a combination of reason, empirical evidence, and ethics. So our definition of "legal person" should really match our definition of "human being".

No, it really shouldn't. Mostly because doing so actively impinges on human rights at both 'ends' of our lifespans and opens up an enormous can of ethical worms.

You'll have to clarify that statement for me.

[United Marxist Nations]

You're the one in favor of forcing women to have children they don't want.

You're the one in favor of killing human beings to spare the mother of taking care of a child.

Killing a fetus is killing something without the capacity to think and has never had a thought, it is not-sentient; hence, it is akin to killing a lower animal (i.e. a rat, deer, etc.).

[Christo et Ecclesiae]

seriously buddy? Wouldn't you be protecting life by killing it?

Answer the question. Are you going to protect your microbiome?

If not, you've just admitted to being a massive hypocrite.

sure buddy. Btw I clicked the wrong button before, incidentally answering the wrong question. Aren't you kind of protecting it just by living?

[Atollus]

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Ever heard of adoptions?

Ever hear about the overburdened foster care system?

[Auralia]

Fair enough. That particular conviction stems from a religious belief that humans have souls, which is sufficient to justify human rights.

From a secular perspective, I would argue that any entity with the inherent capacity for sapience (i.e. the ability to develop sapience over time) should have rights.

How do you suppose we should define sentience?

Is that definition in dispute? How would you define it?

[United Marxist Nations]

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Ever heard of adoptions?

Because there's an unlimited number of those, right?