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

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

A fetus does not satisfy the definition of personhood, that's why. If we extend personhood to fetuses at all stages of development, we start getting into all sorts of weird contradictions, such as blastocysts being called people, even though it is just a bunch of about a dozen or so cells...

Are we not all bunches of cells? Why do these particular cells not attain personhood, whereas ours do.

Still not particularly relevant. Even if the fetus were to be treated as a person, it has no right to use the woman’s body without her consent.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Except that’s not the argument
The argument is that it’s self defense

Self defense is a legal concept. So, yes, that is the argument.

Your own law criminalizing it refers to it as self defense

[The New California Republic]

A fetus does not satisfy the definition of personhood, that's why. If we extend personhood to fetuses at all stages of development, we start getting into all sorts of weird contradictions, such as blastocysts being called people, even though it is just a bunch of about a dozen or so cells...

Are we not all bunches of cells? Why do these particular cells not attain personhood, whereas ours do.

37 trillion cells in adults, and sentience and sapience =/= a dozen or so cells without sentience and sapience. Also:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

[Indo-Malaysia]

Except that’s not the argument
The argument is that it’s self defense

Self defense is a legal concept. So, yes, that is the argument.

Argument, debate and actual definitions aside, I keep chuckling at this.

I usually associate it with someone attempting to punch you, so you grab his arm and give him a haymaker to the nose.
Like I saw the comment and imagined a baby and mother having a scrap. I need to clean my head out

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Self defense is a legal concept. So, yes, that is the argument.

Argument, debate and actual definitions aside, I keep chuckling at this.

I usually associate it with someone attempting to punch you, so you grab his arm and give him a haymaker to the nose.
Like I saw the comment and imagined a baby and mother having a scrap. I need to clean my head out

Good job demeaning the concept of unwanted contact. ‘Twould seem there is a little misogyny in the air, courtesy of your breath.

[Telconi]

Self defense is a legal concept. So, yes, that is the argument.

Your own law criminalizing it refers to it as self defense

So?

[Katganistan]

Oh, I long for the day when science will make it possible for *men* to be able to carry a pregnancy to term. Because the day a fetus can be removed from a woman who doesn't want it, and implanted into the man who insists he has a right to his child being born -- I forsee this entire argument ending.

When it's no longer a matter of, "The woman deciding what life is worth!" and more, "Well, *I* don't want it either!" that's when this idiocy will end.

[Telconi]

Oh, I long for the day when science will make it possible for *men* to be able to carry a pregnancy to term. Because the day a fetus can be removed from a woman who doesn't want it, and implanted into the man who insists he has a right to his child being born -- I forsee this entire argument ending.

When it's no longer a matter of, "The woman deciding what life is worth!" and more, "Well, *I* don't want it either!" that's when this idiocy will end.

Why does it need to be a man?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Oh, I long for the day when science will make it possible for *men* to be able to carry a pregnancy to term. Because the day a fetus can be removed from a woman who doesn't want it, and implanted into the man who insists he has a right to his child being born -- I forsee this entire argument ending.

When it's no longer a matter of, "The woman deciding what life is worth!" and more, "Well, *I* don't want it either!" that's when this idiocy will end.

Why does it need to be a man?

Empathy.

[Katganistan]

I just think that abortion should include an opinion from the father, except in cases of incest, rape or abusive relationships. There should be a discussion on whether the baby should be aborted or not by couples. One might convince the other and it might not go wrong

The father is entitled to his opinion. He's just not entitled to force a woman TO abort, or NOT to abort.

[Indo-Malaysia]

Argument, debate and actual definitions aside, I keep chuckling at this.

I usually associate it with someone attempting to punch you, so you grab his arm and give him a haymaker to the nose.
Like I saw the comment and imagined a baby and mother having a scrap. I need to clean my head out

Good job demeaning the concept of unwanted contact. ‘Twould seem there is a little misogyny in the air, courtesy of your breath.

So because I made a harmless joke on what I typically think of when I see the words 'self defence', I am a misogynist?

Funny story.

Oh, I long for the day when science will make it possible for *men* to be able to carry a pregnancy to term. Because the day a fetus can be removed from a woman who doesn't want it, and implanted into the man who insists he has a right to his child being born -- I forsee this entire argument ending.

When it's no longer a matter of, "The woman deciding what life is worth!" and more, "Well, *I* don't want it either!" that's when this idiocy will end.

'Test tube babies' are a thing of that counts?

[Genivaria]

Oh, I long for the day when science will make it possible for *men* to be able to carry a pregnancy to term. Because the day a fetus can be removed from a woman who doesn't want it, and implanted into the man who insists he has a right to his child being born -- I forsee this entire argument ending.

When it's no longer a matter of, "The woman deciding what life is worth!" and more, "Well, *I* don't want it either!" that's when this idiocy will end.

Why does it need to be a man?

Because the stakes would be very different when they have to put their money where their mouth is.

[Telconi]

Why does it need to be a man?

Empathy.

You do realize there are pro-life women right?

[Telconi]

Why does it need to be a man?

Because the stakes would be very different when they have to put their money where their mouth is.

Eh, why? Adoption exists, and people still support laws against child abuse.

[Genivaria]

Good job demeaning the concept of unwanted contact. ‘Twould seem there is a little misogyny in the air, courtesy of your breath.

So because I made a harmless joke on what I typically think of when I see the words 'self defence', I am a misogynist?

Funny story.

Oh, I long for the day when science will make it possible for *men* to be able to carry a pregnancy to term. Because the day a fetus can be removed from a woman who doesn't want it, and implanted into the man who insists he has a right to his child being born -- I forsee this entire argument ending.

When it's no longer a matter of, "The woman deciding what life is worth!" and more, "Well, *I* don't want it either!" that's when this idiocy will end.

'Test tube babies' are a thing of that counts?

You mean babies that are conceived via in vitro fertilization?
That doesn't really settle the issue.

[Katganistan]

I just think that abortion should include an opinion from the father, except in cases of incest, rape or abusive relationships. There should be a discussion on whether the baby should be aborted or not by couples. One might convince the other and it might not go wrong

I don't agree with abortion unless the mothers life is in danger, that's my perspective, but even when it is legal I think doing it without the consent of the father is a disgusting breech of his rights.

He doesn't own her. He has no right to control her body, either to force an abortion or prevent it.

Otherwise, she should be able to force a man who wants to be her partner to have a vasectomy, so she doesn't have to worry about him getting her pregnant.

You do not have the right to control anyone's body but your own.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Your own law criminalizing it refers to it as self defense

So?

So it’s acknowledging it as self defense right in the meat

[Genivaria]

Because the stakes would be very different when they have to put their money where their mouth is.

Eh, why? Adoption exists, and people still support laws against child abuse.

^this post is why.
Because apparently the 9 months where the woman's body is drastically altered, her immune system is weakened, and could possibly fucking die just isn't worthy of mentioning.

[Katganistan]

Who fucking cares?
It's the woman's body. She's the only Person who's sovereignty over her own body is being questioned. The only condition where the man has a say is if he's the one giving birth. Other than that, his opinion matter as much as any third party's: that is to say, none at all.

Bodily sovereignty is a dumb argument and whichever philosopher developed it was dumb.

It's all a question of proportionality; the right not to be tortured is just that; the right not to be tortured. Likewise the right to not have scientific experiments performed on you is the right not to have scientific experiments performed on you, not some catch-all right to 'bodily sovereignty.' Do I have a right to not breathe air that is polluted if I insist on living in the middle of a big ccity? Of course not; put up with the air or move somewhere else; the same argument exists for if someone insists on standing outside of a pub and insisting that they have a right not to breathe cigarette smoke. We all accept intrusions into our body at some point or other, bodily sovereignty is nonsensical.

I want your kidneys. Now. Bodily sovereignty is nonsensical.

[Telconi]

So?

So it’s acknowledging it as self defense right in the meat

Self defense isn't inherently legal.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Eh, why? Adoption exists, and people still support laws against child abuse.

^this post is why.
Because apparently the 9 months where the woman's body is drastically altered, her immune system is weakened, and could possibly fucking die just isn't worthy of mentioning.

I mean my friend was bulimic while pregnant. She was in terrifying danger

[Telconi]

Eh, why? Adoption exists, and people still support laws against child abuse.

^this post is why.
Because apparently the 9 months where the woman's body is drastically altered, her immune system is weakened, and could possibly fucking die just isn't worthy of mentioning.

Who said that? I didn't.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Bodily sovereignty is a dumb argument and whichever philosopher developed it was dumb.

It's all a question of proportionality; the right not to be tortured is just that; the right not to be tortured. Likewise the right to not have scientific experiments performed on you is the right not to have scientific experiments performed on you, not some catch-all right to 'bodily sovereignty.' Do I have a right to not breathe air that is polluted if I insist on living in the middle of a big ccity? Of course not; put up with the air or move somewhere else; the same argument exists for if someone insists on standing outside of a pub and insisting that they have a right not to breathe cigarette smoke. We all accept intrusions into our body at some point or other, bodily sovereignty is nonsensical.

I want your kidneys. Now. Bodily sovereignty is nonsensical.

Stop murdering innocent kidneys

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Good job demeaning the concept of unwanted contact. ‘Twould seem there is a little misogyny in the air, courtesy of your breath.

So because I made a harmless joke on what I typically think of when I see the words 'self defence', I am a misogynist?

Funny story.

Because in your own ignorance and decided lack of empathy, you made what you think to be a ‘harmless joke’ but is very much an indicator of how much you do not care for what the woman thinks on the matter.

ANY unwanted contact is a harm. It need not be a punch or a kick. It can be a simple as putting your hand on her shoulder when she does not want that contact. Granted in that situation she can just brush your hand away and say ‘don’t touch me’, but what of rape? We’ve stated that in functional terms rape and an unwanted pregnancy are equivalent, in that the woman’s body is being used without her consent.

And you ‘chuckle’.

Yes. Funny story.

[Genivaria]

^this post is why.
Because apparently the 9 months where the woman's body is drastically altered, her immune system is weakened, and could possibly fucking die just isn't worthy of mentioning.

Who said that? I didn't.

That's my point.