[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[United Massachusetts]

Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.


Would one be justified in killing a person that they welcomed onto a property just because they wanted to?

Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).
But if someone invited two people and one of them turned one of the other two into a life support for the third (making the third parasitic and life threatening), then the third could be morally removed. If they can be saved, okay.

Presumably, then, could we "abort" fourth-trimester children for being basically dependent on their mothers still, for just about every aspect of their lives?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Wait, so there are non-human people?

That's worked so well in history.

Eh, the no punishment for women is silly, we punish people who hire hit men, despite not having actually physically harmed anyone.

It's the same approach we should (but don't) take for drug-related offenses; don't punish the users, punish the dealers.

Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).

Some humans aren't people, then?

Someone who is braindead is not exactly a person to the same extent as someone with brain activity.

[United Massachusetts]

Wait, so there are non-human people?

I consider Kanzi and most great apes and dogs and hypothetical AI's to have more of a claim to being people than someone who is braindead.
Basically, if it has a mediumly to highly functioning brain, I consider it a person.

You consider it a person.

Humans don't have the right to say that some humans aren't persons because of lack of certain abilities. That's literally ableism:

discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).
But if someone invited two people and one of them turned one of the other two into a life support for the third (making the third parasitic and life threatening), then the third could be morally removed. If they can be saved, okay.

Presumably, then, could we "abort" fourth-trimester children for being basically dependent on their mothers still, for just about every aspect of their lives?

If medically necessary to save the mother. If the child can also be saved, then by all means save them too.

[Godular]

See, at that point you're being obtuse. I have a separate option for fetal abnormality, and invite posters to specify if they feel it necessary to do so. Polls have a maximum of 10 options, and I worked to cover every base I could think of.

I'll live, but you're shoving a lot of people into an option that you stigmatise, even though they don't agree with it. It seems as if you think that anyone who doesn't support abortion in cases of rape (a stance that some pro-lifers hold), for instance, is just a horrible human being. And you're reflecting that in the poll. At least try to have a fair OP.

The OP is freaking fine, I even held off from snarl growling at one bunch over the other in the opening post. For the poll, Option 10 IS unreasonable. Everything else I'm keeping as just-the-facts as I can. Experience has shown that people who scream 'NO ABORTIONS EVER!' rather quickly devise exceptions when confronted, and those exceptions generally fall under one or more of the listed categories.

Medical complications covers a wide variety of circumstances, and if some strike you as justifiable and others not, you're welcome to specify in a post. I've limited space to construct poll options, and if you want me to be nitpicky out the wazoo it just ain't gonna happen.

[United Massachusetts]

Presumably, then, could we "abort" fourth-trimester children for being basically dependent on their mothers still, for just about every aspect of their lives?

If medically necessary to save the mother. If the child can also be saved, then by all means save them too.

You realise that there are only three trimesters, right? A fourth-trimester child is a child under three months of age.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

I consider Kanzi and most great apes and dogs and hypothetical AI's to have more of a claim to being people than someone who is braindead.
Basically, if it has a mediumly to highly functioning brain, I consider it a person.

You consider it a person.

Humans don't have the right to say that some humans aren't persons because of lack of certain abilities. That's literally ableism:

discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

Where do you draw the line between human and non-human then? Would a genetically engineered human-chimp hybrid/chimera be a person? Would a human brain recreated in silicone be human/a person?

[United Massachusetts]

I'll live, but you're shoving a lot of people into an option that you stigmatise, even though they don't agree with it. It seems as if you think that anyone who doesn't support abortion in cases of rape (a stance that some pro-lifers hold), for instance, is just a horrible human being. And you're reflecting that in the poll. At least try to have a fair OP.

The OP is freaking fine, I even held off from snarl growling at one bunch over the other in the opening post. For the poll, Option 10 IS unreasonable. Everything else I'm keeping as just-the-facts as I can. Experience has shown that people who scream 'NO ABORTIONS EVER!' rather quickly devise exceptions when confronted, and those exceptions generally fall under one or more of the listed categories.

Medical complications covers a wide variety of circumstances, and if some strike you as justifiable and others not, you're welcome to specify in a post. I've limited space to construct poll options, and if you want me to be nitpicky out the wazoo it just ain't gonna happen.

That's the problem. We're referring to a specific case, and a huge one. It appears as if you've ignored the most important exception the pro-life community makes.

[Godular]

Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).
But if someone invited two people and one of them turned one of the other two into a life support for the third (making the third parasitic and life threatening), then the third could be morally removed. If they can be saved, okay.

Presumably, then, could we "abort" fourth-trimester children for being basically dependent on their mothers still, for just about every aspect of their lives?

Fourth trimester? Are you being snarky? There are ways to relinquish responsibility for the child once the child has been born, that don't involve killing it.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

If medically necessary to save the mother. If the child can also be saved, then by all means save them too.

You realise that there are only three trimesters, right? A fourth-trimester child is a child under three months of age.

I know that. The only exception I supplied was if medically necessary to save the mother, and if the child (I did not say fetus) can also be saved, then save them as well.

[Zachattack]

It’s a woman’s bodily autonomy, whether you like it or not. You don’t know what she’s going through, and it makes women into state-regulated incubators to for any reason force them to use their own body to actively support another life without consent. Not to mention this could not be fairly enforced if there was heavy restrictions or a ban, and enforcement would involve apprehending women for miscarriages (10-20% of pregnancies) after all of that trauma they’ve already faced, to investigate because it could have been an abortion, often leading to the wrong conclusion… and jail. Abortion should be reduced with accurate sex ed and contraception coverage, which clearly lead to it being needed less.

[United Massachusetts]

You consider it a person.

Humans don't have the right to say that some humans aren't persons because of lack of certain abilities. That's literally ableism:

Where do you draw the line between human and non-human then? Would a genetically engineered human-chimp hybrid/chimera be a person? Would a human brain recreated in silicone be human/a person?

Do they have human genetics?
Are they an organism?
Are they alive?

Any living human organism is a person. That's the definition--the only one that doesn't lend itself to ableism. A human-chimp hybrid does not have human genetics. A brain is not an organism.

A fetus, however, meets the definition.

[Godular]

The OP is freaking fine, I even held off from snarl growling at one bunch over the other in the opening post. For the poll, Option 10 IS unreasonable. Everything else I'm keeping as just-the-facts as I can. Experience has shown that people who scream 'NO ABORTIONS EVER!' rather quickly devise exceptions when confronted, and those exceptions generally fall under one or more of the listed categories.

Medical complications covers a wide variety of circumstances, and if some strike you as justifiable and others not, you're welcome to specify in a post. I've limited space to construct poll options, and if you want me to be nitpicky out the wazoo it just ain't gonna happen.

That's the problem. We're referring to a specific case, and a huge one. It appears as if you've ignored the most important exception the pro-life community makes.

No, I have not. That is what 'medical complications' is for. Freaking yeesh.

[United Massachusetts]

It’s a woman’s bodily autonomy, whether you like it or not. You don’t know what she’s going through, and it makes women into state-regulated incubators to for any reason force them to use their own body to actively support another life without consent. Not to mention this could not be fairly enforced if there was heavy restrictions or a ban, and enforcement would involve apprehending women for miscarriages (10-20% of pregnancies) after all of that trauma they’ve already faced, to investigate because it could have been an abortion, often leading to the wrong conclusion… and jail. Abortion should be reduced with accurate sex ed and contraception coverage, which clearly lead to it being needed less.

A couple points here:

• A fetus is a living human organism seperate from the mother. The case must be made that she has the right to kill such an organism in the name of "bodily autonomy," and you have not made such a case.
• No one in the mainstream pro-life community seriously supports jailing women, or punishing miscarriages. The doctor would be liable

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Where do you draw the line between human and non-human then? Would a genetically engineered human-chimp hybrid/chimera be a person? Would a human brain recreated in silicone be human/a person?

Do they have human genetics?
Are they an organism?
Are they alive?

Any living human organism is a person. That's the definition--the only one that doesn't lend itself to ableism. A human-chimp hybrid does not have human genetics. A brain is not an organism.

A fetus, however, meets the definition.

Human genetics is too narrow. What about other lifeforms that are equally or more intelligent and sapient/sentient? Would a neanderthal or last common ancestor of homo and pan be a person?

[United Massachusetts]

That's the problem. We're referring to a specific case, and a huge one. It appears as if you've ignored the most important exception the pro-life community makes.

No, I have not. That is what 'medical complications' is for. Freaking yeesh.

It covers more than what the pro-life community wants it to. I understand the difficulties of constructing a poll, but this feels like a fairly important one to mess up. Here's what I would have done:

• Unrestricted
• Unrestricted until Point X
• Unrestricted until viability
• danger to life of mother
• social/economic conditions
• rape/incest
• Teen pregnancy
• Other

I feel like such a list would cover the big points, but I don't mean to frustrate you with the matter (as you appear to be). I didn't mean to be rude

[Godular]

Added '/emergencies' to the medical option.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Added '/emergencies' to the medical option.

Could you merge rape and abuse and add an other option? Or perhaps something pertaining to (hypothetical) artificial wombs/(advanced) incubators?

[Telconi]

Presumably, then, could we "abort" fourth-trimester children for being basically dependent on their mothers still, for just about every aspect of their lives?

Fourth trimester? Are you being snarky? There are ways to relinquish responsibility for the child once the child has been born, that don't involve killing it.

Not immediately.

[Godular]

No, I have not. That is what 'medical complications' is for. Freaking yeesh.

It covers more than what the pro-life community wants it to. I understand the difficulties of constructing a poll, but this feels like a fairly important one to mess up.

I did not mess it up. Were this a pen and paper survey I'd have a box to specify if desired.

Hormonal issues can have a massive variety of effects on a woman, with the possibility of bringing her from zero to six feet under in the span of an 'I feel woozy'. If you're sitting there thinking the option is me saying it's A-okay for somebody to say 'HELL WITH THIS PREGNANCY!' because they feel a sudden craving for pickles, when I'm fairly certain THAT is covered in other options, then you're giving folks too little credit, says I.

[United Massachusetts]

Do they have human genetics?
Are they an organism?
Are they alive?

Any living human organism is a person. That's the definition--the only one that doesn't lend itself to ableism. A human-chimp hybrid does not have human genetics. A brain is not an organism.

A fetus, however, meets the definition.

Human genetics is too narrow. What about other lifeforms that are equally or more intelligent and sapient/sentient? Would a neanderthal or last common ancestor of homo and pan be a person?

They'd be considered persons, but not human, in the first case.

All humans are persons; not all persons are human.

Such is the definition. Saying that certain humans are not persons is a very dangerous road to walk down.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

No, I have not. That is what 'medical complications' is for. Freaking yeesh.

It covers more than what the pro-life community wants it to. I understand the difficulties of constructing a poll, but this feels like a fairly important one to mess up. Here's what I would have done:

• Unrestricted
• Unrestricted until Point X
• Unrestricted until viability
• danger to life of mother
• social/economic conditions
• rape/incest
• Teen pregnancy
• Other

I feel like such a list would cover the big points, but I don't mean to frustrate you with the matter (as you appear to be). I didn't mean to be rude

Which of those would you have chosen? What about things regarding self-defense and capital punishment if never?

[The South Falls]

Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.


Would one be justified in killing a person that they welcomed onto a property just because they wanted to?

Eh, the no punishment for women is silly, we punish people who hire hit men, despite not having actually physically harmed anyone.

So If a woman is raped, which is enough trauma, you want to jail her for murder? That's sad.

[Godular]

Added '/emergencies' to the medical option.

Could you merge rape and abuse and add an other option? Or perhaps something pertaining to (hypothetical) artificial wombs/(advanced) incubators?

I'd like to avoid hypotheticals. I kept rape and abuse/incest separate because I have actually noted that some folks will say yes to one but not the other.

[United Massachusetts]

It covers more than what the pro-life community wants it to. I understand the difficulties of constructing a poll, but this feels like a fairly important one to mess up.

I did not mess it up. Were this a pen and paper survey I'd have a box to specify if desired.

Hormonal issues can have a massive variety of effects on a woman, with the possibility of bringing her from zero to six feet under in the span of an 'I feel woozy'. If you're sitting there thinking the option is me saying it's A-okay for somebody to say 'HELL WITH THIS PREGNANCY!' because they feel a sudden craving for pickles, when I'm fairly certain THAT is covered in other options, then you're giving folks too little credit, says I.

Complications was still too vague. For instance, the risk of a miscarriage would be considered a complication. I appreciate the change.