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

[Ifreann]

A person who chooses not to have sex is, probably, entirely capable of reproducing. So if the King's desire for more subjects can justify forcing a woman to stay pregnant and produce a new subject, why can that desire not justify forcing a woman to become pregnant and stay pregnant and produce a new subject?

I suspect the difference is that you believe that banning abortions would be a peaceful, non-violent affair, but that forcing women to become pregnant would be some brutal atrocity. But arresting women for seeking or procuring an abortion is violence. Locking up those women and anyone who helped them is violence. It's just violence that we're used to. We only think of things as violent if they stick out from that usual violence that happens every day, almost like getting used to a smell and not noticing it any more. But whether you can smell it or not, you're talking about using violence against people to make them produce new subjects for the King.

You are taking this the wrong way around. If there were a law requiring women to produce, or attempt to produce, children, then this would be a valid justification. Similarly, a law against abortion would be justified by this. That is, if such a law were in place, this would be a reason to retain the law. It could be a reason to create the law as well, but unless there is an urgent requirement for new subjects, I would say that other considerations, such as moral and ethical ones, would be more pertinent.

You're gonna be in for quite a shock when you catch up to the modern world and learn about people having rights and governments having limited power.

Also, your characterisation of abortion criminalisation as being inherently violent is false. If people followed the law, there would be no violence.

There would be the threat of violence, because laws are enforced with violence.

Similarly, forcing women to have sex would in theory not require any violent act or compulsion.

Definitionally false. Like, seriously, look at the sentence you just wrote. How can you force someone to do anything without violence or compulsion? It's contradictory.

The difference is that stopping abortions requires a person to cease from a voluntary act, whereas forcing women to have sex is requiring a person to do an act, and forcing people to do an act is more likely to require force or violence to enforce, than a law that prohibits a person from doing something which must be actively sought out. It is just human nature to resist being forced to do an act. Is it in human nature to follow prohibitions? I would imagine that we are more happy to not do something than to be forced to do something.

Do you imagine that the prohibition of drugs is enforced without violence? Don't be ridiculous. Banning abortion would require violence to enforce.

[Dumb Ideologies]

As a pure ethical/moral matter, abortion is definitely not a good thing. But it's not a dilemma to be considered in the abstract, or in isolation, as this misses a lot of the picture. We don't live in (and can't realistically create) an ideal, "non-messy" world where all relationships are based on good communication, responsibility, full and open consent, exemplary family planning, and no "mistakes" or lapses in preventative technology. As such, draconian restrictions on abortion tend to increase human suffering. People will find themselves in bad situations, often through little or no fault of their own. They will then seek backstreet abortions if they are in particularly bad personal and/or financial circumstances, and the state will struggle to support excess children put up for adoption or neglected by parents who never wanted them. I get the feeling it's mostly self-centred signalling of religious virtue by politicians wrapped up in their own ideas of ideological purity rather than an attempt to genuinely create better social policy that serves the common good.

[Liriena]

I get the feeling it's mostly self-centred signalling of religious virtue by politicians wrapped up in their own ideas of ideological purity rather than an attempt to genuinely create better social policy that serves the common good.

Agreed.

[Great Nortend]

You are taking this the wrong way around. If there were a law requiring women to produce, or attempt to produce, children, then this would be a valid justification. Similarly, a law against abortion would be justified by this. That is, if such a law were in place, this would be a reason to retain the law. It could be a reason to create the law as well, but unless there is an urgent requirement for new subjects, I would say that other considerations, such as moral and ethical ones, would be more pertinent.

You're gonna be in for quite a shock when you catch up to the modern world and learn about people having rights and governments having limited power.

Rights are given to the people or recognised by laws.

Also, your characterisation of abortion criminalisation as being inherently violent is false. If people followed the law, there would be no violence.

There would be the threat of violence, because laws are enforced with violence.

Isn't that what I have already said?

Similarly, forcing women to have sex would in theory not require any violent act or compulsion.

Definitionally false. Like, seriously, look at the sentence you just wrote. How can you force someone to do anything without violence or compulsion? It's contradictory.

I admit I phrased that badly. Requiring women to have sex would not in theory require any violence or physical compulsion.

The difference is that stopping abortions requires a person to cease from a voluntary act, whereas forcing women to have sex is requiring a person to do an act, and forcing people to do an act is more likely to require force or violence to enforce, than a law that prohibits a person from doing something which must be actively sought out. It is just human nature to resist being forced to do an act. Is it in human nature to follow prohibitions? I would imagine that we are more happy to not do something than to be forced to do something.

Do you imagine that the prohibition of drugs is enforced without violence? Don't be ridiculous. Banning abortion would require violence to enforce.

[/quote]
It would require the threat of violence to enforce. If everyone complied, there would not need to be any violence. Of course not all people are likely to comply. But in theory there is no inherent need for actual violence.

[Liriena]

Multiple American state governments are just dying to force little girls to die giving birth, aren't they?

Some political movements are just dead weight for the rest of humanity.

[The New California Republic]

Requiring women to have sex would not in theory require any violence or physical compulsion.

Of course it would. What the fuck man?

[Liriena]

Requiring women to have sex would not in theory require any violence or physical compulsion.

Of course it would. What the fuck man?

It's like a rabbit hole of increasingly terrible ideas.

[The New California Republic]

Of course it would. What the fuck man?

It's like a rabbit hole of increasingly terrible ideas.

I just hope that he realizes that and decides to keep shtum instead of making it even worse than it already is.

[Jebslund]

The question must be what the problem actually is. My interpretation is that the problem in the case of abortion is raising the child (excluding the very rare cases of danger to health). Responsibility is not about what one wants. That's like the polar opposite of responsibility. Responsibility is what must be done in a circumstance which has arisen. Sure, in many cases you can avoid the creation of the circumstance which entails responsibility (such as in pregnancy too!), but if such a situation arises, responsibility is what you 'should' do.

What you want *does* factor into it, actually, as it is incredibly irresponsible to agree to a job you are unwilling to perform, as you would not give your all in performing it.

As to what the problem is, the problem, in the case of people who do not wish to be parents, is birthing the child at all, not to mention going through the difficulties of pregnancy, not just raising a child. And avoiding the creation of a child is not as simple as you imagine. Birth control can fail, and lifelong abstinence is unreasonable to demand from the vast majority of humans, and unhealthy besides.

Indeed, you have the chance to avoid taking on a job by not signing the contract of employment. But once you have signed, you can't just terminate it (well maybe you can) at your own discretion without suffering penalty. Same as in abortion. You can avoid the burden of a child by not conceiving one.

First off, getting pregnant isn't signing on to be a parent. That part comes at the 24-week point, when you are carrying a sapient being and not a bundle of cells with no more will or volition than your liver or your lungs. Also useful to note is the fact that the majority of elective abortions are performed after other methods of preventing pregnancy have failed. Contraception is not perfect, even when properly layered.

Second, yes, actually, you can voluntarily terminate your employment without penalty, so long as your employment contract did not stipulate a minimum length of employment or otherwise forbid you to do so, and, even then, such contracts do not hold up in countries/states that practice At-Will Employment.

Would such children have likely preferred to have a stable childhood? Yes. Would they prefer not existing over a potentially unstable and erratic childhood? I would wager not.

Would you like to hear the story of a ten-year-old who tried to kill himself by swallowing dish soap and wished on an almost daily basis that he'd never been born due to the actions of his abusive mother? Or the statistics for children in foster care who are abused? Or the levels of neglect and child homelessness that occur because the system already has more children than it can handle and too many fall through the cracks? Or how that unstable childhood you so blithely dismiss often leads to lifelong homelessness and/or people turning to crime?

It may be unreasonable, but would the criminalisation of abortion and contraceptives and heavy enforcement of such laws induce abstinence? Probably. I'm not advocating for that, but if there are punishments then abstinence would become much more appealing.

About as much as the 18th Amendment induced sobriety.

Spoiler alert: It didn't. In fact, it caused *more* alcohol-related deaths and problems because people turned to inexpertly making their own alcohol or buying it from smugglers/illegal brewers/the Mafia, which lead to unregulated alcohol often being toxic and/or contaminated in ways that often lead to painful deaths. There's a reason the term 'rotgut' cam into being.

Making it illegal to have sex or use contraceptives won't stop people from having sex or inventing their own contraceptives. You're delusional if you think it will.

Again, only if people flaunt the law. And even if it does require violence, arresting someone is far less violent than being sucked out of a womb and being killed.

And once again, I find myself dealing with someone who has no clue what he's on about.

First off, arresting isn't the only violence involved. Prison is rather violent, especially when people are lead to believe their fellow inmates have harmed children (and no, a fetus is not a child. A human is not a child until they are born, nor are they a legal person until then. As for whether or not they *should* be considered a person, sapience isn't even possible until the 24-week point.).

Additionally, if you're talking about that old hoax of a fetus being dragged out of the womb and then dismembered, you've not done your research.

Abortions are also not generally performed on people unless there's a medical need. Elective abortions beyond the 24-week point are incredibly rare.

Also, that "It only requires violence if people flaunt the law" is like saying "There's only a need for auto insurance if people get into wrecks". People *will* flaunt it, just as people *will* get into wrecks, because we are dealing with humans, who are flawed and adverse to being told what they can and cannot do. This argument that violence is not required to enforce prohibition is nothing more than self-serving rationalisation of the "Well, the only people violence will be enacted upon are the ones who are bad" variety that accomplishes nothing save acting as a piss-poor excuse to avoid the question of "*Should* it be illegal?".

[Crockerland]

You're gonna be in for quite a shock when you catch up to the modern world and learn about people having rights and governments having limited power.

Rights are given to the people or recognised by laws.

Rights exist whether governments choose to recognize them or not, they are not "given" to the people by the state, that is the entire point of rights, and what differentiates them from privileges. This seems to be an alien concept to many Europeans.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Im not going to justify those posts with a quote. But requiring women to become pregnant when they do not wish to be, or requiring them to remain pregnant when they do not wish to be, is an act of violence even if 100% compliance is attained. You don't suddenly not become a rapist if your victim doesn't fight.

[Jebslund]

Rights are given to the people or recognised by laws.

Rights exist whether governments choose to recognize them or not, they are not "given" to the people by the state, that is the entire point of rights, and what differentiates them from privileges. This seems to be an alien concept to many Europeans.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

It is, in fact, true that rights are recognised by laws. Without said laws and the government's willingness to keep to and enforce them, those rights may exist on paper, but are not there in practice.

Where he is wrong is the implication that said rights are things that *should* only be granted at the pleasure of the government.

[Ifreann]

You're gonna be in for quite a shock when you catch up to the modern world and learn about people having rights and governments having limited power.

Rights are given to the people or recognised by laws.

Nah, we human rights now.

There would be the threat of violence, because laws are enforced with violence.

Isn't that what I have already said?

Definitionally false. Like, seriously, look at the sentence you just wrote. How can you force someone to do anything without violence or compulsion? It's contradictory.

I admit I phrased that badly. Requiring women to have sex would not in theory require any violence or physical compulsion.

Do you imagine that the prohibition of drugs is enforced without violence? Don't be ridiculous. Banning abortion would require violence to enforce.

It would require the threat of violence to enforce. If everyone complied, there would not need to be any violence. Of course not all people are likely to comply. But in theory there is no inherent need for actual violence.

And threatened violence is still, you know, bad.

[Saiwania]

And yet abortion - one of the ways to deal with the consequences - is off the table.

It isn't off the table, unless where you're at has made abortion illegal or unavailable. If not going through with a pregnancy, a woman has to find a way to get the procedure done anyways (illegally) or to travel to a place where they can get an abortion done. While they're free to do whatever they can to be able to get an abortion, people aren't obligated to make that process easy or accessible for them- they might have to keep looking until they find someone if not a locale that will allow for it to be done.

I presented "not getting an abortion" as a valid option that some women could take, even if the net outcome from doing this; might not be as financially ideal for them. I've concluded that most of the women who opt to not get an abortion, must not want one badly enough.

[Cappuccina]

Multiple American state governments are just dying to force little girls to die giving birth, aren't they?

Some political movements are just dead weight for the rest of humanity.

I'll agree,as a pro-lifer myself, that the popular incarnation of the position isn't well thought out. They come at it with what amounts to punishment for becoming a mother, making abortion illegal then not making necessary policy to ease maternal hardships (which we can all agree there are), shitty maternity laws and such. It isn't enough to be anti-abortion, we need to be pro-motherhood.

[Jebslund]

And yet abortion - one of the ways to deal with the consequences - is off the table.

It isn't off the table, unless where you're at has made abortion illegal or unavailable. If not going through with a pregnancy, a woman has to find a way to get the procedure done anyways (illegally) or to travel to a place where they can get an abortion done. While they're free to do whatever they can to be able to get an abortion, people aren't obligated to make that process easy or accessible for them- they might have to keep looking until they find someone if not a locale that will allow for it to be done.

I presented "not getting an abortion" as a valid option that some women could take, even if the net outcome from doing this; might not be as financially ideal for them. I've concluded that most of the women who opt to not get an abortion, must not want one badly enough.

Ah, yes... The good ol' "Well, if they REEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYY wanted it, they'd jump through the millions of hoops I've unnecessarily put in their way, even though they're paraplegics who couldn't jump to save their lives!". Well, here's one for you: If pro-lifers really cared about saving lives, they'd make it illegal to pay poverty-level wages to anyone who works full-time.

Don't you ever get tired of talking out of your ass?

[Saiwania]

"Neglect your kids a little"? Are you really promoting child neglect/abuse right now? And you clearly have no fucking idea what the hell your talking about right now. Raising a child is expensive as hell and is very time consuming and one of the hardest things for someone to do. It is a major fucking deal.

Neglect is the opposite of spoiling in my mind. I consider it to be a situation where you can afford to get your kid nice things, but you intentionally choose not to. If you provide the basics, it isn't inherently abusive. Raising a child doesn't necessarily have to be expensive, I'd say it depends on how you go about it. It apparently isn't expensive for people in the poorer countries to reproduce and keep their children alive, which is a huge problem globally speaking. It's a major problem that the majority non-White countries are breeding too abundantly but the majority White countries aren't.

Being a parent is so "hard?" -give me a break. It is as hard as someone makes it generally speaking. I'd say providing for an infant's needs is more difficult than say- a 5 year old, or a 10+ year old. Again, it depends on how someone goes about it. It's a big deal in that it's an additional financial pressure that'll change your lifestyle, but other than that- most people can handle it. If being a parent was so hard, the poorer countries shouldn't be having people becoming parents but apparently it's easier than thought so poor countries keep having expanding populations.

A huge reason for why poor countries are staying poor, whatever capital and resources they do manage to accumulate, isn't being invested properly in the right things or industries that could be the bedrock for them getting a better economy.

[Jebslund]

"Neglect your kids a little"? Are you really promoting child neglect/abuse right now? And you clearly have no fucking idea what the hell your talking about right now. Raising a child is expensive as hell and is very time consuming and one of the hardest things for someone to do. It is a major fucking deal.

Neglect is the opposite of spoiling in my mind. I consider it to be a situation where you can afford to get your kid nice things, but you intentionally choose not to. If you provide the basics, it isn't inherently abusive. Raising a child doesn't necessarily have to be expensive, I'd say it depends on how you go about it. It apparently isn't expensive for people in the poorer countries to reproduce and keep their children alive, which is a huge problem globally speaking. It's a major problem that the majority non-White countries are breeding too abundantly but the majority White countries aren't.

Being a parent is so "hard?" -give me a break. It is as hard as someone makes it generally speaking. I'd say providing for an infant's needs is more difficult than say- a 5 year old, or a 10+ year old. Again, it depends on how someone goes about it. It's a big deal in that it's an additional financial pressure that'll change your lifestyle, but other than that- most people can handle it. If being a parent was so hard, the poorer countries shouldn't be having people becoming parents but apparently it's easier than thought so poor countries keep having expanding populations.

Once again, you show how little you actually know.

Neglect is the opposite of spoiling only in the sense that drowning is the opposite of synchronised swimming, or starving to death is the opposite of gluttony.

You definition needs work, as well. Neglect is not meeting the basic needs of your child. It's not just not buying the child everything they want. It's not seeing to the child's physical, mental, medical, and emotional needs.

As for people in poorer countries, have you SEEN the infant and child mortality rates of those countries? Have you *seen* the level of poverty and the crimes committed against children because no one can afford to keep them safe? Raising a child properly is not the same as just popping out a dozen kids so that you might see one or two survive to adulthood. And let's not drag your "whites are going to be genocided by being outbred!!!1!!!1!1!111" bullshit into this thread, please.

Being a parent *is* hard, if you do it properly. It's easy to be a deadbeat who doesn't properly care for their children, sure, but making sure they're adequately fed, clothed, educated, supported, kept healthy, taught right from wrong, socialised, kept in shape, etc is a very hard and stressful life. Rewarding, for those who enter into it willingly, yes, but it's not something everyone is cut out for, and treating it like it is and it's easy shows your experience with and knowledge of parenting.

[Kowani]

Rights are given to the people or recognised by laws.

Nah, we human rights now.

Yes, those rights that are recognized by every country and never ever violated…

[Saiwania]

Well, here's one for you: If pro-lifers really cared about saving lives, they'd make it illegal to pay poverty-level wages to anyone who works full-time. Don't you ever get tired of talking out of your ass?

My life experience tells me that it usually isn't as simple as just giving people more money. It has to come from somewhere and people who have money are loathe to part with it, unless they have more than enough money. Doing this usually causes more inflation than desirable. By necessity, income equality or redistribution means that someone somewhere has to be a loser whilst other people might benefit more from it.

As one example, my parents need a new water pump for irrigation because the old one is broken, they're paying someone who installs pumps up to $3,000+ for their services and expertise and thus providing them with a job. My parents can't keep paying this pump person indefinitely, because it is still more money than they get as retired people on a monthly basis.

Whatever they wind up paying for needed work or help, represents a permanent loss of part of their assets or net income from Social Security (which doesn't pay all that good). People have the incentive to keep working because the private sector generally pays more money than relying on the government for income. Money comes from someone who paid them for something, which came from somebody who paid them, and so on. The money doesn't magically come out of nowhere, else it wouldn't have value.

The only way I see a UBI ever working, is if most people somehow have the access or ability to manufacture their own goods on a micro level, which could give the income they generate some value. This I see as being very far off. The root cause of most people having to work for a living, is that people have to trade their time/knowledge/services for money with which to do more trade/business with other people for things they need or want. Until we can get by without doing that, I don't see this changing.

Specialization brought about an improvement in living standards, but the downside is that our lives are more dull and regimented than used to be the case. Unless you're in the minority that can live as you want via having enough income/assets or you genuinely like what you do.

[Jebslund]

Well, here's one for you: If pro-lifers really cared about saving lives, they'd make it illegal to pay poverty-level wages to anyone who works full-time. Don't you ever get tired of talking out of your ass?

My life experience tells me that it usually isn't as simple as just giving people more money. It has to come from somewhere and people who have money are loathe to part with it, unless they have more than enough money. Doing this usually causes more inflation than desirable. By necessity, income equality or redistribution means that someone somewhere has to be a loser whilst other people might benefit more from it.

As one example, my parents need a new water pump for irrigation because the old one is broken, they're paying someone who installs pumps up to $3,000+ for their services and expertise and thus providing them with a job. My parents can't keep paying this pump person indefinitely, because it is still more money than they get as retired people on a monthly basis.

Whatever they wind up paying for needed work or help, represents a permanent loss of part of their assets or net income from Social Security (which doesn't pay all that good). People have the incentive to keep working because the private sector generally pays more money than relying on the government for income. Money comes from someone who paid them for something, which came from somebody who paid them, and so on. The money doesn't magically come out of nowhere, else it wouldn't have value.

The only way I see a UBI ever working, is if most people somehow have the access or ability to manufacture their own goods on a micro level, which could give the income they generate some value. This I see as being very far off. The root cause of most people having to work for a living, is that people have to trade their time/knowledge/services for money with which to do more trade/business with other people for things they need or want. Until we can get by without doing that, I don't see this changing.

Specialization brought about an improvement in living standards, but the downside is that our lives are more dull and regimented than used to be the case. Unless you're in the minority that can live as you want via having enough income/assets or you genuinely like what you do.

I'm not talking about a universal basic income. I'm talking about a living wage. I'm talking about paying people fairly. If anyone who works for you (not "the fee you are paying a company to do work as a one-time thing", someone who is employed by you full time (40 hours a week)) is being paid poorly enough to be considered working poor or worse by income level, you have no excuse to be making six-, seven-, eight-, or nine-figure incomes. If you make more than middle-class average pay, no one who works for you should be eligible for food stamps or other income-based government aid. If you cannot afford that, you cannot afford to be in business.

But that isn't the point of this thread. And I see you've not addressed any of the other points I have made.

[Godular]

Executioners, soldiers, victims of crime defending themselves, law enforcement officers or bodyguards stopping a shooter, prison guards stopping a riot...

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say "False" on this one.

Executioners...just no.
Prison guards...I don't like prisons, so again, no.
Everybody else you mention is under threat from the life. That's why we have exceptions for danger to the life of the mother.

Pregnancy is an inherent threat to the life of a woman. There are any number of medical complications that can take a woman from zero to six feet under in the span of a breath. If she does not wish to take that risk, it is wrong to force her to undertake it just because you think her NOT experiencing such complications right fucking now is somehow a non-legitimate rationale.

All laws are effectively artificial.

As are rights. This right to life thingie you speak of, that's pretty damned artificial.

[New haven america]

If Alabama could stop giving us reasons why it shouldn't exist, that'd be great.

[Alouite]

Executioners...just no.
Prison guards...I don't like prisons, so again, no.
Everybody else you mention is under threat from the life. That's why we have exceptions for danger to the life of the mother.

Pregnancy is an inherent threat to the life of a woman. There are any number of medical complications that can take a woman from zero to six feet under in the span of a breath. If she does not wish to take that risk, it is wrong to force her to undertake it just because you think her NOT experiencing such complications right fucking now is somehow a non-legitimate rationale.

The vast majority of pregnancies do not result in the death of a child and ultimately the point should be about when when life begins. The reason people will never be convinced by arguments surrounding abortion is because they often have different perspectives on where life begins and are ultimately unprepared (on both sides) for a complex metaphysical argument on the matter.

[Gormwood]

If Alabama could stop giving us reasons why it shouldn't exist, that'd be great.

It is deep down a barely cynical stunt to bring a case up to the Supreme Court in hopes Roe gets struck down.