Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Ifreann]

It doesn't matter if the fetus is 'alive' or 'human' or a 'person' or any of the above. It matters whether the woman wants it in her body or wants it gone.

No it doesn't.

As I've said, no right is absolute, and the right to bodily integrity is no different.

Except in that when we make exceptions to other rights, we have rather good reasons for doing so. This exception to women's right to bodily sovereignty seems to have no reason beyond certain people wanting to control the reproduction of others.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

No it doesn't.

As I've said, no right is absolute, and the right to bodily integrity is no different.

Except in that when we make exceptions to other rights, we have rather good reasons for doing so. This exception to women's right to bodily sovereignty seems to have no reason beyond certain people wanting to control the reproduction of others.

Except in that when we make exceptions to other crimes, we have rather good reasons for doing so. This exception to murder (assuming non-medical over-term abortion) seems to be based on a definition of "living human" no more sophisticated than "hurr durr in womb is dead, out is alive"

[Mavorpen]

No it doesn't. Being non-property doesn't give you the right to use a woman's body against their will because they aren't property themselves.

There are some things that seem wrong with this.
The mother was dependant on that, too. Some time ago.
The unborn didn't choose as well.
It is a human being, with a unique gene set.
I've heard enough about "right to choose" and "right to life"... to know that those are conflicting rights in this situation.
If you do something risky willingly, you have to accept the consequences.
You chose, and have to do your duty. To protect and help the child.(By the way, this is the duty of the father, too, ofc.).
There were some arguments about helping the mother and the child. Yes, the society should help the mother and the child to survive and to have an acceptable life.

No thanks, I don't have to accept anything. I'll get an abortion just as I would get any medical procure for something medical related. I'm not going to not get a vaccination just because some religious person is against it and wants me to pay for my "sins."

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it doesn't. Being non-property doesn't give you the right to use a woman's body against their will because they aren't property themselves.

There are some things that seem wrong with this.
The mother was dependant on that, too. Some time ago.
The unborn didn't choose as well.
It is a human being, with a unique gene set.
I've heard enough about "right to choose" and "right to life"... to know that those are conflicting rights in this situation.
If you do something risky willingly, you have to accept the consequences.
You chose, and have to do your duty. To protect and help the child.(By the way, this is the duty of the father, too, ofc.).
There were some arguments about helping the mother and the child. Yes, the society should help the mother and the child to survive and to have an acceptable life.

If a car crashes against me it was my fault for exposing myself to the risk of getting run over and so the hospital shouldn't attend me then?

[Securitan]

There are some things that seem wrong with this.
The mother was dependant on that, too. Some time ago.
The unborn didn't choose as well.
It is a human being, with a unique gene set.
I've heard enough about "right to choose" and "right to life"... to know that those are conflicting rights in this situation.
If you do something risky willingly, you have to accept the consequences.
You chose, and have to do your duty. To protect and help the child.(By the way, this is the duty of the father, too, ofc.).
There were some arguments about helping the mother and the child. Yes, the society should help the mother and the child to survive and to have an acceptable life.

If a car crashes against me it was my fault for exposing myself to the risk of getting run over and so the hospital shouldn't attend me then?

An ant is a unique gene set too. Sperms are unique gene sets too. The unborn can't choose.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If a car crashes against me it was my fault for exposing myself to the risk of getting run over and so the hospital shouldn't attend me then?

An ant is a unique gene set too. Sperms are unique gene sets too. The unborn can't choose.

Masturbation and pest control is genocide then?

Who'd have thought.

[Ifreann]

Except in that when we make exceptions to other rights, we have rather good reasons for doing so. This exception to women's right to bodily sovereignty seems to have no reason beyond certain people wanting to control the reproduction of others.

Except in that when we make exceptions to other crimes, we have rather good reasons for doing so. This exception to murder (assuming non-medical over-term abortion) seems to be based on a definition of "living human" no more sophisticated than "hurr durr in womb is dead, out is alive"

As others have argued repeatedly, it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There are some things that seem wrong with this.
The mother was dependant on that, too. Some time ago.
The unborn didn't choose as well.
It is a human being, with a unique gene set.
I've heard enough about "right to choose" and "right to life"... to know that those are conflicting rights in this situation.
If you do something risky willingly, you have to accept the consequences.
You chose, and have to do your duty. To protect and help the child.(By the way, this is the duty of the father, too, ofc.).
There were some arguments about helping the mother and the child. Yes, the society should help the mother and the child to survive and to have an acceptable life.

No thanks, I don't have to accept anything. I'll get an abortion just as I would get any medical procure for something medical related. I'm not going to not get a vaccination just because some religious person is against it and wants me to pay for my "sins."

Naw, see if you breathe and you get the flu it was your own fault for breathing and you must pay the consequences, since breathing increases the risk of getting the flu, so why are you still breathing?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Except in that when we make exceptions to other crimes, we have rather good reasons for doing so. This exception to murder (assuming non-medical over-term abortion) seems to be based on a definition of "living human" no more sophisticated than "hurr durr in womb is dead, out is alive"

As others have argued repeatedly, it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans.

..because?

[Securitan]

An ant is a unique gene set too. Sperms are unique gene sets too. The unborn can't choose.

Masturbation and pest control is genocide then?

Who'd have thought.

Apparently, to staunch anti-abortion activists.

[Settrah]

An ant is a unique gene set too. Sperms are unique gene sets too. The unborn can't choose.

Masturbation and pest control is genocide then?

Who'd have thought.

Well there's a can of worms.

Some people out there think I'm committing the holocaust, just because I jerked off. Interesting.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Masturbation and pest control is genocide then?

Who'd have thought.

Well there's a can of worms.

Some people out there think I'm committing the holocaust, just because I jerked off. Interesting.

Did you fuck the can of worms?

EDIT: Is that even legal?

[Settrah]

As others have argued repeatedly, it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans.

..because?

Woman's rights.

[Securitan]

Well there's a can of worms.

Some people out there think I'm committing the holocaust, just because I jerked off. Interesting.

Did you fuck the can of worms?

EDIT: Is that even legal?

Yeah it is. I should know.

[The Wolven League]

Choice, of course.

[Ifreann]

As others have argued repeatedly, it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans.

..because?

Because living humans aren't allowed inside the bodies of other living humans without permission.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

..because?

Woman's rights.

>women's rights
>no right is absolute. the right to life should trump the right to bodily integrity
>fetuses aren't living beings so they have no right to life duh
>whether something is in or out of a womb is a pretty trivial criterion for whether or not it's alive
>it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans
>why not
>women's rights

do you see the circular nature of his argument yet? and why there is no meaningful discussion to be had?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Woman's rights.

>women's rights
>no right is absolute. the right to life should trump the right to bodily integrity
>fetuses aren't living beings so they have no right to life duh
>whether something is in or out of a womb is a pretty trivial criterion for whether or not it's alive
>it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans
>why not
>women's rights

do you see the circular nature of his argument yet? and why there is no meaningful discussion to be had?

Well, the problem is this, and this is a problem that I see springing up everytime we have these discussions;

Why the hell is it so God damn important the life of a fetus when we consider the lives of criminals as less than trash? And why would we care so much about the life of the fetus whereas we don't care about the woman in the equation?

[Mavorpen]

Woman's rights.

>women's rights
>no right is absolute. the right to life should trump the right to bodily integrity
>fetuses aren't living beings so they have no right to life duh
>whether something is in or out of a womb is a pretty trivial criterion for whether or not it's alive
>it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans
>why not
>women's rights

do you see the circular nature of his argument yet? and why there is no meaningful discussion to be had?

Well, yeah. It has to do with you insisting on the right to life being trumped to the right to bodily integrity while refusing to substantiating why, despite the fact that the opposite is the precedent in all similar cases. We don't, for example, force people to donate organs, which would definitely save more lives. We also don't tell a woman who has killed a rapist, "How DARE you take away his right to life!?" So why should this precedent be changed?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

..because?

Because living humans aren't allowed inside the bodies of other living humans without permission.

You forgot to mention the part where the first living humans are the ones who created the second living humans in the first place, and also had a bit of time, like, you know, 5 months to not get cold feet at the last fucking second.

[Mavorpen]

Because living humans aren't allowed inside the bodies of other living humans without permission.

You forgot to mention the part where the first living humans are the ones who created the second living humans in the first place,

So if a woman consents to sex and then she decided that she doesn't want to continue, the man has the right to continue, right? After all, you're apparently arguing that revoking consent doesn't mean anything. Which is a fantastic argument for rape.

and also had a bit of time, like, you know, 5 months to not get cold feet at the last fucking second.

Why are you so focused on things that are virtually nonexistent?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because living humans aren't allowed inside the bodies of other living humans without permission.

You forgot to mention the part where the first living humans are the ones who created the second living humans in the first place, and also had a bit of time, like, you know, 5 months to not get cold feet at the last fucking second.

You're talking about hundreds of thousands of years back.

Why should we be concerned about our survival when there's more than 7 billion people?

[Occupied Deutschland]

>women's rights
>no right is absolute. the right to life should trump the right to bodily integrity
>fetuses aren't living beings so they have no right to life duh
>whether something is in or out of a womb is a pretty trivial criterion for whether or not it's alive
>it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans
>why not
>women's rights

do you see the circular nature of his argument yet? and why there is no meaningful discussion to be had?

Well, yeah. It has to do with you insisting on the right to life being trumped to the right to bodily integrity while refusing to substantiating why, despite the fact that the opposite is the precedent in all similar cases. We don't, for example, force people to donate organs, which would definitely save more lives. We also don't tell a woman who has killed a rapist, "How DARE you take away his right to life!?" So why should this precedent be changed?

Except opposite examples exist as well.
The right to bodily sovereignty being overruled by the right to life in cases wherein one is injured and unable to accept or deny treatment, treatment is given immediately (which can only be overruled after the fact in certain instances by DNR and other similar provisions in wills relating to the injuries specifics) to save the life, even if that means surgery.

The woman killing her rapist doesn't really have to do with ending his right to life because of her bodily sovereignty, but her protecting her own right to life and placing it over his as she likely, and quite reasonably, fears for her life in the situation. Self-defense is only tangentially related to bodily sovereignty through the avenue of a right to life (self-defense generally approved only if one fears for their life or for grievous bodily injury that could endanger their life).

Point being, bodily sovereignty over the right to life is a rather major sticking point.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You forgot to mention the part where the first living humans are the ones who created the second living humans in the first place,

So if a woman consents to sex and then she decided that she doesn't want to continue, the man has the right to continue, right? After all, you're apparently arguing that revoking consent doesn't mean anything. Which is a fantastic argument for rape.

and also had a bit of time, like, you know, 5 months to not get cold feet at the last fucking second.

Why are you so focused on things that are virtually nonexistent?

Isn't that what happened when the first humans began to populate and grow in population? That it was rape the one that drove our species?

I don't know where I read it, but I might be wrong tho.

[Settrah]

>women's rights
>no right is absolute. the right to life should trump the right to bodily integrity
>fetuses aren't living beings so they have no right to life duh
>whether something is in or out of a womb is a pretty trivial criterion for whether or not it's alive
>it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans
>why not
>women's rights

do you see the circular nature of his argument yet? and why there is no meaningful discussion to be had?

Well, the problem is this, and this is a problem that I see springing up everytime we have these discussions;

Why the hell is it so God damn important the life of a fetus when we consider the lives of criminals as less than trash? And why would we care so much about the life of the fetus whereas we don't care about the woman in the equation?

As well as it being so important to give a monumental shit about a foetus, but apparently it's not as important to care about children that have already been born.

People choose weird things to be compassionate about, I guess.