"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Neutraligon]

Actually, I don't.

What are you on about? Of course you can - especially in cases where they are a threat to you. And if that trespasser is there and unwanted or even unknown about, you can't really assess their threat while they live.

Apparently castle doctrine is no longer a things...who knew?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I would disagree with you, but I think abortion is literal murder and that abortion clinics often perform work morally equivalent to mass murder.

So, you tell me how I should just tolerate it?

And in my mind it isn't and instead you are advocating slavery. Now what? The same way i tolerate you immoral book and the form of religion you have used on this website.

Slavery is morally more tolerable than the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocents, wouldn't you say?

[Italios]

I wasn't aware causing the 6th most amount of deaths in a huge age group wasn't dangerous.

Causing 800 deaths isn't dangerous.

You don't have to die from a pregnancy for it to be dangerous.

[Hashirajima]

How about a thought experiment? This is a popular one:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Although this situation would give you the right to unplug yourself from the violinist, it would not give you the right to kill him by mutilating his body.

In an abortion, the body of the fetus is destroyed, which is much more than just severing the connection between the pregnant woman and the fetus.

Actually, in this case you ARE allowed to unplug yourself. Hell, you shouldn't even be plugged in without your consent.

[Neutraligon]

How about a thought experiment? This is a popular one:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Although this situation would give you the right to unplug yourself from the violinist, it would not give you the right to kill him by mutilating his body.

In an abortion, the body of the fetus is destroyed, which is much more than just severing the connection between the pregnant woman and the fetus.

Fine I sever the connection. The fetus dies and now is decomposing within my body, causing me to be in immediate danger. Now what? Oh by the way, any doctor who did something like the above, leaving the fetus in my to rot would be rightly sued for malpractice. Oh and...not all abortions take the form of mutilating the body, learn about the different procedures first.

[The V O I D]

What are you on about? Of course you can - especially in cases where they are a threat to you. And if that trespasser is there and unwanted or even unknown about, you can't really assess their threat while they live.

Killing in self-defense is only legal if you have reason to believe that there is an immediate threat to your life. You cannot kill someone just for being on your property, that's ridiculous.

They are a threat to my life if they are breaking into my house. Obviously, if I wake up and confront them or try to remove them, they are statistically likely to attack and harm or kill me.

Therefor, yes, I can kill them for being uninvited and unwanted and trespassing - it is the only way to be sure they have no opportunity to threaten my life. Same goes for a woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant. If it wasn't invited and it isn't wanted, the woman has a right to defend her body/property by removing the risks and threat - even if she doesn't know it will for certain kill her, removing it is the only way to guarantee it, especially if she doesn't want it or invite it.

[Mechanisburg]

And that 800 deaths makes it the sixth cause of death for women of child bearing age, causing about 2% of deaths for women in that age range.

'My point is, that that is a statistic that is being used to make it sound much more dangerous than it really is.

You seem to assume the only dangers from pregnancy and the eventual delivery are complications leading to death of the woman.

This is not so.

Maternal morbidity includes physical and psychologic conditions that result from or are aggravated by pregnancy and have an adverse effect on a woman’s health. The most severe complications of pregnancy, generally referred to as severe maternal morbidity (SMM), affect more than 65,000 women in the United States every year. Based on recent trends, this burden has been steadily increasing.

Amidst the complications listed on that page - only the most severe ones, I'll point out, as the more common anemia and gestational diabetes are not included - are acute myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, heart failure, pulmonary edema, sepsis, shock, and thrombotic embolism. Not included on that page are third degree perinal tears, affecting the anal sphincter and possibly burdening the woman with lifelong incontinence after surgical correction. And I'll also point out that, as per Raymond, 2012, pregnancy has a 14-fold mortality rate compared to legal abortion.

[Neutraligon]

And in my mind it isn't and instead you are advocating slavery. Now what? The same way i tolerate you immoral book and the form of religion you have used on this website.

Slavery is morally more tolerable than the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocents, wouldn't you say?

No, especially when that slavery involved forcibly hooking me up to people.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your statement didn't define age. You simply said a parent doesn't have the right to force their kids out of their house after they're born. The answer being yes, yes they do, and the state cannot do anything against you if you kick your kids out after they're 18.

I mean, you can also kick a kid out of your house by institutionalizing them if they are a threat to you and your family, so there's that too.

Also, kid or not, you can also kill them in self-defense and the cops won't do anything to you. Of course, this is a really rare circumstance, but in the chance that your kid is an imminent threat, you still can hold self-defense in court.

All you are doing is posting obscene exceptions and in no way are you disproving the statement. Most pro-life people accept abortion for crazy circumstances, like if the woman is in danger from the child being born or what not.

And? The statement that "no kid would be kicked out of their home" Is invalid in any circumstances you look at, because they would be kicked out for reasonable reasons.

By the same token, the problem with pro-life people is not the fact that they provide exceptions.

[Pu4GatoRy]

Yes, and what he is doing is manipulating the wording to fit an agenda, because "kills 800 per year" sounds a lot less impressive than "6th leading cause of death".

800.

What's your sample population? What is the methodology behind the collection of this piece of statistic? What is the selection criteria for your sample population? Is your sample population representative of the greater population you wish to apply this statistic as a model for?

Why do you instantly believe the statistics of a person who is on there same side as you, but the second someone counters it, you open fire?

[Walrusvylon]

How about a thought experiment? This is a popular one:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Although this situation would give you the right to unplug yourself from the violinist, it would not give you the right to kill him by mutilating his body.

In an abortion, the body of the fetus is destroyed, which is much more than just severing the connection between the pregnant woman and the fetus.

Actually, in this case you ARE allowed to unplug yourself. Hell, you shouldn't even be plugged in without your consent.

My point is that although you have the right to unplug yourself, you do not have the right to kill him by destroying his body. This as an abortion analogy, and would also extend to fetuses.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, and what he is doing is manipulating the wording to fit an agenda, because "kills 800 per year" sounds a lot less impressive than "6th leading cause of death".

800.

What's your sample population? What is the methodology behind the collection of this piece of statistic? What is the selection criteria for your sample population? Is your sample population representative of the greater population you wish to apply this statistic as a model for?

17.8 deaths per 100,000 births.

[The V O I D]

How about a thought experiment? This is a popular one:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Although this situation would give you the right to unplug yourself from the violinist, it would not give you the right to kill him by mutilating his body.

In an abortion, the body of the fetus is destroyed, which is much more than just severing the connection between the pregnant woman and the fetus.

If I've been kidnapped and am being held against my will, I'm not going to stop killing until I ensure my safety. Fuck everyone else.

Even if the violinist is weak and paralyzed in this situation, as long as he lives even partially the others will continue to try and kidnap me or keep me there to keep him alive. If he's dead, they no longer have use for me so I need to be killed now, too.

Either way, everyone in my path to freedom and safety is a threat.

Your situation is invalid.

[Hashirajima]

800.

What's your sample population? What is the methodology behind the collection of this piece of statistic? What is the selection criteria for your sample population? Is your sample population representative of the greater population you wish to apply this statistic as a model for?

Why do you instantly believe the statistics of a person who is on there same side as you, but the second someone counters it, you open fire?

If you bothered reading back, I *never* quoted the statistics quoted by any others in support of my own arguments.
I merely have no cause to question them since I'm not concerned with their arguments. Those are their affairs to manage.

[Neutraligon]

800.

What's your sample population? What is the methodology behind the collection of this piece of statistic? What is the selection criteria for your sample population? Is your sample population representative of the greater population you wish to apply this statistic as a model for?

Why do you instantly believe the statistics of a person who is on there same side as you, but the second someone counters it, you open fire?

Because I already posted the link to the actual place where I got those statistics.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

I personally that if deciding between two decisions where people will die in both, to choose the decision where the least lives will be lost, no matter what. This also includes taking into consideration weather one decision will let people live who will end up killing others. For example, saving 10 people convicted of homicide, or 5 innocent people, the 5 innocent people should live, seeing the criminals are unstable, and could kill again.

What if it is one-to-one?

Say someone is threatening force against me, can I kill in self-defense if I have to?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Killing in self-defense is only legal if you have reason to believe that there is an immediate threat to your life. You cannot kill someone just for being on your property, that's ridiculous.

They are a threat to my life if they are breaking into my house. Obviously, if I wake up and confront them or try to remove them, they are statistically likely to attack and harm or kill me.

Therefor, yes, I can kill them for being uninvited and unwanted and trespassing - it is the only way to be sure they have no opportunity to threaten my life. Same goes for a woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant. If it wasn't invited and it isn't wanted, the woman has a right to defend her body/property by removing the risks and threat - even if she doesn't know it will for certain kill her, removing it is the only way to guarantee it, especially if she doesn't want it or invite it.

Try shooting a squatter in your shed, and see how the police take it, especially since, in many states, squatters' rights are a thing.

[Walrusvylon]

How about a thought experiment? This is a popular one:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Although this situation would give you the right to unplug yourself from the violinist, it would not give you the right to kill him by mutilating his body.

In an abortion, the body of the fetus is destroyed, which is much more than just severing the connection between the pregnant woman and the fetus.

If I've been kidnapped and am being held against my will, I'm not going to stop killing until I ensure my safety. Fuck everyone else.

Even if the violinist is weak and paralyzed in this situation, as long as he lives even partially the others will continue to try and kidnap me or keep me there to keep him alive. If he's dead, they no longer have use for me so I need to be killed now, too.

Either way, everyone in my path to freedom and safety is a threat.

Your situation is invalid.

You sound like a homicidal maniac.

[Hashirajima]

Actually, in this case you ARE allowed to unplug yourself. Hell, you shouldn't even be plugged in without your consent.

My point is that although you have the right to unplug yourself, you do not have the right to kill him by destroying his body. This as an abortion analogy, and would also extend to fetuses.

... can someone link me to the research article on mothers operating the abortion forceps? I must have missed that one...

[United Muscovite Nations]

'My point is, that that is a statistic that is being used to make it sound much more dangerous than it really is.

You seem to assume the only dangers from pregnancy and the eventual delivery are complications leading to death of the woman.

This is not so.

Maternal morbidity includes physical and psychologic conditions that result from or are aggravated by pregnancy and have an adverse effect on a woman’s health. The most severe complications of pregnancy, generally referred to as severe maternal morbidity (SMM), affect more than 65,000 women in the United States every year. Based on recent trends, this burden has been steadily increasing.

Amidst the complications listed on that page - only the most severe ones, I'll point out, as the more common anemia and gestational diabetes are not included - are acute myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, heart failure, pulmonary edema, sepsis, shock, and thrombotic embolism. Not included on that page are third degree perinal tears, affecting the anal sphincter and possibly burdening the woman with lifelong incontinence after surgical correction. And I'll also point out that, as per Raymond, 2012, pregnancy has a 14-fold mortality rate compared to legal abortion.

Does that count the death of the fetus?

[Neutraligon]

800.

What's your sample population? What is the methodology behind the collection of this piece of statistic? What is the selection criteria for your sample population? Is your sample population representative of the greater population you wish to apply this statistic as a model for?

17.8 deaths per 100,000 births.

That seems like a risk to me, one you are forcing a woman to take against her will. I will once again ask the question, in what other scenario is one person allowed to force another to take on those types of risks against there will?

[The V O I D]

They are a threat to my life if they are breaking into my house. Obviously, if I wake up and confront them or try to remove them, they are statistically likely to attack and harm or kill me.

Therefor, yes, I can kill them for being uninvited and unwanted and trespassing - it is the only way to be sure they have no opportunity to threaten my life. Same goes for a woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant. If it wasn't invited and it isn't wanted, the woman has a right to defend her body/property by removing the risks and threat - even if she doesn't know it will for certain kill her, removing it is the only way to guarantee it, especially if she doesn't want it or invite it.

Try shooting a squatter in your shed, and see how the police take it, especially since, in many states, squatters' rights are a thing.

I wouldn't shoot him, but I'd definitely kick him off my property, and if the squatter has a weapon or threatens me, initiate castle law/doctrine and remove them by any means necessary.

[Neutraligon]

If I've been kidnapped and am being held against my will, I'm not going to stop killing until I ensure my safety. Fuck everyone else.

Even if the violinist is weak and paralyzed in this situation, as long as he lives even partially the others will continue to try and kidnap me or keep me there to keep him alive. If he's dead, they no longer have use for me so I need to be killed now, too.

Either way, everyone in my path to freedom and safety is a threat.

Your situation is invalid.

You sound like a homicidal maniac.

I recommend you learn the site rules. I notice you did not respond to my post I will repeat it. I cut off the connection to the fetus. I know have a decomposing fetus inside me. Now what?

[The V O I D]

If I've been kidnapped and am being held against my will, I'm not going to stop killing until I ensure my safety. Fuck everyone else.

Even if the violinist is weak and paralyzed in this situation, as long as he lives even partially the others will continue to try and kidnap me or keep me there to keep him alive. If he's dead, they no longer have use for me so I need to be killed now, too.

Either way, everyone in my path to freedom and safety is a threat.

Your situation is invalid.

You sound like a homicidal maniac.

No. I am perfectly logical and in the right in this situation.

You're telling me you'd let the guy they wanna keep alive live, even after unplugging, only for his people to come after you again and again until they're forced to kill you and do a kidney transplant - or worse?

Not happening to me, no sir. All threats to my life and freedom are going to be extinguished, with very few exemptions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How about a thought experiment? This is a popular one:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Although this situation would give you the right to unplug yourself from the violinist, it would not give you the right to kill him by mutilating his body.

In an abortion, the body of the fetus is destroyed, which is much more than just severing the connection between the pregnant woman and the fetus.

I would unplug myself from the violinist, regardless of whether I'd have to mutilate his body, or not.

Especially if someone has kidnapped me. I would unplug myself and die of bleeding out if I have to before providing a means to live to someone I have not consented to.