Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:01 am
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:08 am
The New California Republic wrote:Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.
by The Free Joy State » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:28 am
The New California Republic wrote:Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.
by Ghost Land » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.
by The V O I D » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:58 pm
Ghost Land wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.
BOOO!
On a more serious note, I'm surprised it was banned until now anyway, considering how socially liberal most of Europe is. Either way, even despite living in a country where abortion has been legal since 1973, I'm still very much pro-life and am thus disappointed in Higgins' decision.
by Ghost Land » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:12 pm
The V O I D wrote:Ghost Land wrote:BOOO!
On a more serious note, I'm surprised it was banned until now anyway, considering how socially liberal most of Europe is. Either way, even despite living in a country where abortion has been legal since 1973, I'm still very much pro-life and am thus disappointed in Higgins' decision.
How are human rights a mistake? Please explain.
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:29 pm
Ghost Land wrote:I don't consider the ability to get an abortion a human right unless going through with the pregnancy would put the mother or baby's life in danger, or maybe in the case of PROVEN rape.
Ghost Land wrote:"I don't like you" isn't a valid reason for killing someone who has been born, so why is it a valid reason for killing your own unborn baby? Come on now.
by The V O I D » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:00 pm
Ghost Land wrote:The V O I D wrote:
How are human rights a mistake? Please explain.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said human rights were a mistake; then again, I don't consider the ability to get an abortion a human right unless going through with the pregnancy would put the mother or baby's life in danger, or maybe in the case of PROVEN rape. "I don't like you" isn't a valid reason for killing someone who has been born, so why is it a valid reason for killing your own unborn baby? Come on now.
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:51 pm
by Ghost Land » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:17 pm
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:Ghost Land wrote:
How about ‘You are using my body without my consent and this is not acceptable?’
That’s a damn good reason to use all necessary force against born persons, and it doesn’t even require this silly presumption of malice you up and pinned on the woman like a donkey tail.
Ghost Land wrote:A quick Google search will reveal that fetuses begin having brain function about 43 days in, can hear from about 23 weeks in, and can detect light via its eyes from about 16 weeks in (having virtually fully developed eyes by 26 weeks). I'd imagine most fetuses just prior to an abortion are some combination of confused, alarmed, or terrified for their own lives.
I'm not going to let myself get dragged too far into this cesspit of a thread, considering it's late and I don't particularly like posting too much here in NSG anyway.
by Attempted Socialism » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:27 pm
This kind of logic never made sense to me. If you consider abortion to be killing a baby (Even though that's a mockery of both language and legal definitions), what is it about a rape that suddenly makes it okay to kill a third entity? If the foetus becomes a person at conception, why does it lose its rights because one parent was a rapist?Ghost Land wrote:The V O I D wrote:
How are human rights a mistake? Please explain.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said human rights were a mistake; then again, I don't consider the ability to get an abortion a human right unless going through with the pregnancy would put the mother or baby's life in danger, or maybe in the case of PROVEN rape. "I don't like you" isn't a valid reason for killing someone who has been born, so why is it a valid reason for killing your own unborn baby? Come on now.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Personhood and exceptions
Some anti-choice activists allow for a single line of exceptions: “Rape, incest and life of the mother.” This seems to be from a political analysis that these cases are especially onerous, and it is hard to argue to an electorate that a woman has to bear a child forced upon her by a rapist. However, this quickly runs into an issue, namely that these same advocates also often proclaim life or personhood to start at conception. This means that anti-choice advocates need to square the rights of foetuses based on the method of their conception, rather than any criteria based on rights. For this exception alone, under their definition of personhood, persons can lose their rights based on the acts of their parents, and (Again under their definition of personhood) be legally killed without an investigation, something we do not allow anywhere else.
For any more sensible personhood definition, this is not an issue.
Attemped Socialism wrote:Reconsidering rape, incest and life of the mother
The stated logic from anti-choice advocates with these exceptions is often to avoid punishing women for actions beyond their control. A woman may be a victim of rape or incest, and it would be too onerous to demand that she carries the result of a crime to term; likewise with a pregnancy putting the life of the woman at risk. Women who have sex without protection, or where protection fails, are considered to be responsible for and having consented to the pregnancy – often with some kind of implicit shaming for the perceived promiscuousness or lack of responsibility. Accepting these exceptions will afford legislators some degree of apparent empathy, and possibly protect them from counterclaims about punishing the victims.
However, such exceptions build on foundational considerations of personhood that directly contradict other common anti-choice claims: First and foremost, allowing rape victims access to abortion is conceding a common pro-choice idea, namely that consent is crucial. A woman who did not consent to sex did not consent to becoming pregnant, and ought not be burdened with a rapist’ foetus. Furthermore, it acknowledges that a woman’s consent to sex (Which so far, by the earlier ‘logic’, means consent to pregnancy) matters more than a claim of ‘right to life’ by the foetus.
Insofar that hypothetically consensual incest exists (I.e. that not all incest is also rape, by definition) an exception for incest offers a further point: Aborting in such a case would be to avoid congenital diseases and disorders, in other words that medical reasons also supersede a foetus’ ‘right to life’. It also enables punishing what anti-choice advocates consistently claims to be a person to be punished for the hypothetically consensual acts of their parents; a thoroughly evil concept.
Lastly, ‘life of the mother’ also accepts, explicitly, that when on a balanced scale, weighing one ‘life’ against the life of a woman, the life of a woman, an actual person, weighs the most.
Any anti-choice advocate who accepts these three exceptions implicitly also accept the logic behind two of the major reasons why abortions occur, namely lack of consent to becoming pregnant, and medical reasons for either foetus or woman. This directly undermines the logic of such anti-choice advocates, as their ‘right to life’ is now subject to the woman’s consent and life, and the foetus’ congenital diseases and disorders. A woman withdrawing consent supersedes the ‘right to life’ for any anti-choice advocate who thinks these three exceptions are fair.
Their advocacy is directly antithetical of a logical underpinning to their claimed position.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:33 pm
Ghost Land wrote:I was having a genuinely really good day until I came into this thread and found myself getting flamed for the sole reason of being pro-life.
by Ghost Land » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:34 pm
Attempted Socialism wrote:-snip-
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:35 pm
Ghost Land wrote:(And that will be my last post in this thread tonight, or, for that matter, ever.)
by Attempted Socialism » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:39 pm
Your "concession" regaring rape, or the life of the mother, is really a demolishment of your own argument. It's the admission that you don't think foetuses are persons, and that you don't even know enough to recognise your own argument when put in slightly formal terms. Of the three options I put to you, you apparently picked #3. I don't think you agree with my comments, rather, I think you misunderstand both my comments and the position you hold.Ghost Land wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:-snip-
Personally, I do agree with your comments, hence why I said "maybe" in the event of a proven rape, which was pretty much just added to my post as a concession to the pro-choice side. If anything, your post actually pushed me farther into the pro-life camp, and I very much appreciate your insight.
Cheers!
I'm sure someone will miss you.(And that will be my last post in this thread tonight, or, for that matter, ever.)
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:03 pm
Ghost Land wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
How about ‘You are using my body without my consent and this is not acceptable?’
That’s a damn good reason to use all necessary force against born persons, and it doesn’t even require this silly presumption of malice you up and pinned on the woman like a donkey tail.
Where is there a "silly presumption of malice" in my posts?
Keep in mind that there is a very simple, 100% effective way of avoiding getting pregnant in the first place: not having sex to begin with.
There are also many forms of contraception and barrier methods that are over 90% effective.
Plain and simple, the ability to get an abortion is NOT a "human right". It is not listed anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as such cannot be presumed to be anywhere near the same caliber as the right to food, the right to an education, or any of the other 28 listed.
I was having a genuinely really good day until I came into this thread and found myself getting flamed for the sole reason of being pro-life.
I believe that life begins very shortly after conception, and this is easily confirmed by basic science and Google searching too; a 27-week-old (or whatever) fetus is still sentient to an extent.
While it is true that it's still only crudely developed, consider that the human brain isn't fully developed until around age 24-25, and I doubt anyone in this thread would support killing born children up to that age for the sole reason of being "unwanted".
Plain and simple, getting an abortion, especially in the latter stages of pregnancy, is virtually wholly selfish, and no amount of flaming can make me think otherwise.
And everything I said in the quoted portion of this post I made on this subject still applies:Ghost Land wrote:A quick Google search will reveal that fetuses begin having brain function about 43 days in, can hear from about 23 weeks in, and can detect light via its eyes from about 16 weeks in (having virtually fully developed eyes by 26 weeks). I'd imagine most fetuses just prior to an abortion are some combination of confused, alarmed, or terrified for their own lives.
I'm not going to let myself get dragged too far into this cesspit of a thread, considering it's late and I don't particularly like posting too much here in NSG anyway.
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:05 pm
Ghost Land wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:-snip-
Personally, I do agree with some of your comments, hence why I said "maybe" in the event of a proven rape, which was pretty much just added to my post as a concession to the pro-choice side. I failed to consider how long it takes to prove a rape, and by no means am I advocating for any form of "I don't like it" as a valid reason for abortion. If anything, your post actually pushed me farther into the pro-life camp.
Cheers!
(And that will be my last post in this thread tonight, or, for that matter, ever.)
by Katganistan » Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:54 pm
by The Free Joy State » Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:11 pm
Katganistan wrote:This is a necessary step for human rights in Ireland. Hopefully they too will provide the supports that make abortion a last resort (education, access to birth control, etc.)
There is no clinical reason why women should still require a prescription for oral or transdermal contraceptives. The oral contraceptive is one of the safest and most well-studied medicines available. The renowned medical journal, the Lancet, has long recommended non-prescription availability; there are numerous studies showing that it is safe for women to obtain contraceptives without a doctor’s prescription and that women will still visit doctors for gynaecological exams and screening for cervical cancer and sexually transmitted infections.
by Richtlant » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:06 pm
by Kowani » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:19 pm
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:23 pm
Richtlant wrote:When you abort a baby you basically execute innocent person without any accusation or trial.
Richtlant wrote:Well, I think that I can say now that if you approve such things you are worse than Stalin who was worse than Hitler. Just kidding, you aren't worse than Stalin. But seriously folks, don't do abortion, it's bullshit.
by San Lumen » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:32 pm
Richtlant wrote:When you abort a baby you basically execute innocent person without any accusation or trial. Well, I think that I can say now that if you approve such things you are worse than Stalin who was worse than Hitler. Just kidding, you aren't worse than Stalin. But seriously folks, don't do abortion, it's bullshit.
by Richtlant » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:35 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Richtlant wrote:When you abort a baby you basically execute innocent person without any accusation or trial.
Fetuses aren't people.Richtlant wrote:Well, I think that I can say now that if you approve such things you are worse than Stalin who was worse than Hitler. Just kidding, you aren't worse than Stalin. But seriously folks, don't do abortion, it's bullshit.
Why?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: ARIsyan-, Bienenhalde, Elejamie, Fahran, Gaybeans, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Hypron, Ineva, Laforeia, Narmossia, Southglory, Soviet Haaregrad, The Apollonian Systems, The Uncontroversiality, Turenia, Umbratellus, Uvolla, Valyxias, Yasuragi, Ytp, Zurkerx
Advertisement