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

[Dylar]

First off, most of the world, 84% to be exact, follows some religion and has faith in a god or gods. So, unless sane is a minority group now, I'd quit making the assumption that all religious people are insane.

Secondly...you do realize that this was back on page 2 and I don't think that UM browses this thread anymore?

Thirdly, this is a thread about abortion, not theism.

That too...forgive me, shoulda added that in...

[The Alma Mater]

Thirdly, this is a thread about abortion, not theism.

That too...forgive me, shoulda added that in...

Though admittedly,looking at the world, a statement like "84% of the worlds population is insane" seems optimistic. It is probably closer to 95%.

[The Parkus Empire]

They do? What do we charge women with who fail to breastfeed?

Nothing if it doesn't impact the infant's health. I imagine we would though if it constituted harm due to neglect.

This isn't true - not in any of the 50 states. In all 50 states, the mother may drop off her child at a designated location and surrender all responsibilities immediately, adoption agency or no.

That's not a "right", however. That's a service offered to prevent mothers from killing their babies.

[The Parkus Empire]

Here's my take on this.
-When two consenting adults agree to have sex with the intent to have a child, then abortion should not be accessible.
-When two consenting adults agree to have sex, but used various forms of protection to prevent a pregnancy (but the device fails), then abortion should be accessible as long as both parents agree.
-In the event that a person of either gender is a victim of non-consensual sex, then abortion should be accessible, with only the permission of the victim required.
-In any event where the potential mother of a baby could die from a pregnancy, abortion should be available, and it should be left to the potential mother, as it is her life that is at stake.

In summary, I wouldn't say that abortion should be illegal- but that there are situations where abortion cannot be used. For example, once you make a choice with your partner to have a child, after finding out about pregnancy, you can't just go back and say, "Never mind, I didn't want this."

I feel like these basic guidelines are fair for all parties involved in childbirth. What do you think?

If the the "protection" fails, the parents still caused the pregnancy, and are therefore responsible. You cannot opt out of responsibility for something you caused by simply saying you don't consent to it. If you run over a pedestrian by accident, you can't simply keep driving because you "didn't consent to hit them".

[Galloism]

They do? What do we charge women with who fail to breastfeed?

Nothing if it doesn't impact the infant's health. I imagine we would though if it constituted harm due to neglect.

All failures to breastfeed impact infant health. Barring a substantial health complication on the part of the mother (fairly unusual), formula is inferior to breastfeeding in all other instances.

So, what do we charge these women with?

This isn't true - not in any of the 50 states. In all 50 states, the mother may drop off her child at a designated location and surrender all responsibilities immediately, adoption agency or no.

That's not a "right", however. That's a service offered to prevent mothers from killing their babies.

This is a distinction without difference - like arguing a person doesn’t have a right to food stamps or equal protection of the law. It requires a service performed by a government agent that is legally prohibited from refusing if you qualify. All women, except those in prison, have the right to do this, and yes, it’s a right. Government agents are legally prohibited from refusing.

[The Parkus Empire]

Nothing if it doesn't impact the infant's health. I imagine we would though if it constituted harm due to neglect.

All failures to breastfeed impact infant health. Barring a substantial health complication on the part of the mother (fairly unusual), formula is inferior to breastfeeding in all other instances.

So, what do we charge these women with?

That's not a "right", however. That's a service offered to prevent mothers from killing their babies.

This is a distinction without difference - like arguing a person doesn’t have a right to food stamps or equal protection of the law. It requires a service performed by a government agent that is legally prohibited from refusing if you qualify. All women, except those in prison, have the right to do this, and yes, it’s a right. Government agents are legally prohibited from refusing.

Can't charge them with anything unless the impact is serious. Just like you can't change them with a poor diet when the kid is older. But if the kid starved because breastfeeding was the only option and the mother didn't do it, that would be criminal.

There is a huge difference in right here, because the policy is strictly for the child's benefit, not the mother's.

[Galloism]

All failures to breastfeed impact infant health. Barring a substantial health complication on the part of the mother (fairly unusual), formula is inferior to breastfeeding in all other instances.

So, what do we charge these women with?


This is a distinction without difference - like arguing a person doesn’t have a right to food stamps or equal protection of the law. It requires a service performed by a government agent that is legally prohibited from refusing if you qualify. All women, except those in prison, have the right to do this, and yes, it’s a right. Government agents are legally prohibited from refusing.

Can't charge them with anything unless the impact is serious. Just like you can't change them with a poor diet when the kid is older. But if the kid starved because breastfeeding was the only option and the mother didn't do it, that would be criminal.

Well if she lets a kid starve to death, possibly, but if it was a “no good and no availability of food” situation, it’s hard to imagine her getting charged for failing to breastfeed. Got any cases?

But she’s still not required to use her own body for the child ever, except during pregnancy. She can hire, she can surrender to the state. Give me an example of a person being required by law to use their own body in the service of another citizen.

There is a huge difference in right here, because the policy is strictly for the child's benefit, not the mother's.

Questionable. Incidents of mothers murdering their children are often met by sympathy for her and calls to change the system so she wouldn’t be compelled to do that. Safe havens is as much for the mother’s benefit as the children’s, if not more so. If it were solely for the child’s benefit, the mother would not get her responsibilities legally terminated automatically.

Of course, that’s because, socially, we ascribe as little agency as possible to women. Horrible, but an accurate portrayal of reality.

[The Parkus Empire]

Can't charge them with anything unless the impact is serious. Just like you can't change them with a poor diet when the kid is older. But if the kid starved because breastfeeding was the only option and the mother didn't do it, that would be criminal.

Well if she lets a kid starve to death, possibly, but if it was a “no good and no availability of food” situation, it’s hard to imagine her getting charged for failing to breastfeed. Got any cases?

But she’s still not required to use her own body for the child ever, except during pregnancy. She can hire, she can surrender to the state. Give me an example of a person being required by law to use their own body in the service of another citizen.

There is a huge difference in right here, because the policy is strictly for the child's benefit, not the mother's.

Questionable. Incidents of mothers murdering their children are often met by sympathy for her and calls to change the system so she wouldn’t be compelled to do that. Safe havens is as much for the mother’s benefit as the children’s, if not more so. If it were solely for the child’s benefit, the mother would not get her responsibilities legally terminated automatically.

Of course, that’s because, socially, we ascribe as little agency as possible to women. Horrible, but an accurate portrayal of reality.

I would say it's largely for the sake of the child.

Mothers in the cases you named aren't required to use their body because responsibility for the child has been delegated. Similarly if women could transfer pregnancies, that would not be like abortion.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Here's my take on this.
-When two consenting adults agree to have sex with the intent to have a child, then abortion should not be accessible.
-When two consenting adults agree to have sex, but used various forms of protection to prevent a pregnancy (but the device fails), then abortion should be accessible as long as both parents agree.
-In the event that a person of either gender is a victim of non-consensual sex, then abortion should be accessible, with only the permission of the victim required.
-In any event where the potential mother of a baby could die from a pregnancy, abortion should be available, and it should be left to the potential mother, as it is her life that is at stake.

In summary, I wouldn't say that abortion should be illegal- but that there are situations where abortion cannot be used. For example, once you make a choice with your partner to have a child, after finding out about pregnancy, you can't just go back and say, "Never mind, I didn't want this."

I feel like these basic guidelines are fair for all parties involved in childbirth. What do you think?

If the the "protection" fails, the parents still caused the pregnancy, and are therefore responsible. You cannot opt out of responsibility for something you caused by simply saying you don't consent to it. If you run over a pedestrian by accident, you can't simply keep driving because you "didn't consent to hit them".

No. The "run over a pedestrian" analogy is flawed as running over a pedestrian kills a fully conscious human, while abortion (before 24-30 weeks) does not kill a sentient being (according to multiple studies a fetus is not conscious and cannot subjectively experience pain until then)

[Vassenor]

Here's my take on this.
-When two consenting adults agree to have sex with the intent to have a child, then abortion should not be accessible.
-When two consenting adults agree to have sex, but used various forms of protection to prevent a pregnancy (but the device fails), then abortion should be accessible as long as both parents agree.
-In the event that a person of either gender is a victim of non-consensual sex, then abortion should be accessible, with only the permission of the victim required.
-In any event where the potential mother of a baby could die from a pregnancy, abortion should be available, and it should be left to the potential mother, as it is her life that is at stake.

In summary, I wouldn't say that abortion should be illegal- but that there are situations where abortion cannot be used. For example, once you make a choice with your partner to have a child, after finding out about pregnancy, you can't just go back and say, "Never mind, I didn't want this."

I feel like these basic guidelines are fair for all parties involved in childbirth. What do you think?

If the the "protection" fails, the parents still caused the pregnancy, and are therefore responsible. You cannot opt out of responsibility for something you caused by simply saying you don't consent to it. If you run over a pedestrian by accident, you can't simply keep driving because you "didn't consent to hit them".

Did you take every reasonable step to avoid hitting the pedestrian?

[The Parkus Empire]

If the the "protection" fails, the parents still caused the pregnancy, and are therefore responsible. You cannot opt out of responsibility for something you caused by simply saying you don't consent to it. If you run over a pedestrian by accident, you can't simply keep driving because you "didn't consent to hit them".

No. The "run over a pedestrian" analogy is flawed as running over a pedestrian kills a fully conscious human, while abortion (before 24-30 weeks) does not kill a sentient being (according to multiple studies a fetus is not conscious and cannot subjectively experience pain until then)

Utterly irrelevant. If you kill someone in their sleep by a painless toxic gas, you have still transgressed. Taking a human life prior to its consciousness is still taking a human life. And a human's life doesn't began at birth.

[The Parkus Empire]

If the the "protection" fails, the parents still caused the pregnancy, and are therefore responsible. You cannot opt out of responsibility for something you caused by simply saying you don't consent to it. If you run over a pedestrian by accident, you can't simply keep driving because you "didn't consent to hit them".

Did you take every reasonable step to avoid hitting the pedestrian?

Wouldn't matter even if you did, you still can't just leave them. It's furthermore compounded here, because theoretically the pedestrian can be responsible (say they want to commit suicide), but with a pregnancy there can be no responsible party save the parents.

[Vassenor]

Did you take every reasonable step to avoid hitting the pedestrian?

Wouldn't matter even if you did, you still can't just leave them. It's furthermore compounded here, because theoretically the pedestrian can be responsible (say they want to commit suicide), but with a pregnancy there can be no responsible party save the parents.

We're talking about culpability, not whether fleeing the scene of an accident is justified. Legally, taking every reasonable step to avoid the consequence is generally seen as sufficient to demonstrate a lack of sufficient subjective recklessness re: malice aforethought.

[The Parkus Empire]

Wouldn't matter even if you did, you still can't just leave them. It's furthermore compounded here, because theoretically the pedestrian can be responsible (say they want to commit suicide), but with a pregnancy there can be no responsible party save the parents.

We're talking about culpability, not whether fleeing the scene of an accident is justified. Legally, taking every reasonable step to avoid the consequence is generally seen as sufficient to demonstrate a lack of sufficient subjective recklessness re: malice aforethought.

Right. But if you caused you caused it, nonetheless.

[Galloism]

Well if she lets a kid starve to death, possibly, but if it was a “no good and no availability of food” situation, it’s hard to imagine her getting charged for failing to breastfeed. Got any cases?

But she’s still not required to use her own body for the child ever, except during pregnancy. She can hire, she can surrender to the state. Give me an example of a person being required by law to use their own body in the service of another citizen.



Questionable. Incidents of mothers murdering their children are often met by sympathy for her and calls to change the system so she wouldn’t be compelled to do that. Safe havens is as much for the mother’s benefit as the children’s, if not more so. If it were solely for the child’s benefit, the mother would not get her responsibilities legally terminated automatically.

Of course, that’s because, socially, we ascribe as little agency as possible to women. Horrible, but an accurate portrayal of reality.

I would say it's largely for the sake of the child.

Mothers in the cases you named aren't required to use their body because responsibility for the child has been delegated. Similarly if women could transfer pregnancies, that would not be like abortion.

So you can’t name a single situation, aside allegedly from pregnancy, where any person has a right to use another person’s body without their consent.

That’s what I thought.

[The Parkus Empire]

I would say it's largely for the sake of the child.

Mothers in the cases you named aren't required to use their body because responsibility for the child has been delegated. Similarly if women could transfer pregnancies, that would not be like abortion.

So you can’t name a single situation, aside allegedly from pregnancy, where any person has a right to use another person’s body without their consent.

That’s what I thought.

Lol you were the one who brought up the draft

[Galloism]

So you can’t name a single situation, aside allegedly from pregnancy, where any person has a right to use another person’s body without their consent.

That’s what I thought.

Lol you were the one who brought up the draft

I argue the draft is immoral for a similar reason, and although the selective service still exists (and is immoral as fruit of a poisonous tree), the draft is not currently being done. So, as of this moment, no person has the right to use another’s body against their will in the US.

Even taking into account the draft, and assuming it morally right, there is still no right for some individual to force another individual to support them with their body. Rather the state has that right in defense of the state.

Arguably, if you had a state population collapse, a female draft of forcible impregnation to rebuild the population would be the closest analagous thing to the draft - the state enforcing use of the person’s body without their consent in the interests of the state.

[The Parkus Empire]

Lol you were the one who brought up the draft

I argue the draft is immoral for a similar reason, and although the selective service still exists (and is immoral as fruit of a poisonous tree), the draft is not currently being done. So, as of this moment, no person has the right to use another’s body against their will in the US.

Even taking into account the draft, and assuming it morally right, there is still no right for some individual to force another individual to support them with their body. Rather the state has that right in defense of the state.

Arguably, if you had a state population collapse, a female draft of forcible impregnation to rebuild the population would be the closest analagous thing to the draft - the state enforcing use of the person’s body without their consent in the interests of the state.

You certainly are not born sovereign, your parents have authority and can force you to do chores. And if you pimp, if you're drunk in public, these things are met by incarceration of your body. If you refuse to pay taxes, likewise. You are not "self sovereign". Even a woman giving a baby up for adoption can't just sit and do nothing and let the baby die, she must use her body. There is no such thing as "self sovereignty" and there never has been.

[Galloism]

I argue the draft is immoral for a similar reason, and although the selective service still exists (and is immoral as fruit of a poisonous tree), the draft is not currently being done. So, as of this moment, no person has the right to use another’s body against their will in the US.

Even taking into account the draft, and assuming it morally right, there is still no right for some individual to force another individual to support them with their body. Rather the state has that right in defense of the state.

Arguably, if you had a state population collapse, a female draft of forcible impregnation to rebuild the population would be the closest analagous thing to the draft - the state enforcing use of the person’s body without their consent in the interests of the state.

You certainly are not born sovereign, your parents have authority and can force you to do chores. And if you pimp, if you're drunk in public, these things are met by incarceration of your body. If you refuse to pay taxes, likewise. You are not "self sovereign". Even a woman giving a baby up for adoption can't just sit and do nothing and let the baby die, she must use her body. There is no such thing as "self sovereignty" and there never has been.

We tend to view confinement of the body differently than the use of that body. Taxes don’t require to use your body in such a manner either. She doesn’t have to use her body to keep a baby from dying - she can contract out. Hell, courts don’t even enforce contracted performance for things you have agreed to.

Here’s a pop quiz:

You pay me $500 to prepare a corporate return for you. I tell you fuck off and refuse to do it. We have a written contract where I agreed. You (rightfully) sue. Will the court order me to prepare the return? What will the court do?

[Kernen]

You certainly are not born sovereign, your parents have authority and can force you to do chores. And if you pimp, if you're drunk in public, these things are met by incarceration of your body. If you refuse to pay taxes, likewise. You are not "self sovereign". Even a woman giving a baby up for adoption can't just sit and do nothing and let the baby die, she must use her body. There is no such thing as "self sovereignty" and there never has been.

We tend to view confinement of the body differently than the use of that body. Taxes don’t require to use your body in such a manner either. She doesn’t have to use her body to keep a baby from dying - she can contract out. Hell, courts don’t even enforce contracted performance for things you have agreed to.

Here’s a pop quiz:

You pay me $500 to prepare a corporate return for you. I tell you fuck off and refuse to do it. We have a written contract where I agreed. You (rightfully) sue. Will the court order me to prepare the return? What will the court do?

Depends.

You'll probably have to pay the damages from your breach. $500. Or potentially any downstream costs from the breach, in excess of $500. But if there was some reason for the court to sit in equity, they could enjoin you from taking any other work but that return.

[Galloism]

We tend to view confinement of the body differently than the use of that body. Taxes don’t require to use your body in such a manner either. She doesn’t have to use her body to keep a baby from dying - she can contract out. Hell, courts don’t even enforce contracted performance for things you have agreed to.

Here’s a pop quiz:

You pay me $500 to prepare a corporate return for you. I tell you fuck off and refuse to do it. We have a written contract where I agreed. You (rightfully) sue. Will the court order me to prepare the return? What will the court do?

Depends.

You'll probably have to pay the damages from your breach. $500. Or potentially any downstream costs from the breach, in excess of $500. But if there was some reason for the court to sit in equity, they could enjoin you from taking any other work but that return.

Specific performance is almost never ordered. It is only done if monetary compensation cannot make the person whole (as in, the contract was for the sale of something entirely unique and there is nothing comparable to buy).

The answer is it’ll order the $500, plus attorneys fees, plus downstream costs. My performance will not be ordered.

[The Parkus Empire]

You certainly are not born sovereign, your parents have authority and can force you to do chores. And if you pimp, if you're drunk in public, these things are met by incarceration of your body. If you refuse to pay taxes, likewise. You are not "self sovereign". Even a woman giving a baby up for adoption can't just sit and do nothing and let the baby die, she must use her body. There is no such thing as "self sovereignty" and there never has been.

We tend to view confinement of the body differently than the use of that body. Taxes don’t require to use your body in such a manner either. She doesn’t have to use her body to keep a baby from dying - she can contract out. Hell, courts don’t even enforce contracted performance for things you have agreed to.

Here’s a pop quiz:

You pay me $500 to prepare a corporate return for you. I tell you fuck off and refuse to do it. We have a written contract where I agreed. You (rightfully) sue. Will the court order me to prepare the return? What will the court do?

She has to at least move the baby or someone else has to in her stead. And if you don't pay taxes, your BODY is incarcerated. Same if you purger, or commit fraud.

[Galloism]

We tend to view confinement of the body differently than the use of that body. Taxes don’t require to use your body in such a manner either. She doesn’t have to use her body to keep a baby from dying - she can contract out. Hell, courts don’t even enforce contracted performance for things you have agreed to.

Here’s a pop quiz:

You pay me $500 to prepare a corporate return for you. I tell you fuck off and refuse to do it. We have a written contract where I agreed. You (rightfully) sue. Will the court order me to prepare the return? What will the court do?

She has to at least move the baby or someone else has to in her stead. And if you don't pay taxes, your BODY is incarcerated. Same if you purger, or commit fraud.

And yet, they still can’t just randomly do drug research on you or even force you to take medication you need against your will, even while incarcerated (unless you’re judged legally incompetent).

We view forcing you take something into your body different than confining your body, and you know this, or you wouldn’t casually conflate them.

[The Parkus Empire]

She has to at least move the baby or someone else has to in her stead. And if you don't pay taxes, your BODY is incarcerated. Same if you purger, or commit fraud.

And yet, they still can’t just randomly do drug research on you or even force you to take medication you need against your will, even while incarcerated (unless you’re judged legally incompetent).

We view forcing you take something into your body different than confining your body, and you know this, or you wouldn’t casually conflate them.

No. But you also can't abuse animals, that's really immaterial. You have certain rights, but you are not utterly self sovereign.

[Galloism]

And yet, they still can’t just randomly do drug research on you or even force you to take medication you need against your will, even while incarcerated (unless you’re judged legally incompetent).

We view forcing you take something into your body different than confining your body, and you know this, or you wouldn’t casually conflate them.

No. But you also can't abuse animals, that's really immaterial. You have certain rights, but you are not utterly self sovereign.

Sure. The question is why are the rights to your body currently suspended ONLY for pregnant women (after X number of weeks). Even convicts have more right to bodily integrity than pregnant women. Even if someone will die without their help. Even if they caused that situation leading to that person’s death.