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

[The Free Joy State]

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.

So, you argue that people are not "born sovereign" -- that they have no natural rights over their own bodies or lives -- and yet you believe an insensate embryo (with no complex nerve system, no ability to feel pain, no emotions) should have more rights than a woman who didn't want to be pregnant, who may have taken steps to prevent pregnancy, and/or who may have been raped?

And parents do not actually have the immeasurable rights to decide for their children. Children are born (though not conceived, as the US Supreme Court and UK courts both uphold) with the legal right to medical care, for example. If their parents are religious fundies who believe in praying, rather than permitting blood transfusions, doctors can -- and have -- successfully petitioned the courts for the rights to override the parents, because the child's individual rights as a living, breathing individual override the parent's rights to make choices.

I'll overlook the middle point, because they are generally classed as crimes or misdemeanours, and getting an abortion is neither.

However, if a woman offers to give her baby up for adoption, finds adoptive parents, takes expenses from them, and things don't go as the potential adoptees plan, it would be pretty impossible for them to get their money back, let alone actually get her charged with anything. They couldn't sue her for not taking pre-natal vitamins, for not attending her appointments promptly, or for spending her whole pregnancy "sitting and doing nothing".

[Ardoki]

In order to be logically consistent and not hypocritical, you'd have to extend abortion to babies and not just foetuses. Babies are incapable of long term goals.

[The Free Joy State]

In order to be logically consistent and not hypocritical, you'd have to extend abortion to babies and not just foetuses. Babies are incapable of long term goals.

Well, there's a strawman argument if ever I saw it.

There is a world of difference between a foetus and a baby.

A baby (as opposed to a foetus) is a born, conscious individual human being, with the inalienable human rights of all persons (according to the courts in my previous post). Also, they are separate of their mothers and can survive independently (a foetus, up until about 22-24 weeks cannot). They can feel pain (a foetus, until around 20 weeks, cannot). They can respond to stimuli.

A born baby can do more than grow. They can learn, and do... at an alarming rate.

A foetus is a potential person, with which so much can go wrong: miscarriage, stillbirth, death of the mother. And, until the foetus can survive independently of the mother, it should remain the mother's sole decision.

[Hakons]

In order to be logically consistent and not hypocritical, you'd have to extend abortion to babies and not just foetuses. Babies are incapable of long term goals.

Well, there's a strawman argument if ever I saw it.

There is a world of difference between a foetus and a baby.

A baby (as opposed to a foetus) is a born, conscious individual human being, with the inalienable human rights of all persons (according to the courts in my previous post). Also, they are separate of their mothers and can survive independently (a foetus, up until about 22-24 weeks cannot). They can feel pain (a foetus, until around 20 weeks, cannot). They can respond to stimuli.

A born baby can do more than grow. They can learn, and do... at an alarming rate.

A foetus is a potential human, with which so much can go wrong: miscarriage, stillbirth, death of the mother. And, until the foetus can survive independently of the mother, it should remain the mother's sole decision.

Why is a fetus a "potential human"? How is a baby a human when in its prior stage of development it was considered not to be a human? Humans only come from humans, not non-humans or less-than-humans.

[The Free Joy State]

Well, there's a strawman argument if ever I saw it.

There is a world of difference between a foetus and a baby.

A baby (as opposed to a foetus) is a born, conscious individual human being, with the inalienable human rights of all persons (according to the courts in my previous post). Also, they are separate of their mothers and can survive independently (a foetus, up until about 22-24 weeks cannot). They can feel pain (a foetus, until around 20 weeks, cannot). They can respond to stimuli.

A born baby can do more than grow. They can learn, and do... at an alarming rate.

A foetus is a potential human, with which so much can go wrong: miscarriage, stillbirth, death of the mother. And, until the foetus can survive independently of the mother, it should remain the mother's sole decision.

Why is a fetus a "potential human"? How is a baby a human when in its prior stage of development it was considered not to be a human? Humans only come from humans, not non-humans or less-than-humans.

You are correct that I mistyped, and I will correct. I meant "potential person", in that a born baby is a human being regarded as a separate individual (conscious and capable -- unlike a foetus -- of acquiring reason, and possessing legal rights).

One mistype does not invalidate the rest of my post.

[Hakons]

Why is a fetus a "potential human"? How is a baby a human when in its prior stage of development it was considered not to be a human? Humans only come from humans, not non-humans or less-than-humans.

You are correct that I mistyped, and I will correct. I meant "potential person", in that a born baby is a human being regarded as a separate individual (conscious and capable -- unlike a foetus -- of reason, and possessing legal rights).

One mistype does not invalidate the rest of my post.

I wasn't particularly trying to get into that comparison. It's just many pro-choicers go along the lines of "a fetus is not a human." One eloquent poster on this thread said a fetus was like a tapeworm.

[Ardoki]

In order to be logically consistent and not hypocritical, you'd have to extend abortion to babies and not just foetuses. Babies are incapable of long term goals.

Well, there's a strawman argument if ever I saw it.

There is a world of difference between a foetus and a baby.

A baby (as opposed to a foetus) is a born, conscious individual human being, with the inalienable human rights of all persons (according to the courts in my previous post). Also, they are separate of their mothers and can survive independently (a foetus, up until about 22-24 weeks cannot). They can feel pain (a foetus, until around 20 weeks, cannot). They can respond to stimuli.

A born baby can do more than grow. They can learn, and do... at an alarming rate.

A foetus is a potential person, with which so much can go wrong: miscarriage, stillbirth, death of the mother. And, until the foetus can survive independently of the mother, it should remain the mother's sole decision.

1. Why should babies automatically be granted personhood and human rights? Many animals are more deserving of that classification than babies.
2. Babies cannot survive independently. They require others to care for them.
3. Foetuses can also grow.
4. Babies can also die in accidents, just like foetuses. Babies also can't live independently, they need constant supervision and care. Surely caring for a baby would affect the parents just like how having a foetus inside of a mother would affect her?

I don't really like the whole legalise infanticide thing, but we have to logically consistent.

[The Free Joy State]

You are correct that I mistyped, and I will correct. I meant "potential person", in that a born baby is a human being regarded as a separate individual (conscious and capable -- unlike a foetus -- of reason, and possessing legal rights).

One mistype does not invalidate the rest of my post.

I wasn't particularly trying to get into that comparison. It's just many pro-choicers go along the lines of "a fetus is not a human." One eloquent poster on this thread said a fetus was like a tapeworm.

My personal argument is that a foetus is human (in that it is comprised of human cells), but is not a person. Not only legally, but ethically. It lacks sentience, it lacks independence, and thus the rights and needs of the born, sentient and independent woman whose burden it is to carry it (perhaps having been made pregnant through force, at having discovered the pregnancy places serious and tangible risks to her health) must always come first.

Well, there's a strawman argument if ever I saw it.

There is a world of difference between a foetus and a baby.

A baby (as opposed to a foetus) is a born, conscious individual human being, with the inalienable human rights of all persons (according to the courts in my previous post). Also, they are separate of their mothers and can survive independently (a foetus, up until about 22-24 weeks cannot). They can feel pain (a foetus, until around 20 weeks, cannot). They can respond to stimuli.

A born baby can do more than grow. They can learn, and do... at an alarming rate.

A foetus is a potential person, with which so much can go wrong: miscarriage, stillbirth, death of the mother. And, until the foetus can survive independently of the mother, it should remain the mother's sole decision.

1. Why should babies automatically be granted personhood and human rights? Many animals are more deserving of that classification than babies.

I really can't decide if you are a strawman of a pro-choicer, trying to undermine our position with these views you keep positing, or if you really hold them...

But I'll bite.

The clue is in the word "personhood" and "human rights". A born baby is a person, ergo they receive automatic human rights.

Are there some highly intelligent apes that may also qualify. Perhaps. Not the subject of this debate, though.

2. Babies cannot survive independently. They require others to care for them.

Yes, for the first few months, newborns are entirely dependent.

Once a baby has been born, however, the mother made the choice to give the child life, either to give it up for adoption or to care for it herself. That gives her a moral and legal obligation to ensure the child's safety. While there are dropboxes that allow her to abdicate that responsibility, to kill a living child would be murder: the law of every country states that.

Also, a born child can acquire necessary skills. By nine months, many babies are babbling and trying to talk. By ten or eleven months, they are walking. Their development is quite astounding. A foetus, still in its mother, never acquires the skills to care for themselves.

3. Foetuses can also grow.

And I stated that "babies do not just grow, they also learn".

4. Babies can also die in accidents, just like foetuses. Babies also can't live independently, they need constant supervision and care. Surely caring for a baby would affect the parents just like how having a foetus inside of a mother would affect her?

I've never seen anyone drop down dead with a haemorrhage while singing a baby a lullaby. I've never heard of anyone developing dangerous preeclampsia while feeding a baby. I've never heard of anyone's womb prolapse while changing a baby's nappy. So, those are three significant risks of pregnancy that are not present when caring for a baby.

And, again, when a mother has consented to have the baby born, she takes responsibility for its safety.

I don't really like the whole legalise infanticide thing, but we have to logically consistent.

Pro-choicers are logically consistent.

Foetus has no sentience, so the rights of the mother count above all.

Newborn has sentience, so has equal rights to the mother.

It's not that hard.

[Infected Mushroom]

It should be legal.

Because there would be less screaming infants in movie theatres, less disruption overall. Also, more adults would maintain their sanity which is a strong positive.

[Ardoki]

1. Why should babies automatically be granted personhood and human rights? Many animals are more deserving of that classification than babies.

I really can't decide if you are a strawman of a pro-choicer, trying to undermine our position with these views you keep positing, or if you really hold them...

But I'll bite.

The clue is in the word "personhood" and "human rights". A born baby is a person, ergo they receive automatic human rights.

Are there some highly intelligent apes that may also qualify. Perhaps. Not the subject of this debate, though.

2. Babies cannot survive independently. They require others to care for them.

Yes, for the first few months, newborns are entirely dependent.

Once a baby has been born, however, the mother made the choice to give the child life, either to give it up for adoption or to care for it herself. That gives her a moral and legal obligation to ensure the child's safety. While there are dropboxes that allow her to abdicate that responsibility, to kill a living child would be murder: the law of every country states that.

Also, a born child can acquire necessary skills. By nine months, many babies are babbling and trying to talk. By ten or eleven months, they are walking. Their development is quite astounding. A foetus, still in its mother, never acquires the skills to care for themselves.

3. Foetuses can also grow.

And I stated that "babies do not just grow, they also learn".

4. Babies can also die in accidents, just like foetuses. Babies also can't live independently, they need constant supervision and care. Surely caring for a baby would affect the parents just like how having a foetus inside of a mother would affect her?

I've never seen anyone drop down dead with a haemorrhage while singing a baby a lullaby. I've never heard of anyone developing dangerous preeclampsia while feeding a baby. I've never heard of anyone's womb prolapse while changing a baby's nappy. So, those are three significant risks of pregnancy that are not present when caring for a baby.

And, again, when a mother has consented to have the baby born, she takes responsibility for its safety.

I don't really like the whole legalise infanticide thing, but we have to logically consistent.

Pro-choicers are logically consistent.

Foetus has no sentience, so the rights of the mother count above all.

Newborn has sentience, so has equal rights to the mother.

It's not that hard.

A person is any human or non human agent who:
a) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and
b) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.

Does that sound like a newborn baby to you? No, it doesn't.

Have you ever heard of SIDS? Babies do just drop dead sometimes, it is horrible but it does happen.

What if the mother changes her mind? Why is she only allowed to decide whether she wants to keep the baby in a short time-frame. She might change her mind after the birth of the baby.

Anyway, newborn babies lack self-awareness; they are not sentient.

[Ardoki]

I suggest you read this academic article: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

[The Free Joy State]

I really can't decide if you are a strawman of a pro-choicer, trying to undermine our position with these views you keep positing, or if you really hold them...

But I'll bite.

The clue is in the word "personhood" and "human rights". A born baby is a person, ergo they receive automatic human rights.

Are there some highly intelligent apes that may also qualify. Perhaps. Not the subject of this debate, though.


Yes, for the first few months, newborns are entirely dependent.

Once a baby has been born, however, the mother made the choice to give the child life, either to give it up for adoption or to care for it herself. That gives her a moral and legal obligation to ensure the child's safety. While there are dropboxes that allow her to abdicate that responsibility, to kill a living child would be murder: the law of every country states that.

Also, a born child can acquire necessary skills. By nine months, many babies are babbling and trying to talk. By ten or eleven months, they are walking. Their development is quite astounding. A foetus, still in its mother, never acquires the skills to care for themselves.


And I stated that "babies do not just grow, they also learn".


I've never seen anyone drop down dead with a haemorrhage while singing a baby a lullaby. I've never heard of anyone developing dangerous preeclampsia while feeding a baby. I've never heard of anyone's womb prolapse while changing a baby's nappy. So, those are three significant risks of pregnancy that are not present when caring for a baby.

And, again, when a mother has consented to have the baby born, she takes responsibility for its safety.


Pro-choicers are logically consistent.

Foetus has no sentience, so the rights of the mother count above all.

Newborn has sentience, so has equal rights to the mother.

It's not that hard.

A person is any human or non human agent who:
a) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and
b) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.

Does that sound like a newborn baby to you? No, it doesn't.

A newborn lacks Theory of Mind (that comes later), but they are sentient in that they are conscious(they do not remember later, but they are aware, as their looking around when they hear their mother's voice). They feel pain. They can perceive discomfort. Emotion (they soon learn to smile when their main caregiver comes into the room). Even very young babies develop working memory.

In the basic sense -- the sense that foetuses lack -- they are sentient, although abstract sentience comes later.

Have you ever heard of SIDS? Babies do just drop dead sometimes, it is horrible but it does happen.

You asked about risks for the mother. I detailed that caring for a baby was not risky for the mother, when compared to pregnancy.

Yes, SIDS exists. Yes, babies can just die.

Does that mean we should be able to kill newborn infants?

No. I have no idea who would even think that.

What if the mother changes her mind? Why is she only allowed to decide whether she wants to keep the baby in a short time-frame. She might change her mind after the birth of the baby.

That is a ridiculous hypothetical. There is no "limited period of time". There is no limit to the time in which a mother, should she later change her mind, can decide to surrender her child for adoption. She can surrender the child at any time, including after the birth.

That is the reality of the situation. You cannot twist reality to suit you in an attempt to justify killing a born, individual living child.

[Ardoki]

A person is any human or non human agent who:
a) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and
b) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.

Does that sound like a newborn baby to you? No, it doesn't.

A newborn lacks Theory of Mind (that comes later), but they are sentient in that they are conscious(they do not remember later, but they are aware, as their looking around when they hear their mother's voice). They feel pain. They can perceive discomfort. Emotion (they soon learn to smile when their main caregiver comes into the room). Even very young babies develop working memory.

In the basic sense -- the sense that foetuses lack -- they are sentient, although abstract sentience comes later.

Have you ever heard of SIDS? Babies do just drop dead sometimes, it is horrible but it does happen.

You asked about risks for the mother. I detailed that caring for a baby was not risky for the mother, when compared to pregnancy.

Yes, SIDS exists. Yes, babies can just die.

Does that mean we should be able to kill newborn infants?

No. I have no idea who would even think that.

What if the mother changes her mind? Why is she only allowed to decide whether she wants to keep the baby in a short time-frame. She might change her mind after the birth of the baby.

That is a ridiculous hypothetical. There is no "limited period of time". There is no limit to the time in which a mother, should she later change her mind, can decide to surrender her child for adoption. She can surrender the child at any time, including after the birth.

That is the reality of the situation. You cannot twist reality to suit you in an attempt to justify killing a born, individual living child.

I suggest you read this academic article: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

[The Free Joy State]

A newborn lacks Theory of Mind (that comes later), but they are sentient in that they are conscious(they do not remember later, but they are aware, as their looking around when they hear their mother's voice). They feel pain. They can perceive discomfort. Emotion (they soon learn to smile when their main caregiver comes into the room). Even very young babies develop working memory.

In the basic sense -- the sense that foetuses lack -- they are sentient, although abstract sentience comes later.



You asked about risks for the mother. I detailed that caring for a baby was not risky for the mother, when compared to pregnancy.

Yes, SIDS exists. Yes, babies can just die.

Does that mean we should be able to kill newborn infants?

No. I have no idea who would even think that.



That is a ridiculous hypothetical. There is no "limited period of time". There is no limit to the time in which a mother, should she later change her mind, can decide to surrender her child for adoption. She can surrender the child at any time, including after the birth.

That is the reality of the situation. You cannot twist reality to suit you in an attempt to justify killing a born, individual living child.

I suggest you read this academic article: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

You posted the link before. I've already seen it. I've read it.

The authors do not propose a cut-off point at which "after-birth abortion" (to use their preferred term, "infanticide" to use mine) would no longer be permissible. Would it be when the child first smiled at its mother, when it could sit up, took its first steps? Would it be the day before its first day at nursery school? Already, they're disallowing the feeling of pain as a cut-off point. They also propose allowing them for all the same circumstances as actual abortion (even if the child is completely healthy).

I do not agree with it. TBH, if it were not in the BMJ, I'd think it was a poe.

If you do agree, though, and that is your honest opinion, then good luck to you.

In my opinion, the proposals contained therein are morally, ethically and legally unsound.

[Ardoki]

I suggest you read this academic article: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411

You posted the link before. I've already seen it. I've read it.

The authors do not propose a cut-off point at which "after-birth abortion" (to use their preferred term, "infanticide" to use mine) would no longer be permissible. Would it be when the child first smiled at its mother, when it could sit up, took its first steps? Would it be the day before its first day at nursery school? Already, they're disallowing the feeling of pain as a cut-off point. They also propose allowing them for all the same circumstances as actual abortion (even if the child is completely healthy).

I do not agree with it. TBH, if it were not in the BMJ, I'd think it was a poe.

If you do, though, and that is your honest opinion, then good luck to you.

In my opinion, the proposals contained therein are morally, ethically and legally unsound.

I morally disagree with it as well. However, it is as moral as abortion. So, since I support abortion I guess I must support this otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

Obviously, there would have to be regulation though. Like probably only the first few days or weeks, and only to be used on babies with conditions which will prevent them from having a quality life.

[The Free Joy State]

You posted the link before. I've already seen it. I've read it.

The authors do not propose a cut-off point at which "after-birth abortion" (to use their preferred term, "infanticide" to use mine) would no longer be permissible. Would it be when the child first smiled at its mother, when it could sit up, took its first steps? Would it be the day before its first day at nursery school? Already, they're disallowing the feeling of pain as a cut-off point. They also propose allowing them for all the same circumstances as actual abortion (even if the child is completely healthy).

I do not agree with it. TBH, if it were not in the BMJ, I'd think it was a poe.

If you do, though, and that is your honest opinion, then good luck to you.

In my opinion, the proposals contained therein are morally, ethically and legally unsound.

I morally disagree with it as well. However, it is as moral as abortion. So, since I support abortion I guess I must support this otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

Obviously, there would have to be regulation though. Like probably only the first few days or weeks, and only to be used on babies with conditions which will prevent them from having a quality life.

It is not as moral as abortion! You do not have to support infanticide in order to support abortion.

Foetuses and newborns are in no way equivalent.

Foetuses suck nutrients from their mothers and grow and do nothing else. Every moment a woman is pregnant, she risks her life (700 women die pregnancy-related deaths in the developed USA every year).

Babies feel pain and pleasure and are born with reflexes designed to help then survive. And, while I won't spam the same links, over and over, several posts up, I pointed to studies showing that young babies are conscious.

And, a woman who has just given birth (in the last few days or weeks) and who is flooded with hormones and exhausted from lack of sleep would be in no position to rationally make such a choice. Even if it was remotely moral.

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

Because there is a human life at stake which the parents are responsible for. The strictness and intensity of a duty corresponds to its gravity.

[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.

So, you argue that people are not "born sovereign" -- that they have no natural rights over their own bodies or lives -- and yet you believe an insensate embryo (with no complex nerve system, no ability to feel pain, no emotions) should have more rights than a woman who didn't want to be pregnant, who may have taken steps to prevent pregnancy, and/or who may have been raped?

And parents do not actually have the immeasurable rights to decide for their children. Children are born (though not conceived, as the US Supreme Court and UK courts both uphold) with the legal right to medical care, for example. If their parents are religious fundies who believe in praying, rather than permitting blood transfusions, doctors can -- and have -- successfully petitioned the courts for the rights to override the parents, because the child's individual rights as a living, breathing individual override the parent's rights to make choices.

I'll overlook the middle point, because they are generally classed as crimes or misdemeanours, and getting an abortion is neither.

However, if a woman offers to give her baby up for adoption, finds adoptive parents, takes expenses from them, and things don't go as the potential adoptees plan, it would be pretty impossible for them to get their money back, let alone actually get her charged with anything. They couldn't sue her for not taking pre-natal vitamins, for not attending her appointments promptly, or for spending her whole pregnancy "sitting and doing nothing".

"Natural rights" in English jurisprudence means rights given by God. Obviously abortion is not a God-given right. However I imagine you are not using "natural rights" in a juridical sense, but simply in an idiosyncratic sense. In which case I must ask you what you mean.

A mother can give him up for adoption if she doesn't want to take care if him, but she doesn't make arrangements to transfer responsibility, she cannot simply let the infant die of neglect due to inaction on her part.

[Galloism]

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.

Because there is a human life at stake which the parents are responsible for. The strictness and intensity of a duty corresponds to its gravity.

Which strangely doesn’t apply to actual criminals, even if there’s human life at stake which they are responsible for endangering. It also doesn’t apply to generals or congressmen who’s decisions have put human lives in peril. Or, for the latter, those responsible for the creation of many many babies when they restrict access to birth control.

Curious.

[Hurdergaryp]

Because there is a human life at stake which the parents are responsible for. The strictness and intensity of a duty corresponds to its gravity.

Which strangely doesn’t apply to actual criminals, even if there’s human life at stake which they are responsible for endangering. It also doesn’t apply to generals or congressmen who’s decisions have put human lives in peril. Or, for the latter, those responsible for the creation of many many babies when they restrict access to birth control.

Curious.

Let's face it, the love of life is not the driving force behind the anti-abortion movement. Religiously inspired as they are, all they want is to see as many unwanted children to be born as possible, for overpopulation and rampant poverty are certain to bring back Jesus and the final destruction of this wretched world that dares to deny God and prosper at the same time. Armageddon needs all the hapless cannon fodder that can be manufactured by impregnated wombs, for the overwhelming majority of us sure as hell aren't going to escape by means of Rapture.

[Katganistan]

Those of you who are pro-choice on the basis of the right to bodily autonomy, what are your opinions on prostitution, legalisation of drugs and selling organs? Also if you believe there should be a time limit on when abortion can be carried out why do you believe this?

Read the thread? It's been explained ad nauseum.

Legalization of drugs and selling organs are not the topic of this thread.

[State77]

Make it completely legal and enforce it as a population control method e.g. when the pregnant person is on social welfare and if the pregnancy is from a convicted repeat offender.

[New Emeline]

Make it completely legal and enforce it as a population control method e.g. when the pregnant person is on social welfare and if the pregnancy is from a convicted repeat offender.

How about no

[Katganistan]

Make it completely legal and enforce it as a population control method e.g. when the pregnant person is on social welfare and if the pregnancy is from a convicted repeat offender.

Ugh, no.

[Neutraligon]

In order to be logically consistent and not hypocritical, you'd have to extend abortion to babies and not just foetuses. Babies are incapable of long term goals.

Once the baby is born it no longer infringes on anyone's rights. So no. Also, I am unaware of anyone saying that a fetus can be killed because it does not have long term goals.