Abortion: human right?

[Galloism]

When did I say that consenting to any action does not mean accepting the potential for risk? That's not what I'm arguing against. Stop backpedaling.

That's what I was arguing for this whole time. That consenting to an action (sex) means accepting potential for risk (Pregnancy). I assumed since you had argued against that (calling it bullshit repeatedly) meant that people don't consent to the repercussions of their action.

People accept potential risk.

Then they take actions to reduce, minimize, or reverse the fallout from that risk if it does comes to pass. This is not hard to understand, and why ERs, doctors, and hospitals exist.

[Mavorpen]

When did I say that consenting to any action does not mean accepting the potential for risk? That's not what I'm arguing against. Stop backpedaling.

That's what I was arguing for this whole time. That consenting to an action (sex) means accepting potential for risk (Pregnancy). I assumed since you had argued against that (calling it bullshit repeatedly) meant that people don't consent to the repercussions of their action.

No you're not. Accepting the potential for risk is NOT the same as accepting the actual consequence itself.

[Pragia]

That's what I was arguing for this whole time. That consenting to an action (sex) means accepting potential for risk (Pregnancy). I assumed since you had argued against that (calling it bullshit repeatedly) meant that people don't consent to the repercussions of their action.

People accept potential risk.

Then they take actions to reduce, minimize, or reverse the fallout from that risk if it does comes to pass. This is not hard to understand, and why ERs, doctors, and hospitals exist.

But the fallout is another human life, which is supposed to be something to be mitigated and destroyed? I don't see how the responsible answer to "mitigating" life is killing it with chemicals/surgical tools.

That's what I was arguing for this whole time. That consenting to an action (sex) means accepting potential for risk (Pregnancy). I assumed since you had argued against that (calling it bullshit repeatedly) meant that people don't consent to the repercussions of their action.

No you're not. Accepting the potential for risk is NOT the same as accepting the actual consequence itself.

When you have sex, you accept the risk. When the risk backfires and there is a consequence, you have accepted the consequence of your risk.

[Galloism]

People accept potential risk.

Then they take actions to reduce, minimize, or reverse the fallout from that risk if it does comes to pass. This is not hard to understand, and why ERs, doctors, and hospitals exist.

But the fallout is another human life, which is supposed to be something to be mitigated and destroyed? I don't see how the responsible answer to "mitigating" life is killing it with chemicals/surgical tools.

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Because bodily integrity is a right, and placental blood supply is a privilege that you are not obligated by anyone. The provider can acquire cessation at absolutely any time.

Also, abortion is accepting and dealing with the consequences. If you think that it isn't you are an idiot.

[Mavorpen]

People accept potential risk.

Then they take actions to reduce, minimize, or reverse the fallout from that risk if it does comes to pass. This is not hard to understand, and why ERs, doctors, and hospitals exist.

But the fallout is another human life, which is supposed to be something to be mitigated and destroyed? I don't see how the responsible answer to "mitigating" life is killing it with chemicals/surgical tools.

No you're not. Accepting the potential for risk is NOT the same as accepting the actual consequence itself.

When you have sex, you accept the risk. When the risk backfires and there is a consequence, you have accepted the consequence of your risk.

No you have not. Quote the legal precedent stating this.

[Lies and Ignorance]

Where abortion is a necessary and/or desired medical procedure deliberately chosen by a gestating human, it's a human right.

[Pragia]

But the fallout is another human life, which is supposed to be something to be mitigated and destroyed? I don't see how the responsible answer to "mitigating" life is killing it with chemicals/surgical tools.

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

Okay, so it's okay to kill it before it can gain those properties? Cut it off before we aren't allowed to kill it anymore?

[Mavorpen]

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

Okay, so it's okay to kill it before it can gain those properties? Cut it off before we aren't allowed to kill it anymore?

Yes, just like the female body during their period.

[Galloism]

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

Okay, so it's okay to kill it before it can gain those properties? Cut it off before we aren't allowed to kill it anymore?

Actually, it's ok to kill it because no person is required to use their body to support the existence of another person. You can't even force a person who stole another person's kidneys to sell on the black market to donate one of their kidneys to one of the victims to save their life.

Because bodily integrity. You can't be forced to support another using your own body, even for sapient people.

The fact that it's unfeeling, knows nothing, and has no cognitive thought is just a bonus.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

Okay, so it's okay to kill it before it can gain those properties? Cut it off before we aren't allowed to kill it anymore?

That isn't the issue at all.

The issue is whether or not you can COMPEL women to carry a fetus to term against their will. You are saying that women DO NOT HAVE any rights to bodily autonomy and integrity. I don't care if a woman is literally pregnant with the whole next generation, she has the right to end it. With current medical technology, it results in the death of a fetus. Rude response to that: tough shit. Right to life does not mean right to slave others to keep alive.

[T Roosevelt]

Abortion, how heated I get at the thought. Prenatal infanticide for your convenience is unsympathetic to children and good people. It's a dishonest way of living life because dubious behavior is enabled by birth control. Women of good quality are entitled to like men. Whether the procedure is warranted with none to blame but ruffians is not known by me yet and will require deeper meditation.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Abortion, how heated I get at the thought. Prenatal infanticide for your convenience is unsympathetic to children and good people. It's a dishonest way of living life because dubious behavior is enabled by birth control. Women of good quality are entitled to like men. Whether the procedure is warranted with none to blame but ruffians is not known by me yet and will require deeper meditation.

This post is all over the place and has me fully confused. With no further recourse, I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL AT SUNRISE!
*slaps in face with prissy white glove
Also, I challenge you to a duel of swords - at sunset!
*slaps in face with gauntlet, shattering Roosevelt's jaw and nose and knocking him unconscious

[T Roosevelt]

But the fallout is another human life, which is supposed to be something to be mitigated and destroyed? I don't see how the responsible answer to "mitigating" life is killing it with chemicals/surgical tools.

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

It's a person because of the potential it has to be great in life, the righteousness of being conceived. Killing the innocent is questionable of character.

[Geilinor]

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

It's a person because of the potential it has to be great in life, the righteousness of being conceived. Killing the innocent is questionable of character.

There's no point in speculating on what it could become.

[T Roosevelt]

It's a person because of the potential it has to be great in life, the righteousness of being conceived. Killing the innocent is questionable of character.

There's no point in speculating on what it could become.

Speculation is quintessence of parenthood.

[Othelos]

There's no point in speculating on what it could become.

Speculation is quintessence of parenthood.

they are rejecting parenthood, at least at the moment.

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

It's a person because of the potential it has to be great in life, the righteousness of being conceived. Killing the innocent is questionable of character.

Not all pregnancies are successful, so 'potential' is irrelevant. Violating rights does not make one innocent.

[Pragia]

Okay, so it's okay to kill it before it can gain those properties? Cut it off before we aren't allowed to kill it anymore?

Yes, just like the female body during their period.

A gamete can't gain those properties, an embryo/zygote/fetus/blastocyst can.

Okay, so it's okay to kill it before it can gain those properties? Cut it off before we aren't allowed to kill it anymore?

That isn't the issue at all.

The issue is whether or not you can COMPEL women to carry a fetus to term against their will. You are saying that women DO NOT HAVE any rights to bodily autonomy and integrity. I don't care if a woman is literally pregnant with the whole next generation, she has the right to end it. With current medical technology, it results in the death of a fetus. Rude response to that: tough shit. Right to life does not mean right to slave others to keep alive.

The issue is that "potential" human beings are dying because people believe that the right to right can take the backseat to the right of comfort. You had sex, live with the consequences, current medical science doesn't yet allow for regular fetal development outside the womb, rude response to that: Tough shit, you surrender bodily sovereignty when you acknowledge sex can get you pregnant.

[Dyakovo]

The issue is that "potential" human beings are dying because people believe that the right to right can take the backseat to the right of comfort. You had sex, live with the consequences, current medical science doesn't yet allow for regular fetal development outside the womb, rude response to that: Tough shit, you surrender bodily sovereignty when you acknowledge sex can get you pregnant.

It isn't about comfort. Read the fucking thread. Sources have been posted showing the detrimental effects of pregnancy. Also, every person has the right to bodily sovereignty, and whether you like it or not women are people. Also, no, having sex doesn't involve the woman surrendering any fucking rights at all.

[T Roosevelt]

Speculation is quintessence of parenthood.

they are rejecting parenthood, at least at the moment.

It's a person because of the potential it has to be great in life, the righteousness of being conceived. Killing the innocent is questionable of character.

Not all pregnancies are successful, so 'potential' is irrelevant. Violating rights does not make one innocent.

The violation of arbitrary rights is a just act of noncooperation. Potential is relevant in all pregnancies, successful or not. Death does not shamble the aptitude of those aware of it's occurrence to discern life.

[Galloism]

Yes, just like the female body during their period.

A gamete can't gain those properties, an embryo/zygote/fetus/blastocyst can.

Ok, if I put a zygote in a Petri dish, how long does it take to gain those properties?

That isn't the issue at all.

The issue is whether or not you can COMPEL women to carry a fetus to term against their will. You are saying that women DO NOT HAVE any rights to bodily autonomy and integrity. I don't care if a woman is literally pregnant with the whole next generation, she has the right to end it. With current medical technology, it results in the death of a fetus. Rude response to that: tough shit. Right to life does not mean right to slave others to keep alive.

The issue is that "potential" human beings are dying because people believe that the right to right can take the backseat to the right of comfort. You had sex, live with the consequences, current medical science doesn't yet allow for regular fetal development outside the womb, rude response to that: Tough shit, you surrender bodily sovereignty when you acknowledge sex can get you pregnant.

Potential human beings die every single 28 day period for every woman on earth (except those before puberty and those post menopause). Potential humans die at every male masturbatory session, which, I will inform you, is fairly often.

I don't see you insisting on mandatory universal pregnancy.

[Othelos]

they are rejecting parenthood, at least at the moment.


Not all pregnancies are successful, so 'potential' is irrelevant. Violating rights does not make one innocent.

The violation of arbitrary rights is a just act of noncooperation. Potential is relevant in all pregnancies, successful or not. Death does not shamble the aptitude of those aware of it's occurrence to discern life.

Bodily sovereignty is an arbitrary right? I am pretty sure that all humans experience revulsion or negative feelings at the least when that right is violated.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Because it's no more of a "person" than a tumor or a mole or a spider is a person.

It's a collection of unfeeling, nonself-aware cells with human DNA. It has no cognizance, conscious thought, or even anything remotely coming close to the animals we kill and eat for food in over 90% of cases.

It's a person because of the potential it has to be great in life, the righteousness of being conceived. Killing the innocent is questionable of character.

Potential does not equate actually being a person. An acorn is a potential tree, but not an actual tree.

And why is potential suddenly more important than the actual person, in this case, the woman and what she desires? Why is the fetus more important than the person gestating it?

[Galloism]

It's a person because of the potential it has to be great in life, the righteousness of being conceived. Killing the innocent is questionable of character.

Potential does not equate actually being a person. An acorn is a potential tree, but not an actual tree.

And why is potential suddenly more important than the actual person, in this case, the woman and what she desires? Why is the fetus more important than the person gestating it?

Because she dared open her legs, while the fetus didn't.

*nod nod*

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Potential does not equate actually being a person. An acorn is a potential tree, but not an actual tree.

And why is potential suddenly more important than the actual person, in this case, the woman and what she desires? Why is the fetus more important than the person gestating it?

Because she dared open her legs, while the fetus didn't.

*nod nod*

Holy shit. Get the rope!! I must not open my cootch!! I must not!! How dare I!!!!