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

[The Free Joy State]

This thread is about abortion, Gallo.

Not child custody. Abortion. I was trying to get us somewhat back on-topic.


I was explaining why complete legal equality does not work in practise.

While child custody isn't the topic here, I never said that the most appropriate parent should not seek and gai custody. But I try and avoid veering too far off topic.

Complete legal equity should be the norm, and would work in practice. If you favor inequalities in law based on sexist notions regarding "complete legal equity does not work in practice", that's a sexist position - full stop.

Complete legal equality with regards to abortion laws -- which is what I'm discussing -- does not work.

Complete legal equality with regards to other areas is the goal, but that is not the topic of this thread.

In the UK, the birthmother has automatic rights until she negates them.

Yes, the UK is a very sexist place. Hell, when it comes to rape of men, it's not even recognized as rape, so it's sort of a funny discussion to have when we started with abortion rights when it comes to rape victims.

But in regards to parental rights and such, the UK is a very sexist place. You should get to work on that.

I was referring only to birthmother's rights in surrogacy (which is less sexist and more ensuring women don't feel pressured to give up their infants). I thought that was clear, in context.

[Galloism]

Complete legal equity should be the norm, and would work in practice. If you favor inequalities in law based on sexist notions regarding "complete legal equity does not work in practice", that's a sexist position - full stop.

Complete legal equality with regards to abortion laws -- which is what I'm discussing -- does not work.

Complete legal equality with regards to other areas is the goal, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Ok.

Yes, the UK is a very sexist place. Hell, when it comes to rape of men, it's not even recognized as rape, so it's sort of a funny discussion to have when we started with abortion rights when it comes to rape victims.

But in regards to parental rights and such, the UK is a very sexist place. You should get to work on that.

I was referring only to birthmother's rights in surrogacy (which is less sexist and more ensuring women don't feel pressured to give up their infants). I thought that was clear, in context.

I mean, you're the one saying birth fathers should feel pressured to give up their infants if they are rape victims, or put their rapist in their lives for the rest of it if they are unwilling to give up their infants.

That's literally the only two options you presented in response to the "rape victims should be able to force abortions from their rapists" - either put up with their rapist for the rest of their lives, or surrender their infant to their rapist.

Based almost solely on gender - 99.99% overlap.

[The Free Joy State]

I was referring only to birthmother's rights in surrogacy (which is less sexist and more ensuring women don't feel pressured to give up their infants). I thought that was clear, in context.

I mean, you're the one saying birth fathers should feel pressured to give up their infants if they are rape victims, or put their rapist in their lives for the rest of it if they are unwilling to give up their infants.

That's literally the only two options you presented in response to the "rape victims should be able to force abortions from their rapists" - either put up with their rapist for the rest of their lives, or surrender their infant to their rapist.

Based solely on gender.

Forced abortions are immoral. Whatever evil act someone has perpetrated, stealing their bodily sovereignty in return is not the answer.

I have not discussed what the options for a male rape victim would be because this is not actually the thread for that. If this was a thread to discuss custody options for male rape victims, I would have gone into more detail, but I do not want to be thought of as threadjacking, and the OP has already asked us to divert back towards the topic once.

But suing for custody need not mean the rapist being in their life. If the rapist was found unfit to parent (and I already outlined how they might be assessed), they could sue to have sole custody and for the rapist to not have access. Or, yes, they could get a paper abortion.

So, I would thank you to stop misrepresenting my opinion, based on the things I didn't say, simply due to trying not to let this thread get too far off track.

[Galloism]

I mean, you're the one saying birth fathers should feel pressured to give up their infants if they are rape victims, or put their rapist in their lives for the rest of it if they are unwilling to give up their infants.

That's literally the only two options you presented in response to the "rape victims should be able to force abortions from their rapists" - either put up with their rapist for the rest of their lives, or surrender their infant to their rapist.

Based solely on gender.

Forced abortions are immoral. Whatever evil act someone has perpetrated, stealing their bodily sovereignty in return is not the answer.

I have not discussed what the options for a male rape victim would be because this is not actually the thread for that. If this was a thread to discuss custody options for male rape victims, I would have gone into more detail, but I do not want to get into trouble for threadjacking, and the OP has already asked us to divert back towards the topic once.

But suing for custody need not mean the rapist being in their life. If the rapist was found unfit to parent (and I already outlined how they might be assessed), they could sue to have sole custody and for the rapist to not have access. Or, yes, they could get a paper abortion.

So, I would thank you to stop misrepresenting my opinion, based on the things I didn't say, simply due to trying not to let this thread get too far off track.

I still see no reason to give rapists default custody based on their gender because they decided not to have an abortion, which is what you inferred here:

But demanding that someone give birth and has the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.

It's not coercion to tell the rapist they don't get to keep the child of their victim if they choose not to have an abortion, just as it's not coercion to tell a rapist father he automatically loses custody of his child because he's a damn rapist and the victim gets default custody.

Stop pretending like the cordiality of not having an abortion means the person who gave birth should get default custody even if they're a rapist. Fathers get attached too - and just as easily. Women are not special in this regard. There should be no default.

[The Free Joy State]

Forced abortions are immoral. Whatever evil act someone has perpetrated, stealing their bodily sovereignty in return is not the answer.

I have not discussed what the options for a male rape victim would be because this is not actually the thread for that. If this was a thread to discuss custody options for male rape victims, I would have gone into more detail, but I do not want to get into trouble for threadjacking, and the OP has already asked us to divert back towards the topic once.

But suing for custody need not mean the rapist being in their life. If the rapist was found unfit to parent (and I already outlined how they might be assessed), they could sue to have sole custody and for the rapist to not have access. Or, yes, they could get a paper abortion.

So, I would thank you to stop misrepresenting my opinion, based on the things I didn't say, simply due to trying not to let this thread get too far off track.

I still see no reason to give rapists default custody based on their gender because they decided not to have an abortion, which is what you inferred here:

But demanding that someone give birth and has the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.

It's not coercion to tell the rapist they don't get to keep the child of their victim if they choose not to have an abortion, just as it's not coercion to tell a rapist father he automatically loses custody of his child because he's a damn rapist and the victim gets default custody.

Stop pretending like the cordiality of not having an abortion means the person who gave birth should get default custody even if they're a rapist. Fathers get attached too - and just as easily. Women are not special in this regard. There should be no default.

I explicitly said not to give rapists who become pregnant default custody. Stop cramming words into my mouth in the hope people won't check!

I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.
[...]
Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.

And not forcing women to have an abortion is not "cordiality". That's called avoiding torture.

Anyway, child custody still seems off-topic to me. For the god-knows-how-manyth-time.

[Galloism]

I still see no reason to give rapists default custody based on their gender because they decided not to have an abortion, which is what you inferred here:



It's not coercion to tell the rapist they don't get to keep the child of their victim if they choose not to have an abortion, just as it's not coercion to tell a rapist father he automatically loses custody of his child because he's a damn rapist and the victim gets default custody.

Stop pretending like the cordiality of not having an abortion means the person who gave birth should get default custody even if they're a rapist. Fathers get attached too - and just as easily. Women are not special in this regard. There should be no default.

I explicitly said not to give rapists who become pregnant default custody. Stop cramming words into my mouth in the hope people won't check!

I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.
[...]
Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.

And not forcing women to have an abortion is not "cordiality". That's called avoiding torture.

Anyway, child custody still seems off-topic to me. For the god-knows-how-manyth-time.

When you send a child home with their birth mother, this establishes default custody. It's literally what happens.

Regarding your carve outs, is this also true regarding male rapists?

Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the father's beliefs and his likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep him on the right road, whether he understands bodily autonomy, whether he's mentally capable, his psychological balance, whether he realises he committed an offence, does he/can he feel remorse.

I ask because previously you said this:

-- Rapists who impregnate someone else should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the rapist who becomes pregnant to keep parental access does not keep the rapist in her victim's life.

[Jakker]

Let's knock off the conversation about child custody and focus back on abortion. You can take that discussion elsewhere. Get back on topic please.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

People who are very left-wing don't take olive branches.

People who are very right wing don't accept logic. See, I can do that too.

Perhaps.

[Vassenor]

Nuclear take: Why don't conservative states use "thoughts and prayers" to stop abortion like they do to try and stop people from murdering actual live children in schools?

[Gormwood]

Nuclear take: Why don't conservative states use "thoughts and prayers" to stop abortion like they do to try and stop people from murdering actual live children in schools?

Fetus fetish. Live children are just welfare-leeching parasites to them.

[Runtopia]

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

[San Lumen]

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

A rape or incest victim should be be forced to carry to term a child they didn’t want?

If a fetus is person why doesn’t the census count them? If a fetus is a person why don’t we give pregnant women two votes in an election?

[The Alma Mater]

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

But as long as the killing happens before the 24th week or so the fetus itself does not care.

[The South Falls]

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

1. Great, but before the 24th week or so jt doesn't have a brain, which makes it inhuman. By your logic, killing bacteria is a cardinal sin.
2. See 1. The scientific name doesn't mean anything here.
3. The fetus cannot feel pain, it cannot suffer as the procedure is impalpable. Therefore it is merely in one minute, and out another.

[Page]

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

Do you have proof that a fetus experiences pain and suffering? It doesn't have any subjective experience whatsoever until the end of the second trimester.

You can talk about dissolving and crushing skulls but unless you can prove that the fetus experiences suffering, you are merely appealing to emotion.

[Grenartia]

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

1. Great, but before the 24th week or so jt doesn't have a brain, which makes it inhuman. By your logic, killing bacteria is a cardinal sin.
2. See 1. The scientific name doesn't mean anything here.
3. The fetus cannot feel pain, it cannot suffer as the procedure is impalpable. Therefore it is merely in one minute, and out another.

Regardless of all this, even if we accept that a fetus is a human life from the moment of conception, that still doesn't make abortion wrong.

We don't, after all, coerce people into donating their organs. There is no standard for which the bodily integrity of one human life must be forcibly sacrificed to accommodate the existence of another.

Abortion is justified.

[Crysuko]

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

1. bactera, fungi and protists are alive and they die as a matter of course, and nobody bats an eye. why does it suddenly change now?
2. the embryo is a cluster of stem cells the size of a tictac. hardly human,
3. cry me a river

[The South Falls]

1. Great, but before the 24th week or so jt doesn't have a brain, which makes it inhuman. By your logic, killing bacteria is a cardinal sin.
2. See 1. The scientific name doesn't mean anything here.
3. The fetus cannot feel pain, it cannot suffer as the procedure is impalpable. Therefore it is merely in one minute, and out another.

Regardless of all this, even if we accept that a fetus is a human life from the moment of conception, that still doesn't make abortion wrong.

We don't, after all, coerce people into donating their organs. There is no standard for which the bodily integrity of one human life must be forcibly sacrificed to accommodate the existence of another.

Abortion is justified.

Texas is about to pass one of these laws.

Imma preemptively say bitch gimme yo left lung

[Crysuko]

Regardless of all this, even if we accept that a fetus is a human life from the moment of conception, that still doesn't make abortion wrong.

We don't, after all, coerce people into donating their organs. There is no standard for which the bodily integrity of one human life must be forcibly sacrificed to accommodate the existence of another.

Abortion is justified.

Texas is about to pass one of these laws.

Imma preemptively say bitch gimme yo left lung

I mean, compulsory organ donation after death is a thing in some places. which is a real fucking hoot because these laws give women less bodily autonomy than we afford to CORPSES

[Page]

Texas is about to pass one of these laws.

Imma preemptively say bitch gimme yo left lung

I mean, compulsory organ donation after death is a thing in some places. which is a real fucking hoot because these laws give women less bodily autonomy than we afford to CORPSES

The pro-life movement cares about corpses too. There have been laws written that state if a fetus DIES inside of its mother, she is still not allowed to "abort" and must give birth to a corpse. Some of them are particularly sadistic.

[Crysuko]

I mean, compulsory organ donation after death is a thing in some places. which is a real fucking hoot because these laws give women less bodily autonomy than we afford to CORPSES

The pro-life movement cares about corpses too. There have been laws written that state if a fetus DIES inside of its mother, she is still not allowed to "abort" and must give birth to a corpse. Some of them are particularly sadistic.

this just makes my blood boil. if the fetus is dead, it's functionally identical to removing a tumour. especially if said tumour is liable to cause sepsis and other complications.

[The South Falls]

Texas is about to pass one of these laws.

Imma preemptively say bitch gimme yo left lung

I mean, compulsory organ donation after death is a thing in some places. which is a real fucking hoot because these laws give women less bodily autonomy than we afford to CORPSES

That is true. In most places tho, you get to opt in.

I mean, compulsory organ donation after death is a thing in some places. which is a real fucking hoot because these laws give women less bodily autonomy than we afford to CORPSES

The pro-life movement cares about corpses too. There have been laws written that state if a fetus DIES inside of its mother, she is still not allowed to "abort" and must give birth to a corpse. Some of them are particularly sadistic.

Now the woman can possibly die from sepsis. Make her give birth while she's grieving. Make her suffer. It's crazy the state thinks this way. They don't give a shit what u do with your guns... but that fetus? Sanctimonious.

[Godular]

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.

Irrelevant and incorrect. The fetus cannot breathe until such time as it is born. The fetus can neither respond to the environment nor move in any sort of meaningful fashion until the 24th-ish week at which point its brain has begun to exhibit coherent synaptic patterns.

2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.

Also irrelevant. Killing in self-Defense is perfectly justified, and a woman's body being used without her consent rather immediately qualifies as such.

3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

Irrelevant and again incorrect. Waxing poetic about the purported brutality of abortion procedures is meaningless when it should be fully understood that until the 24th-ish week (as previously stated) the fetus is incapable of feeling anything whatsoever. Such procedures are specifically intended to minimize pain and danger, and as such they cannot be brutal/cruel/wtf ever other adjectives you care to insert.

[Runtopia]

A rape or incest victim should be be forced to carry to term a child they didn’t want?

First off, I want to point out that this case scenario is very rare. Secondly, no present-day law has been enacted to punish the child for the crimes of the father, it's illogical. It is a similar scenario here, the child should not be put to death because of the crimes of the father.

If a fetus is person why doesn’t the census count them? If a fetus is a person why don’t we give pregnant women two votes in an election?

Like I said before. A fetus is not legally a person, that is why the census doesn't count pregnant women twice, despite that, however, a fetus is still human.

1. By your logic, killing bacteria is a cardinal sin.

What I meant by making this point is intentionally killing human life is wrong.

3. The fetus cannot feel pain, it cannot suffer as the procedure is impalpable. Therefore it is merely in one minute, and out another.

That's like saying poisoning somebody in their sleep is justifiable because they can't feel it. That doesn't make any sense.

Irrelevant and incorrect. The fetus cannot breathe until such time as it is born. The fetus can neither respond to the environment nor move in any sort of meaningful fashion until the 24th-ish week at which point its brain has begun to exhibit coherent synaptic patterns.

Actually, fetal blood is exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen through the umbilical cord, respiration. The fetus grows and developes as a result of the environment.

Also irrelevant. Killing in self-Defense is perfectly justified, and a woman's body being used without her consent rather immediately qualifies as such.

If the fetus is not intentionally causing harm, then it isn't self defense.

[Godular]

Irrelevant and incorrect. The fetus cannot breathe until such time as it is born. The fetus can neither respond to the environment nor move in any sort of meaningful fashion until the 24th-ish week at which point its brain has begun to exhibit coherent synaptic patterns.

Actually, fetal blood is exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen through the umbilical cord, respiration. The fetus grows and developes as a result of the environment.

That is not breathing, nor does it address the fact that this portion of your argument is functionally irrelevant.

Also irrelevant. Killing in self-Defense is perfectly justified, and a woman's body being used without her consent rather immediately qualifies as such.

If the fetus is not intentionally causing harm, then it isn't self defense.

Incorrect again.

It is inhabiting the woman's body without her consent, contributing to a situation in which any number of life-threatening complications can take place at any time with zero warning, and taking resources from her body. All three of these are harms. Whether it intends such harm or not is similarly irrelevant. So long as the harmful situation exists, the woman retains (and very much SHOULD retain) the right to rectify the situation with immediacy and effect.