Abortion Denied

[Liriena]

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.

Is the gunfire-sprayed crowd inside my body, eating my nutrients? No? I thought so.

[Zottistan]

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?

Deciding whether or not to risk severely fucking up your life so somebody else can inhabit your body for a while seems like a pretty personal choice to me...

[Liriena]

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?

Foot, meet mouth.

[Caecuser]

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.

If you're considering the fetus to be a person and possess the same rights as a developed, born Human that is - which is where the difference of opinion really comes into play.

The fetus could be said to be violating the Woman's right to bodily sovereignty by possessing her body, forcing her to undergo changes and restrictions to her life and ultimately posing the risk of death. But the fetuses right to remain inside the Woman is greater than her own right to evict it - that is what you're saying.

[Enadail]

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.

Either the right to bodily sovereignty exists or it doesn't. It can't exist some of the time and not others, specially in the case of where a choice was not given previously.

But if a fetus is supposed to have all the rights of a person, it also does not have the right to use a woman's body against her will. It's violating her rights.

[Neutraligon]

Again you are using a term in a way in which it cannot be used, as it does not fulfill the definition of that term. We are dealing with a legal and medical problem, thus we are using the legal and medical definitions. You must back up your claim that your definitions can indeed be used, considering your definitions are not the common definitions used by most of society. Your claim that it is descriptive rather than normative also needs to be backed up given, the fact that we are dealing with a medical and legal case. The definitions you are using have no standing due to the fact that they cannot be used in a court of law, which is what we are dealing with.
Please explain to me then, why we should use your definitions considering these cases, if you continue to refuse to do so (I have asked repeatedly), I feel that continuing this discussion with you would be an utter waste of my time.

We are indeed dealing with a legal problem. And the source of that problem is that the legal definition of infanticide is incorrect.
My solution to this is to change the legal definition of infanticide - and therefore the law - to remove any conditional statement requiring that the victim must have first been
born.

Then back up why your definition of infanticide is accurate, given the fact (not question fact) that an infant is by definition a born child between the ages of birth and around 2 years. In addition, abortion has already been determined by the Supreme Court, to be legal. We are dealing with a current case, meaning we are dealing with current law, meaning how things ought to be does not matter. What matters at this point and time is what are the current legal definitions. The current legal definitions do not match the ones you are claiming. Until you can explain why your definitions matter in this particular case, your definitions are completely and utterly useless. This is the last time, explain why your definitions should be used in this particular circumstance, and in addition why your definitions should hold in any circumstance given the current legal climate.

[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.

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

A personal choice for what happens to the carrier's body. A personal choice on whether to stress over the possible complications. A personal choice on whether to deal with adoption or not. A personal choice of how the carrier lives their life.

A fully developed human has more personal choice and rational thinking then "a future human".

[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?

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.

Yes yes go on, because like I said before becoming pregnant is not magic there is a choice involved do you want a kid or not? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT.

[Liriena]

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?

Not necessarily. Some women do become emotionally attached to their fetuses, but that's not a universal thing.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Yes yes go on, because like I said before becoming pregnant is not magic there is a choice involved do you want a kid or not? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. furthermore consent to pregnancy at one point does not mean consent to pregnancy at another.

[Enadail]

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.

Yes yes go on, because like I said before becoming pregnant is not magic there is a choice involved do you want a kid or not? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT.

You don't have a choice if you get pregnant or not you know. If there was, fertility clinics wouldn't exist. There are many ways to get pregnant without a choice.

[Yes Im Biop]

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.

Yes yes go on, because like I said before becoming pregnant is not magic there is a choice involved do you want a kid or not? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA I love the Naive ones, thinking they have the moral higher ground. So funny to watch them become more and more desperate, devolving into Cap's locking to try and prove a bas aquwards point

[Liriena]

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.

Yes yes go on, because like I said before becoming pregnant is not magic there is a choice involved do you want a kid or not? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT.

LIFE IS NOT THAT SIMPLE! ACCIDENTS HAPPEN, SPECIALLY WHEN SEX IS INVOLVED! AND STOP WRITING ALL IN CAPS! WE CAN SEE HOW STUPID YOUR ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT THEM!

[Zottistan]

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.

Yes yes go on, because like I said before becoming pregnant is not magic there is a choice involved do you want a kid or not? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT.

Calm down. The block caps just make it harder to take you seriously.

Anyway, what difference does that make, in the slightest? If you are pregnant and don't want a child, why shouldn't you be able to remove it?

[Vindex Nation]

Yes yes go on, because like I said before becoming pregnant is not magic there is a choice involved do you want a kid or not? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. furthermore consent to pregnancy at one point does not mean consent to pregnancy at another.

Why do you think that?

[The Tovian Way]

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.

1. I deny that it is bullshit.
2. This is tautologous; nothing which can qualify as an opinion can be factual, and vice versa.
3. I deny this, and maintain that all rights are absolute. The consequences are secondary.
4. My cognition is quite harmonious, but I thank you for the concern.

[Yes Im Biop]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. furthermore consent to pregnancy at one point does not mean consent to pregnancy at another.

Why do you think that?

Because it's true love, That's why

[Enadail]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. furthermore consent to pregnancy at one point does not mean consent to pregnancy at another.

Why do you think that?

Because its not? Consenting to drive is not consenting to crash after all. Consent to an action is not consent to every possible consequence. And people are well within their rights to change their minds as long as they don't have a legally binding obligation.

[Vindex Nation]

Why do you think that?

Because it's true love, That's why

But you know what is going to happen it is no misstery.

[Vindex Nation]

Why do you think that?

Because its not? Consenting to drive is not consenting to crash after all. Consent to an action is not consent to every possible consequence. And people are well within their rights to change their minds as long as they don't have a legally binding obligation.

Oh and you bring up this analogy again.

[ALMF]

When did I even hint at that being a good idea? Theres far too much room for error, for example, it would be a mess for the family in the event of a miscarriage, or if pregnancy tests had been wrong

So? How would you regulate the personhood of fetuses?

as a contradiction in terms

[Yes Im Biop]

Because it's true love, That's why

But you know what is going to happen it is no misstery.

Learn to spell.


And O really? Why would that be? Remember love, Condoms aren't perfect, so no, ya really don't.

[Liriena]

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.

1. I deny that it is bullshit.
2. This is tautologous; nothing which can qualify as an opinion can be factual, and vice versa.
3. I deny this, and maintain that all rights are absolute. The consequences are secondary.
4. My cognition is quite harmonious, but I thank you for the concern.

1. That's all you've done for the past couple of ours: deny. Not argue, not propose any alternative. Only deny. Deny medical and legal definitions of terms you want to use for your own emotionally manipulative means. Deny legal and ethical conventions to falsely validate your philosophy.
2. Perhaps, but for a moment I thought it required clarification, seeing how you insist on expressing opinions that are factually untrue.
3. Read (1)
4. That seems unlikely, given that you deny the existence of positive rights, despite them being recognized as such by both international organizations and dozens of countries, yet you claim your views are well acquainted with reality.

[Enadail]

Because its not? Consenting to drive is not consenting to crash after all. Consent to an action is not consent to every possible consequence. And people are well within their rights to change their minds as long as they don't have a legally binding obligation.

Oh and you bring up this analogy again.

When did I bring it up before?

[Vindex Nation]

But you know what is going to happen it is no misstery.

Learn to spell.


And O really? Why would that be? Remember love, Condoms aren't perfect, so no, ya really don't.

Oh no I misspelled a word I must not know English