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

[Great Minarchistan]

Yeah, then literally don't incur into the risk of getting pregnant if you don't want to be in this situation

Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

[Kowani]

Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

Fault is irrelevant.

[Necroghastia]

This is some bizarre logic to apply to anything related to people's private health decisions.

Applied to people currently pregnant, it's beyond useless. Like telling someone with lung cancer that they shouldn't have smoked tobacco. They're already sick and they are asking for medical help. You don't get to pick and choose whether people should get the medical help they require based on whether the way they came to need that help morally offends you.

Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

Applied to people who are not currently pregnant, it's simplistic, myopic. Sometimes people miscalculate. Sometimes they change their mind. And no third party has the right to tell them that their individual autonomy is void if they make an honest mistake, or if the prevention they relied on fails.

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility

Good thing no one's calling for people to be murdered, except I guess the ones who think the death penalty should be a thing.

[Great Minarchistan]

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

Fault is irrelevant.

involuntary pregnant women's issues are irrelevant too, except in cases of rape

[Great Minarchistan]

Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events


Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility

Good thing no one's calling for people to be murdered, except I guess the ones who think the death penalty should be a thing.

Oh well, TIL that fetuses develop into dinosaurs and that they can't be considered homo sapiens sapiens as a result

[Kowani]

Fault is irrelevant.

involuntary pregnant women's issues are irrelevant too, except in cases of rape

This is, as per usual, untrue.

[Great Minarchistan]

involuntary pregnant women's issues are irrelevant too, except in cases of rape

This is, as per usual, untrue.

Fault being irrelevant is also untrue, I know how to play the "judging personal opinions" game too!

[The Free Joy State]

This is some bizarre logic to apply to anything related to people's private health decisions.

Applied to people currently pregnant, it's beyond useless. Like telling someone with lung cancer that they shouldn't have smoked tobacco. They're already sick and they are asking for medical help. You don't get to pick and choose whether people should get the medical help they require based on whether the way they came to need that help morally offends you.

Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

You are mistaken if you think labour is the only by-product or complication of pregnancy:

• Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
• High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
• Life-threatening retained placenta
• Complications related to epilepsy
• Added risks related to kidney disease
• Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
• Added risk related to thyroid disease
• Added risk related to lupus
• Added risk related to mental health issues
• Added risk related to sickle cell disease
• Blood clots
• Fifth Disease
• Diabetes
• Molar pregnancy
• Hyperemesis gravidarum
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Sceptic miscarriage

Applied to people who are not currently pregnant, it's simplistic, myopic. Sometimes people miscalculate. Sometimes they change their mind. And no third party has the right to tell them that their individual autonomy is void if they make an honest mistake, or if the prevention they relied on fails.

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility

It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitutes malice) and the foetus is not a person.

[Liriena]

This is some bizarre logic to apply to anything related to people's private health decisions.

Applied to people currently pregnant, it's beyond useless. Like telling someone with lung cancer that they shouldn't have smoked tobacco. They're already sick and they are asking for medical help. You don't get to pick and choose whether people should get the medical help they require based on whether the way they came to need that help morally offends you.

Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

So?

Applied to people who are not currently pregnant, it's simplistic, myopic. Sometimes people miscalculate. Sometimes they change their mind. And no third party has the right to tell them that their individual autonomy is void if they make an honest mistake, or if the prevention they relied on fails.

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility

Even if we assumed that fetuses are people, you have to actually demonstrate that some sort of obligation to keep a person alive outweighs the host's right to make their own medical decisions up to and including whether they wish to continue to host this other person. And I don't see how it's relevant that the host became a host following a mistake, a miscalculation, or their prevention methods of choice failing them, on the matter of whether that host can refuse to continue to be a host.

And your logic here is still a form of self-righteous punitivism. You're framing the forced pregnancy of people as a punishment for the way in which they became pregnant, assuming from the get-go that nobody could ever have a legitimate reason to not want to be pregnant after becoming pregnant. Which is a strange stance to take, if your opposition to abortion is fundamentally predicated on the idea that all abortion is murder, period. What's the point in disparaging people seeking an abortion for how they became pregnant if the basis of your opportion to abortion is about protecting life, rather than punishing bad birth control choices?

This is without getting into the inherent ridiculousness of someone who identifies as a liberal, and who I imagine must be a proponent of individual liberty, arguing that it is right to infringe upon our liberty over our own private medical decisions to maintain somebody else alive. Do you feel the same way about organ donations? Should we force people to give up their organs, their blood or their bone marrow to their dying relatives? Is it right to, in practice, enslave one person to keep another person alive? To unilaterally undermine their own individual health, and their power to make decisions on their health, in order to keep somebody else alive?

Because I may be a collectivist and all, but even I am in awe of the authoritarian collectivist zeal of such a stance.

[Liriena]

Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

So?

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility

Even if we assumed that fetuses are people, you have to actually demonstrate that some sort of obligation to keep a person alive outweighs the host's right to make their own medical decisions up to and including whether they wish to continue to host this other person. And I don't see how it's relevant that the host became a host following a mistake, a miscalculation, or their prevention methods of choice failing them, on the matter of whether that host can refuse to continue to be a host.

And your logic here is still a form of self-righteous punitivism. You're framing the forced pregnancy of people as a punishment for the way in which they became pregnant, assuming from the get-go that nobody could ever have a legitimate reason to not want to be pregnant after becoming pregnant. Which is a strange stance to take, if your opposition to abortion is fundamentally predicated on the idea that all abortion is murder, period. What's the point in disparaging people seeking an abortion for how they became pregnant if the basis of your opportion to abortion is about protecting life, rather than punishing bad birth control choices?

This is without getting into the inherent ridiculousness of someone who identifies as a liberal, and who I imagine must be a proponent of individual liberty, arguing that it is right to infringe upon our liberty over our own private medical decisions to maintain somebody else alive. Do you feel the same way about organ donations? Should we force people to give up their organs, their blood or their bone marrow to their dying relatives? Is it right to, in practice, enslave one person to keep another person alive? To unilaterally undermine their own individual health, and their power to make decisions on their health, in order to keep somebody else alive?

Because I may be a collectivist and all, but even I am in awe of the authoritarian collectivist zeal of such a stance.

Oh, and one final question for you: should people who choose to terminate their own pregnancies be punished as murderers? Should they face the exact same punishment as anyone accused of first-degree murder?

[Necroghastia]

Good thing no one's calling for people to be murdered, except I guess the ones who think the death penalty should be a thing.

Oh well, TIL that fetuses develop into dinosaurs and that they can't be considered homo sapiens sapiens as a result

Pretty sure you're supposed to italicize the name.
Also don't know how that's supposed to be a counter to the fact that no people are killed in the process of abortion.

[Kowani]

This is, as per usual, untrue.

Fault being irrelevant is also untrue, I know how to play the "judging personal opinions" game too!

Nah. The end goal of a State is the increase of the material conditions that constitute quality of life. Because a fetus can not feel anything, it’s quality of life is entirely irrelevant.

[Great Minarchistan]

You are mistaken if you think labour is the only biproduct or complication of pregnancy:

• Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
• High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
• Life-threatening retained placenta
• Complications related to epilepsy
• Added risks related to kidney disease
• Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
• Added risk related to thyroid disease
• Added risk related to lupus
• Added risk related to mental health issues
• Added risk related to sickle cell disease
• Blood clots
• Fifth Disease
• Diabetes
• Molar pregnancy
• Hyperemesis gravidarum
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Sceptic miscarriage

All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child

It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder

It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitute malice) and the foetus is not a person.

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

[Great Minarchistan]

Oh, and one final question for you: should people who choose to terminate their own pregnancies be punished as murderers? Should they face the exact same punishment as anyone accused of first-degree murder?

If there's no good enough of a clause for doing so (namely rape and life threatening conditions for the mother and/or the child) then possibly, although it's more coherent to judge them under the premise of co-operating with a murderer

[Liriena]

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood.

What about freshly implanted embryos?

And how do you feel about fertility clinics and embryo disposal?

While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being

So it is not actually a living being but is in a process to become one?

So you're granting power over somebody else's medical decisions to a potential living being that is not presently even sentient, let alone capable of understanding that power or exercising it.

[Liriena]

Oh, and one final question for you: should people who choose to terminate their own pregnancies be punished as murderers? Should they face the exact same punishment as anyone accused of first-degree murder?

If there's no good enough of a clause for doing so (namely rape and life threatening conditions for the mother and/or the child) then possibly, although it's more coherent to judge them under the premise of co-operating with a murderer

"Co-operating with a murderer". Got it. So, an accessory.

We're talking about thousands if not millions of people that are gonna end up in jail for a long time for aborting. You ready for that?

[The Free Joy State]

It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder

But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitute malice) and the foetus is not a person.

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

There is no "potential murder". That's like me walking into a supermarket, picking up a packet of toothpaste, putting it back and walking out without buying anything and being charged with potential shoplifting.

You can't weigh things on potential.

For a start, pregnancy is not predictable. Women can miscarry at seven months, later. There is no guarantee that the sperm and egg -- left undisturbed -- will produce a born baby.

[Great Minarchistan]

What about freshly implanted embryos?

Are people creating a new type of being when doing IVF?

And how do you feel about fertility clinics and embryo disposal?

elaborate

So it is not actually a living being but is in a process to become one?

As said, yes

So you're granting power over somebody else's medical decisions to a potential living being that is not presently even sentient, let alone capable of understanding that power or exercising it.

It's not like said being popped out of nowhere into a woman's uterus right

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

If there's no good enough of a clause for doing so (namely rape and life threatening conditions for the mother and/or the child) then possibly, although it's more coherent to judge them under the premise of co-operating with a murderer

"Co-operating with a murderer". Got it. So, an accessory.

We're talking about thousands if not millions of people that are gonna end up in jail for a long time for aborting. You ready for that?

Time to make the USA incarceration rate even more extreme relative to other countries!

[Great Minarchistan]

We're talking about thousands if not millions of people that are gonna end up in jail for a long time for aborting. You ready for that?

Not the responsibility of the legal code, no

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

A possibly comparable scenario to see how consistent people are(n't):
One person is developed and mature. They happen to have a (parasitic) conjoined twin who has never developed/matured beyond the size of a newborn, and may be even smaller. Is it moral to allow the mature developed (host) conjoined twin to have the other removed?
If response varies by other conditions, please elaborate.

[Great Minarchistan]

But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons

There is no "potential murder". That's like me walking into a supermarket, picking up a packet of toothpaste, putting it back and walking out without buying anything and being charged with potential shoplifting.

Not really, it's like you ripping a sapling in two and therefore committing potential murder of a tree

You can't weigh things on potential.

In this case it works rather well

For a start, pregnancy is not predictable.

Yes, and where did I refer to that? I said that the evolution of a fetus is predictable and linear -- you won't have a human fetus developing into a dog over the course of 30 months.

[Liriena]

What about freshly implanted embryos?

Are people creating a new type of being when doing IVF?

Are freshly implanted embryos people? Specially when IVF often involves transferring multiple embryos, in cases where individual embryos are considered to be at a high risk of failure? Wouldn't it be a sort of depraved-heart murder, given that, in those cases, you're essentially making bets with embryos?

And how do you feel about fertility clinics and embryo disposal?

elaborate

A lot of IVF clinics (the majority in the United States, in fact) consider disposal to be a legitimate way of dealing with surplus embryos. Which means a lot of alleged people being disposed off on a regular basis... but not in the context of an abortion. Are these clinics committing mass murder? Are the people who consent to having their embryos disposed accessories to murder?

So it is not actually a living being but is in a process to become one?

As said, yes

So why should we grant it personhood, let alone the absurd right to use somebody else as an incubator without their consent?

So you're granting power over somebody else's medical decisions to a potential living being that is not presently even sentient, let alone capable of understanding that power or exercising it.

It's not like said being popped out of nowhere into a woman's uterus right

And why does its origin matter? Would you be more willing to tolerate abortion in hypothetical cases of immaculate conception or something?

[Liriena]

We're talking about thousands if not millions of people that are gonna end up in jail for a long time for aborting. You ready for that?

Not the responsibility of the legal code, no

I'm sorry what?

[The Free Joy State]

But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons

Really... what's the exact antonym of classy?

In real physical space, people cease to be legal people when we die. That does not mean we treat our memories of the deceased with disrespect.

There is no "potential murder". That's like me walking into a supermarket, picking up a packet of toothpaste, putting it back and walking out without buying anything and being charged with potential shoplifting.

Not really, it's like you ripping a sapling in two and therefore committing potential murder of a tree

Not quite the comparison you were hoping for.

Trees are insentient, cannot -- by definition -- be murdered and many people have no objections to uprooting them.

You can't weigh things on potential.

In this case it works rather well

Pleas to potential are not even worth their weight in air.

For a start, pregnancy is not predictable.

Yes, and where did I refer to that? I said that the evolution of a fetus is predictable and linear -- you won't have a human fetus developing into a dog over the course of 30 months.

And, this means... what?

Born people are already people. You can still prevent them invading your bodily sovereignty -- using maximum force, if necessary.