Abortion in Texas Fully Legal Again

[Vaquas]

Abortion is only OK if the mother was raped or the baby will kill her. Other than that it's just people being selfish and not willing to admit that if you have sex you are both consenting to the possibility that you could procreate.

Which is why when a skydiver breaks his leg, we refuse to treat him.

He accepted the possibility of an injury by engaging in the sport.

Unless you're equating pregnancy to an injury, this analogy is entirely ridiculous.
And even then its entirely ridiculous.

[The Texan Union]

Well I can't put it into simpler terms than this:

Sex should be an act of love rather than lust.

Does that make sense?

I would argue there's nothing wrong with either, but even accepting (for the moment) sex should ONLY be an act of love, I don't see how choosing not to have children makes your partner a mindless object (in your mind).

I didn't say that not wanting to have children did that, I said lust did. Pay attention, please. Also, contraceptives are a viable option.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're making the erroneous assumption that we're not.

We look after our own self-interests more than you think. With all due respect, I don't give a fuck about your self-interests, nor do you give a shit about my self-interests, why should you be the arbiter of what someone else's best interests are? Why is it in a woman's self-interests not to have sex, or an abortion?

No, actually, I didn't.

Are you suggesting that this thread is pointless? If so, we all know that and quite clearly choose to participate anyway.

No, I am suggesting that, at the end of the day, you realistically couldn't care less about my self-interests. You don't. You don't know me. You might say right now that you do, but in reality you don't even know me.

I am not saying that to say "this thread is pointless", but to lead up to the question: what makes you better suited to know a woman's self-interests? And why should a woman not have sex, or an abortion, just because you say so?

[The Jaclean Empire]

Abortion is only OK if the mother was raped or the baby will kill her. Other than that it's just people being selfish and not willing to admit that if you have sex you are both consenting to the possibility that you could procreate.

Which is why when a skydiver breaks his leg, we refuse to treat him.

He accepted the possibility of an injury by engaging in the sport.

It's also why we don't amputate the leg.

[The V O I D]

I would argue there's nothing wrong with either, but even accepting (for the moment) sex should ONLY be an act of love, I don't see how choosing not to have children makes your partner a mindless object (in your mind).

I didn't say that not wanting to have children did that, I said lust did. Pay attention, please. Also, contraceptives are a viable option.

Until contraceptives work 100% of the time and never fail, abortion needs to be an alternative last-ditch effort, incase unwanted pregnancy occurs anyways.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, it doesn't.

Lust is a thing, it's how we're attracted to our partners physically. You might say "oh, looks don't matter. I will love a woman!" Well, let me ask you this, would you consider dating a woman who you considered ugly even though they're nice people?

Yes, I would.

Why would you choose to date someone who you have no physical attraction to even though they're nice people over, say, a woman who you have a physical attraction to AND they're nice people?

[The V O I D]

Incase someone missed it.

Abortion is only OK if the mother was raped or the baby will kill her. Other than that it's just people being selfish and not willing to admit that if you have sex you are both consenting to the possibility that you could procreate.

Consent to sex is never, has never, and will never be consent to pregnancy.

That's like saying she can't revoke consent, and that it isn't rape if she decides she doesn't want to have sex anymore. And that she is obligated to 'let the man finish.'

[Laurasia]

Abortion is only OK if the mother was raped or the baby will kill her. Other than that it's just people being selfish and not willing to admit that if you have sex you are both consenting to the possibility that you could procreate.

Consent to sex is never, has never, and will never be consent to pregnancy.

That's like saying she can't revoke consent, and that it isn't rape if she decides she doesn't want to have sex anymore. And that she is obligated to 'let the man finish.'

What is meant by their quote, Void, is that someone has to acknowledge the possibility of becoming pregnant. They have to at least understand what pregnancy is, and what acts lead to it. Sexual intercourse traditionally has been for procreation, and the basic use of it has not altered, in spite of all the cultural and the social changes which we have undergone.

[Galloism]

Ending abortion would be giving every individual unborn the change to become one of the born, and to live a productive, fulfilling life as a citizen of this Republic. The life to liberty, property, and due process of law extends to all who are considered, by the definitions of science, to be life-forms.

Organ donations, for their part, are done between consenting adults. There is a system for the organization of such donations, and defined procedures on how such donations can be carried out. The genesis of this is that you cannot say: "Well, since fetuses can't be aborted, then that means we can put someone down, or we can extract something from them, that they might die." Again, understand that abortions are unlawful if they are not carried out to save the mother's life or preserve her essential health and instead deny life to one who has not imposed harm on her or anyone else, by any means except as to have been conceived, bred, and born; organ donations are unlawful if they carried out in such a manner that one person's life is forfeit for the benefit of another, thereby denying them their essential right to life.

You're missing the point. We're not talking about organ donations where the donor dies, but where the donor lives. Like a kidney, or piece of the liver, or something along those lines. You're weighing right to life of a person who will die without an organ donation (about 20 people die per day waiting for organs that never arrive) against the right to bodily sovereignty of a person who will not die if they give an organ. We're not talking about taking a living person, chopping them up into pieces, and saving 20 other lives. We're talking about taking a living person, removing one of their kidneys against their will for someone else, then sending them on their way. It would actually be less inconvenience and hazard than pregnancy, although it's a monstrous concept.

If you are going to extend the right of one person to use the body of another against their will as long as it doesn't kill that person, forced organ, blood, and tissue donations are the only logical outcome of that argument.

[Vaquas]

Yes, I would.

Why would you choose to date someone who you have no physical attraction to even though they're nice people?

I think the validity of the entire idea of dating someone whom you have no physical attraction to is meant for another thread.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Consent to sex is never, has never, and will never be consent to pregnancy.

That's like saying she can't revoke consent, and that it isn't rape if she decides she doesn't want to have sex anymore. And that she is obligated to 'let the man finish.'

What is meant by their quote, Void, is that someone has to acknowledge the possibility of becoming pregnant. They have to at least understand what pregnancy is, and what acts lead to it. Sexual intercourse traditionally has been for procreation, and the basic use of it has not altered, in spite of all the cultural and the social changes which we have undergone.

Sex has traditionally been for procreation as much as hammers have traditionally been to nail stuff to a wall.

[The Texan Union]

No, actually, I didn't.

Are you suggesting that this thread is pointless? If so, we all know that and quite clearly choose to participate anyway.

No, I am suggesting that, at the end of the day, you realistically couldn't care less about my self-interests. You don't. You don't know me. You might say right now that you do, but in reality you don't even know me.

I am not saying that to say "this thread is pointless", but to lead up to the question: what makes you better suited to know a woman's self-interests? And why should a woman not have sex, or an abortion, just because you say so?

Why should anyone follow any law because anyone says so? #Anarchy

[Galloism]

Which is why when a skydiver breaks his leg, we refuse to treat him.

He accepted the possibility of an injury by engaging in the sport.

It's also why we don't amputate the leg.

Well, that kind of depends on the circumstances. There are occasions when we do (typically when gangrene is involved and we can't beat it back).

However, amputating the leg harms the grown person. Abortion doesn't harm the grown portion (not any more than pregnancy does, anyway).

[The V O I D]

Consent to sex is never, has never, and will never be consent to pregnancy.

That's like saying she can't revoke consent, and that it isn't rape if she decides she doesn't want to have sex anymore. And that she is obligated to 'let the man finish.'

What is meant by their quote, Void, is that someone has to acknowledge the possibility of becoming pregnant. They have to at least understand what pregnancy is, and what acts lead to it. Sexual intercourse traditionally has been for procreation, and the basic use of it has not altered, in spite of all the cultural and the social changes which we have undergone.

Recreational Sex vs Procreational Sex. Recreational sex is taking every precaution you can to prevent pregnancy and go through intercourse, consenting to sex but not consenting to being pregnant; so, logically, if you get pregnant, you didn't consent to that in the first place. Get the fetus removed if you still do not consent. Procreational sex is having sex with full intent of being pregnant, and continued insistence and consent to pregnancy throughout the pregnancy until the fetus is carried to term.

[Galloism]

I would argue there's nothing wrong with either, but even accepting (for the moment) sex should ONLY be an act of love, I don't see how choosing not to have children makes your partner a mindless object (in your mind).

I didn't say that not wanting to have children did that, I said lust did. Pay attention, please. Also, contraceptives are a viable option.

Those lust-inducing contraceptives are viable?

Then why aren't lust-inducing abortions?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, I am suggesting that, at the end of the day, you realistically couldn't care less about my self-interests. You don't. You don't know me. You might say right now that you do, but in reality you don't even know me.

I am not saying that to say "this thread is pointless", but to lead up to the question: what makes you better suited to know a woman's self-interests? And why should a woman not have sex, or an abortion, just because you say so?

Why should anyone follow any law because anyone says so? #Anarchy

Yes, because clearly following one's self-interests follows crime; naturally, this is the most rational way to look at my post instead of engaging with the question.

[The Texan Union]

Yes, I would.

Why would you choose to date someone who you have no physical attraction to even though they're nice people over, say, a woman who you have a physical attraction to AND they're nice people?

Here's a funny idea:

Maybe I love her, and enjoy her for the person she is.

[Vaquas]

I didn't say that not wanting to have children did that, I said lust did. Pay attention, please. Also, contraceptives are a viable option.

Those lust-inducing contraceptives are viable?

Then why aren't lust-inducing abortions?

Likely because the fetus isn't developing when contraceptives are used.

[Galloism]

Sexual intercourse traditionally has been for procreation,

Incidentally, this hasn't been true for at least a few thousand years.

Records of contraceptives go back to the Kahun Papyrus, which is from around 1850 BCE in ancient Egypt.

Interesting stuff

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why would you choose to date someone who you have no physical attraction to even though they're nice people?

I think the validity of the entire idea of dating someone whom you have no physical attraction to is meant for another thread.

Well, see, the point I am trying to make is not that either one is valid, contrary to the discussion.

What I am suggesting is that physical attraction is not a bad thing. Just because you have physical attraction and sexual desire for your partner doesn't make you a bad person.

[Laurasia]

Ending abortion would be giving every individual unborn the change to become one of the born, and to live a productive, fulfilling life as a citizen of this Republic. The life to liberty, property, and due process of law extends to all who are considered, by the definitions of science, to be life-forms.

Organ donations, for their part, are done between consenting adults. There is a system for the organization of such donations, and defined procedures on how such donations can be carried out. The genesis of this is that you cannot say: "Well, since fetuses can't be aborted, then that means we can put someone down, or we can extract something from them, that they might die." Again, understand that abortions are unlawful if they are not carried out to save the mother's life or preserve her essential health and instead deny life to one who has not imposed harm on her or anyone else, by any means except as to have been conceived, bred, and born; organ donations are unlawful if they carried out in such a manner that one person's life is forfeit for the benefit of another, thereby denying them their essential right to life.

You're missing the point. We're not talking about organ donations where the donor dies, but where the donor lives. Like a kidney, or piece of the liver, or something along those lines. You're weighing right to life of a person who will die without an organ donation (about 20 people die per day waiting for organs that never arrive) against the right to bodily sovereignty of a person who will not die if they give an organ. We're not talking about taking a living person, chopping them up into pieces, and saving 20 other lives. We're talking about taking a living person, removing one of their kidneys against their will for someone else, then sending them on their way. It would actually be less inconvenience and hazard than pregnancy, although it's a monstrous concept.

If you are going to extend the right of one person to use the body of another against their will as long as it doesn't kill that person, forced organ, blood, and tissue donations are the only logical outcome of that argument.

Again, I am taking a narrow definition of this. I am relating this definition to abortion specifically. A woman should not be permitted to terminate her pregnancy, unless if: 1) The child places her physical and mental health in extreme jeopardy, or is such that the woman will lose her life unless if she aborts 2) The child is so deformed that it would not be able to lead a fulfilling, productive life outside of the womb 3) If the child was conceived by rape, or otherwise against the mother's will through sexual assault (not through consensual intercourse) and 4) If the child was conceived by incest, or conceived when the mother is absolutely, and I mean absolutely, incapable herself of taking care of the child (because of her own physical or mental disabilities). Anything that does not fall under one of these definitions should not be permitted. With organ donations, no living person should be deprived of something which they would need for life unless if they give their express consent. One day, there will be technology that will allow for organ development and cures without the need for donations. Until then, all such cases must be handled that both the donor and the recipient receive full protection of their own lives, and their own persons, and are given the opportunity to be fully aware of what they are doing, and how.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why would you choose to date someone who you have no physical attraction to even though they're nice people over, say, a woman who you have a physical attraction to AND they're nice people?

Here's a funny idea:

Maybe I love her, and enjoy her for the person she is.

Yes, but when choosing to date someone you don't even love her. You're assuming that, upon dating, you should already have feelings of romantic love towards that person and that people spend long periods of time, years even, knowing one another.

That's not how 90% of dating works.

[Sunken Island of Rhinomuraena]

Why would you choose to date someone who you have no physical attraction to even though they're nice people over, say, a woman who you have a physical attraction to AND they're nice people?

Here's a funny idea:

Maybe I love her, and enjoy her for the person she is.

LOVE IS PHYSICAL ATTRACTION! (and a social construct, but not going there)
Enjoying someone for the person they are is not love. That is friendship.

[Sunken Island of Rhinomuraena]

You're missing the point. We're not talking about organ donations where the donor dies, but where the donor lives. Like a kidney, or piece of the liver, or something along those lines. You're weighing right to life of a person who will die without an organ donation (about 20 people die per day waiting for organs that never arrive) against the right to bodily sovereignty of a person who will not die if they give an organ. We're not talking about taking a living person, chopping them up into pieces, and saving 20 other lives. We're talking about taking a living person, removing one of their kidneys against their will for someone else, then sending them on their way. It would actually be less inconvenience and hazard than pregnancy, although it's a monstrous concept.

If you are going to extend the right of one person to use the body of another against their will as long as it doesn't kill that person, forced organ, blood, and tissue donations are the only logical outcome of that argument.

Again, I am taking a narrow definition of this. I am relating this definition to abortion specifically. A woman should not be permitted to terminate her pregnancy, unless if: 1) The child places her physical and mental health in extreme jeopardy, or is such that the woman will lose her life unless if she aborts 2) The child is so deformed that it would not be able to lead a fulfilling, productive life outside of the womb 3) If the child was conceived by rape, or otherwise against the mother's will through sexual assault (not through consensual intercourse) and 4) If the child was conceived by incest, or conceived when the mother is absolutely, and I mean absolutely, incapable herself of taking care of the child (because of her own physical or mental disabilities). Anything that does not fall under one of these definitions should not be permitted. With organ donations, no living person should be deprived of something which they would need for life unless if they give their express consent. One day, there will be technology that will allow for organ development and cures without the need for donations. Until then, all such cases must be handled that both the donor and the recipient receive full protection of their own lives, and their own persons, and are given the opportunity to be fully aware of what they are doing, and how.

So you want the child to expirience a slow, painful, torturing walk into oblivion.

Would you say a quick death or a slow, painful, death that may cause others to feel more pain is better?

[Galloism]

You're missing the point. We're not talking about organ donations where the donor dies, but where the donor lives. Like a kidney, or piece of the liver, or something along those lines. You're weighing right to life of a person who will die without an organ donation (about 20 people die per day waiting for organs that never arrive) against the right to bodily sovereignty of a person who will not die if they give an organ. We're not talking about taking a living person, chopping them up into pieces, and saving 20 other lives. We're talking about taking a living person, removing one of their kidneys against their will for someone else, then sending them on their way. It would actually be less inconvenience and hazard than pregnancy, although it's a monstrous concept.

If you are going to extend the right of one person to use the body of another against their will as long as it doesn't kill that person, forced organ, blood, and tissue donations are the only logical outcome of that argument.

Again, I am taking a narrow definition of this. I am relating this definition to abortion specifically. A woman should not be permitted to terminate her pregnancy, unless if: 1) The child places her physical and mental health in extreme jeopardy, or is such that the woman will lose her life unless if she aborts 2) The child is so deformed that it would not be able to lead a fulfilling, productive life outside of the womb 3) If the child was conceived by rape, or otherwise against the mother's will through sexual assault (not through consensual intercourse) and 4) If the child was conceived by incest, or conceived when the mother is absolutely, and I mean absolutely, incapable herself of taking care of the child (because of her own physical or mental disabilities). Anything that does not fall under one of these definitions should not be permitted. With organ donations, no living person should be deprived of something which they would need for life unless if they give their express consent. One day, there will be technology that will allow for organ development and cures without the need for donations. Until then, all such cases must be handled that both the donor and the recipient receive full protection of their own lives, and their own persons, and are given the opportunity to be fully aware of what they are doing, and how.

You are taking an absolutely hypocritical definition of this. It's not "narrow". It's hypocritical.

And you don't "need" both your kidneys to live. You don't "need" your entire liver to live (in fact, you only need about 30% of it, on average). Your statement that "no living person should be deprived of something which they would need for life" would allow forced organ donations, forced blood donations, and forced kidney donations. In fact, your notion that one person's life can trump another person's bodily autonomy demands it.