Capital Punishment for Abortion? Yes.

[The V O I D]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

Without bodily sovereignty, there is no "right to life" that pro-lifers support. Oh, sure, you could put right to life first, but then there is no bodily sovereignty: mandatory organ donations, regulation of what one can do with their body (e.g. tattoos, etc.) as well as generally other interfering bullshit that nobody wants. And no, you can't cherrypick this right and say only women get to be mistreated - inequality is never okay, no matter the reason.

Bodily sovereignty allows us to have the right to life, not the other way around. And since bodily sovereignty is greater than the right to life, that means a woman ought to be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Contraception can, will and does fail - and even if it didn't, that doesn't change the fact it is the woman's body and thus she has ownership over it. Not the government, not the potential father - nobody but her. And sex happens, no matter what anyone does or says. Because it's not just a procreational act; it is also a recreational one. To try and force it to only be procreational is just fucking stupid in this day and age.

Like, seriously, this is all basic common sense.

[Napkiraly]

Parasites are 1) almost always an organism from another species that invades the body of an organism from a different species. 2) Parasites are near always detrimental to the health of the host. The only one I can think of that is not "that bad" is the tongue eating louse, and i) I reckon most people don't want to lose their tongues ii) iirc there are studies that show that fish infected with them are actually underweight so there you go.

The relationship between a fetuses and its mother is closer to mutualism or commensalism.

1: false
2: false. They go at the expense of the host, but they aren't usually detrimental (as that would actually be detrimental to them as well)

Great arguments, Sir Pissing in the Wind.

[Petrasylvania]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

Without bodily sovereignty, there is no "right to life" that pro-lifers support. Oh, sure, you could put right to life first, but then there is no bodily sovereignty: mandatory organ donations, regulation of what one can do with their body (e.g. tattoos, etc.) as well as generally other interfering bullshit that nobody wants. And no, you can't cherrypick this right and say only women get to be mistreated - inequality is never okay, no matter the reason.

Bodily sovereignty allows us to have the right to life, not the other way around. And since bodily sovereignty is greater than the right to life, that means a woman ought to be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Contraception can, will and does fail - and even if it didn't, that doesn't change the fact it is the woman's body and thus she has ownership over it. Not the government, not the potential father - nobody but her. And sex happens, no matter what anyone does or says. Because it's not just a procreational act; it is also a recreational one. To try and force it to only be procreational is just fucking stupid in this day and age.

Like, seriously, this is all basic common sense.

Combination of edgy trolling and wishing The Handmaid's Tale is a documentary.

[Alvecia]

Your use of "1) almost always" and "2) near always" indicates that being of different species and being detrimental to the health of the host are not strictly necessary to be defined as parasitic, so your conclusion doesn't logically follow that by failing these two criteria, the organism in question is necessarily not parasitic.

Almost always because iirc there is one species of jellyfish that has intraspecies parasitism and some argue the sexual relationship of angler fish to also be parasitic, hence "almost always" as opposed to "always".

Then again, failing your two defining criteria does not necessarily makes something non-parasitic

[Napkiraly]

Abortion is certainly not self defence because the innocent foetus does not intend to kill or harm the mother.

So Savita Halappanavar Had It Coming And Got What She Deserved. Got It.

Whew lad that's some reaching right there.

[Claorica]

I hold to the religious motive that, except in immediate defense (that is, someone who is immediately threatening or attempting to kill you or someone around you in a situation you did not intentionally instigate), violence against humans is the monopoly of the state and even then with some limitations like due process. So civil unrest and terrorism, especially threatening the lives of not just abortionists and their staffs but innocent bystanders, is bad.

That doesn't follow. If you believe that the unborn are innocent babies then attacking an abortion clinic would be violence in their immediate defence.

and I do think it was wrong to saturation bomb cities, threatening and ending the lives of tens of thousands (even hundreds of thousands) of civilians, was wrong, no matter the "ends."

Is that a yes?

Bombing an abortion clinic is like throwing a grenade to save a citizen being held by a captor. the indiscriminate nature of the weapon will end up threatening the life you mean to save too much for it to be worth it. Killing an abortionist is like Jack Ruby assassinating Lee Harvey Oswald, you're not defending anyone, the murders he has committed are already done. Your logic does not compute, and is fallacious.

That's a "we were morally in the wrong to use the tactics we did to fight Hitler because they threatened and indeed killed far too many bystanders"

[Medwedian Democratic Federation]

Abortion is certainly not self defence because the innocent foetus does not intend to kill or harm the mother.

If you attempt to ram me while highly intoxicated am I not allowed to defend myself by all means necessary just because you haven't got the legal competence or malice to make this actually murder?

In this case, it was probably my decision to intoxicate myself and/or get in a situation resulting in my intoxication, meaning that my malicious behavior is of my own fault and self-defence is justifiable.

However, a woman who decides to have a baby accepts a possible risk of pregnancy-induced death and other diseases. It is her fault that the baby is endangering her life. The foetus can not decide for itself. At the same time, the mother has no entitlement to her child's life, for the Sanctity of Life is enacted at the moment of conception. Self-defence in this case is not justifiable.

[Petrasylvania]

So Savita Halappanavar Had It Coming And Got What She Deserved. Got It.

Whew lad that's some reaching right there.

When you think abortion for any reason is murder and thus illegal...

[Napkiraly]

Almost always because iirc there is one species of jellyfish that has intraspecies parasitism and some argue the sexual relationship of angler fish to also be parasitic, hence "almost always" as opposed to "always".

Then again, failing your two defining criteria does not necessarily makes something non-parasitic

Except the relationship between the mother and fetus does not hit many of the criteria, I used those two because hopefully they were simple enough to make people realize that the layman's use of parasite is different than how actual defined and studied parasites are categorized. Who knew biology was a messy, complicated bidness.

[Ifreann]

So anyone who ends a life should be executed. Got it.

anyone who unjustly and willfully ends a human life.

there is such a thing as justified homicide (self-defense, defense of others, etc.) and killings that are not homicide (Executions, Police defending others, soldiers defending others and themselves, and so on)

Homicide is the killing of another person. Executions are homicide. Killings by police or soldiers are homicide. Justified or unjustified, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, when humans kill humans that's homicide.

[Alvecia]

Then again, failing your two defining criteria does not necessarily makes something non-parasitic

Except the relationship between the mother and fetus does not hit many of the criteria, I used those two because hopefully they were simple enough to make people realize that the layman's use of parasite is different than how actual defined and studied parasites are categorized. Who knew biology was a messy, complicated bidness.

I'm trying to get a definitive answer on which criteria it fails, and you've given me nothing but two criteria that don't seem to matter.
If there exists necessary criteria for defining a parasite that a foetus does not pass that excludes it from being defined as such, as you so very heavily imply, then I would very much like to know what they are.

[The V O I D]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

Without bodily sovereignty, there is no "right to life" that pro-lifers support. Oh, sure, you could put right to life first, but then there is no bodily sovereignty: mandatory organ donations, regulation of what one can do with their body (e.g. tattoos, etc.) as well as generally other interfering bullshit that nobody wants. And no, you can't cherrypick this right and say only women get to be mistreated - inequality is never okay, no matter the reason.

Bodily sovereignty allows us to have the right to life, not the other way around. And since bodily sovereignty is greater than the right to life, that means a woman ought to be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Contraception can, will and does fail - and even if it didn't, that doesn't change the fact it is the woman's body and thus she has ownership over it. Not the government, not the potential father - nobody but her. And sex happens, no matter what anyone does or says. Because it's not just a procreational act; it is also a recreational one. To try and force it to only be procreational is just fucking stupid in this day and age.

Like, seriously, this is all basic common sense.

Combination of edgy trolling and wishing The Handmaid's Tale is a documentary.

I mean, it certainly seems like that could be the case. There's no way anyone could naturally propose such degradation and evil otherwise.

[Medwedian Democratic Federation]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

The child of a pregnant woman, even if it is biologically connected to her body, is not by any means a part of her body.

At the moment of conception, the cells involved become a completely morally independent unit of life despite being incapacitated.

[Napkiraly]

I'm actually waiting for the CDC and WHO to classify fetuses as parasites as we speak. It will be good to know they will be treated much the same way we treat P. falciparum (one of the parasites that can give you malaria hey oooo!).

[Claorica]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

Without bodily sovereignty, there is no "right to life" that pro-lifers support. Oh, sure, you could put right to life first, but then there is no bodily sovereignty: mandatory organ donations, regulation of what one can do with their body (e.g. tattoos, etc.) as well as generally other interfering bullshit that nobody wants. And no, you can't cherrypick this right and say only women get to be mistreated - inequality is never okay, no matter the reason.

Bodily sovereignty allows us to have the right to life, not the other way around. And since bodily sovereignty is greater than the right to life, that means a woman ought to be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Contraception can, will and does fail - and even if it didn't, that doesn't change the fact it is the woman's body and thus she has ownership over it. Not the government, not the potential father - nobody but her. And sex happens, no matter what anyone does or says. Because it's not just a procreational act; it is also a recreational one. To try and force it to only be procreational is just fucking stupid in this day and age.

Like, seriously, this is all basic common sense.

There is a difference between the "right to life" that would force someone to give me an organ (which does not exist) and the RIGHT TO LIFE that precludes the willful premeditated murder of a human being.

the "right to life" does not preclude bodily sovereignty. the Right to Life does.

[Ifreann]

That doesn't follow. If you believe that the unborn are innocent babies then attacking an abortion clinic would be violence in their immediate defence.


Is that a yes?

Bombing an abortion clinic is like throwing a grenade to save a citizen being held by a captor. the indiscriminate nature of the weapon will end up threatening the life you mean to save too much for it to be worth it.

I didn't say anything about bombs.

Killing an abortionist is like Jack Ruby assassinating Lee Harvey Oswald, you're not defending anyone, the murders he has committed are already done. Your logic does not compute, and is fallacious.

Not defending anyone? Are the foetuses in the women in the waiting room not people any more?

That's a "we were morally in the wrong to use the tactics we did to fight Hitler because they threatened and indeed killed far too many bystanders"

That doesn't answer my question, though.

[Afreena]

Capital Punishment for people who think like this

[The V O I D]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

1. The child of a pregnant woman, even if it is biologically connected to her body, is not by any means a part of her body.

2. At the moment of conception, the cells involved become a completely morally independent unit of life despite being incapacitated.

1. The woman controls the uterus and controls her bodily space. And she controls her resources and has sovereignty over the resources the fetus siphons off. She also has a right to not be used as a toilet, which the fetus inherently does by dumping waste into her. So while yes, the fetus is separate, it is inherently doing things that - if the pregnancy is unwanted - warrant its removal. Occupying her uterus without permission is bad because it is a violation of her bodily sovereignty.

2. And that's irrelevant. If I connect myself surgically to you so that I am dependent upon you for resources and waste disposal and say you have to put up with it for nine months or go to jail for murder, and you detach me or kill me anyway, that is entirely your right as I am stealing your bodily resources and using you for waste disposal - not to mention taking up bodily space and such for your organs and bones, possibly even permanently altering your body in the process. This is what a fetus does - sure, maybe not as grand scale as an adult, but there is no difference: both violate bodily sovereignty, and so it is up to the person being violated what happens.

[Petrasylvania]

Capital Punishment for people who think like this

It's pretty much guaranteed anyone advocating it isn't a fertile woman.

[San Lumen]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

Without bodily sovereignty, there is no "right to life" that pro-lifers support. Oh, sure, you could put right to life first, but then there is no bodily sovereignty: mandatory organ donations, regulation of what one can do with their body (e.g. tattoos, etc.) as well as generally other interfering bullshit that nobody wants. And no, you can't cherrypick this right and say only women get to be mistreated - inequality is never okay, no matter the reason.

Bodily sovereignty allows us to have the right to life, not the other way around. And since bodily sovereignty is greater than the right to life, that means a woman ought to be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Contraception can, will and does fail - and even if it didn't, that doesn't change the fact it is the woman's body and thus she has ownership over it. Not the government, not the potential father - nobody but her. And sex happens, no matter what anyone does or says. Because it's not just a procreational act; it is also a recreational one. To try and force it to only be procreational is just fucking stupid in this day and age.

Like, seriously, this is all basic common sense.

There is a difference between the "right to life" that would force someone to give me an organ (which does not exist) and the RIGHT TO LIFE that precludes the willful premeditated murder of a human being.

the "right to life" does not preclude bodily sovereignty. the Right to Life does.

So should a woman who was raped or a victim of incest be forced to carry the child to term?

[Gospel Power]

Abortion is wrong, but I don't think that people that perform that act should face execution, Education needed

[Afreena]

People who think that you should be killed if you abort your Child should just shoot themselves tbh

[Ifreann]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

The child of a pregnant woman, even if it is biologically connected to her body, is not by any means a part of her body.

At the moment of conception, the cells involved become a completely morally independent unit of life despite being incapacitated.

I'm a morally independent unit of life. If I stuck my finger up your nose, would you be content for me to leave it there for 9 months?

[The V O I D]

After reading some of the more recent posts, I'm sick and horrified. How can anyone think to punish people for controlling their own bodies? What the fuck? No, seriously. Bodily sovereignty is the human right, the most basic right.

Without bodily sovereignty, there is no "right to life" that pro-lifers support. Oh, sure, you could put right to life first, but then there is no bodily sovereignty: mandatory organ donations, regulation of what one can do with their body (e.g. tattoos, etc.) as well as generally other interfering bullshit that nobody wants. And no, you can't cherrypick this right and say only women get to be mistreated - inequality is never okay, no matter the reason.

Bodily sovereignty allows us to have the right to life, not the other way around. And since bodily sovereignty is greater than the right to life, that means a woman ought to be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Contraception can, will and does fail - and even if it didn't, that doesn't change the fact it is the woman's body and thus she has ownership over it. Not the government, not the potential father - nobody but her. And sex happens, no matter what anyone does or says. Because it's not just a procreational act; it is also a recreational one. To try and force it to only be procreational is just fucking stupid in this day and age.

Like, seriously, this is all basic common sense.

There is a difference between the "right to life" that would force someone to give me an organ (which does not exist) and the RIGHT TO LIFE that precludes the willful premeditated murder of a human being.

the "right to life" does not preclude bodily sovereignty. the Right to Life does.

Cherrypicking is not a valid excuse, you'll note that I said that. You don't get to cherrypick or define the right to life in such a way that mistreats women and forbids them the same right to bodily sovereignty literally everyone else gets in this or any other specific situation.

Bodily sovereignty is greater than any right to life. Period.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Abortion is wrong, but I don't think that people that perform that act should face execution, Education needed

Reeducation by labour for "abortionists"?