"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Greater Celisia]

Men's reproductive rights = penis insertion.
Women's reproductive rights = child support, custody, abortion, etc, etc.

Basically they make all the decisions. Equality. Which is why industrial incubation systems should be put in place to make their reproductive ability and rights irrelevant. Make their sex organs obsolete. With the rise in sex robotic technology, and the incubation possibilities, your balls would never have to be in a purse again.

[Neutraligon]

I disagree, since that would quit easily involve placing myself in danger. Oh and, under US law you cannot compel me to do so. And you did not reply to my comment on self defense against someone who has no intention of killing me, but does intend to harm me.

Well maybe the law is wrong. Should I start a forum for that?

Go ahead and show that forcing people into positions of danger is a good law to have.

Morally speaking, he's in the high ground here. On the position of civil rights, he isn't. The question is, which is more important?

I disagree, I think that morally speaking his position is shit because it is forcing people to place themselves in danger. My opinion is that it should instead be voluntary to do so based on your own assessment of what you are and are not capable of and how much in danger it will place you in, as well as if there are alternative ways to go about solving the problem, and if your attempting to help will in fact make the situation worse.

Let me give an example. In Yellowstone there are a ton of natural sulfur springs and the such. A while back a dog fell into one of those springs. i am going to change to make a hypothetical that a child falls in. Should a human by law have to rescue them, and how should it be done?

[Pu4GatoRy]

He was making on analogy. Why are you taking it so literally?

I am not, I am saying it is a bad analogy because a house does not have bodily sovereignty stuff involved.

Ah Is bodily sovereignty really that important though? Honestly, I don't know. I don't mind my own "sovereignty" very much, but I don't know what other people feel.

[Neutraligon]

Does this mean up to, and including, lethal force if necessary?

What do you mean?

As for what you said about self-defense, Neutraligon; defending oneself from an outside threat is a little different than killing your own child that you begat. However, if the pregnancy is causing severe health risks, then abortion is permissible, even encouraged (though, if the woman is unwilling to abort, her position should be respected).

So what if the outside threat is my own child, which is unfortunately not all that uncommon? Once again a pregnancy always has a risk of sudden life threatening situations, are you saying a woman should always be able to have an abortion so she does not have to face that risk?

[Neutraligon]

I am not, I am saying it is a bad analogy because a house does not have bodily sovereignty stuff involved.

Ah Is bodily sovereignty really that important though? Honestly, I don't know. I don't mind my own "sovereignty" very much, but I don't know what other people feel.

Since your bodily sovereignty is what prevents me from being able to torture and kill you, from enslaving you, from me deciding to cut out your organs without you permission, yes, bodily sovereignty is very important.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What do you mean?

As for what you said about self-defense, Neutraligon; defending oneself from an outside threat is a little different than killing your own child that you begat. However, if the pregnancy is causing severe health risks, then abortion is permissible, even encouraged (though, if the woman is unwilling to abort, her position should be respected).

So what if the outside threat is my own child, which is unfortunately not all that uncommon? Once again a pregnancy always has a risk of sudden life threatening situations, are you saying a woman should always be able to have an abortion so she does not have to face that risk?

If your child is trying to stab you, then you are justified in killing them to defend yourself.

We are all at constant risk of sudden life-threatening situations. It is only in the midst of those situations coming about that we have extraordinary rights (e.g. the right to end another person's life).

[Pu4GatoRy]

Well maybe the law is wrong. Should I start a forum for that?

Go ahead and show that forcing people into positions of danger is a good law to have.

Morally speaking, he's in the high ground here. On the position of civil rights, he isn't. The question is, which is more important?

I disagree, I think that morally speaking his position is shit because it is forcing people to place themselves in danger. My opinion is that it should instead be voluntary to do so based on your own assessment of what you are and are not capable of and how much in danger it will place you in, as well as if there are alternative ways to go about solving the problem, and if your attempting to help will in fact make the situation worse.

Let me give an example. In Yellowstone there are a ton of natural sulfur springs and the such. A while back a dog fell into one of those springs. i am going to change to make a hypothetical that a child falls in. Should a human by law have to rescue them, and how should it be done?

Well morally speaking, it's him letting a child be born over someone not letting it be born, over someone going through pregnancy.

On the case with the Yellowstone thing, pregnancy is a LOT less dangerous than that. If you have a high chance of death over pregnancy, or are uncomfortable with your chances, go ahead. Abort it. I don't believe it's ok to abort over you not wanting to go through with pregnancy over the pain and stuff. You can always give the child to someone else if you can't take care of it. That's just my belief though.

(Oh, and speaking on the Yellowstone sulfur spring thing, no they shouldn't, unless you know that you CAN get that child out. Don't put yourself in extreme danger for it.)

[Neutraligon]

So what if the outside threat is my own child, which is unfortunately not all that uncommon? Once again a pregnancy always has a risk of sudden life threatening situations, are you saying a woman should always be able to have an abortion so she does not have to face that risk?

If your child is trying to stab you, then you are justified in killing them to defend yourself.

We are all at constant risk of sudden life-threatening situations. It is only in the midst of those situations coming about that we have extraordinary rights (e.g. the right to end another person's life).

First not being forced to donate my organs or to have another person living attached to me is not an extraordinary right. Second true, but pregnancy itself offers additional risks that a woman is in the position of stopping. By forcing her to continue the pregnancy you are forcing her to take on those risks against her will. Are there any similar situations where I can force you to take on risks of bodily harm against your will?

[Salandriagado]

Actually, once they get to be 18 years of age, you do have the right to kick your kids out of the house and there's not a thing the state can do about it.

I don't think a fetus is 18 years of age.

You can force them out before then as well, it's just that the state picks up looking after them when you do.

[Pu4GatoRy]

I don't think a fetus is 18 years of age.

You can force them out before then as well, it's just that the state picks up looking after them when you do.

That is the same thing as not having an abortion, and giving the child up for adoption.

[Salandriagado]

I disagree, since that would quit easily involve placing myself in danger. Oh and, under US law you cannot compel me to do so. And you did not reply to my comment on self defense against someone who has no intention of killing me, but does intend to harm me.

Well maybe the law is wrong. Should I start a forum for that?

Morally speaking, he's in the high ground here. On the position of civil rights, he isn't. The question is, which is more important?

No, morally he's in the shit because he's advocating what amounts to slavery.

[Salandriagado]

You can force them out before then as well, it's just that the state picks up looking after them when you do.

That is the same thing as not having an abortion, and giving the child up for adoption.

No it isn't, because one of them involves someone going through a lengthy and dangerous process against their will.

[Pu4GatoRy]

Well maybe the law is wrong. Should I start a forum for that?

Morally speaking, he's in the high ground here. On the position of civil rights, he isn't. The question is, which is more important?

No, morally he's in the shit because he's advocating what amounts to slavery.

That's an opinion I I really can't find what very has in common with letting yourself be pregnant when you don't want to be. Again though, I don't think a person should go through with pregnancy when there is a high risk of death, or they are uncomfortable with their chances.

[Neutraligon]

Go ahead and show that forcing people into positions of danger is a good law to have.


I disagree, I think that morally speaking his position is shit because it is forcing people to place themselves in danger. My opinion is that it should instead be voluntary to do so based on your own assessment of what you are and are not capable of and how much in danger it will place you in, as well as if there are alternative ways to go about solving the problem, and if your attempting to help will in fact make the situation worse.

Let me give an example. In Yellowstone there are a ton of natural sulfur springs and the such. A while back a dog fell into one of those springs. i am going to change to make a hypothetical that a child falls in. Should a human by law have to rescue them, and how should it be done?

Well morally speaking, it's him letting a child be born over someone not letting it be born, over someone going through pregnancy.

And morally speaking I am far more in favor of not forcing a woman to take on the risks of pregnancy should she not wish to do so. Once again I do not see his position as the moral high ground. I see it as morally repugnant.

On the case with the Yellowstone thing, pregnancy is a LOT less dangerous than that. If you have a high chance of death over pregnancy, or are uncomfortable with your chances, go ahead. Abort it. I don't believe it's ok to abort over you not wanting to go through with pregnancy over the pain and stuff. You can always give the child to someone else if you can't take care of it. That's just my belief though.

Do I need to repeat the statistics again for you. You know it being the sixth leading cause of death for women 20-34 where it is 2% of deaths for those women? pregnancy can at any point become dangerous, you are forcing her to accept those risks.

(Oh, and speaking on the Yellowstone sulfur spring thing, no they shouldn't, unless you know that you CAN get that child out. Don't put yourself in extreme danger for it.)

Let us change the scenario, I see a kid playing in the street. There is a hill over which I cannot see and so have no idea if there is oncoming traffic. Should I be forced to walk into the middle of the street to retrieve the kid despite my having no knowledge of if danger is approaching?

[Pu4GatoRy]

That is the same thing as not having an abortion, and giving the child up for adoption.

No it isn't, because one of them involves someone going through a lengthy and dangerous process against their will.

Lengthy, yes. Uncomfortable, yes. But dangerous? No.(see my recent post.)

[Mechanisburg]

I am not, I am saying it is a bad analogy because a house does not have bodily sovereignty stuff involved.

Ah Is bodily sovereignty really that important though? Honestly, I don't know. I don't mind my own "sovereignty" very much, but I don't know what other people feel.

A little time ago, I stumbled upon a quite interesting documentary about the human body. They were dissecting a cadaver, starting by peeling off the skin - I was really fascinated by how the tendons of the arm worked. Now, this might seem like a non-sequitur, but it is not: I would really like to get my grubby little hands on a human body to experiment with, but I am no medical student.

You don't seem to mind your sovereignty, nor are interested in your bodily autonomy. Can I assume you would be ok with me kidnapping you and experimenting with your still living body? I shan't infringe on your right to life, but only on your bodily sovereignty.

The right to sovereignty of body is accorded even to corpses, as we don't harvest organs from them if their previous owner denied their use to society. The right to sovereignty of body is accorded to every human being, as we don't harvest blood or organs from them if they don't consent: why would it be different for pregnant women?

And, I'll remind you, consent can be taken back at any time - so the argument "she consented to pregnancy by having sex", besides being extremely flawed (one doesn't consent to car accidents even if they go around breaking the speed limits with no seatbelts on), won't apply.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If your child is trying to stab you, then you are justified in killing them to defend yourself.

We are all at constant risk of sudden life-threatening situations. It is only in the midst of those situations coming about that we have extraordinary rights (e.g. the right to end another person's life).

First not being forced to donate my organs or to have another person living attached to me is not an extraordinary right. Second true, but pregnancy itself offers additional risks that a woman is in the position of stopping. By forcing her to continue the pregnancy you are forcing her to take on those risks against her will. Are there any similar situations where I can force you to take on risks of bodily harm against your will?

The right to kill someone, though, is an extraordinary right.

There are laws that require you to help people in danger. For example, if a child is being beaten in front of you, I think good-samaritan laws would require you to intervene.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't think a fetus is 18 years of age.

You can force them out before then as well, it's just that the state picks up looking after them when you do.

As you have pointed out before, kicking them out without making arrangements for them to be looked after is neglect.

[Neutraligon]

No it isn't, because one of them involves someone going through a lengthy and dangerous process against their will.

Lengthy, yes. Uncomfortable, yes. But dangerous? No.(see my recent post.)

You are factually wrong about the dangerous part. Something I know I have posted before.

[Neutraligon]

First not being forced to donate my organs or to have another person living attached to me is not an extraordinary right. Second true, but pregnancy itself offers additional risks that a woman is in the position of stopping. By forcing her to continue the pregnancy you are forcing her to take on those risks against her will. Are there any similar situations where I can force you to take on risks of bodily harm against your will?

The right to kill someone, though, is an extraordinary right.

I can however allow a person to die, I am not required to save a person from freezing nor am I required to give them blood to save their life. So I cut the connection on my side of the body and allow the fetus to die. Now what?

There are laws that require you to help people in danger. For example, if a child is being beaten in front of you, I think good-samaritan laws would require you to intervene.

I mentioned that there are 10 states where there are laws somewhat like that on the books. They are called duty to rescue...and are ignored by the courts and law enforcement.

[Neutraligon]

You can force them out before then as well, it's just that the state picks up looking after them when you do.

As you have pointed out before, kicking them out without making arrangements for them to be looked after is neglect.

Because unlike with a human body, there are no conflict of rights in the case of kicking a child out, hence why I said your comparison was crappy.

[Salandriagado]

No it isn't, because one of them involves someone going through a lengthy and dangerous process against their will.

Lengthy, yes. Uncomfortable, yes. But dangerous? No.(see my recent post.)

Yes, it's dangerous. It is the 6th most common cause of death for women of childbearing age.

[Salandriagado]

You can force them out before then as well, it's just that the state picks up looking after them when you do.

As you have pointed out before, kicking them out without making arrangements for them to be looked after is neglect.

Sure. But those arrangements are freely available to everybody.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The right to kill someone, though, is an extraordinary right.

I can however allow a person to die, I am not required to save a person from freezing. So I cut the connection on my side of the body and allow the fetus to die. Now what?

There are laws that require you to help people in danger. For example, if a child is being beaten in front of you, I think good-samaritan laws would require you to intervene.

I mentioned that there are 10 states where there are laws somewhat like that on the books. They are called duty to rescue...and are ignored by the courts and law enforcement.

I'm pretty sure you are required to protect people in immediate danger of death if you can.

Regardless of the legality of it, I think leaving someone to die in the cold if they are on your damn porch-step is morally equivalent to murder.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As you have pointed out before, kicking them out without making arrangements for them to be looked after is neglect.

Sure. But those arrangements are freely available to everybody.

In some parts of the world, perhaps.