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

[Alvecia]

Have you ever stopped to think that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy?

Anyone who wants sex without pregnancy is taking a risk, and when the gamble fails, it's your fault.

If I crash my car and my passenger breaks their ribs, should they have to live with broken ribs?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Have you ever stopped to think that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy?

Anyone who wants sex without pregnancy is taking a risk, and when the gamble fails, it's your fault.

Great, so by your logic if someone isn't wearing a seatbelt and they get into a car crash we should just leave them to die.

[Greater Gilead]

I don't. The thing is we are (I think.) talking about pregnancies out of wedlock. The pregnancy is the woman's fault then, and why should the baby be killed because of her choices? I can find no exceptions to this logic.

Because with our current medical technology there is no other course of action to remedy this unwanted pregnancy, and it is patently unjust to force someone to remain pregnant when they do no want to be.

if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex!

[Alvecia]

Because with our current medical technology there is no other course of action to remedy this unwanted pregnancy, and it is patently unjust to force someone to remain pregnant when they do no want to be.

if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex!

If you don't want to live with broken ribs, don't drive a car.

[Greater Gilead]

Anyone who wants sex without pregnancy is taking a risk, and when the gamble fails, it's your fault.

Great, so by your logic if someone isn't wearing a seatbelt and they get into a car crash we should just leave them to die.

No, they should be helped, but they have no one but themselves to blame for any injuries stemming from not wearing a seatbelt.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Great, so by your logic if someone isn't wearing a seatbelt and they get into a car crash we should just leave them to die.

No, they should be helped, but they have no one but themselves to blame for any injuries stemming from not wearing a seatbelt.

Alright, so women should be allowed to get abortions but they'll have no one but themselves to blame for it.

[Greater Gilead]

No, they should be helped, but they have no one but themselves to blame for any injuries stemming from not wearing a seatbelt.

Alright, so women should be allowed to get abortions but they'll have no one but themselves to blame for it.

Murdering the baby when it is YOUR FAULT (NO EXCEPTIONS) is like murdering the car manufacturer because you were hurt in his car. it makes no sense.

[Godular]

Not a crime but it is infringing on her most basic rights as a person.
The woman is enforcing her rights.

The better question is why do you want to reduce women to brood mares?

I don't. The thing is we are (I think.) talking about pregnancies out of wedlock. The pregnancy is the woman's fault then, and why should the baby be killed because of her choices? I can find no exceptions to this logic.

Because no person has the right to use another person's body without their consent. We have all kinds of nasty names for when one born person does it to another, the fetus deserves no exception to this rule.

Fault is irrelevant in such a scenario, and the more you speak of it, the more you make it sound like you wish to punish the woman for having taken actions you find personally distasteful. Such an idea is abhorrent both because it denigrates the woman on an arbitrary basis AND undermines the idea that childbearing (when consented to) is a wonderful thing.

[Greater Gilead]

I don't. The thing is we are (I think.) talking about pregnancies out of wedlock. The pregnancy is the woman's fault then, and why should the baby be killed because of her choices? I can find no exceptions to this logic.

Because no person has the right to use another person's body without their consent. We have all kinds of nasty names for when one born person does it to another, the fetus deserves no exception to this rule.

Fault is irrelevant in such a scenario, and the more you speak of it, the more you make it sound like you wish to punish the woman for having taken actions you find personally distasteful. Such an idea is abhorrent both because it denigrates the woman on an arbitrary basis AND undermines the idea that childbearing (when consented to) is a wonderful thing.

First statement is absolutely correct. The woman has no right to kill the baby without it's consent. (Which it can't give.)

Child bearing is an honorable thing. Child murdering is not.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Alright, so women should be allowed to get abortions but they'll have no one but themselves to blame for it.

Murdering the baby when it is YOUR FAULT (NO EXCEPTIONS) is like murdering the car manufacturer because you were hurt in his car. it makes no sense.

We've already been over this, it by definition isn't murder.

Honestly your position seems incredibly inconsistent, why won't you apply your logic to other situations?

[Ifreann]

Because with our current medical technology there is no other course of action to remedy this unwanted pregnancy, and it is patently unjust to force someone to remain pregnant when they do no want to be.

if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex!

Irrelevant. It does not become just to force someone to remain pregnant because they chose to have sex.

[Greater Gilead]

Murdering the baby when it is YOUR FAULT (NO EXCEPTIONS) is like murdering the car manufacturer because you were hurt in his car. it makes no sense.

We've already been over this, it by definition isn't murder.

Honestly your position seems incredibly inconsistent, why won't you apply your logic to other situations?

In what way is my position inconsistent?
I have been making two main points:
1. Abortion is murder, with no exceptions.
2. A pregnancy is the result of the woman's choices, with no exceptions.

[The Holy Empire of Dietmaria]

We've already been over this, it by definition isn't murder.

Honestly your position seems incredibly inconsistent, why won't you apply your logic to other situations?

In what way is my position inconsistent?
I have been making two main points:
1. Abortion is murder, with no exceptions.
2. A pregnancy is the result of the woman's choices, with no exceptions.

Does this include rape then?

[Greater Gilead]

if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex!

Irrelevant. It does not become just to force someone to remain pregnant because they chose to have sex.

Why is it not just? If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then DON'T make choices that put you there. Try applying your logic to other situations, like reckless driving resulting in injury.

[Washington Resistance Army]

1. Abortion is murder, with no exceptions.

Objectively false. You're just wrong if you disagree.

2. A pregnancy is the result of the woman's choices, with no exceptions.

And? That has no bearing on if she should be able to get an abortion or not. My dad got into more than one car crash that was the result of his choices, should he have been denied medical procedures?

[Godular]

Because no person has the right to use another person's body without their consent. We have all kinds of nasty names for when one born person does it to another, the fetus deserves no exception to this rule.

Fault is irrelevant in such a scenario, and the more you speak of it, the more you make it sound like you wish to punish the woman for having taken actions you find personally distasteful. Such an idea is abhorrent both because it denigrates the woman on an arbitrary basis AND undermines the idea that childbearing (when consented to) is a wonderful thing.

First statement is absolutely correct. The woman has no right to kill the baby without it's consent. (Which it can't give.)

Wrong. As previously stated, the fetus inherently presents an imposition on the woman's personal space. It has no right to do so. The woman can remedy the situation using whatever means necessary to do so. The fetus dies, but the death IS justified by the same rules that allow the woman to defend herself from an attacker.

Child bearing is an honorable thing. Child murdering is not.

Still not something you can force on 'em. If you do so, it becomes functionally equivalent to slavery.

[Greater Gilead]

In what way is my position inconsistent?
I have been making two main points:
1. Abortion is murder, with no exceptions.
2. A pregnancy is the result of the woman's choices, with no exceptions.

Does this include rape then?

I'm going to stick my nose in the beehive, please remember I am speaking OOC, not Gileadian.

The way a woman acts and dresses, can lead to rape. If a woman dresses modestly and doesn't flirt, etc, there is no urge in the man involved.

[The Holy Empire of Dietmaria]

Irrelevant. It does not become just to force someone to remain pregnant because they chose to have sex.

Why is it not just? If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then DON'T make choices that put you there. Try applying your logic to other situations, like reckless driving resulting in injury.

If you don't want cancer, don't stand in the sun or be in the presence of free radicals, it is your fault if that happens and you should have to live with your cancer! Silly you!

And because the cancer is a ball of self replicating cells growing inside you, it's a living thing, so you shouldn't be allowed to destroy it

[Washington Resistance Army]

Does this include rape then?

I'm going to stick my nose in the beehive, please remember I am speaking OOC, not Gileadian.

The way a woman acts and dresses, can lead to rape. If a woman dresses modestly and doesn't flirt, etc, there is no urge in the man involved.

You certainly aren't helping disprove the whole "I don't hate women" thing.

[Omnonia]

1. Abortion is murder, with no exceptions.

Objectively false. You're just wrong if you disagree.

More precisely: It's an arbitrarily set axiom, which I see absolutely no reason to accept as true. [/nitpick}

2. A pregnancy is the result of the woman's choices, with no exceptions.

Erm hello...rape?

[Greater Gilead]

I'm going to stick my nose in the beehive, please remember I am speaking OOC, not Gileadian.

The way a woman acts and dresses, can lead to rape. If a woman dresses modestly and doesn't flirt, etc, there is no urge in the man involved.

You certainly aren't helping disprove the whole "I don't hate women" thing.

That message you are quoting was approved be a female friend of mine.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You certainly aren't helping disprove the whole "I don't hate women" thing.

That message you are quoting was approved be a female friend of mine.

And I have a black friend that doesn't care if I rant about how niggers are actually the worst thing in the world, what's your point?

[Greater Gilead]

Why is it not just? If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then DON'T make choices that put you there. Try applying your logic to other situations, like reckless driving resulting in injury.

If you don't want cancer, don't stand in the sun or be in the presence of free radicals, it is your fault if that happens and you should have to live with your cancer! Silly you!

And because the cancer is a ball of self replicating cells growing inside you, it's a living thing, so you shouldn't be allowed to destroy it

The cancer is not a separate human being, homo sapiens. I have nothing against killing animals (like bacteria), even though they are alive, but a person is different.

[Greater Gilead]

Why is it not just? If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then DON'T make choices that put you there. Try applying your logic to other situations, like reckless driving resulting in injury.

If you don't want cancer, don't stand in the sun or be in the presence of free radicals, it is your fault if that happens and you should have to live with your cancer! Silly you!

And because the cancer is a ball of self replicating cells growing inside you, it's a living thing, so you shouldn't be allowed to destroy it

The cancer is not a separate human being, homo sapiens. I have nothing against killing animals (like bacteria), even though they are alive, but a person is different.

[Greater Gilead]

Why is it not just? If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then DON'T make choices that put you there. Try applying your logic to other situations, like reckless driving resulting in injury.

If you don't want cancer, don't stand in the sun or be in the presence of free radicals, it is your fault if that happens and you should have to live with your cancer! Silly you!

And because the cancer is a ball of self replicating cells growing inside you, it's a living thing, so you shouldn't be allowed to destroy it

The cancer is not a separate human being, homo sapiens. I have nothing against killing animals (like bacteria), even though they are alive, but a person is different.