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

[Katganistan]

They shouldn't. And for every "they could cure cancer!" there is a "they could be another Stalin/Hiter/Pol Pot/Vlad Tepes" etc.

Vlad Tepes was an respectable man in all fairness. He's a national hero in Romania for good reason.

I'm certain impaling people alive on stakes and nailing their hats to their skulls are the qualities all leaders should have.

[Christian Confederation]

Yes but if rape inset or medical problems make necessary the abortion can be preformed.

Yes but ruining lives is apparently not a factor in deciding if it's necessary. Nobody gives a shit about the woman, nor about the unwanted infant after its born.

That's why adoption exists, there are plenty of infertale couples who would love to have a child.

[Luna Amore]

Something I've asked repeatedly on this thread that noone has answered is this:
Why should a 'future person' carry the same importance as a 'present person'.
In most cases when we talk of something that 'will be' we understand that the implication is that the thing doesn't yet exist.

It's no doubt been answered, you just likely disagree.

It's not a future person. It's a current person. That's the main source of disagreement. You're couching your question on a qualifier that the opposition does not agree with. Until both sides can agree on what 'it' is, there's not a middle ground in sight.

Your question is as silly to me as it would be asking the same of a born baby.

[Katganistan]

They shouldn't. And for every "they could cure cancer!" there is a "they could be another Stalin/Hiter/Pol Pot/Vlad Tepes" etc.

"Yes, yes, what if one of the people I save down there is a child who grows up to be the next Adolf Hitler. Or Khan Singh. Every first year philosophy student has been asked that one since the first wormholes were discovered, but this is not a class in temporal logic!"

Neither should "they could cure cancer!" be a justification for banning abortion, for the same reason.

[Northern Davincia]

It's going to take me a good amount of time to correct your wrongful interpretation of scripture but this one is easy to disprove.
The original translations make it clear that this passage has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

Really? Do explain, when the point of the potion is to make her miscarry 'if she is unfaithful'.

Or is this just "nuh-uh" without explanation? Yep.

That's the issue, the original text does not mention any miscarriage. The potion described has no lethal properties to it, and since the ability to have children is mentioned as a sign of innocence, the passage is referring to infertility.

[Katganistan]

But we're asking about contraception failure. Not rape or medical issues.

The ga law covers that in the first six weeks.

What part of "most women don't realize they are pregnant in the first six weeks" did you not understand?

[Northern Davincia]

Vlad Tepes was an respectable man in all fairness. He's a national hero in Romania for good reason.

I'm certain impaling people alive on stakes and nailing their hats to their skulls are the qualities all leaders should have.

Standard medieval cruelty done for the liberation of his homeland, and I have good reason to question sources made by his rivals.

[Christian Confederation]

The ga law covers that in the first six weeks.

What part of "most women don't realize they are pregnant in the first six weeks" did you not understand?

If they don't want a kid don't do the act

[Katganistan]

Yes but ruining lives is apparently not a factor in deciding if it's necessary. Nobody gives a shit about the woman, nor about the unwanted infant after its born.

That's why adoption exists, there are plenty of infertale couples who would love to have a child.

REALLY?

Almost half a million children in foster care RIGHT NOW.

On any given day, there are nearly 438,000 children in foster care in the United States.

In 2016, over 687,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care.

On average, children remain in state care for nearly two years and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.

Despite the common perception that the majority of children in foster care are very young, the average age of kids entering care is 7.

In 2016, more than half of children entering U.S. foster care were young people of color.

While most children in foster care live in family settings, a substantial minority — 12 percent — live in institutions or group homes.

In 2016, more than 65,000 children – whose mothers’ and fathers’ parental rights had been legally terminated – were waiting to be adopted.

In 2016, more than 20,000 young people aged out of foster care without permanent families. Research has shown that those who leave care without being linked to forever families have a higher likelihood than youth in the general population to experience homelessness, unemployment and incarceration as adults.

While states should work rapidly to find safe permanent homes for kids, on any given day children available for adoption have spent an average of nearly two years waiting to be adopted since their parental rights were terminated.

There are plenty of kids just waiting for YEARS to be adopted, and who AREN'T. This kind of misinformation is reprehensible, especially since the knee-jerk response against abortion is "you can put it up for adoption -- after you've already suffered the health, financial, and societal consequences for having an unplanned pregnancy."

It's worse than simply ignorant -- this argument is flat-out malicious.

[Katganistan]

What part of "most women don't realize they are pregnant in the first six weeks" did you not understand?

If they don't want a kid don't do the act

And what of the father?

[Vassenor]

What part of "most women don't realize they are pregnant in the first six weeks" did you not understand?

If they don't want a kid don't do the act

What part of "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" are you not understanding?

Doubly so when they've used contraception and thus explicitly not consented to the pregnancy by taking every reasonable step to avoid it?

[The New California Republic]

What part of "most women don't realize they are pregnant in the first six weeks" did you not understand?

If they don't want a kid don't do the act

Again contraception can fail. You still haven't addressed that, as you seem to prefer the constant smokescreening by mentioning something else when your argument starts to collapse.

[Genivaria]

Something I've asked repeatedly on this thread that noone has answered is this:
Why should a 'future person' carry the same importance as a 'present person'.
In most cases when we talk of something that 'will be' we understand that the implication is that the thing doesn't yet exist.

It's no doubt been answered, you just likely disagree.

It's not a future person. It's a current person. That's the main source of disagreement. You're couching your question on a qualifier that the opposition does not agree with. Until both sides can agree on what 'it' is, there's not a middle ground in sight.

Your question is as silly to me as it would be asking the same of a born baby.

Then you haven't seen the arguments which frame it as 'it has the potential to be a person'.

You're couching your question on a qualifier that the opposition does not agree with.

Bullshit.

[Genivaria]

What part of "most women don't realize they are pregnant in the first six weeks" did you not understand?

If they don't want a kid don't do the act

When your only argument is a one-liner.

"If you don't want to get in an accident, don't drive."
"If you don't want to drown, don't go to the beach."
"If you don't want to be mauled by a bear, don't go in the woods."

This is an utterly stupid argument that frames consent to a risk as consent to the consequence which if we took that to its logical conclusion would completely invalidate every kind of insurance.

[Hardholm]

I believe the only circumstances that one can kill an unborn child (please refrain from zingers like "It isn't alive", yes it is. And "it isn't a child", by definition, the unborn are children) is similar to that which one can kill a born child or any other person. Self-Defense, War, and Capital Punishment.

Obviously, the child is not going to be put to death for any offense it has made and so the last is out. Hopefully no legitimate authority is targeting unborn children for war. And therefore, the last option for legitimate, moral homicide is self-defense.

If the woman's life is under immediate and severe threat, then, yes, under those circumstances, an unborn can be tragically killed in self-defense. Under no other circumstances do I believe that an abortion should be legal. I believe that those who kill unborn children/abortionists should be viewed and dealt with in the same way the legal system would deal with someone who kills a born child or infant or what have you, and I do believe capital punishment is legitimately invoked in those circumstances through the processes of the legal system. The mother is likely a victim of pressures, emotional manipulation, and so forth and so is likely under duress of some sort or at the very least brainwashed.

Those are my views, I'm happy to explain my views to the best of my ability and have a discussion on where we agree/disagree, but typically don't enjoy debates.

Have a good day.

[Genivaria]

I believe the only circumstances that one can kill an unborn child (please refrain from zingers like "It isn't alive", yes it is. And "it isn't a child", by definition, the unborn are children) is similar to that which one can kill a born child or any other person. Self-Defense, War, and Capital Punishment.

Obviously, the child is not going to be put to death for any offense it has made and so the last is out. Hopefully no legitimate authority is targeting unborn children for war. And therefore, the last option for legitimate, moral homicide is self-defense.

If the woman's life is under immediate and severe threat, then, yes, under those circumstances, an unborn can be tragically killed in self-defense. Under no other circumstances do I believe that an abortion should be legal. I believe that those who kill unborn children/abortionists should be viewed and dealt with in the same way the legal system would deal with someone who kills a born child or infant or what have you, and I do believe capital punishment is legitimately invoked in those circumstances through the processes of the legal system. The mother is likely a victim of pressures, emotional manipulation, and so forth and so is likely under duress of some sort or at the very least brainwashed.

Those are my views, I'm happy to explain my views to the best of my ability and have a discussion on where we agree/disagree, but typically don't enjoy debates.

Have a good day.

And "it isn't a child", by definition, the unborn are children

Please prove this. Why should a fetus be equated to a child?

[Hardholm]

And "it isn't a child", by definition, the unborn are children

Please prove this. Why should a fetus be equated to a child?

From Merriam-Webster

child noun, often attributive
\ ˈchī(-ə)ld \
plural children\ ˈchil-​drən , -​dərn \
Definition of child (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : an unborn or recently born person

It is, by definition, a child from the point of cellular division/zygote stages. Development of humans starts at the first cellular division and goes all the way to the mid-20s in many. So, the end stages of childhood is a bit muddy, and I'm not certain where it ends, but it is pretty firm where it begins. I hope this helps? I know that words can be defined different ways, and that there has been a push recently to redefine children as only post-birth, but I think that is disingenuous! I hope that I don't come off as haughty or anything, but I care about what words mean and how they are misused for political weaponry.

Please have a good day, and if you have any more questions, let me know!

[Genivaria]

Please prove this. Why should a fetus be equated to a child?

From Merriam-Webster

child noun, often attributive
\ ˈchī(-ə)ld \
plural children\ ˈchil-​drən , -​dərn \
Definition of child (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : an unborn or recently born person

It is, by definition, a child from the point of cellular division/zygote stages. Development of humans starts at the first cellular division and goes all the way to the mid-20s in many. So, the end stages of childhood is a bit muddy, and I'm not certain where it ends, but it is pretty firm where it begins. I hope this helps? I know that words can be defined different ways, and that there has been a push recently to redefine children as only post-birth, but I think that is disingenuous! I hope that I don't come off as haughty or anything, but I care about what words mean and how they are misused for political weaponry.

Please have a good day, and if you have any more questions, let me know!

And why SHOULD a fetus be equated with a child? Can you answer that?

[Hardholm]

And why SHOULD a fetus be equated with a child? Can you answer that?

I'm sorry, I don't think I properly understand your question, but I'll do my best! For me, there isn't any real difference between a child at first cellular division and when they're born or when they're 8 or 9 or so on. They're just bigger or smaller, more or less capable at taking care of themselves, etc.

So, for me, it isn't a how or why, it is just that they are. It is definitional. A child will be a child from the start to ... Whenever it isn't a child anymore ^_^

[Genivaria]

And why SHOULD a fetus be equated with a child? Can you answer that?

I'm sorry, I don't think I properly understand your question, but I'll do my best! For me, there isn't any real difference between a child at first cellular division and when they're born or when they're 8 or 9 or so on. They're just bigger or smaller, more or less capable at taking care of themselves, etc.

So, for me, it isn't a how or why, it is just that they are. It is definitional. A child will be a child from the start to ... Whenever it isn't a child anymore ^_^

For me, there isn't any real difference between a child at first cellular division and when they're born or when they're 8 or 9 or so on. They're just bigger or smaller, more or less capable at taking care of themselves, etc.

There are as many differences between a fetus and a child as there are between a single cell and an elephant.
It's a rather silly statement to make that there are no differences.

[Nanocyberia]

Merriam-Webster is the first dictionary I've ever heard of that defines 'child' as unborn or 'recently born'. But then, coming from the USA, being mostly hardline conservative, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Most dictionaries do not define a child in such a manner--never have, never will. (I only write "most" because I'm guessing at this point I could be in for a shock...)
The stages are fetus, baby, child, teenager, etc...

[Hardholm]

AN: I hope I don't come off as someone who hunted down a definition to suit my needs. I'm sure, sooner or later, MW will "catch up" to everyone else and eliminate their recognition of unborn children as children, but that is of little matter to me either way. It is nice to point to, but I do realize that words have different meanings for people. Even if I were to strictly refer to them as whatever term, it wouldn't change my opinion or how I think of the matter.

I do think, though, that insistence upon certain words is meant largely for political weaponization. Referring to a child as a child might be meant for emotional response or zygote/whatever for dehumanization.

Edit: I don't mean that that's what any of you mean/are disingenuous, I've just found that to be the case.

I'm sorry, I don't think I properly understand your question, but I'll do my best! For me, there isn't any real difference between a child at first cellular division and when they're born or when they're 8 or 9 or so on. They're just bigger or smaller, more or less capable at taking care of themselves, etc.

So, for me, it isn't a how or why, it is just that they are. It is definitional. A child will be a child from the start to ... Whenever it isn't a child anymore ^_^

For me, there isn't any real difference between a child at first cellular division and when they're born or when they're 8 or 9 or so on. They're just bigger or smaller, more or less capable at taking care of themselves, etc.

There are as many differences between a fetus and a child as there are between a single cell and an elephant.
It's a rather silly statement to make that there are no differences.

Well, I don't see it that way per se. Seeing as how they are indeed humans in whatever developmental stage between inception and mid-20s they are. They all have an intrinsic right to life. I'm sure you disagree but that's ok. I see that we won't agree, but I'm glad to talk to you.

[Genivaria]

AN: I hope I don't come off as someone who hunted down a definition to suit my needs. I'm sure, sooner or later, MW will "catch up" to everyone else and eliminate their recognition of unborn children as children, but that is of little matter to me either way. It is nice to point to, but I do realize that words have different meanings for people. Even if I were to strictly refer to them as whatever term, it wouldn't change my opinion or how I think of the matter.

I do think, though, that insistence upon certain words is meant largely for political weaponization. Referring to a child as a child might be meant for emotional response or zygote/whatever for dehumanization.

Edit: I don't mean that that's what any of you mean/are disingenuous, I've just found that to be the case.

There are as many differences between a fetus and a child as there are between a single cell and an elephant.
It's a rather silly statement to make that there are no differences.

Well, I don't see it that way per se. Seeing as how they are indeed humans in whatever developmental stage between inception and mid-20s they are. They all have an intrinsic right to life. I'm sure you disagree but that's ok. I see that we won't agree, but I'm glad to talk to you.

Whether or not they are human is not the point of dispute, it's whether a fetus is equatable to a child.
So you're saying you cannot defend your claim?

[Hardholm]

Whether or not they are human is not the point of dispute, it's whether a fetus is equatable to a child.
So you're saying you cannot defend your claim?

Well, I only made a point of it to express that comparing a random cell to an elephant isn't correct.

But I don't see how one can defend/attack a personally held belief like "unborn children are children". If you like, you can exchange the term for what you like and my beliefs remain equivalent across the board.

I don't intend to debate/argue with you over the matter? Just explain what I think and try and make it as clear as possible.

Am I clear in what I believe? If not, please inquire about what specifically I have not been clear about and I'll try again.

Again, here for discussion and not debate

[The New California Republic]

I believe the only circumstances that one can kill an unborn child (please refrain from zingers like "It isn't alive", yes it is.

Nobody here is arguing that it isn't; so please refrain from trying to strawman the entire thread with your very first post here.

---

please refrain from zingers like "It isn't alive", yes it is. And "it isn't a child", by definition, the unborn are children)

It isn't a child:

a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

---

mother is likely a victim of pressures, emotional manipulation, and so forth and so is likely under duress of some sort or at the very least brainwashed.

The actual fuck is this? So in your view the woman isn't really choosing to have an abortion, but is just a victim? What a crock of condescending shit.