[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[Godular]

It's irrelevant because it doesn't matter.



I really am seeing it quite clearly. You keep trying to muddy the waters.



The goalposts stay right where they are. Your initial scenario was whether she has the right to kill you if you put your hand on her shoulder. The answer is: "If that's what it takes, yes."

That is really all that matters.

All this other crap you throw in is just moving the goalposts beyond what the actual situation of an unwanted pregnancy represents.



Because no person has the right to use another person's body without their consent. The fetus is dwelling within and using the resources of the woman's body. If she does not consent to this, then she very much has the right to whatever means are necessary to sever that contact.

Nothing. Else. Matters.

No, I "moved the goalpost" from my original scenario because it was less like pregnancy.

No, it was exactly like pregnancy, on every level that matters.

The fetus doesn't crawl into the mother, it doesn't partake in the action that creates it.

Irrelevant. A contact is initiated without the woman's consent.

Therefore, the scenario in which I put my hand on her shoulder can't work because I put my hand there with intent and moved my own hand.

No, it worked fine. It just didn't work for you.

So why can the woman kill me in the most recent scenario I explained?

Irrelevant goal-post-moving. They stay right the hell where they are.

[Dredge]

No, I "moved the goalpost" from my original scenario because it was less like pregnancy.

No, it was exactly like pregnancy, on every level that matters.

The fetus doesn't crawl into the mother, it doesn't partake in the action that creates it.

Irrelevant. A contact is initiated without the woman's consent.

Therefore, the scenario in which I put my hand on her shoulder can't work because I put my hand there with intent and moved my own hand.

No, it worked fine. It just didn't work for you.

So why can the woman kill me in the most recent scenario I explained?

Irrelevant goal-post-moving. They stay right the hell where they are.

You aren't even making a claim. You are just saying my opinion is irrelevant and then stating your opinion without reason as if it was fact.

[Godular]

No, it was exactly like pregnancy, on every level that matters.



Irrelevant. A contact is initiated without the woman's consent.



No, it worked fine. It just didn't work for you.



Irrelevant goal-post-moving. They stay right the hell where they are.

You aren't even making a claim.

Yes I am. You're not reading. You asked a question and it was answered.

You are just saying my opinion is irrelevant and then stating your opinion without reason as if it was fact.

I have already addressed this point a great number of times in this thread. Your question was: "If I put my hand on a woman's shoulder, does she have the right to kill me?" and my answer was "If that is what it takes to get your hand off her shoulder, then yes she can."

You keep adding pointless shit to it to muddy the waters. I reject you doing so.

Intent is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is the woman's body is being used/touched in a way that she does not consent to. She has the right to remedy this situation with immediacy and effect, with whatever force is necessary.

Intent to harm is irrelevant because the woman's body IS being harmed by simple virtue of unwanted contact.

Desire to remove your own hand is irrelevant because in a pregnancy the Fetus has no agency with which to desire its own change in circumstances.

I have already SAID this shit, but you keep plugging forward. Stop.

Yes the woman CAN kill a person who has initiated an unwanted contact upon her person, if that is what it takes to break contact. That's it. That's all that matters. If she can break off contact without killing the other person, yay hooray, but in almost all cases there is NO means to rectify an unwanted contact by a fetus without killing that fetus.

[Dredge]

You aren't even making a claim.

Yes I am. You're not reading. You asked a question and it was answered.

You are just saying my opinion is irrelevant and then stating your opinion without reason as if it was fact.

I have already addressed this point a great number of times in this thread. Your question was: "If I put my hand on a woman's shoulder, does she have the right to kill me?" and my answer was "If that is what it takes to get your hand off her shoulder, then yes she can."

You keep adding pointless shit to it to muddy the waters. I reject you doing so.

Intent is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is the woman's body is being used/touched in a way that she does not consent to. She has the right to remedy this situation with immediacy and effect, with whatever force is necessary.

Intent to harm is irrelevant because the woman's body IS being harmed by simple virtue of unwanted contact.

Desire to remove your own hand is irrelevant because in a pregnancy the Fetus has no agency with which to desire its own change in circumstances.

I have already SAID this shit, but you keep plugging forward. Stop.

Yes the woman CAN kill a person who has initiated an unwanted contact upon her person, if that is what it takes to break contact. That's it. That's all that matters. If she can break off contact without killing the other person, yay hooray, but in almost all cases there is NO means to rectify an unwanted contact by a fetus without killing that fetus.

I am not muddying the waters, I am trying to clarify my question to make it better, you just don't like what I am saying. The fetus does not initiate contact, it can't. The reason the fetus is there is because of the contact of the mother and father, that is why I changed my scenario. Intent matters because that is how you differentiate between circumstances. If I trip and run in to somebody, that doesn't give them the right to push me away. If my INTENTION is to run in to the person to cause harm, that person has the right to protect themselves. The same thing happens, but the INTENT is different.

[The Parkus Empire]

I do not really feel like an unqualified individual with extremely strong religious interests in the matter should be unilaterally fiddling with the law on that level, that is a subvetsion of rule of law. I do think Roe vs. Wade is perverse, as it says the state has no responsibility (interest) to a citizen until viability; this is a massive blunder, the state in fact has responsibility even toward citizens who will be born in ten years.

Fundamentally irrelevant, and downright silly. If you wanna keep up with that 'past-and-present' thing, you can keep it in your own thread.

I am talking about the future, actually.

[Republic of Keshiland]

Abortion records should be public for those who were not at risk of death from the pregnancy. Watch the numbers plummet if they inacted that also anti abortion legislation is in the Senate tax bill.https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffpost. ... 0e18cb/amp

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Abortion records should be public for those who were not at risk of death from the pregnancy. Watch the numbers plummet if they inacted that also anti abortion legislation is in the Senate tax bill.https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffpost. ... 0e18cb/amp

Your power fetishes are nowhere near civilised or kosher.

[Kernen]

Abortion records should be public for those who were not at risk of death from the pregnancy. Watch the numbers plummet if they inacted that also anti abortion legislation is in the Senate tax bill.https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffpost. ... 0e18cb/amp

1. That's illegal. Records of abortions are medical documents, and therefore protected under various medical privacy laws. KNOW THE LAW.

2. What public interest is there in knowing who has had an abortion? What state interest is there in such data?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

2. What public interest is there in knowing who has had an abortion? What state interest is there in such data?

So Keshiland can get his power trip fetish out of it.

[Godular]

Yes I am. You're not reading. You asked a question and it was answered.



I have already addressed this point a great number of times in this thread. Your question was: "If I put my hand on a woman's shoulder, does she have the right to kill me?" and my answer was "If that is what it takes to get your hand off her shoulder, then yes she can."

You keep adding pointless shit to it to muddy the waters. I reject you doing so.

Intent is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is the woman's body is being used/touched in a way that she does not consent to. She has the right to remedy this situation with immediacy and effect, with whatever force is necessary.

Intent to harm is irrelevant because the woman's body IS being harmed by simple virtue of unwanted contact.

Desire to remove your own hand is irrelevant because in a pregnancy the Fetus has no agency with which to desire its own change in circumstances.

I have already SAID this shit, but you keep plugging forward. Stop.

Yes the woman CAN kill a person who has initiated an unwanted contact upon her person, if that is what it takes to break contact. That's it. That's all that matters. If she can break off contact without killing the other person, yay hooray, but in almost all cases there is NO means to rectify an unwanted contact by a fetus without killing that fetus.

I am not muddying the waters, I am trying to clarify my question to make it better, you just don't like what I am saying.

No, I'm cutting away the flotsam that you keep trying to throw on it.

The fetus does not initiate contact, it can't.

Yes it does. That's what implantation is.

The reason the fetus is there is because of the contact of the mother and father, that is why I changed my scenario.

Irrelevant. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent itself is an ongoing process, and can be revoked at any time.

Intent matters because that is how you differentiate between circumstances.

No it is not. The only thing that matters in the end is that the woman feels threatened. A reasonable person can generally assess certain aspects of this right off the bat. 'Guy walking on the street' is not inherently threatening on its own virtue. 'Naked guy walking on the street directly towards you' is generally considered something worthy of countermeasures.

If the naked guy just happened to get mugged and left in an alley, he can hopefully make some indications that he is in distress, but he can still keep his frickin' distance when the magnum is pointed at him.

If I trip and run in to somebody, that doesn't give them the right to push me away.

Yes it does. They might seem brusque in so doing, but they have every right to push you away from them.

If my INTENTION is to run in to the person to cause harm, that person has the right to protect themselves. The same thing happens, but the INTENT is different.

Intent. Is. Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that a contact has been initiated, and yes one person can kill another in order to prevent an unwanted contact if such is necessary.

[Republic of Keshiland]

Abortion records should be public for those who were not at risk of death from the pregnancy. Watch the numbers plummet if they inacted that also anti abortion legislation is in the Senate tax bill.https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffpost. ... 0e18cb/amp

1. That's illegal. Records of abortions are medical documents, and therefore protected under various medical privacy laws. KNOW THE LAW.

2. What public interest is there in knowing who has had an abortion? What state interest is there in such data?

1. It should be repealed

2. It makes people less likely to get one out of shame or fear of what others will think

[Godular]

Fundamentally irrelevant, and downright silly. If you wanna keep up with that 'past-and-present' thing, you can keep it in your own thread.

I am talking about the future, actually.

The future does not exist. All that happens is now-ness. One can plan for the future, sure, but to require that people act as if their future is already set is the path of madness.

[Godular]

1. That's illegal. Records of abortions are medical documents, and therefore protected under various medical privacy laws. KNOW THE LAW.

2. What public interest is there in knowing who has had an abortion? What state interest is there in such data?

1. It should be repealed

No it shouldn't.

2. It makes people less likely to get one out of shame or fear of what others will think

Right back to your psychological abuse schtick. Yeah no.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

1. It should be repealed

Ok, everybody now knows every medical detail about you, from psychological disorders to number of warts located on genitalia, to more serious things like allergens you would have a fatal response to.

[Kernen]

1. It should be repealed

Congrats, all the data connected to insurance, medical care, and payment are now public. You've created a worse breach than the Equifax breach for personal private data.

2. It makes people less likely to get one out of shame or fear of what others will think

Ah, so you want to take us back to the dark ages. You'll likely get similar occurrences for other kind of medical data. Homosexuals will likely be outed by virtue of admissions made to their providers, people with certain diseases such as HIV will be stigmatized, and you've eliminated any kind of anti-discrimination efforts to prevent jobs from discriminating based on irrelevant health concerns.

Its like you genuinely don't understand how HIPPA works or what it does for society. Why do you encourage abuse?

[Republic of Keshiland]

1. It should be repealed

No it shouldn't.

2. It makes people less likely to get one out of shame or fear of what others will think

Right back to your psychological abuse schtick. Yeah no.

Children over abortion Rights

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No it shouldn't.



Right back to your psychological abuse schtick. Yeah no.

Children over abortion Rights

Ok, everybody now knows every medical detail about you, from psychological disorders to number of warts located on genitalia, to more serious things like allergens you would have a fatal response to.

[Kernen]

No it shouldn't.



Right back to your psychological abuse schtick. Yeah no.

Children over abortion Rights

Nice slogan, but in your efforts, you've harmed every person who has ever seen a doctor ever. There's such a thing as balancing harms. You've dropped a 50lb weight on one side and nothing on the other.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Children over abortion Rights

Nice slogan, but in your efforts, you've harmed every person who has ever seen a doctor ever. There's such a thing as balancing harms. You've dropped a 50lb weight on one side and nothing on the other.

If I knew what allergens would trigger a massive anaphylactic shock in people murder would be so easy.

[The Parkus Empire]

I am talking about the future, actually.

The future does not exist. All that happens is now-ness. One can plan for the future, sure, but to require that people act as if their future is already set is the path of madness.

No as mad as saying we have zero responsibility to those of the future

[Godular]

No it shouldn't.



Right back to your psychological abuse schtick. Yeah no.

Children over abortion Rights

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Kernen]

The future does not exist. All that happens is now-ness. One can plan for the future, sure, but to require that people act as if their future is already set is the path of madness.

No as mad as saying we have zero responsibility to those of the future

We don't. The future is the future's problem. Get what you can now.

[Republic of Keshiland]

1. It should be repealed

Congrats, all the data connected to insurance, medical care, and payment are now public. You've created a worse breach than the Equifax breach for personal private data.

2. It makes people less likely to get one out of shame or fear of what others will think

Ah, so you want to take us back to the dark ages. You'll likely get similar occurrences for other kind of medical data. Homosexuals will likely be outed by virtue of admissions made to their providers, people with certain diseases such as HIV will be stigmatized, and you've eliminated any kind of anti-discrimination efforts to prevent jobs from discriminating based on irrelevant health concerns.

Its like you genuinely don't understand how HIPPA works or what it does for society. Why do you encourage abuse?

1. 3 things should be removed from protections. Abortions, STI info and deadly transmittable deseases.

2. The things above are ethical (abortions) and the other 2 public safety issues

[Godular]

The future does not exist. All that happens is now-ness. One can plan for the future, sure, but to require that people act as if their future is already set is the path of madness.

No as mad as saying we have zero responsibility to those of the future

Not at all. Now I might suggest that you take future posts on the subject to your past thread.

[The Parkus Empire]

No as mad as saying we have zero responsibility to those of the future

We don't. The future is the future's problem. Get what you can now.

That is the attitude suiciding the planet.