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

[The New California Republic]

I am personally Pro-Life although I understand the necessity of abortion in our modern times.

No matter how we say it, banning abortion is not going to stop it, in fact, it's just going to make women do so illegally, at their own risk. So, even as Pro-Life I understand it's necessity. However I do not agree with the fact that abortion seems to be just a secondary contraceptive at this point. By that I mean that a lot of people just have sex without being properly protected, and once the woman gets pregnant the choice is "Oh we can abort." I believe that this behavior deshumanizes the child, no matter what people tell me, that it's not really a child and still not human, I think that stopping something from becoming what it should be is wrong, again, my own opinion.

So I think that abortion should be a thing, sadly, but it shouldn't be distributed like it's candy, people need to be educated on what abortion is, what it entails, how it works and whatnot, and how to avoid having an abortion in the first place by teaching people to protect themselves. Abortion should always be the last option in my opinion, we're still talking about a future human life being killed.

I agree with most of what was said here, though one small quibble:

It is wrong to think that women actively avoid using contraception in favor of getting an abortion, and such does a disservice to women seeking to get one. That clinics work hard to make it as safe and painless as possible does not mean it is completely painless. Ofttimes issues relating to contraception (or the lack thereof) stem from ignorance and lack of access.

Yes, there should be comprehensive sex ed, as you say. There can also be a few other measures that promote keeping the pregnancy and make an unplanned pregnancy less of a burden. Such would serve to reduce abortion quite impressively and would not even be so expensive for the state.

I would even go as far to say that they are not really pro-life at all...

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Why am I pro-life you ask? Here's why, I believe that human life begins at conception, therefore, an abortion would end the life of a human being.

Cool overused and still vague story.

So how do you want your outlook to be addressed, and why do you think it should be so? YOU need to convince US why it should be this way.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I agree with most of what was said here, though one small quibble:

It is wrong to think that women actively avoid using contraception in favor of getting an abortion, and such does a disservice to women seeking to get one. That clinics work hard to make it as safe and painless as possible does not mean it is completely painless. Ofttimes issues relating to contraception (or the lack thereof) stem from ignorance and lack of access.

Yes, there should be comprehensive sex ed, as you say. There can also be a few other measures that promote keeping the pregnancy and make an unplanned pregnancy less of a burden. Such would serve to reduce abortion quite impressively and would not even be so expensive for the state.

I would even go as far to say that they are not really pro-life at all...

A person can consider themselves pro-life and still support actual access to abortion. Challenging them on their identification seems to me rather counterproductive.

[The New California Republic]

A person can consider themselves pro-life and still support actual access to abortion.

The problem is that what they have said contradicts the following somewhat:

pro-life
adjective UK ​ /ˌprəʊˈlaɪf/ US ​ /ˌproʊˈlaɪf/
​
opposed to the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion (= the intentional ending of pregnancy) if she does not want to have a baby
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... h/pro-life

So I think that abortion should be a thing, sadly, but it shouldn't be distributed like it's candy, people need to be educated on what abortion is, what it entails, how it works and whatnot, and how to avoid having an abortion in the first place by teaching people to protect themselves. Abortion should always be the last option in my opinion, we're still talking about a future human life being killed.

---

Challenging them on their identification seems to me rather counterproductive.

Such questioning could be entirely justified on the basis of what they have thus far said. If anything they seem like a moderate pro-choice person.

[Mihnoa]

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

So location determines what is or isn't a human? The only difference between a baby in its last moment in the womb and the baby in its first moment outside of the womb is that one is in the womb and one is not.

People terminate human beings legally all the time.

That doesn't make it morally justified.

Cool overused and still vague story.

So how do you want your outlook to be addressed, and why do you think it should be so? YOU need to convince US why it should be this way.

Well if you look to science, you will see that there is life inside of the womb. The heart starts to beat 18 days after fertilization, which is one of the first medical signs of life. So it can be scientifically proven that there is life inside of the womb.

[The New California Republic]

So location determines what is or isn't a human? The only difference between a baby in its last moment in the womb and the baby in its first moment outside of the womb is that one is in the womb and one is not.

In this instance yes, since in the former it is still inhabiting the body of the woman. And technically it is a fetus when it is still in the womb, not a baby.

Well if you look to science, you will see that there is life inside of the womb.

Nobody is denying that the fetus is alive.

The heart starts to beat 18 days after fertilization, which is one of the first medical signs of life.

So...? What is this meant to prove?

So it can be scientifically proven that there is life inside of the womb.

See point 2.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Cool overused and still vague story.

So how do you want your outlook to be addressed, and why do you think it should be so? YOU need to convince US why it should be this way.

Well if you look to science, you will see that there is life inside of the womb.

Irrelevant.

The heart starts to beat 18 days after fertilization, which is one of the first medical signs of life.

Still irrelevant.

So it can be scientifically proven that there is life inside of the womb.

Remains irrelevant and in no way answers my question.

[Gormwood]

Why am I pro-life you ask? Here's why, I believe that human life begins at conception, therefore, an abortion would end the life of a human being.

What's your stance on welfare and social safety nets such as child care?

[Necroghastia]

So location determines what is or isn't a human? The only difference between a baby in its last moment in the womb and the baby in its first moment outside of the womb is that one is in the womb and one is not.

People terminate human beings legally all the time.

That doesn't make it morally justified.

Cool overused and still vague story.

So how do you want your outlook to be addressed, and why do you think it should be so? YOU need to convince US why it should be this way.

Well if you look to science, you will see that there is life inside of the womb. The heart starts to beat 18 days after fertilization, which is one of the first medical signs of life. So it can be scientifically proven that there is life inside of the womb.

Please explain why a glorified pump should matter more than nervous system activity.

[Estanglia]

I wonder: why do people constantly conflate personhood and humanity?

I keep seeing it in the thread, where them being human and them being people are conflated as an anti-abortion argument, and we have to constantly point out that them being alive or not isn't our argument, it's whether they're people or not.

[Mihnoa]

So location determines what is or isn't a human? The only difference between a baby in its last moment in the womb and the baby in its first moment outside of the womb is that one is in the womb and one is not.

In this instance yes, since in the former it is still inhabiting the body of the woman. And technically it is a fetus when it is still in the womb, not a baby.

So you are telling that I'm a human only because I left my mother's womb?

Well if you look to science, you will see that there is life inside of the womb.

Nobody is denying that the fetus is alive.

So why is it ok to kill it then?

Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Still Irrelevant

I guess science is an irrelevant study then.

Please explain why a glorified pump should matter more than nervous system activity.

That "glorified pump" is one of the first signs that indicate life. That's why I included it in my argument.

[The New California Republic]

In this instance yes, since in the former it is still inhabiting the body of the woman. And technically it is a fetus when it is still in the womb, not a baby.

So you are telling that I'm a human only because I left my mother's womb?

In terms of personhood, yes.

Nobody is denying that the fetus is alive.

So why is it ok to kill it then?

It isn't a person, and there are no laws against it, and bodily sovereignty of the woman.

Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Still Irrelevant

I guess science is an irrelevant study then.

What you were saying was irrelevant in regards to what Caleshan was saying.

Please explain why a glorified pump should matter more than nervous system activity.

That "glorified pump" is one of the first signs that indicate life. That's why I included it in my argument.

And what does that matter?

[Godular]

Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Still Irrelevant

I guess science is an irrelevant study then.

*sets strawman on fire*

Whether it is alive or not is completely irrelevant in regards to the questions I actually asked. I shall thank you to actually address THOSE, rather than spout what might as well be random copypasta.

[The New California Republic]

I guess science is an irrelevant study then.

*sets strawman on fire*

Whether it is alive or not is completely irrelevant in regards to the questions I actually asked. I shall thank you to actually address THOSE, rather than spout what might as well be random copypasta.

It's very annoying when a new person arrives at the thread and they have a trailer with straw poking out from under the tarp. It doesn't bode well.

[Kowani]

*sets strawman on fire*

Whether it is alive or not is completely irrelevant in regards to the questions I actually asked. I shall thank you to actually address THOSE, rather than spout what might as well be random copypasta.

It's very annoying when a new person arrives at the thread and they have a trailer with straw poking out from under the tarp. It doesn't bode well.

To be fair, the concept of personhood and its differentiation from humanity or the act of being alive isn’t typically going to come up in most conversations about this.

[Godular]

It's very annoying when a new person arrives at the thread and they have a trailer with straw poking out from under the tarp. It doesn't bode well.

To be fair, the concept of personhood and its differentiation from humanity or the act of being alive isn’t typically going to come up in most conversations about this.

Especially in relation to the question I asked.

"So you have issues with it, huh? How do you propose those issues be addressed?"

"IT'S ALIIIIIIIIIIIVE!"

"That doesn't answer my question."

"YOU CANNOT DENY SCIENCE!"

"The question: it remains unanswered."

[The Grims]

It's very annoying when a new person arrives at the thread and they have a trailer with straw poking out from under the tarp. It doesn't bode well.

To be fair, the concept of personhood and its differentiation from humanity or the act of being alive isn’t typically going to come up in most conversations about this.

About 500 times in this topic alone

[Kowani]

To be fair, the concept of personhood and its differentiation from humanity or the act of being alive isn’t typically going to come up in most conversations about this.

About 500 times in this topic alone

Probably should’ve thrown the word “other” in there.

[The Grims]

About 500 times in this topic alone

Probably should’ve thrown the word “other” in there.

It is the reasoning behind most legislation as well...

[The Free Joy State]

In this instance yes, since in the former it is still inhabiting the body of the woman. And technically it is a fetus when it is still in the womb, not a baby.

So you are telling that I'm a human only because I left my mother's womb?

Well, you (and I, and everyone else) are human by virtue of being of the species homo sapiens. But, as for personhood, yes.

Legal personhood is conferred upon leaving the womb.

Nobody is denying that the fetus is alive.

So why is it ok to kill it then?

The woman has an inalienable right to maintain her bodily sovereignty, and that right would not change even if the foetus were a person.

Self-defence is an absolute defence.

Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Still Irrelevant

I guess science is an irrelevant study then.

No, science is most definitely relevant. Thanks to science, we know the foetus is insentient and feels no pain until the third trimester.

[The New California Republic]

It's very annoying when a new person arrives at the thread and they have a trailer with straw poking out from under the tarp. It doesn't bode well.

To be fair, the concept of personhood and its differentiation from humanity or the act of being alive isn’t typically going to come up in most conversations about this.

Except that it most definitely has. Repeatedly. In every single one of the abortion threads if memory serves.

[Mihnoa]

So you are telling that I'm a human only because I left my mother's womb?

In terms of personhood, yes.

So geographical location determines what is or isn't a person?

So why is it ok to kill it then?

It isn't a person, and there are no laws against it, and bodily sovereignty of the woman.

Just because there are no laws against it automatically makes it morally right?

That "glorified pump" is one of the first signs that indicate life. That's why I included it in my argument.

And what does that matter?

Heartbeat=Life

The woman has an inalienable right to maintain her bodily sovereignty, and that right would not change even if the foetus were a person.

Self-defence is an absolute defence.

It's not self-defense if there is no attack.

No, science is most definitely relevant. Thanks to science, we know the foetus is insentient and feels no pain until the third trimester.

Oh ok, so it's morally justified to kill someone with nerve damage because they can't feel it. Didn't know that.

[The Free Joy State]

The woman has an inalienable right to maintain her bodily sovereignty, and that right would not change even if the foetus were a person.

Self-defence is an absolute defence.

It's not self-defense if there is no attack.

It is invading her body, inside her personal space.

You would not tell a homeowner they had no right to evict someone who moved into their home without consent because that person was not beating them up.

You would not tell a woman who was being raped that she had no right to use all necessary force to make them stop (or to thwart the attacker), just because he promised to leave her alive.

No, the foetus is not a rapist. However, there is a violation of her bodily autonomy. The foetus is using her blood, her body and her organs, and she does not wish it to be.

No, science is most definitely relevant. Thanks to science, we know the foetus is insentient and feels no pain until the third trimester.

Oh ok, so it's morally justified to kill someone with nerve damage because they can't feel it. Didn't know that.

This is not the Wizard of Oz. Kindly leave the strawmen alone.

You are comparing apples and thermonuclear reactors.

The person with nerve damage is a born person. They have legal, irrevocable personhood. So, no. You may not kill them.

[Kernen]

So geographical location determines what is or isn't a person?

Much like the age of majority, a legal line has to be drawn somewhere as a matter of good policy. So, yes.

Heartbeat=Life

You can stimulate a heartbeat in a heart cut out of a body. That is a terrible definition.

It's not self-defense if there is no attack.

An attack isn't necessary under common law defense. Imminent risk of harm is. Harm can form in ways that are not strictly attacks.

Oh ok, so it's morally justified to kill someone with nerve damage because they can't feel it. Didn't know that.

Totality of circumstances. If you subdivide statements beyond their context, you're not arguing in good faith. Lets not strawman.

You're bad at this.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

>snorp<

Man, it would be great if you actually answered my question.