Abortion: human right?

[Mavorpen]

It's ending the life of an individual to allieviate the suffering of a vegetative state.

There's no suffering when you're brain dead.

And no, it doesn't, consent to pregnancy means that the woman agreed to the chance that she could get pregnant. I'm not saying the fetus has a legal right to life, and must be kept alive, I'm saying the mother has acknowledged the chance of pregnancy, and has agreed to not terminate it.

Which Is clearly bullshit, because if the mother has consented to the pregnancy, then the husband cannot pull the plug UNTIL the fetus is born. To do otherwise would be breaking her will as an individual.

The only logical answer is that she DIDN'T consent to pregnancy just by having sex.

The wife and child are still legally the same person(?-iirc there was a case where a murder of a pregnant woman was counted as a double homicide.) So the father is allowed to pull the plug to end the morher's life, and by extension the child's.

No, they aren't. The fetus isn't a person at all. That has NO bearing at all on whether the husband can pull the plug.

[Othelos]

redacted

[Galloism]

It's ending the life of an individual to allieviate the suffering of a vegetative state.

There's no suffering when you're brain dead.

And no, it doesn't, consent to pregnancy means that the woman agreed to the chance that she could get pregnant. I'm not saying the fetus has a legal right to life, and must be kept alive, I'm saying the mother has acknowledged the chance of pregnancy, and has agreed to not terminate it.

Which Is clearly bullshit, because if the mother has consented to the pregnancy, then the husband cannot pull the plug UNTIL the fetus is born. To do otherwise would be breaking her will as an individual.

The only logical answer is that she DIDN'T consent to pregnancy just by having sex.

The wife and child are still legally the same person(?-iirc there was a case where a murder of a pregnant woman was counted as a double homicide.) So the father is allowed to pull the plug to end the morher's life, and by extension the child's.

No, they aren't. The fetus isn't a person at all. That has NO bearing at all on whether the husband can pull the plug.

Not to mention, if the wife and the fetus are the same person, her right to bodily autonomy extends to the fetus - as they are the same person.

It's generally legal to have part of you sucked/taken out. Liposuction comes to mind.

[Pragia]

Well yes, it is consent to all of those. If you're being dumb and smoking, youre allowing yourself to get lung cancer. Every time you get behind the wheel, you're acknowledging that you might be hit or hit someone else. Having the legal right it purchase alcohol is assuming that you're responsible with it. Taking a vacation to a country with malaria is accepting the idea that you might get malaria.

A fetus could not exist without the event taking place, so no, it isn't really separable

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why there have never been medical practitioners in the history of mankind.

Because if you get sick or injured, you consented to it, so shut the fuck up and deal with it.

Great hyperbole, I think it could've used some fireworks, maybe a couple stage lights.

I never said you aren't allowed to correct medical problems, so please don't draw conclusions that I said that. There's a difference between curing malaria, fixing up broken bones in a car accident, or treating lung cancer, and having an abortion. Body maintenance=/=removal of a part you don't like.

[Godular]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why there have never been medical practitioners in the history of mankind.

Because if you get sick or injured, you consented to it, so shut the fuck up and deal with it.

Great hyperbole, I think it could've used some fireworks, maybe a couple stage lights.

I never said you aren't allowed to correct medical problems, so please don't draw conclusions that I said that. There's a difference between curing malaria, fixing up broken bones in a car accident, or treating lung cancer, and having an abortion. Body maintenance=/=removal of a part you don't like.

Stupid Appendix. ITS GOT TO GO!

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why there have never been medical practitioners in the history of mankind.

Because if you get sick or injured, you consented to it, so shut the fuck up and deal with it.

Great hyperbole, I think it could've used some fireworks, maybe a couple stage lights.

I never said you aren't allowed to correct medical problems, so please don't draw conclusions that I said that. There's a difference between curing malaria, fixing up broken bones in a car accident, or treating lung cancer, and having an abortion. Body maintenance=/=removal of a part you don't like.

Malaria is like an unwanted pregnancy - an unwanted parasitic infection with a non-trivial mortality rate even in modern countries with all their medical technology. Getting rid of it by the most efficient and safest means possible is equivalent in both situations. Also, like someone said earlier, liposuction. We take out parts we don't like all the time. Tonsils, wisdom teeth, appendixes, tumors and cysts. Your argument is invalid.

[Socialist Abania]

For the last goddamn time, a abortion is not out of inconvenience. A abortion is out of consent. And for the next last goddamn time, consent is not a factor

[Mavorpen]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why there have never been medical practitioners in the history of mankind.

Because if you get sick or injured, you consented to it, so shut the fuck up and deal with it.

Great hyperbole, I think it could've used some fireworks, maybe a couple stage lights.

I never said you aren't allowed to correct medical problems, so please don't draw conclusions that I said that. There's a difference between curing malaria, fixing up broken bones in a car accident, or treating lung cancer, and having an abortion. Body maintenance=/=removal of a part you don't like.

You've never heard of plastic surgery, have you?

[Galloism]

I never said you aren't allowed to correct medical problems, so please don't draw conclusions that I said that. There's a difference between curing malaria, fixing up broken bones in a car accident, or treating lung cancer, and having an abortion. Body maintenance=/=removal of a part you don't like.

So liposuction should be illegal? Mole removal? Tumor removal? Tummy tucks? Laser hair removal? Wisdom teeth removal? Bone spur removal? Cyst removal?

How about tonsillectomies? Appendectomies? Ureteroscopies?

EDIT: Forgot to mention hysterectomies. That seems apropos.

EDIT2: and sex reassignment surgery, especially male to female.

[Kelinfort]

I loathe playing devil's advocate, but how would you guys respond to an unabashedly sexist argument? One that implied women's duty is to have children and care for the children of the Fatherland? Any refutations beyond the fact that's a terribly sexist ideal?

[Othelos]

I loathe playing devil's advocate, but how would you guys respond to an unabashedly sexist argument? One that implied women's duty is to have children and care for the children of the Fatherland? Any refutations beyond the fact that's a terribly sexist ideal?

I would say that no one has a duty to raise children. Children should only be had if the parent(s) want it.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

I loathe playing devil's advocate, but how would you guys respond to an unabashedly sexist argument? One that implied women's duty is to have children and care for the children of the Fatherland? Any refutations beyond the fact that's a terribly sexist ideal?

Oh, we dealt with that on the last page. Now we're just have a speed contest to out-ninja each other in destroying all of his subsequent arguments.

[Galloism]

I loathe playing devil's advocate, but how would you guys respond to an unabashedly sexist argument? One that implied women's duty is to have children and care for the children of the Fatherland? Any refutations beyond the fact that's a terribly sexist ideal?

Pointing something out as sexist is a refutation. One of our core axioms is that men and women are equals, and should be treated as such.

Removing women to be second class citizens is, itself, in violation of our axioms.

[Godular]

I loathe playing devil's advocate, but how would you guys respond to an unabashedly sexist argument? One that implied women's duty is to have children and care for the children of the Fatherland? Any refutations beyond the fact that's a terribly sexist ideal?

I think there was one somewhere in the annals of this thread... and was subsequently laughed at before serious discussion continued.

[Othelos]

I loathe playing devil's advocate, but how would you guys respond to an unabashedly sexist argument? One that implied women's duty is to have children and care for the children of the Fatherland? Any refutations beyond the fact that's a terribly sexist ideal?

I think there was one somewhere in the annals of this thread... and was subsequently laughed at before serious discussion continued.

yeah that was so 50 pages ago.

[Godular]

I think there was one somewhere in the annals of this thread... and was subsequently laughed at before serious discussion continued.

yeah that was so 50 pages ago.

Only 50? Would've figured more around the 100s.

[Korea and japan]

Is there anyway to have abortion but still give birth of the baby,because pro-life/pro-choice debate won't reach anywhere and always ending at square one,where nothing will be done,and the arguments repeat.

[Galloism]

Is there anyway to have abortion but still give birth of the baby,because pro-life/pro-choice debate won't reach anywhere and always ending at square one,where nothing will be done,and the arguments repeat.

Someday, we may have incubation chambers that can grow a baby independent of the mother.

But that day is not yet.

[Pragia]

It's ending the life of an individual to allieviate the suffering of a vegetative state. And no, it doesn't, consent to pregnancy means that the woman agreed to the chance that she could get pregnant. I'm not saying the fetus has a legal right to life, and must be kept alive, I'm saying the mother has acknowledged the chance of pregnancy, and has agreed to not terminate it. The wife and child are still legally the same person(?-iirc there was a case where a murder of a pregnant woman was counted as a double homicide.) So the father is allowed to pull the plug to end the morher's life, and by extension the child's.

I'm sorry if I phrased that horribly, I'm not well versed in legal matters.

That isn't very surprising that you've been able to bring the same damn point for 17 times

Care to actually argue anything instead of taking shots at me?

It's ending the life of an individual to allieviate the suffering of a vegetative state.

There's no suffering when you're brain dead.

And no, it doesn't, consent to pregnancy means that the woman agreed to the chance that she could get pregnant. I'm not saying the fetus has a legal right to life, and must be kept alive, I'm saying the mother has acknowledged the chance of pregnancy, and has agreed to not terminate it.

Which Is clearly bullshit, because if the mother has consented to the pregnancy, then the husband cannot pull the plug UNTIL the fetus is born. To do otherwise would be breaking her will as an individual.

The only logical answer is that she DIDN'T consent to pregnancy just by having sex.

The wife and child are still legally the same person(?-iirc there was a case where a murder of a pregnant woman was counted as a double homicide.) So the father is allowed to pull the plug to end the morher's life, and by extension the child's.

No, they aren't. The fetus isn't a person at all. That has NO bearing at all on whether the husband can pull the plug.

Well, for starters, a brain dead person is dead legally, and a fetus doesn't have personhood, so the plug pulling is completely legal. Is their individual will gone after death if they did not communicate anything on the subject?

[Othelos]

yeah that was so 50 pages ago.

Only 50? Would've figured more around the 100s.

looking back, it's closer to 35 pages ago.

[Godular]

Is there anyway to have abortion but still give birth of the baby,because pro-life/pro-choice debate won't reach anywhere and always ending at square one,where nothing will be done,and the arguments repeat.

Nerp. Plus, we'd overwhelm orphanages ludicrously quick.

[Othelos]

Is there anyway to have abortion but still give birth of the baby,because pro-life/pro-choice debate won't reach anywhere and always ending at square one,where nothing will be done,and the arguments repeat.

are you asking if there's a way to kill a fetus and remove it, then later have it birthed while alive?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Is there anyway to have abortion but still give birth of the baby,because pro-life/pro-choice debate won't reach anywhere and always ending at square one,where nothing will be done,and the arguments repeat.

In NS, the debate is won. The repeal failed.
The technology to support a fetus outside the womb does not exist.
In the world, debates never convince the debators, they can only convince the audience. And in the vast majority, progress is being made. But yes, this forum debate is something of an angry circlejerk.

[Clarentonia]

For special cases it's alright but if not a heartbeat=just plain killing someone. It's not the babies fault for being born.

[Galloism]

Is there anyway to have abortion but still give birth of the baby,because pro-life/pro-choice debate won't reach anywhere and always ending at square one,where nothing will be done,and the arguments repeat.

Nerp. Plus, we'd overwhelm orphanages ludicrously quick.

Oh I don't know. In the US, we would only have had an extra 53 million babies over the last 40 years.

That's barely a 1/6 increase in population.