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

[The V O I D]

I will ask once again.

Where is the Malicious Intent?

To end a life for one's own convenience and selfishness. It is among the most disgusting crimes one could commit.

It isn't about convenience or selfishness. It is about the woman not wanting to be pregnant, and nothing more. It need not have selfish reasons. Women are allowed to have sex. Contraception is not foolproof, and even if it were, it is entirely up to the woman if she desires to be pregnant.

It is her uterus, it is her bodily resources, it is her body, it is her bodily space. Therefore, it is her choice.

[Shazbotdom]

I will ask once again.

Where is the Malicious Intent?

To end a life for one's own convenience and selfishness. It is among the most disgusting crimes one could commit.

You do know what Malicious Intent is, right? It is something done with Malice, ie Hate, Anger, etc. Women who get Abortions are not doing it because they hate what is growing in them.

Unless you can prove that they are, it does not fit the LEGAL definition of Murder. Ergo, it is not Murder.

[Godular]

Except no, they aren't. Fetuses aren't innocent life. We don't call people who steal other people's organs innocent. We don't call rapists innocent. And they do the same thing a fetus does when a woman doesn't want to be pregnant: violate the victim's bodily autonomy.

They are most certainly murderers. A foetus is life from the beginning and snuffing it out unjustly is a crime against humanity.

Incorrect, for it is most certainly justified.

[Hurdergaryp]

They are most certainly murderers. A foetus is life from the beginning and snuffing it out unjustly is a crime against humanity.

Incorrect, for it is most certainly justified.

If Cranborne isn't an extremely strict vegan, I am going to unmask him as an utter and complete hypocrite.

[Katganistan]

I will ask once again.

Where is the Malicious Intent?

To end a life for one's own convenience and selfishness. It is among the most disgusting crimes one could commit.

No, indifference to suffering as long as you have yours is one of the most disgusting crimes one could commit.

[Attempted Socialism]

I have previously posted a short piece [1] on why personhood, i.e. the category of individuals we afford full legal rights, defined gradiently by the common cognitive criteria of consciousness, reciprocity, self-awareness, sentience, capacity for reason and ability to communicate, ought to be the standard on which we adjudicate the question of abortion. I also spent some time going through related subjects, like terminology, healthcare, how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and how personhood ties in with laws in general. However, looking back on it I failed to properly expand my argument regarding the common legal exceptions to abortion restrictions, which I will attempt to rectify here. I will also reiterate my earlier clarion call for other pro-choice advocates to reconsider any self-defence arguments.
Since I posted my piece on page 417, some 70 pages have been added. While most posters rehash old, often settled, arguments, there are a few posts that I would like to respond to. I recognise that over the many pages following other posters have done so as well, but for my own peace of mind I will respond.

Reconsidering rape, incest and life of the mother
The stated logic from anti-choice advocates with these exceptions is often to avoid punishing women for actions beyond their control. A woman may be a victim of rape or incest, and it would be too onerous to demand that she carries the result of a crime to term; likewise with a pregnancy putting the life of the woman at risk. Women who have sex without protection, or where protection fails, are considered to be responsible for and having consented to the pregnancy – often with some kind of implicit shaming for the perceived promiscuousness or lack of responsibility. Accepting these exceptions will afford legislators some degree of apparent empathy, and possibly protect them from counterclaims about punishing the victims.
However, such exceptions build on foundational considerations of personhood that directly contradict other common anti-choice claims: First and foremost, allowing rape victims access to abortion is conceding a common pro-choice idea, namely that consent is crucial. A woman who did not consent to sex did not consent to becoming pregnant, and ought not be burdened with a rapist’ foetus. Furthermore, it acknowledges that a woman’s consent to sex (Which so far, by the earlier ‘logic’, means consent to pregnancy) matters more than a claim of ‘right to life’ by the foetus.
Insofar that hypothetically consensual incest exists (I.e. that not all incest is also rape, by definition) an exception for incest offers a further point: Aborting in such a case would be to avoid congenital diseases and disorders, in other words that medical reasons also supersede a foetus’ ‘right to life’. It also enables punishing what anti-choice advocates consistently claims to be a person to be punished for the hypothetically consensual acts of their parents; a thoroughly evil concept.
Lastly, ‘life of the mother’ also accepts, explicitly, that when on a balanced scale, weighing one ‘life’ against the life of a woman, the life of a woman, an actual person, weighs the most.
Any anti-choice advocate who accepts these three exceptions implicitly also accept the logic behind two of the major reasons why abortions occur, namely lack of consent to becoming pregnant, and medical reasons for either foetus or woman. This directly undermines the logic of such anti-choice advocates, as their ‘right to life’ is now subject to the woman’s consent and life, and the foetus’ congenital diseases and disorders. A woman withdrawing consent supersedes the ‘right to life’ for any anti-choice advocate who thinks these three exceptions are fair.
Their advocacy is directly antithetical of a logical underpinning to their claimed position.

A few more words on the follies of ‘human’
A lot of anti-choice advocates make a huge fuss about foeti being ‘human’, often adding developmentally and medically nonsense like ‘children’ or ‘babies’. To reiterate from my earlier piece, and common knowledge, ‘human’ is not a reason not to be removed from the body at any other occasion. ‘Human bullet’, ‘human cancer’, ‘human gangrene limb’, ‘human poison’ are most often sought removed regardless of their human production or origin. Even limiting it to ‘human DNA’ would make haircuts, appendicectomies and numerous other medical interventions illegal.
‘Human’ is a word that anti-choice advocates like to throw around. It does not mean what they want it to mean, it does not do what they want it to do, and in any policy or legal sense, it’s absolutely junk.
Without any way of separating a ‘human’ that they wish to protect, such as foeti, and a ‘human’ that they don’t, such as cancer, and still have ‘human’ mean the same thing, they are forced to rely on word-games or just hoping that no one calls them out.

Why pro-choice advocates should reconsider analogies to self-defence
I have been through the basics of this argument before, but it deserves a reemphasis: Even with the most permissive Castle Doctrine laws in the US, cases of self-defence are still investigated as homicides. Legal repercussions may be non-existent due to the nature of self-defence, but the investigation is still a lot to go through for the person subject to them, and it costs a lot of resources for the State to investigate.
Elsewhere in the US and in the world, homicides-as-self-defence may still result in various punishments if the perpetrator was found to have other avenues, such as non-lethal ways, to defend themselves.
If we, as pro-choice advocates, cede the question of legal rights because we expect a combination of bodily sovereignty and self-defence to save our case, we have also ceded to the anti-choice advocates the ability to investigate any woman who has an abortion, any woman who has a miscarriage, and potentially any woman on contraception. They would be found innocent, sure, but with the anti-choice creativity for extreme legal cruelty (Such as forced vaginal ultrasound laws, waiting laws and forced written statements), we ought not give a single centimetre unless absolutely necessary.
That is why I would like to reissue my clarion call: If you think personhood or other legal delineations of rights are insignificant because women have rights to self-defence, think about the consequences of a homicide even in self-defence. Then think of an anti-choice cruelty-fetishist like Mike Pence, signatory of Indiana’s forced vaginal ultrasound law, potentially with the power to subject any women to a full police investigation. The anti-choice advocates would have a field day.
While self-defence can be a reasonable argument, we should not cede the debate on rights. If you still want to use such an argument, at least make it clear that you’re not ceding that ground. Something like “We do allow self-defence in (some) cases, against actual persons. Why should we make self-defence illegal against non-persons, effectively giving them more rights?” would do just that.

An absolute view of ‘right to life’
Some posters have tried to make an argument for an absolute right to life [2]. As the post in question starts off with assuming an absolute ‘right to life’, so it also ends up confirming it. The post in question is a finely crafted circular argument, and a few points need to be answered.
As I have said several times, ‘living’ and ‘human’ would include all kinds of cells that we would not afford rights (And, indeed, all modern countries plus many developing countries offer as a right the ability to get rid of), such as cancer. Inherent rights to life is an assumption that I need not grant. The second point jumps straight from ‘inability to consent’ to “society and individuals” has an “inherent responsibility” to protect a foetus’ “right to life on their behalf”. That simply does not follow. The error of making statements from which the conclusion does not follow is repeated in points three through five, just with some added factual errors.
Apart from these errors in establishing a positive justification for their position, there’s also, as first mentioned, the problem of circularly confirming a ‘right to life’ as an absolute. As the poster themselves later affirm, ‘right to life’ cannot be an absolute, as it is superseded in other circumstances by other rights [3].
A ‘right to life’ also has the unfortunate policy implication that organ-harvesting from people who will not die from the procedure can be allowed if it is meant to save other peoples’ lives, whereas sending soldiers off to kill other soldiers is illegal. No sound civilian would accept the former, no sound policymaker would accept the latter.
Investing too much argumentative power in a ‘right to life’ style reason for making abortion illegal has led the anti-choice advocates down a garden path with no productive end in sight.

Abortion compared to other issues
Persons having a right to bodily sovereignty does not just apply to abortions, but also a variety of other issues [4]. By its own, it would decriminalise the use of drugs (But not necessarily possession), as it would make it legal to freely consent to sex (But not necessarily demanding money) or legal to freely consent to giving away organs (But not necessarily demanding money in return). With my proposed approach to personhood, abortion would remain legal up until viability at least, but a woman would have the right to have a foetus removed from her body for longer.

Cause and responsibility
Some posters have been using sloppy arguments based on “cause” and “responsibility” [See 5, among many]. Apart from disregarding intent, quality-of-life and attempts at protection (As well as birth-control, which I go through in my earlier piece [1]), this line of argument also fails to address the notion that causing a problem unwittingly often results in rectifying or removing that problem. If people having sex are responsible for any unwanted pregnancies, then a clear response to that responsibility would be an abortion; rectifying the cause of their problem.
By advocating such a stance, anti-choice advocates ultimately argue for people to abort, rather than their oft-stated policy goal of women carrying to term and putting up for abortion. Otherwise, how can they say they have taken some personal responsibility?

Ireland
And with that being said, congratulations to Ireland for voting for rights to women, even if just for 12 weeks [6].

References
[1] viewtopic.php?f=20&t=415543&p=33188351#p33188351
[2] viewtopic.php?p=33771347#p33771347
[3] viewtopic.php?p=33772471#p33772471
[4] viewtopic.php?f=20&t=415543&p=34002542#p34002542
[5] viewtopic.php?p=34045192#p34045192
[6] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44256152

[Salandriagado]

How?

Because very few proponents of a perceived right actually support compulsory excersize. Sufferagists don't generally support compulsory voting, free speech advocates dont generally support compulsory publication of beliefs, gun rights advocates don't generally support sompulsory firearm ownership, the list goes on and on. Saying "I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice" is just as disengenuous as me saying "I'm not pro gun, I'm pro choice!"

Call it "pro-bodily-sovereignty" then. That's the fundamental right at issue here.

[Auze]

This thread is almost a year old. Looks like it won't last another.

[Godular]

This thread is almost a year old. Looks like it won't last another.

I’ll just start up another one. I think the next poll will focus on acceptable reasons and cutoff points. Any suggestions for formatting?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

This thread is almost a year old. Looks like it won't last another.

I’ll just start up another one. I think the next poll will focus on acceptable reasons and cutoff points. Any suggestions for formatting?

I think you should be able to select two options, one for acceptable reasons for abortion (options ranging from complete ban to on demand?), and the other for the cutoff point (probably ranging from complete ban up to birth?)

[Kernen]

I will ask once again.

Where is the Malicious Intent?

To end a life for one's own convenience and selfishness. It is among the most disgusting crimes one could commit.

To force somebody to risk their life for another is a disgusting crime. Your body, your call.

[Godular]

I’ll just start up another one. I think the next poll will focus on acceptable reasons and cutoff points. Any suggestions for formatting?

I think you should be able to select two options, one for acceptable reasons for abortion (options ranging from complete ban to on demand?), and the other for the cutoff point (probably ranging from complete ban up to birth?)

I was considering that approach as well. I worry I might not have enough options available tho. I MIGHT have to do them separately.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I think you should be able to select two options, one for acceptable reasons for abortion (options ranging from complete ban to on demand?), and the other for the cutoff point (probably ranging from complete ban up to birth?)

I was considering that approach as well. I worry I might not have enough options available tho. I MIGHT have to do them separately.

You could compress it all into 10 options, here's my suggestion:
. Options 1-5 are for acceptable reasons (complete ban, only if mother's life is in danger, limited circumstances, 2 doctors' approval, on demand)
. Options 6-10 are for the cutoff point (complete ban, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, until end of pregnancy)

[The Alma Mater]

I was considering that approach as well. I worry I might not have enough options available tho. I MIGHT have to do them separately.

You could compress it all into 10 options, here's my suggestion:
. Options 1-5 are for acceptable reasons (complete ban, only if mother's life is in danger, limited circumstances, 2 doctors' approval, on demand)
. Options 6-10 are for the cutoff point (complete ban, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, until end of pregnancy)

Is "number of weeks" actually an argument for anyone though ? Usually it is "when organ X (e.g. the brain) starts to function" or "when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb".

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

You could compress it all into 10 options, here's my suggestion:
. Options 1-5 are for acceptable reasons (complete ban, only if mother's life is in danger, limited circumstances, 2 doctors' approval, on demand)
. Options 6-10 are for the cutoff point (complete ban, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, until end of pregnancy)

Is "number of weeks" actually an argument for anyone though ? Usually it is "when organ X (e.g. the brain) starts to function" or "when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb".

The cutoff point is legally set at X weeks, like the 24-week limit here in the UK and the planned 12-week limit in Ireland.

[Attempted Socialism]

You could compress it all into 10 options, here's my suggestion:
. Options 1-5 are for acceptable reasons (complete ban, only if mother's life is in danger, limited circumstances, 2 doctors' approval, on demand)
. Options 6-10 are for the cutoff point (complete ban, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, until end of pregnancy)

Is "number of weeks" actually an argument for anyone though ? Usually it is "when organ X (e.g. the brain) starts to function" or "when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb".

"Number of weeks" is also a good shorthand for both those latter limits. Instead of assessing individual foetal developments, lawmakers like to make rules that are more easily enforceable, and because such events happens in weeks, it works very well. If you google "pregnancy by week" there are a host of webpages explaining down to the week what happens in such-and-such week.

Regards the poll specifically, IIRC polls with options can't limit voters to vote in two groups, giving the option of people to mess with the poll. Do we just trust that it won't happen, or do we have some other option? Waiting another 500 pages for the other half doesn't seem like the best...

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Is "number of weeks" actually an argument for anyone though ? Usually it is "when organ X (e.g. the brain) starts to function" or "when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb".

"Number of weeks" is also a good shorthand for both those latter limits. Instead of assessing individual foetal developments, lawmakers like to make rules that are more easily enforceable, and because such events happens in weeks, it works very well. If you google "pregnancy by week" there are a host of webpages explaining down to the week what happens in such-and-such week.

Regards the poll specifically, IIRC polls with options can't limit voters to vote in two groups, giving the option of people to mess with the poll. Do we just trust that it won't happen, or do we have some other option? Waiting another 500 pages for the other half doesn't seem like the best...

Tell everyone to vote for one of option 1-5 and one of option 6-10 in the OP?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Does the Bible even explicitly prohibit abortion, as opposed to saying "Thou shalt not kill" and the definition of murder being extended to abortion?

[Greater Cesnica]

No. However, many scholars and Christians will point to Exodus 20:13- which prohibits the killing of innocents.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

No. However, many scholars and Christians will point to Exodus 20:13- which prohibits the killing of innocents.

Is there a verse in the Bible stating when life starts, like the verse in the Qur'an stating that Allah breathes the soul into the fetus at 120 days?

[Dylar]

Does the Bible even explicitly prohibit abortion, as opposed to saying "Thou shalt not kill" and the definition of murder being extended to abortion?

No. But it is implied. Just like how the U.S Constitution has expressed and implied powers, the Bible also has expressed teachings and implied teachinigs.

[Ifreann]

No. However, many scholars and Christians will point to Exodus 20:13- which prohibits the killing of innocents.

Is there a verse in the Bible stating when life starts, like the verse in the Qur'an stating that Allah breathes the soul into the fetus at 120 days?

There's something about God saying he knows people even in the womb, which I think is the basis of the "life begins at conception" stuff.

[Dylar]

No. However, many scholars and Christians will point to Exodus 20:13- which prohibits the killing of innocents.

Is there a verse in the Bible stating when life starts, like the verse in the Qur'an stating that Allah breathes the soul into the fetus at 120 days?

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

[Kenmoria]

Is there a verse in the Bible stating when life starts, like the verse in the Qur'an stating that Allah breathes the soul into the fetus at 120 days?

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

"Before I formed you in the womb" sounds a lot like we should be going further and protecting the rights of the un-conceived. This verse probably was just showing how God was supposed to know people for a very long time, before their life started, as upholding the rights of those who aren't even conceived is clearly impractical.

[Ifreann]

"Before I formed you in the womb" sounds a lot like we should be going further and protecting the rights of the un-conceived. This verse probably was just showing how God was supposed to know people for a very long time, before their life started, as upholding the rights of those who aren't even conceived is clearly impractical.

Ovulation without conception is murder.