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

[The New California Republic]

Ah right. And none of that says anything about the fetus not being human, which Ayytaly originally claimed that someone said.

Context.

I don't give a shit about you providing context, but an actual source that backs up your claim would be nice.

[Antityranicals]

There's no other type.

There is.

And what makes your chosen morality the objective one over every other morality that has existed and will exist? No, "God" is not a good enough answer because I can just as easily cite God in favour of my own morality.

But you'd be blaspheming if you did, because God is one way, and thus not the other, on this issue.

[Necroghastia]

There is.

And what makes your chosen morality the objective one over every other morality that has existed and will exist? No, "God" is not a good enough answer because I can just as easily cite God in favour of my own morality.

But you'd be blaspheming if you did, because God is one way, and thus not the other, on this issue.

I still have yet to see you provide proof that this particular god a) exists and b) actually holds the position you claim it holds.

Or even a reason to care what this god thinks, come to think of it.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

I think abortion is murder and should be outright banned. In my view.

[Estanglia]

There is.

And what makes your chosen morality the objective one over every other morality that has existed and will exist? No, "God" is not a good enough answer because I can just as easily cite God in favour of my own morality.

But you'd be blaspheming if you did, because God is one way, and thus not the other, on this issue.

And you'd be blaspheming against my God, because God is one way, and thus not the other, on this issue.

[Necroghastia]

I think abortion is murder and should be outright banned. In my view.

What's your position on, say, ectopic pregnancies?

[Godular]

I think abortion is murder and should be outright banned. In my view.

I smell a drive-by

[Vassenor]

I think abortion is murder and should be outright banned. In my view.

Got any meat for that nuclear take?

[Godular]

And once again we have somebody losing all sense of perspective regarding the concept of necessary force. If you sit too close to me on the train, I can move. If you put your hand on my shoulder, batting it away would be sufficient to rectify the situation with immediacy and effect. A woman cannot move to escape an unwanted pregnancy, nor can she simply bat it away.

The only remedy is lethal to the fetus. Such is sad, but ultimately necessary.

Unfortunately, we disagree with necessary. Simply because I don't want something, doesn't mean I can just kill it.

I do not particularly care if you disagree or not. The rather specific fact is that if you constitute an imposition on my rights or my bodily integrity in any way, I am entitled to exercise whatever means are necessary to get you to BTFU. Alas and alack, a fetus quite inherently presents exactly this kind of imposition, and there exists no other means of rectifying the situation save in a way that ends the life of the fetus. The minimum force necessary for me to get YOU to BTFU might not be lethal, but to rectify an unwanted pregnancy, that minimum necessary force WILL end a life.

Sad, but necessary.

And again, it still doesn't fit the self-defence narrative.

Yes it does. A simple violation of personal space is ALL that is needed to justify the exercise of whatever force is necessary to rectify the imposition.

[Katganistan]

ARGHHH!!! Dictionary definitions change nothing of my meaning! You know what I mean by the words I say, and to quibble just because you can drag the damn dictionary in is immature, and a sign that you have no argument.

Nope, it means we're not tolerating you redefining words to mean whatever you want.

Use the common definitions or admit YOU don't have an argument.

Do you have anything else other than emotional agitation propaganda?

Ironically, the argument that fetuses are "not human" are also done with the purpose to desensitize and "normalize" society's attitude towards abortion.

No one said they aren't human. They aren't legal persons.

Who has made that argument?

An argument that nobody has made.

https://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinio ... 1d3b0.html

None of us said it, so try again without the strawman.

Context.

What?

Pulled from the ether.

[Bear Stearns]

Abortion is a bandaid solution to deep rooted problems.

[NewLakotah]

Unfortunately, we disagree with necessary. Simply because I don't want something, doesn't mean I can just kill it.

I do not particularly care if you disagree or not. The rather specific fact is that if you constitute an imposition on my rights or my bodily integrity in any way, I am entitled to exercise whatever means are necessary to get you to BTFU. Alas and alack, a fetus quite inherently presents exactly this kind of imposition, and there exists no other means of rectifying the situation save in a way that ends the life of the fetus. The minimum force necessary for me to get YOU to BTFU might not be lethal, but to rectify an unwanted pregnancy, that minimum necessary force WILL end a life.

Sad, but necessary.

Like I said we disagree on necessary. So there is nothing sad about it. You will respond, undoubtedly, with "Yes, it is" again, and the circle with continue.

And again, it still doesn't fit the self-defence narrative.

Yes it does. A simple violation of personal space is ALL that is needed to justify the exercise of whatever force is necessary to rectify the imposition.

Not necessarily actually. If you still take it down from the self-defence legal aspect, the fetus in question being say the trespasser, you do not simply have the right to exercise fatal force to eliminate the trespasser.

According to a quick legal definition:

In order to use self-defense as a shield against a charge for a violent crime in most jurisdictions, you must:
Not be the aggressor;
Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fist fight);
Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary;
Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; and
Retreat (if possible).

Also, since most state laws require that a trespasser knowingly or intentionally enter someone's private property, it's important for property owners to have a "No Trespassers" sign in place to serve as notice.

Thus, unless the fetus poses an active threat, that "an attack [meaning life threatening complications] is imminent" can full lethal force be enacted.

[Necroghastia]

I do not particularly care if you disagree or not. The rather specific fact is that if you constitute an imposition on my rights or my bodily integrity in any way, I am entitled to exercise whatever means are necessary to get you to BTFU. Alas and alack, a fetus quite inherently presents exactly this kind of imposition, and there exists no other means of rectifying the situation save in a way that ends the life of the fetus. The minimum force necessary for me to get YOU to BTFU might not be lethal, but to rectify an unwanted pregnancy, that minimum necessary force WILL end a life.

Sad, but necessary.

Like I said we disagree on necessary. So there is nothing sad about it. You will respond, undoubtedly, with "Yes, it is" again, and the circle with continue.

Yes it does. A simple violation of personal space is ALL that is needed to justify the exercise of whatever force is necessary to rectify the imposition.

Not necessarily actually. If you still take it down from the self-defence legal aspect, the fetus in question being say the trespasser, you do not simply have the right to exercise fatal force to eliminate the trespasser.

According to a quick legal definition:

In order to use self-defense as a shield against a charge for a violent crime in most jurisdictions, you must:
Not be the aggressor;
Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fist fight);
Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary;
Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; and
Retreat (if possible).

Also, since most state laws require that a trespasser knowingly or intentionally enter someone's private property, it's important for property owners to have a "No Trespassers" sign in place to serve as notice.

Thus, unless the fetus poses an active threat, that "an attack [meaning life threatening complications] is imminent" can full lethal force be enacted.

idk dude those conditions look like they apply to the circumstances of an abortion to me

[NewLakotah]

Like I said we disagree on necessary. So there is nothing sad about it. You will respond, undoubtedly, with "Yes, it is" again, and the circle with continue.

Not necessarily actually. If you still take it down from the self-defence legal aspect, the fetus in question being say the trespasser, you do not simply have the right to exercise fatal force to eliminate the trespasser.

According to a quick legal definition:

In order to use self-defense as a shield against a charge for a violent crime in most jurisdictions, you must:
Not be the aggressor;
Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fist fight);
Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary;
Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; and
Retreat (if possible).

Also, since most state laws require that a trespasser knowingly or intentionally enter someone's private property, it's important for property owners to have a "No Trespassers" sign in place to serve as notice.

Thus, unless the fetus poses an active threat, that "an attack [meaning life threatening complications] is imminent" can full lethal force be enacted.

idk dude those conditions look like they apply to the circumstances of an abortion to me

Musta read the wrong post.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I do not particularly care if you disagree or not. The rather specific fact is that if you constitute an imposition on my rights or my bodily integrity in any way, I am entitled to exercise whatever means are necessary to get you to BTFU. Alas and alack, a fetus quite inherently presents exactly this kind of imposition, and there exists no other means of rectifying the situation save in a way that ends the life of the fetus. The minimum force necessary for me to get YOU to BTFU might not be lethal, but to rectify an unwanted pregnancy, that minimum necessary force WILL end a life.

Sad, but necessary.

Like I said we disagree on necessary.

I don’t give a fuck. You are incorrect.

Yes it does. A simple violation of personal space is ALL that is needed to justify the exercise of whatever force is necessary to rectify the imposition.

Not necessarily actually. If you still take it down from the self-defence legal aspect, the fetus in question being say the trespasser, you do not simply have the right to exercise fatal force to eliminate the trespasser.

Yes I do.

According to a quick legal definition:

In order to use self-defense as a shield against a charge for a violent crime in most jurisdictions, you must:
1. Not be the aggressor;
2. Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fist fight);
3. Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary;
4. Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; and
5. Retreat (if possible).
6. Also, since most state laws require that a trespasser knowingly or intentionally enter someone's private property, it's important for property owners to have a "No Trespassers" sign in place to serve as notice.

1. Yuh huh
2. Necessary force being inherently lethal in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
3. She does not wish to be pregnant and there is no other means to address this problem.
4. An unwanted pregnancy satisfies all functional criteria for a harm in progress.
5. Can’t run from a fetus.
6. Castle laws say lul.

Thus, unless the fetus poses an active threat, that "an attack [meaning life threatening complications] is imminent" can full lethal force be enacted.

A pregnancy is inherently life-threatening. Sixth leading cause of death for women of child-bearing age. The complications can come with zero warning and take a woman from zero to six feet under within the span of an ‘I feel funny’. The threat is very much active.

[Necroghastia]

idk dude those conditions look like they apply to the circumstances of an abortion to me

Musta read the wrong post.

Nah I'm pretty sure that a) minimum force is used, b) that's the only way to get things done, c) the fetus is in the process of doing its thing (the thing being altering a person's body and sapping nutrients), and d) you can't retreat from something that is literally inside you.

[NewLakotah]

Like I said we disagree on necessary.

I don’t give a fuck. You are incorrect.

REEE back at you. And that response wasn't even intended at you...

Not necessarily actually. If you still take it down from the self-defence legal aspect, the fetus in question being say the trespasser, you do not simply have the right to exercise fatal force to eliminate the trespasser.

Yes I do.

According to a quick legal definition:

In order to use self-defense as a shield against a charge for a violent crime in most jurisdictions, you must:
1. Not be the aggressor;
2. Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fist fight);
3. Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary;
4. Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; and
5. Retreat (if possible).
6. Also, since most state laws require that a trespasser knowingly or intentionally enter someone's private property, it's important for property owners to have a "No Trespassers" sign in place to serve as notice.

1. Yuh huh
2. Necessary force being inherently lethal in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
3. She does not wish to be pregnant and there is no other means to address this problem.
4. An unwanted pregnancy satisfies all functional criteria for a harm in progress.
5. Can’t run from a fetus.
6. Castle laws say lul.

1. Agreed.
2. No, that would be excessive force
3.Perhaps
4. Unfortunately, it doesn't. For your sake.
5. You could try.
6. Castle laws only apply in states that apply Castle Law, which are still trumped by intent, and limited force to restrict harm to other persons.

Thus, unless the fetus poses an active threat, that "an attack [meaning life threatening complications] is imminent" can full lethal force be enacted.

A pregnancy is inherently life-threatening. Sixth leading cause of death for women of child-bearing age. The complications can come with zero warning and take a woman from zero to six feet under within the span of an ‘I feel funny’. The threat is very much active.[/quote]
Inherently life threatening and in imminent danger are two separate things. Secondly, the second quote answers that. It requires intent. If the intent isn't there, its not trespassing, thus no justification is authorized.

Musta read the wrong post.

Nah I'm pretty sure that a) minimum force is used, b) that's the only way to get things done, c) the fetus is in the process of doing its thing (the thing being altering a person's body and sapping nutrients), and d) you can't retreat from something that is literally inside you.

a) a matter of opinion that is categorically false. b) again, categorically false. c) Ouch, the sapping nutrients part again, which its doing without intent, which apparently the law cares about. d) A pregnancy isn't the alien from Alien.

[Necroghastia]

Nah I'm pretty sure that a) minimum force is used, b) that's the only way to get things done, c) the fetus is in the process of doing its thing (the thing being altering a person's body and sapping nutrients), and d) you can't retreat from something that is literally inside you.

a) a matter of opinion that is categorically false. b) again, categorically false. c) Ouch, the sapping nutrients part again, which its doing without intent, which apparently the law cares about. d) A pregnancy isn't the alien from Alien.

Lmfao, how else do you expect a fetus to be extracted?
Also, again, intent means dick-all.
Also x2, are you really trying to say they don't grow inside of people? Holy shit.

[NewLakotah]

a) a matter of opinion that is categorically false. b) again, categorically false. c) Ouch, the sapping nutrients part again, which its doing without intent, which apparently the law cares about. d) A pregnancy isn't the alien from Alien.

Lmfao, how else do you expect a fetus to be extracted?
Also, again, intent means dick-all.
Also x2, are you really trying to say they don't grow inside of people? Holy shit.

In case of medical emergencies, there are plenty of options.

Well, according to the law, it does, but ya know, what does the law mean anyway? They're more like guidelines, amirite?

And.... what? did I say that? Or are you just dumb and jumping to an ignorant conclusion? Or are you saying that fetuses are actually the alien from Alien. In which case I switch my view. All fetuses should be exterminated immediately to prevent a world ending apocalypse caused by whatever technical name that the alien from alien species is. I think that was a plotline in 2 wasn't it? a colony being killed by aliens?

[Necroghastia]

Lmfao, how else do you expect a fetus to be extracted?
Also, again, intent means dick-all.
Also x2, are you really trying to say they don't grow inside of people? Holy shit.

In case of medical emergencies, there are plenty of options.

Well, according to the law, it does, but ya know, what does the law mean anyway? They're more like guidelines, amirite?

And.... what? did I say that? Or are you just dumb and jumping to an ignorant conclusion? Or are you saying that fetuses are actually the alien from Alien. In which case I switch my view. All fetuses should be exterminated immediately to prevent a world ending apocalypse caused by whatever technical name that the alien from alien species is. I think that was a plotline in 2 wasn't it? a colony being killed by aliens?

Please tell me more about how to extract a fetus during the first trimester without killing it.

Please tell me more about how intent factors into this at all, or do we need to go over Galloism's PCP analogy step-by-step to see what part you're unable to understand?

Please tell me what the fuck that dumbass Alien rebuttal was if not you asserting that.

[NewLakotah]

In case of medical emergencies, there are plenty of options.

Well, according to the law, it does, but ya know, what does the law mean anyway? They're more like guidelines, amirite?

And.... what? did I say that? Or are you just dumb and jumping to an ignorant conclusion? Or are you saying that fetuses are actually the alien from Alien. In which case I switch my view. All fetuses should be exterminated immediately to prevent a world ending apocalypse caused by whatever technical name that the alien from alien species is. I think that was a plotline in 2 wasn't it? a colony being killed by aliens?

Please tell me more about how to extract a fetus during the first trimester without killing it.

Please tell me more about how intent factors into this at all, or do we need to go over Galloism's PCP analogy step-by-step to see what part you're unable to understand?

Please tell me what the fuck that dumbass Alien rebuttal was if not you asserting that.

Did I not say medical emergencies? OR did you not read? Cause I'm leading towards the latter. And why the focus solely on the first trimester and not later ones? There are more than one you know? what about extraction in the second or third trimester? What about abortion in the second or third trimester, when alternative options do exist? Is, now suddenly, abortion not a valid response?

Because, I have already have the discussion with Galloism. The analogy is a terrible one, its not applicable. Eschewed mentality is not lack of intent. Again, a better example would be a trespasser unfortunately stumbling on you and your property, and you killing them. The trespasser has no knowledge or intent. The intent COULD very likely be malignant, however, with that determination being provided, only after the intent was shown. Regardless of drug usage or not. Once that intent has expressed itself, and there are not other alternatives, lethal force is justified. However, up to and that point, there is no justification under law, that provides you to kill that person.

And if we want to flesh out the argument, the only true determinant if the right is there or not, exists with the trial. Should all abortions, under self-defence law, be subject to a trial?

Well, for starters. An alien from alien is a alien. A fetus is not extraterrestrial. Logically, under normal circumstances, a fetus can develop naturally and bring life. Logically, an alien from alien whose sole intent seems to be that of killing people and... doing other stuff I guess, I really don't know the lore if there is any. But honestly, if you really can't tell the difference between the alien from alien and a fetus, well, then I really can't help you, to be honest. There would be no use, I would have better luck conversing with a sack of hammers, they might have more logical capability.

[The Free Joy State]

I wonder what people make of Judith Thompson's violinist analogy:

A brilliant violinist -- a true prodigy, regarded as the foremost of his profession -- is unconscious and dying with a rare disease and the only way to save him is to hook him up to a person and let him use their liver, kidney and blood through a complex series of tubes. By luck, you (male or female, it doesn't matter) happen to be the only and perfect ideal match.

So the Society of Music Lovers (without the violinist's permission or knowledge) drug you and kidnap you and hook you up to the violinist so that your circulatory system can support his and your kidneys can remove poisons from his system as well as your own.

You wake, attached to the violinst. You are informed that, in nine months, he will have recovered from his ailment and they can unhook you.

If you sever the tubes, he will inevitably die as he depends on your bodily systems entirely for his life.

Do you have any duty to support the violinist for nine months? He is not there of his own free will. He will die without your support.

Should you have to support him -- support his systems and maintain his life -- with your own body?

If not, why is a pregnant woman any different?

[Farnhamia]

Lmfao, how else do you expect a fetus to be extracted?
Also, again, intent means dick-all.
Also x2, are you really trying to say they don't grow inside of people? Holy shit.

In case of medical emergencies, there are plenty of options.

Well, according to the law, it does, but ya know, what does the law mean anyway? They're more like guidelines, amirite?

And.... what? did I say that? Or are you just dumb and jumping to an ignorant conclusion? Or are you saying that fetuses are actually the alien from Alien. In which case I switch my view. All fetuses should be exterminated immediately to prevent a world ending apocalypse caused by whatever technical name that the alien from alien species is. I think that was a plotline in 2 wasn't it? a colony being killed by aliens?

*** Warned for baiting. ***

I don’t give a fuck. You are incorrect.

REEE back at you. And that response wasn't even intended at you...

*** Warned for flaming. ***

[Thepeopl]

In case of medical emergencies, there are plenty of options.

Really? Pray do tell. Especially in first trimester when the embryo is developing and very vulnerable to any chemical/ bacterial/ medical/ radiation influences.

And did you not read all harm that a normal pregnancy can cause a pregnant person?

There is a reason why most gynecologists/ midwives absolutely not recommended pregnant persons to "Google"
Before you get pregnant is fine, as soon as hormones are active, cause mood swings, anxiety and crying bouts Don't Google!

Normal pregnancies risks:

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics ... h-problems
It misses this one:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/pelvic-j ... cy-2564629

And this one:

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/hea ... -and-teeth

And if you are scared of this and overcompensate:
https://www.webmd.com/baby/get-the-calc ... -pregnancy

And we still have this one:
https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/ ... iness.aspx

And we're not done yet:
https://www.livescience.com/8146-pregna ... blems.html

Not really killing , but still harmful:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/a ... er-control


And still not addressing the problem when a woman feel invaded and used by fetus.
Same with tapeworms. You are responsible for getting them (because if you had cleaned your food, hands, cutlery, plates and didn't accept anything your child gave you, and properly cooked your food; you don't get tapeworms. )

Normal pregnancy inconvenience:
Changed taste preferences, like not liking coffee, lard, cinnamon, cardamom, cloves, garlic, citrus fruit, etc. While not pregnant, you loved those for every pregnant person it can be a different combination.

Sharper sense of smell:
Don't open the fridge, the pregnant person could start gagging. All body odours can cause nausea, the household pet should stay away. And diapers from previous children are the hell.

Better eyesight. So if you wear glasses/ contacts you get massive headaches. And you need new prescriptions and other glasses/ contact lenses.


The painfully sensitive breasts, the bloating, the retaining of too much fluid and have painfully swollen ankles.

But, sure the woman gladly endures this for a child she doesn't want to have.

[Vassenor]

In case of medical emergencies, there are plenty of options.

Really? Pray do tell. Especially in first trimester when the embryo is developing and very vulnerable to any chemical/ bacterial/ medical/ radiation influences.

And did you not read all harm that a normal pregnancy can cause a pregnant person?

There is a reason why most gynecologists/ midwives absolutely not recommended pregnant persons to "Google"
Before you get pregnant is fine, as soon as hormones are active, cause mood swings, anxiety and crying bouts Don't Google!

Normal pregnancies risks:

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics ... h-problems
It misses this one:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/pelvic-j ... cy-2564629

And this one:

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/hea ... -and-teeth

And if you are scared of this and overcompensate:
https://www.webmd.com/baby/get-the-calc ... -pregnancy

And we still have this one:
https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/ ... iness.aspx

And we're not done yet:
https://www.livescience.com/8146-pregna ... blems.html

Not really killing , but still harmful:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/a ... er-control


And still not addressing the problem when a woman feel invaded and used by fetus.
Same with tapeworms. You are responsible for getting them (because if you had cleaned your food, hands, cutlery, plates and didn't accept anything your child gave you, and properly cooked your food; you don't get tapeworms. )

Normal pregnancy inconvenience:
Changed taste preferences, like not liking coffee, lard, cinnamon, cardamom, cloves, garlic, citrus fruit, etc. While not pregnant, you loved those for every pregnant person it can be a different combination.

Sharper sense of smell:
Don't open the fridge, the pregnant person could start gagging. All body odours can cause nausea, the household pet should stay away. And diapers from previous children are the hell.

Better eyesight. So if you wear glasses/ contacts you get massive headaches. And you need new prescriptions and other glasses/ contact lenses.


The painfully sensitive breasts, the bloating, the retaining of too much fluid and have painfully swollen ankles.

But, sure the woman gladly endures this for a child she doesn't want to have.

Your links all got truncated and broken.