Abortion Denied

[Vindex Nation]

So what? Are you saying that a fetus who you know will turn into a human Is property?

Legally, no. But they should be, really.


Basically, if you exist at the expense of another human being, you exist at the mercy of another human being. Nobody should be obliged to have their bodily sanctity violated and their biological resources taken by another.

IT IS YOUR CHOICE TO GET PREGNANT it doesn't just magically happen so if you don't want it then don't have it

[Liriena]

The law does not grant rights to "potential people", only to existing people. Furthermore, no pregnancy is 100% certain to be carried to term. Miscarriages are awfully common. Anything that is within my body is mine to preserve or remove, whatever its origin or potential outcome may be. I can remove a worm or an appendix if I choose to, so why not fetuses that are not even remotely viable?

You don't seem to understand that birth doesn't just happen you need to choose to have the child in the first place.

Sex =/= choice to have a child

[Liriena]

Legally, no. But they should be, really.


Basically, if you exist at the expense of another human being, you exist at the mercy of another human being. Nobody should be obliged to have their bodily sanctity violated and their biological resources taken by another.

IT IS YOUR CHOICE TO GET PREGNANT it doesn't just magically happen so if you don't want it then don't have it

Oh, for fuck's sake!

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy

[Zottistan]

The law does not grant rights to "potential people", only to existing people. Furthermore, no pregnancy is 100% certain to be carried to term. Miscarriages are awfully common. Anything that is within my body is mine to preserve or remove, whatever its origin or potential outcome may be. I can remove a worm or an appendix if I choose to, so why not fetuses that are not even remotely viable?

You don't seem to understand that birth doesn't just happen you need to choose to have the child in the first place.

Denying abortions is pretty harmful to the "choosing to have a child" function.

Legally, no. But they should be, really.


Basically, if you exist at the expense of another human being, you exist at the mercy of another human being. Nobody should be obliged to have their bodily sanctity violated and their biological resources taken by another.

IT IS YOUR CHOICE TO GET PREGNANT it doesn't just magically happen so if you don't want it then don't have it

I'd be inclined to agree, from a moral point of view.

On the other hand, if you mess up and get pregnant, instead of ruining your life, the lives of your loved ones, and possibly the life of the unwanted child, you could correct your mistake and hopefully learn from the experience.

[Caecuser]

Well, good for you - continue to exercise your democratic right. Don't be surprised if other people will vote alternately to you.

I fully expect they will. There have always been people throughout history who advocate infringing on others' rights because they do not consider members of that group to be fully human.
Being from the American South, I'm quite acquainted with those espousing such bigotry.

Don't worry - I fully consider fetuses to be Human. That alone is not significant enough to change my stance on the matter - and I wouldn't consider it to be bigotry.

Though do you not consider the irony of you infringing on others' rights while complaining about those infringing on others' rights?

[Vindex Nation]

You don't seem to understand that birth doesn't just happen you need to choose to have the child in the first place.

And if you get pregnant without your consent, without abortions, you don't have a choice on having the child.

Its funny that you pick that because out of all the abortions that happen each day I can guarantee that less than 1% is an extreme case like that (for example rape)

[Dyakovo]

Pro-Life defends the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the right to kill a lesser human?

No, pro-choice defends the rights of actual people.

[Liriena]

And if you get pregnant without your consent, without abortions, you don't have a choice on having the child.

Its funny that you pick that because out of all the abortions that happen each day I can guarantee that less than 1% is an extreme case like that (for example rape)

1. Some people have consensual sex but don't want to have children.
2. Source your bullshit right fucking now.

[The Tovian Way]

1. I see nothing wrong with not killing terminally ill newborns, despite their suffering for days or even weeks without any possibility of putting them out of their misery, because to kill such a newborn would infringe upon its right to life.
2. I deny that the United Nations has any authority to declare what is or is not a human right.
3. I deny that there are any reasonable restrictions or exceptions to natural human rights.
4. I deny that any positive rights exist.

1. All human rights require that someone, either the person in question or its legal guardian, are there to act on it. A newborn cannot act on its own rights, which is why the law provides it with legal guardians and professionals tasked with making decisions in its best interests.
2. Well, the United Nations' conventions on human rights are legally binding. Your opinions, on the other hand, are not.
3. Never set a single foot in law school, then. The staff and students will tear you to pieces of that arrogant denial of reality.
4. Again with this arrogant denial of reality?

1. All rights are negative, and require only that others not act in such a way as to infringe upon them.
2. Many things are now legal which ought not to be. That's the whole point of me trying to change the law. The UN may declare X to be a human right, but this does not in any way affect the truth value of the claim "X is a human right."
3. I do not deny that it is now legal to infringe upon some natural human rights. Indeed, this is the problem. What I deny is that the legality of so infringing has any bearing on the absolute nature of the right itself.
4. I'm quite well acquainted with reality. That's why I deny the existence of positive rights.

[Vindex Nation]

Pro-Life defends the unborn lives
Pro-Choice defends the right to kill a lesser human?

No, pro-death defends the rights of actual people.

What?

[Zottistan]

No, pro-death defends the rights of actual people.

What?

Oh, yes. Editing other people's posts so you can dismiss their arguments more easily is so edgy and cutting. So clever.

[Vindex Nation]

Its funny that you pick that because out of all the abortions that happen each day I can guarantee that less than 1% is an extreme case like that (for example rape)

1. Some people have consensual sex but don't want to have children.
2. Source your bullshit right fucking now.

Really... Do you really think that out of all the abortions a day it's for a good reason? Because in truth if you don't want a child why not put them up for adoption?

[The Tovian Way]

I fully expect they will. There have always been people throughout history who advocate infringing on others' rights because they do not consider members of that group to be fully human.
Being from the American South, I'm quite acquainted with those espousing such bigotry.

Don't worry - I fully consider fetuses to be Human. That alone is not significant enough to change my stance on the matter - and I wouldn't consider it to be bigotry.

Though do you not consider the irony of you infringing on others' rights while complaining about those infringing on others' rights?

I in no way infringe upon anyone's rights. The basic tenet of my political philosophy is that everyone must be allowed to exercise their rights to the extent that they do not infringe upon anyone else's.
The right to self-autonomy is equally as absolute, and the above applies to it equally. And just as a person may not exercise their right to self autonomy by spraying gunfire into a crowd, because to do so would deprive others of their lives, so too may a person not exercise their right to self autonomy by ending a pregnancy, because to do so would deprive another of his life.

[Kepler-22]

Honestly, the right to have an abortion is one every independent person must make for themselves. If you do not believe in abortions then do not get one, however do not force your views that abortions are bad upon other people. As for the fact that you are killing a human, the fetus just may as well end up killing the carrier due to complications. Further more that fetus that is not aborted by a mother that can not take care of it will simply strain the mother's ability to live even more. If abortions were to be illegal across the board then the problem of condemning a future child to possible neglect and crime will arise, which is worse off as that individual will end up taking resources from society as a whole. Even as that fetus may grow to a child there is the law that the legal guardian over the child has full custody and rights of the child. Even now legal guardians have the ability to choose what kind of life a child has and what medicine it will and will not have. Being able to have an abortion is simply a medical right the maternal legal guardian has over the fetus, as it is inside her and, considered by those who believe the fetus to be human, an offspring of hers.

It truly is a personal choice and should be respected as one.

[Yes Im Biop]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, unless you feel consent to driving is consent to a car crash.

The purpose for that though is to have a child.
The purpose for driving a car is to get somewhere not to crash so by that you are saying birth is an accident?

*buzzer*


More often than not sex is used as stress relief, not pregnancy, so sorry love, but you should stop when behind

[Liriena]

1. Some people have consensual sex but don't want to have children.
2. Source your bullshit right fucking now.

Really... Do you really think that out of all the abortions a day it's for a good reason? Because in truth if you don't want a child why not put them up for adoption?

Maybe I want to spare my partner and myself the traumas of pregnancy and the trauma of giving up a child for adoption?

[Caecuser]

Don't worry - I fully consider fetuses to be Human. That alone is not significant enough to change my stance on the matter - and I wouldn't consider it to be bigotry.

Though do you not consider the irony of you infringing on others' rights while complaining about those infringing on others' rights?

I in no way infringe upon anyone's rights. The basic tenet of my political philosophy is that everyone must be allowed to exercise their rights to the extent that they do not infringe upon anyone else's.
The right to self-autonomy is equally as absolute, and the above applies to it equally. And just as a person may not exercise their right to self autonomy by spraying gunfire into a crowd, because to do so would deprive others of their lives, so too may a person not exercise their right to self autonomy by ending a pregnancy, because to do so would deprive another of his life.

The right to bodily sovereignty - or to make medical decisions for ones own body is not the same as spraying gunfire into a crowd.

You're considering here that the right to life is a superior right to bodily sovereignty; that's a subjective, personal view and not necessarily what is the best.

[Vindex Nation]

Honestly, the right to have an abortion is one every independent person must make for themselves. If you do not believe in abortions then do not get one, however do not force your views that abortions are bad upon other people. As for the fact that you are killing a human, the fetus just may as well end up killing the carrier due to complications. Further more that fetus that is not aborted by a mother that can not take care of it will simply strain the mother's ability to live even more. If abortions were to be illegal across the board then the problem of condemning a future child to possible neglect and crime will arise, which is worse off as that individual will end up taking resources from society as a whole. Even as that fetus may grow to a child there is the law that the legal guardian over the child has full custody and rights of the child. Even now legal guardians have the ability to choose what kind of life a child has and what medicine it will and will not have. Being able to have an abortion is simply a medical right the maternal legal guardian has over the fetus, as it is inside her and, considered by those who believe the fetus to be human, an offspring of hers.

It truly is a personal choice and should be respected as one.

A personal choice for what? Deciding whether to kill a future human or not?

[Zottistan]

1. Some people have consensual sex but don't want to have children.
2. Source your bullshit right fucking now.

Really... Do you really think that out of all the abortions a day it's for a good reason? Because in truth if you don't want a child why not put them up for adoption?

A) Essential waste of nine months.
B) Risk of damaging interpersonal relationships.
C) Risk of death.
D) The enormous pain involved in giving birth.
E) The possibility of psychological trauma.
F) The lasting damage giving birth can have on your body.

I can go on, if you like.

[The Tovian Way]

I in no way infringe upon anyone's rights. The basic tenet of my political philosophy is that everyone must be allowed to exercise their rights to the extent that they do not infringe upon anyone else's.
The right to self-autonomy is equally as absolute, and the above applies to it equally. And just as a person may not exercise their right to self autonomy by spraying gunfire into a crowd, because to do so would deprive others of their lives, so too may a person not exercise their right to self autonomy by ending a pregnancy, because to do so would deprive another of his life.

The right to bodily sovereignty - or to make medical decisions for ones own body is not the same as spraying gunfire into a crowd.

You're considering here that the right to life is a superior right to bodily sovereignty; that's a subjective, personal view and not necessarily what is the best.

It certainly is not the same, provided the person is not pregnant at the time. Once a person is pregnant, then their choices as to how to exercise their right to bodily sovereignty do affect another human being, and act in such a way as to take the life of that other human being infringes upon its liberty.
No right is superior; all rights are equal, and subject to the same standards, namely, that they may be exercised freely insofar as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

[Vindex Nation]

Really... Do you really think that out of all the abortions a day it's for a good reason? Because in truth if you don't want a child why not put them up for adoption?

Maybe I want to spare my partner and myself the traumas of pregnancy and the trauma of giving up a child for adoption?

Ok so there is trauma in adoption but not in killing them in the first place?

[Enadail]

And if you get pregnant without your consent, without abortions, you don't have a choice on having the child.

Its funny that you pick that because out of all the abortions that happen each day I can guarantee that less than 1% is an extreme case like that (for example rape)

Less then 1% of abortions by from people who don't want to have a child? I'm pretty sure MOST abortions are by people who did not consent to be pregnant, with a smaller number from those who changed their minds.

[Hurdegaryp]

Really... Do you really think that out of all the abortions a day it's for a good reason? Because in truth if you don't want a child why not put them up for adoption?

A) Essential waste of nine months.
B) Risk of damaging interpersonal relationships.
C) Risk of death.
D) The enormous pain involved in giving birth.
E) The possibility of psychological trauma.
F) The lasting damage giving birth can have on your body.

I can go on, if you like.

That's a pretty concise yet correct list.

[Enadail]

Maybe I want to spare my partner and myself the traumas of pregnancy and the trauma of giving up a child for adoption?

Ok so there is trauma in adoption but not in killing them in the first place?

I don't see that being said anywhere. A lot of what you claim people are saying isn't being said anywhere.

[Liriena]

1. All human rights require that someone, either the person in question or its legal guardian, are there to act on it. A newborn cannot act on its own rights, which is why the law provides it with legal guardians and professionals tasked with making decisions in its best interests.
2. Well, the United Nations' conventions on human rights are legally binding. Your opinions, on the other hand, are not.
3. Never set a single foot in law school, then. The staff and students will tear you to pieces of that arrogant denial of reality.
4. Again with this arrogant denial of reality?

1. All rights are negative, and require only that others not act in such a way as to infringe upon them.
2. Many things are now legal which ought not to be. That's the whole point of me trying to change the law. The UN may declare X to be a human right, but this does not in any way affect the truth value of the claim "X is a human right."
3. I do not deny that it is now legal to infringe upon some natural human rights. Indeed, this is the problem. What I deny is that the legality of so infringing has any bearing on the absolute nature of the right itself.
4. I'm quite well acquainted with reality. That's why I deny the existence of positive rights.

1. As I already pointed out, that's bullshit, and unsubstantiated bullshit at that.
2. Your personal opinion =/= fact
3. Oh, for fuck's sake! No right is absolute! All rights have restrictions! And if you are going to argue for "absolute nature of rights", then you are opening one hell of a can of worms, and I'm most certainly not cleaning your mess up!
4. Cognitive dissonance like a pro.