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

[Vassenor]

Illegal with exceptions like rape

Why?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Outlawing abortion does not constitute "unreasonable searches and seizures". Mendacious ruling which turned an extremely serious clause into a toy. The right is now following suit on that

According to the World Health Organization, outlawing abortion leads to 58,000 female deaths worldwide per year from unsafe abortions. So, laws against abortion actually kill sentient people.

[San Lumen]

Illegal with exceptions like rape

Why? Who are you interfere with a private medical decision? Are you going to adopt the unwanted children?

[Galloism]

Illegal with exceptions like rape

You know, I can understand the logic of the "illegal" crowd. It's internally consistent logic.

I can also understand the logic of the "legal" crowd. It's also internally consistent logic.

I can especially understand the logic of "legal, safe, and rare" crowd. I'm in that crowd. It also seems to be the best logic.

But I don't understand the logic of the "illegal except rape" crowd. Why does a fetus lose its "right to life" based on the actions of a third party?

[Dylar]

Illegal with exceptions like rape

You know, I can understand the logic of the "illegal" crowd. It's internally consistent logic.

I can also understand the logic of the "legal" crowd. It's also internally consistent logic.

I can especially understand the logic of "legal, safe, and rare" crowd. I'm in that crowd. It also seems to be the best logic.

But I don't understand the logic of the "illegal except rape" crowd. Why does a fetus lose its "right to life" based on the actions of a third party?

It's an attempt by some pro-life people to try and compromise with the pro-choice people.

[Galloism]

You know, I can understand the logic of the "illegal" crowd. It's internally consistent logic.

I can also understand the logic of the "legal" crowd. It's also internally consistent logic.

I can especially understand the logic of "legal, safe, and rare" crowd. I'm in that crowd. It also seems to be the best logic.

But I don't understand the logic of the "illegal except rape" crowd. Why does a fetus lose its "right to life" based on the actions of a third party?

It's an attempt by some pro-life people to try and compromise with the pro-choice people.

It's a horrid compromise. Logically inconsistent all the way down.

[Pilarcraft]

I honestly don't get why rational Pro-choice people even compromise with the anti-choicers. There's no actual debate on this. It's the mother's body, she is the only person with any right over what happens to it. Up until the 'baby' has been born, it has zero rights, because legally speaking it does not exist yet. There is no debate on "do I get to choose what she does with the body". Lily-livered compromise is what makes us actually lose ground to them. It's the same as teaching 'creationism' in schools. There's no debate, it should not be done, end of story.

[Gospel Power]

Illegal with exceptions like rape

Why? Who are you interfere with a private medical decision? Are you going to adopt the unwanted children?

Yes

[The New California Republic]

Why? Who are you interfere with a private medical decision? Are you going to adopt the unwanted children?

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?

[Galloism]

Up until the 'baby' has been born, it has zero rights, because legally speaking it does not exist yet.

This isn't quite true anymore. A fetus has the legal right to own a section 529 plan account.

[Pilarcraft]

Up until the 'baby' has been born, it has zero rights, because legally speaking it does not exist yet.

This isn't quite true anymore. A fetus has the legal right to own a section 529 plan account.

I stand corrected. Up until the baby's been born, it has zero rights because legally speaking, it should not have any rights, because it does not exist yet.

[San Lumen]

Why? Who are you interfere with a private medical decision? Are you going to adopt the unwanted children?

Yes

Sure you will. Who are you to play doctor?

[Galloism]

Why? Who are you interfere with a private medical decision? Are you going to adopt the unwanted children?

Yes

You're going to need a bigger house. There's about 650,000 abortions per year in the US (2014 figures). If the average child lives with you until 17 (let's face it, statistically, when we start talking numbers like these, some will die, run away, go missing, etc), you'll need space for about 11 million children on average.

Or roughly the state of Ohio.

[Galloism]

This isn't quite true anymore. A fetus has the legal right to own a section 529 plan account.

I stand corrected. Up until the baby's been born, it has zero rights because legally speaking, it should not have any rights, because it does not exist yet.

I mean, the fetus most certainly exists. We can prove that with an x-ray machine or an MRI or ultrasound.

[Pilarcraft]

I stand corrected. Up until the baby's been born, it has zero rights because legally speaking, it should not have any rights, because it does not exist yet.

I mean, the fetus most certainly exists. We can prove that with an x-ray machine or an MRI or ultrasound.

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

[Dylar]

I honestly don't get why rational Pro-choice people even compromise with the anti-choicers pro-lifers.

First off, we're pro-lifers because we fight for the right to life for everyone including the (viable)fetus. Or at least I do...

There's no actual debate on this. It's the mother's body, she is the only person with any right over what happens to it.

(failed attempt at buzzer sound)! The fetus has it's own unique and individual body which is connected to the mother via umbilical cord. However, you are right in that she has the ultimate choice in what to do with her child.

Up until the 'baby' has been born, it has zero rights, because legally speaking it does not exist yet. There is no debate on "do I get to choose what she does with the body".

That's not our debate. We debate for the fetus to be born.

There's no debate, it should not be done, end of story.

And yet, here we are.

[Galloism]

I mean, the fetus most certainly exists. We can prove that with an x-ray machine or an MRI or ultrasound.

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

That's one way of looking at it. Of course, repeatedly saying "it should not exist as a legal person" is unlikely to convince someone that thinks it should exist as a legal person.

Then you run into logical problems when we recognize lots of non-existent things (as in literal non existent things) as legal persons. Such as the estates of the dead, trusts, corporations, partnerships, associations, clubs...

[The New California Republic]

Yes

You're going to need a bigger house. There's about 650,000 abortions per year in the US (2014 figures). If the average child lives with you until 17 (let's face it, statistically, when we start talking numbers like these, some will die, run away, go missing, etc), you'll need space for about 11 million children on average.

Or roughly the state of Ohio.

Beat you to the punch.

[Dylar]

I mean, the fetus most certainly exists. We can prove that with an x-ray machine or an MRI or ultrasound.

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?

[San Lumen]

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?

If a fetus is a human being how come the census doesnt count them?

[Dylar]

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

If a fetus is a human being how come the census doesnt count them?

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.

[Galloism]

If a fetus is a human being how come the census doesnt count them?

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.

That's not a particularly good argument either. Literally every cell in my body is made as a result of a human sperm and human egg fusing. Each of them (except red blood cells that don't have a nucleus) has human DNA. I don't charge the barber with mass murder when I get a haircut.

[San Lumen]

If a fetus is a human being how come the census doesnt count them?

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?

[Galloism]

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?

Do you need me to dig up Bob the Janitor?

[The New California Republic]

If a fetus is a human being how come the census doesnt count them?

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 are tumors. The tumor wouldn't exist had sperm and egg not fused to give rise to the person. Tumors have human DNA. But you can bet your bottom dollar that I have no qualms about a doctor gouging the tumor out...