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

[Pilarcraft]

The baby does not exist as a legal person -or rather, it should not exist as a legal person.

Why, morally/ethically speaking, should it not exist?

This is a legal matter, not an ethical/moral matter. a Legal Person is a person that has the protection of the law and is under the jurisdiction thereof (at least, one definition)... A fetus, by default can not be under the jurisdiction of the law, and therefore can not be protected by it. The moral matter of whether or not it should reach the level where it would become a legal person is another matter. Generally speaking, it should, unless the person (mind you, the legal person) carrying it does not want to carry it anymore. The argument isn't on whether the baby should be killed. It's that the Mother does not want to carry it. After some point, you can grow a fetus outside the mother's body -which is what I believe should be done, if the option is available) or just fucking deliver it -after the 12th week, iirc). The Fetus is not a legal person, because legally speaking, it has no personage. it's just a mass of cells, alive? sure. but a Dog is also alive and doesn't get to have legal personhood. Why should an entity with no ability to function under the law get personhood before it has that ability?

[San Lumen]

so do frozen embryos matter more than a child in burning clinic?

Do you need me to dig up Bob the Janitor?

What?

[Gospel Power]

Yes

Bullshit. In 2014 there were 652,639 abortions in the United States. How do you plan on caring for well over half a million children on your own?

saving 1 Child is enough, let the rich guys do the rest of the job, oh, they will not do it

[San Lumen]

Bullshit. In 2014 there were 652,639 abortions in the United States. How do you plan on caring for well over half a million children on your own?

saving 1 Child is enough, let the rich guys do the rest of the job, oh, they will not do it

Again who are you to interfere in a private medical decision? Who crowned you Emperor?

[Galloism]

Do you need me to dig up Bob the Janitor?

What?

Bob the Janitor. Thought experiment.

This is a legal matter, not an ethical/moral matter. a Legal Person is a person that has the protection of the law and is under the jurisdiction thereof (at least, one definition)... A fetus, by default can not be under the jurisdiction of the law, and therefore can not be protected by it.

This argument has certain... ethical implications I don't think you have fully considered.

The Fetus is not a legal person, because legally speaking, it has no personage. it's just a mass of cells, alive? sure. but a Dog is also alive and doesn't get to have legal personhood. Why should an entity with no ability to function under the law get personhood before it has that ability?

I mean, have you considered the full logical ramifications of this position?

[The New California Republic]

Bullshit. In 2014 there were 652,639 abortions in the United States. How do you plan on caring for well over half a million children on your own?

saving 1 Child is enough, let the rich guys do the rest of the job, oh, they will not do it

Swing and a miss. So your attitude is basically "I want to create a problem, but dealing with it isn't my problem..."

[Galloism]

saving 1 Child is enough, let the rich guys do the rest of the job, oh, they will not do it

Again who are you to interfere in a private medical decision? Who crowned you Emperor?

Technically, the Roman Senate, AD 37.

[Dylar]

Because, currently, the law does not view them as legal persons. However, they are indeed human beings. They are created with human sperm and human egg fusing. They have human DNA. So, therefore, they are indeed human beings.

so do frozen embryos matter more than a child in burning clinic?

We've had this argument before on NSG... And frankly it's a stupid hypothetical. Because, you cannot feasibly move the freezer containing the frozen embryos outside the clinic and keep it cool to keep the embryos alive. Actually, if you went to save the embryos you'd end up dooming yourself, the embryos and the kid to the fire. So...yeah...kid always wins.

[Dylar]

Again who are you to interfere in a private medical decision? Who crowned you Emperor?

Technically, the Roman Senate, AD 37.

I AM the Senate!

[Pilarcraft]

What?

Bob the Janitor. Thought experiment.

This is a legal matter, not an ethical/moral matter. a Legal Person is a person that has the protection of the law and is under the jurisdiction thereof (at least, one definition)... A fetus, by default can not be under the jurisdiction of the law, and therefore can not be protected by it.

This argument has certain... ethical implications I don't think you have fully considered.

The Fetus is not a legal person, because legally speaking, it has no personage. it's just a mass of cells, alive? sure. but a Dog is also alive and doesn't get to have legal personhood. Why should an entity with no ability to function under the law get personhood before it has that ability?

I mean, have you considered the full logical ramifications of this position?

Please, explain these ramifications to me in a TG, if you could. I would rather rethink my position if I'm wrong.

[Gospel Power]

saving 1 Child is enough, let the rich guys do the rest of the job, oh, they will not do it

Swing and a miss. So your attitude is basically "I want to create a problem, but dealing with it isn't my problem..."

Look, i am not the president of USA, i don't have the money to solve it, all i can do is to disagree with that because that is wrong and murder, maybe if i will have the opportunity i will adopt a child that those women don't need

[Galloism]

Bob the Janitor. Thought experiment.



This argument has certain... ethical implications I don't think you have fully considered.



I mean, have you considered the full logical ramifications of this position?

Please, explain these ramifications to me in a TG, if you could. I would rather rethink my position if I'm wrong.

I'd rather do it right here.

Babies have no ability to function under the law. Your argument renders infanticide legally allowable. In addition, those who are insane to a level they have no ability to function under law can just be killed. We don't have to put them in an asylum. We can kill them outright. With no ability to function under law, they can't be under the jurisdiction thereof, therefore are not legal persons, and therefore we can just kill them. This also applies to people who are in a coma and can't be woken.

Saying "they have no ability to function under law and therefore aren't persons" is a very bad ethical path to go down.

[The New California Republic]

Swing and a miss. So your attitude is basically "I want to create a problem, but dealing with it isn't my problem..."

Look, i am not the president of USA, i don't have the money to solve it, all i can do is to disagree with that because that is wrong and murder, maybe if i will have the opportunity i will adopt a child that those women don't need

Right. *deep breath*

That doesn't answer anything. You desire to create a problem, but have no solutions for it.

Money =/= parents.

Abortion isn't murder.

"Maybe" you will adopt a child? So even the tiny sliver of mitigation that you could offer isn't certain?

[Gospel Power]

Look, i am not the president of USA, i don't have the money to solve it, all i can do is to disagree with that because that is wrong and murder, maybe if i will have the opportunity i will adopt a child that those women don't need

Right. *deep breath*

That doesn't answer anything. You desire to create a problem, but have no solutions for it.

Money =/= parents.

Abortion isn't murder.

"Maybe" you will adopt a child? So even the tiny sliver of mitigation that you could offer isn't certain?

The solution is to educate women that this is a murder, to encourage them to think before they get pregnant, that of course will not work because of the propaganda, if everyone will adopt one child of those unwanted children that will be the solution

[The New California Republic]

Right. *deep breath*

That doesn't answer anything. You desire to create a problem, but have no solutions for it.

Money =/= parents.

Abortion isn't murder.

"Maybe" you will adopt a child? So even the tiny sliver of mitigation that you could offer isn't certain?

The solution is to educate women that this is a murder, to encourage them to think before they get pregnant, that of course will not work because of the propaganda, if everyone will adopt one child of those unwanted children that will be the solution

So tell them lies? Fantastic solution(!)

"It will not work because of the propaganda". What on earth are you referring to? This is starting to look like conspiracy theory.

So everyone needs to adopt a child to fix a problem that you created. Wow.

[Galloism]

The solution is to educate women that this is a murder, to encourage them to think before they get pregnant, that of course will not work because of the propaganda, if everyone will adopt one child of those unwanted children that will be the solution

So tell them lies? Fantastic solution(!)

"It will not work because of the propaganda". What on earth are you referring to? This is starting to look like conspiracy theory.

So everyone needs to adopt a child to fix a problem that you created. Wow.

I mean, as a matter of numbers, not everyone would need to. About 0.5% of the population would. 1% if two people adopted every child as a couple.

[Pilarcraft]

Please, explain these ramifications to me in a TG, if you could. I would rather rethink my position if I'm wrong.

I'd rather do it right here.

Babies have no ability to function under the law. Your argument renders infanticide legally allowable. In addition, those who are insane to a level they have no ability to function under law can just be killed. We don't have to put them in an asylum. We can kill them outright. With no ability to function under law, they can't be under the jurisdiction thereof, therefore are not legal persons, and therefore we can just kill them. This also applies to people who are in a coma and can't be woken.

Saying "they have no ability to function under law and therefore aren't persons" is a very bad ethical path to go down.

I understand your point, but my argument wasn't that it deserves to be killed, it was that a legal person has more of a right over their own body (sovereignty over self) than a non-entity does over it. Which, well, that still stands if both sides are legal persons. There's a reason you don't just get forced to donate blood every day while people need it after all. This done, what you described (insane people) are generally seen, in most legal systems, as Wards. Basically, they're legal persons, but they have some of their rights restricted (or, rather, given to another person for 'safe-keeping'). A fetus can't be a Ward, because it's not a legal person yet. It gets that when it gets born, -when we see if it's of sane mind and capable of handling their own affairs or rather... require help. When a legal person exists, they're under jurisdiction of the law and under protection of it. That's why even an insane person can -and does- get persecuted for breaking the law, the punishment is just not as severe.

[The New California Republic]

I mean, as a matter of numbers, not everyone would need to. About 0.5% of the population would. 1% if two people adopted every child as a couple.

Don't worry, I'm aware. Let's just roll with it.

[Galloism]

I'd rather do it right here.

Babies have no ability to function under the law. Your argument renders infanticide legally allowable. In addition, those who are insane to a level they have no ability to function under law can just be killed. We don't have to put them in an asylum. We can kill them outright. With no ability to function under law, they can't be under the jurisdiction thereof, therefore are not legal persons, and therefore we can just kill them. This also applies to people who are in a coma and can't be woken.

Saying "they have no ability to function under law and therefore aren't persons" is a very bad ethical path to go down.

I understand your point, but my argument wasn't that it deserves to be killed, it was that a legal person has more of a right over their own body (sovereignty over self) than a non-entity does over it.

You don't even have to go there. It doesn't have to be a weighing of rights. There is a right we view more important than a lot of others to the extent we will let people die over it. Whether or not a fetus is a person really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Arguing over it is arguing over an irrelevancy, and it's a point of view question you will never ever win. There's just as many good arguments for making a fetus a legal person as there are against it. Which is to say: we can assign legal personhood to anything we want.

You're dying and need a kidney. I'm a match. In fact, I'm the only match close enough that I could get it to you and you would live.

We're both legal persons. Equals even.

Can I be forced to give it to you?

You started to allude to that here:

Which, well, that still stands if both sides are legal persons. There's a reason you don't just get forced to donate blood every day while people need it after all.

Which is good. This is the right approach.

This done, what you described (insane people) are generally seen, in most legal systems, as Wards. Basically, they're legal persons, but they have some of their rights restricted (or, rather, given to another person for 'safe-keeping'). A fetus can't be a Ward, because it's not a legal person yet. It gets that when it gets born, -when we see if it's of sane mind and capable of handling their own affairs or rather... require help. When a legal person exists, they're under jurisdiction of the law and under protection of it. That's why even an insane person can -and does- get persecuted for breaking the law, the punishment is just not as severe.

Right, but your original logic, that inability to act under the law makes you not a person by the law has some very very bad consequences. All those people described are no longer legal persons, and we can kill them. Babies, the insane, those in a coma, etc would cease to be persons under that logic. We could kill them just because.

I'm not saying we SHOULD do that. I'm just saying that your previous logic says we CAN. I don't think that's the kind of logic you want to be putting forth.

Meanwhile, a fetus CAN be a ward (there's an argument that, if we made it a legal person, which we very well could, it can't not be really - just like a newborn), because when it comes to legality, we can do anything we want. A fetus is no less capable of handling its own affairs than a newborn. It's no less capable of being of sane or insane mind compared with a newborn. It's no less capable of acting within the law than a newborn. Best foot forward is bodily autonomy. Trying to argue the fetus is not a person leads us down to declaring lots of people we accept as persons as not people.

[Gospel Power]

The solution is to educate women that this is a murder, to encourage them to think before they get pregnant, that of course will not work because of the propaganda, if everyone will adopt one child of those unwanted children that will be the solution

So tell them lies? Fantastic solution(!)

"It will not work because of the propaganda". What on earth are you referring to? This is starting to look like conspiracy theory.

So everyone needs to adopt a child to fix a problem that you created. Wow.

Any other solutions? or we need to continue to live with that problem?

[San Lumen]

So tell them lies? Fantastic solution(!)

"It will not work because of the propaganda". What on earth are you referring to? This is starting to look like conspiracy theory.

So everyone needs to adopt a child to fix a problem that you created. Wow.

Any other solutions? or we need to continue to live with that problem?

Again I ask who are you to interfere with the medical decision of someone else?

[Gospel Power]

Any other solutions? or we need to continue to live with that problem?

Again I ask who are you to interfere with the medical decision of someone else?

Who are they to murder? who are they to kill an innocent baby because of their own mistake? sure humans are like trash, just throw them away for your own sake

[San Lumen]

Again I ask who are you to interfere with the medical decision of someone else?

Who are they to murder? who are they to kill an innocent baby because of their own mistake? sure humans are like trash, just throw them away for your own sake

So if your daughter had a unwanted pregnancy or was the victim of rape or incest you'd force them to carry the child to term?

Should abortion carry a murder charge, should a woman whose had stillborn be investigated for murder too?

[The New California Republic]

So tell them lies? Fantastic solution(!)

"It will not work because of the propaganda". What on earth are you referring to? This is starting to look like conspiracy theory.

So everyone needs to adopt a child to fix a problem that you created. Wow.

Any other solutions? or we need to continue to live with that problem?

It is your suggestion of banning abortions that is creating a problem here...

[The New California Republic]

Again I ask who are you to interfere with the medical decision of someone else?

Who are they to murder? who are they to kill an innocent baby because of their own mistake? sure humans are like trash, just throw them away for your own sake

Again, abortion isn't murder.