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

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

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

[The V O I D]

Parkus, did you miss my post? Outlawing abortion does count as depriving women of liberty and property (both involving her body, which is entirely hers). It also counts as denying equal protection of laws in terms of affording everyone equal bodily sovereignty (as organ donors can change their mind before the procedure or people can deny treatment, etc.; but forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is unequal treatment under these same laws).

[The Parkus Empire]

Parkus, did you miss my post? Outlawing abortion does count as depriving women of liberty and property (both involving her body, which is entirely hers). It also counts as denying equal protection of laws in terms of affording everyone equal bodily sovereignty (as organ donors can change their mind before the procedure or people can deny treatment, etc.; but forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is unequal treatment under these same laws).

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right, banning abortion doesn't invade any body

[San Lumen]

Parkus, did you miss my post? Outlawing abortion does count as depriving women of liberty and property (both involving her body, which is entirely hers). It also counts as denying equal protection of laws in terms of affording everyone equal bodily sovereignty (as organ donors can change their mind before the procedure or people can deny treatment, etc.; but forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is unequal treatment under these same laws).

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right, banning abortion doesn't invade any body

Ok but its not your decision. Who crowned you Emperor?

[New Emeline]

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right, banning abortion doesn't invade any body

Ok but its not your decision? Who crowned you Emperor?

I did actually.
Granted, I was sleepwalking at the time...

[The V O I D]

Parkus, did you miss my post? Outlawing abortion does count as depriving women of liberty and property (both involving her body, which is entirely hers). It also counts as denying equal protection of laws in terms of affording everyone equal bodily sovereignty (as organ donors can change their mind before the procedure or people can deny treatment, etc.; but forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is unequal treatment under these same laws).

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right, banning abortion doesn't invade any body

It invades the woman's body. And you didn't address my point; the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty is actually a right, as well, or else we'd have mandatory organ harvesting and the like.

A woman's body is her property. Thus, you're depriving her of her property.

[The Parkus Empire]

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right, banning abortion doesn't invade any body

It invades the woman's body. And you didn't address my point; the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty is actually a right, as well, or else we'd have mandatory organ harvesting and the like.

A woman's body is her property. Thus, you're depriving her of her property.

You don't have freedom to do whatever you want with your body/property. Outlawing abortion invades neither.

[The Parkus Empire]

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right, banning abortion doesn't invade any body

Ok but its not your decision. Who crowned you Emperor?

The OP

[The Parkus Empire]

Ok but its not your decision? Who crowned you Emperor?

I did actually.
Granted, I was sleepwalking at the time...

Dreaming you were the Pope!

[San Lumen]

It invades the woman's body. And you didn't address my point; the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty is actually a right, as well, or else we'd have mandatory organ harvesting and the like.

A woman's body is her property. Thus, you're depriving her of her property.

You don't have freedom to do whatever you want with your body/property. Outlawing abortion invades neither.

so if your daughter was a victim of rape or incest you'd force her to carry the child to term?

[The V O I D]

It invades the woman's body. And you didn't address my point; the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty is actually a right, as well, or else we'd have mandatory organ harvesting and the like.

A woman's body is her property. Thus, you're depriving her of her property.

You don't have freedom to do whatever you want with your body/property. Outlawing abortion invades neither.

Actually, it does. And yes, you do have the freedom to do whatever you want with your body/property specifically because it is your body/property.

Also, whether it's legal or not, abortions will happen. I'd prefer it be done safely and in a sanitary manner, rather than having thousands or hundreds of thousands of women die or suffer from health issues because they had to resort to back alley doctors or doing it themselves (by the by, that's what was happening prior to Roe v. Wade, contrary to this popular conservative belief I've heard where women somehow didn't mind not controlling their bodies before then).

[The Parkus Empire]

You don't have freedom to do whatever you want with your body/property. Outlawing abortion invades neither.

so if your daughter was a victim of rape or incest you'd force her to carry the child to term?

I wouldn't consider it her duty if the sex wasn't consensual. But I wouldn't have sex with my daughter even consensually, buddy

[The Parkus Empire]

Actually, it does. And yes, you do have the freedom to do whatever you want with your body/property specifically because it is your body/property.

Meaning it's your responsibility.

[San Lumen]

so if your daughter was a victim of rape or incest you'd force her to carry the child to term?

I wouldn't consider it her duty if the sex wasn't consensual. But I wouldn't have sex with my daughter even consensually, buddy

Thats not the point. I wasn't suggesting the latter in any way. It was merely a hypothetical.

[The V O I D]

Actually, it does. And yes, you do have the freedom to do whatever you want with your body/property specifically because it is your body/property.

Meaning it's your responsibility.

Nobody has a responsibility to do anything with their body. Women can abort or they can choose to be pregnant, but it is their choice what happens.

Just like how nobody can tell a drug addict to just 'stop being addicted'; they chose to do the drugs, and while it's unfortunate they became addicted, it isn't our problem unless the addict actively seeks help.

Tattoos are also up to an individual if they want one or not; same with piercings.

Want to drink till your liver's practically dead? Go right on ahead.

Noone can make any decisions about anyone else's body except for their own - including the government.

[The Parkus Empire]

I wouldn't consider it her duty if the sex wasn't consensual. But I wouldn't have sex with my daughter even consensually, buddy

Thats not the point. I wasn't suggesting the latter in any way. It was merely a hypothetical.

Hypothetically I don't consider women responsible for pregnancies incurred by rape. I do consider them responsible (along with the father) for pregnancies incurred by consensual sex.

In a hypothetical case of consensual incest, I would say they are still responsible.

[New Emeline]

Thats not the point. I wasn't suggesting the latter in any way. It was merely a hypothetical.

Hypothetically I don't consider women responsible for pregnancies incurred by rape. I do consider them responsible (along with the father) for pregnancies incurred by consensual sex.

In a hypothetical case of consensual incest, I would say they are still responsible.

Can parent-child incest ever be considered consentual?

[The Parkus Empire]

Meaning it's your responsibility.

Nobody has a responsibility to do anything with their body.

Bullshit

I cannot too often recommend it to the serious consideration of all men, who think civil society to be within the province of moral jurisdiction, that if we owe to it any duty, it is not subject to our will. Duties are not voluntary. Duty and will are even contradictory terms. Now, though civil society might be at first a voluntary act (which in many cases it undoubtedly was), its continuance is under a permanent, standing covenant, co-existing with the society; and it attaches upon every individual of that society, without any formal act of his own. This is warranted by the general practice, arising out of the general sense of mankind. Men without their choice derive benefits from that association; without their choice they are subjected to duties in consequence of these benefits; and without their choice they enter into a virtual obligation as binding as any that is actual. Look through the whole of life and the whole system of duties. Much the strongest moral obligations are such as were never the results of our option. I allow, that if no supreme ruler exists, wise to form, and potent to enforce, the moral law, there is no sanction to any contract, virtual or even actual, against the will of prevalent power. On that hypothesis, let any set of men be strong enough to set their duties at defiance, and they cease to be duties any longer. We have but this one appeal against irresistible power—

"Si genus humanum et mortalia temnitis arma,
At sperate Deos memores fandi atque nefandi."

Taking it for granted that I do not write to the disciples of the Parisian philosophy, I may assume, that the awful Author of our being is the Author of our place in the order of existence; and that, having disposed and marshalled us by a divine tactic, not according to our will, but according to his, he has, in and by that disposition, virtually subjected us to act the part which belongs to the place assigned us. We have obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact. They arise from the relation of man to man, and the relation of man to God, which relations are not matters of choice. On the contrary, the force of all the pacts which we enter into with any particular person, or number of persons, amongst mankind, depends upon those prior obligations. In some cases the subordinate relations are voluntary, in others they are necessary—but the duties are all compulsive. When we marry, the choice is voluntary, but the duties are not matter of choice. They are dictated by the nature of the situation. Dark and inscrutable are the ways by which we come into the world. The instincts which give rise to this mysterious process of nature are not of our making. But out of physical causes, unknown to us, perhaps unknowable, arise moral duties, which, as we are able perfectly to comprehend, we are bound indispensably to perform. Parents may not be consenting to their moral relation; but consenting or not, they are bound to a long train of burthensome duties towards those with whom they have never made a convention of any sort. Children are not consenting to their relation, but their relation, without their actual consent, binds them to its duties; or rather it implies their consent, because the presumed consent of every rational creature is in unison with the predisposed order of things. Men come in that manner into a community with the social state of their parents, endowed with all the benefits, loaded with all the duties, of their situation. If the social ties and ligaments, spun out of those physical relations which are the elements of the commonwealth, in most cases begin, and alway continue, independently of our will, so, without any stipulation on our own part, are we bound by that relation called our country, which comprehends (as it has been well said) "all the charities of all." Nor are we left without powerful instincts to make this duty as dear and grateful to us, as it is awful and coercive. It consists, in a great measure, in the ancient order into which we are born. We may have the same geographical situation, but another country; as we may have the same country in another soil. The place that determines our duty to our country is a social, civil relation.

[The Parkus Empire]

Hypothetically I don't consider women responsible for pregnancies incurred by rape. I do consider them responsible (along with the father) for pregnancies incurred by consensual sex.

In a hypothetical case of consensual incest, I would say they are still responsible.

Can parent-child incest ever be considered consentual?

Under most cases I would say no. Although if both were independent adults I guess it's arguable, but I don't really like to think about that

[Wallenburg]

Parkus, did you miss my post? Outlawing abortion does count as depriving women of liberty and property (both involving her body, which is entirely hers). It also counts as denying equal protection of laws in terms of affording everyone equal bodily sovereignty (as organ donors can change their mind before the procedure or people can deny treatment, etc.; but forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is unequal treatment under these same laws).

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right, banning abortion doesn't invade any body

In that case, I'll be taking one of your kidneys. Lots more people need it more than you do.

[Katganistan]

Technically, the Roman Senate, AD 37.

I AM the Senate!

Quit horsing around, Incitatus.

[The Parkus Empire]

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right, banning abortion doesn't invade any body

In that case, I'll be taking one of your kidneys. Lots more people need it more than you do.

Mayhem is a crime.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayhem_(crime)

You wouldn't download a kidney.

[Katganistan]

Right. *deep breath*

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

Money =/= parents.

Abortion isn't murder.

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

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

Reality has already shown that people do not in fact adopt all of the children who are presently wards of the state, so what REALISTIC solution do you have?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Parkus, did you miss my post? Outlawing abortion does count as depriving women of liberty and property (both involving her body, which is entirely hers). It also counts as denying equal protection of laws in terms of affording everyone equal bodily sovereignty (as organ donors can change their mind before the procedure or people can deny treatment, etc.; but forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is unequal treatment under these same laws).

Bodily sovereignty isn't a right

Ok. All your organs can now be excised from your body regardless of your "opinions" and then sold openly on the market. Hf.

[The Parkus Empire]

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

Reality has already shown that people do not in fact adopt all of the children who are presently wards of the state, so what REALISTIC solution do you have?

The kids who are the main problem for adoption are those that become wards long after infancy, so unless you're suggesting something I hope you're not, this isn't a viable point.