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

[Antityranicals]

We consider it like murder in every respect.

However, like killing in general, it I'd necessary in extreme circumstances.

I only consider killing okay if it is necessary for the protection of oneself or another, and if the one to be killed is intentionally aggressing. There is an argument to be made for the former parameter with abortion, (Not a great one, I'd argue, but one nonetheless) but there is no argument to be made for the latter. A fetus is not an intentionally aggressing against anything. It is perfectly innocent.

[Antityranicals]

Ah, just killing him or her... I'm sorry, I was about to have to get outraged...

Correct, just like I can kill an intruder on my property.

Because that intruder is willfully invading your property, and threatening your life. A fetus isn't willfully doing anything, and is thus innocent, and killing of the innocent is always wrong.

[United Muscovite Nations]

However, like killing in general, it I'd necessary in extreme circumstances.

I only consider killing okay if it is necessary for the protection of oneself or another, and if the one to be killed is intentionally aggressing. There is an argument to be made for the former parameter with abortion, (Not a great one, I'd argue, but one nonetheless) but there is no argument to be made for the latter. A fetus is not an intentionally aggressing against anything. It is perfectly innocent.

The reason I would be okay with aborting to save the life of the mother is that if the mother dies, it's unlikely the child will survive either way, and it also could leave any family she has already without her.

[Cappuccina]

However, like killing in general, it is necessary in extreme circumstances.

I would consider it necessary if it was necessary to save the life of the mother, but I don't consider other circumstances morally correct.

Even rape?

[Godular]

Because the rapist totally deserves anything related to the potential child’s future... /epic sarcasm

In civilized societies, one is not punished for his or her father's sins, no matter how great.

Not relevant to what I said.

[Godular]

Correct, just like I can kill an intruder on my property.

Because that intruder is willfully invading your property, and threatening your life. A fetus isn't willfully doing anything, and is thus innocent, and killing of the innocent is always wrong.

Innocence is irrelevant. Examples have already been provided of similar situations involving born persons, and it being perfectly justified to exercise all necessary force to rectify the situation presented by the offending individual.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I would consider it necessary if it was necessary to save the life of the mother, but I don't consider other circumstances morally correct.

Even rape?

Yes. I'm empathetic on that, but it wouldn't be just to kill a child for that reason.

[Godular]

Even rape?

Yes. I'm empathetic on that, but it wouldn't be just to kill a child for that reason.

How about if the woman just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term because it wasn't started on her terms? That's not punishing the fetus for anything, she just didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

[Antityranicals]

I only consider killing okay if it is necessary for the protection of oneself or another, and if the one to be killed is intentionally aggressing. There is an argument to be made for the former parameter with abortion, (Not a great one, I'd argue, but one nonetheless) but there is no argument to be made for the latter. A fetus is not an intentionally aggressing against anything. It is perfectly innocent.

The reason I would be okay with aborting to save the life of the mother is that if the mother dies, it's unlikely the child will survive either way, and it also could leave any family she has already without her.

We agree in general, but I'm still quite uncomfortable with the intentional killing of the innocent, even if well intentioned. It's a violation of the Hippocratic oath "above all, do no harm". I think there will always be better options than intentionally killing the baby, such as trying to remove the baby alive, but no medical research has been done into the possibility of doing that in years, because the default has tragically become "Kill it!"

[Galloism]

Correct, just like I can kill an intruder on my property.

Because that intruder is willfully invading your property, and threatening your life. A fetus isn't willfully doing anything, and is thus innocent, and killing of the innocent is always wrong.

Whether the intruder is willfully doing so or not doesn't change the equation much. Even if the intruder is unwillingly doing so, it's still ok to kill them.

Remember the guy who had a bomb around his neck and was ordered by the bomb-maker to rob a bank or he would blow his head off?

Where does that fall in your moral compass?

[Antityranicals]

Yes. I'm empathetic on that, but it wouldn't be just to kill a child for that reason.

How about if the woman just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term because it wasn't started on her terms? That's not punishing the fetus for anything, she just didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

So now we're killing for the sake of convenience? Great.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes. I'm empathetic on that, but it wouldn't be just to kill a child for that reason.

How about if the woman just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term because it wasn't started on her terms? That's not punishing the fetus for anything, she just didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

That would be even more unjust. As I said, our position is that a fetus is on the same level as a child, so that would be same to us as abandoning one's child simply because they decided they don't want it.

[Cappuccina]

Even rape?

Yes. I'm empathetic on that, but it wouldn't be just to kill a child for that reason.

Asking a woman to bare the offspring of her assailant way too much demand, that should be up to her.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The reason I would be okay with aborting to save the life of the mother is that if the mother dies, it's unlikely the child will survive either way, and it also could leave any family she has already without her.

We agree in general, but I'm still quite uncomfortable with the intentional killing of the innocent, even if well intentioned. It's a violation of the Hippocratic oath "above all, do no harm". I think there will always be better options than intentionally killing the baby, such as trying to remove the baby alive, but no medical research has been done into the possibility of doing that in years, because the default has tragically become "Kill it!"

Theoretically, a C-section in that situation might be considered an abortion, but it obviously doesn't mean that in the common parlance.

[Galloism]

We agree in general, but I'm still quite uncomfortable with the intentional killing of the innocent, even if well intentioned. It's a violation of the Hippocratic oath "above all, do no harm". I think there will always be better options than intentionally killing the baby, such as trying to remove the baby alive, but no medical research has been done into the possibility of doing that in years, because the default has tragically become "Kill it!"

Theoretically, a C-section in that situation might be considered an abortion, but it obviously doesn't mean that in the common parlance.

Usually in those cases you're talking about a fetus which doesn't have a brain or is suffering necrosis or something to that effect, and it's essentially living on borrowed time anyway.

[Antityranicals]

Because that intruder is willfully invading your property, and threatening your life. A fetus isn't willfully doing anything, and is thus innocent, and killing of the innocent is always wrong.

Whether the intruder is willfully doing so or not doesn't change the equation much. Even if the intruder is unwillingly doing so, it's still ok to kill them.

Remember the guy who had a bomb around his neck and was ordered by the bomb-maker to rob a bank or he would blow his head off?

Where does that fall in your moral compass?

Let him rob the bank, track him down, and get the money back later. Not complicated. It does very much change the equation whether or not there is intentional aggression. The rights to life, liberty, and property belong to every person, so one must intentionally give these up by violating or attempting to violate someone else's rights.

[Neutraligon]

Correct, just like I can kill an intruder on my property.

Because that intruder is willfully invading your property, and threatening your life. A fetus isn't willfully doing anything, and is thus innocent, and killing of the innocent is always wrong.

They do not need to be threatening my life, and they could have been there because they where dropped of their drunk, I can still kill them should they not remove themself from my property.

[Godular]

How about if the woman just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term because it wasn't started on her terms? That's not punishing the fetus for anything, she just didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

So now we're killing for the sake of convenience? Great.

No, we're ensuring that a woman who has already undergone one of the most fundamental of violations isn't forced into yet ANOTHER trauma because your moralistic ass can't get off its high horse.

[Necroghastia]

Whether the intruder is willfully doing so or not doesn't change the equation much. Even if the intruder is unwillingly doing so, it's still ok to kill them.

Remember the guy who had a bomb around his neck and was ordered by the bomb-maker to rob a bank or he would blow his head off?

Where does that fall in your moral compass?

Let him rob the bank, track him down, and get the money back later. Not complicated. It does very much change the equation whether or not there is intentional aggression. The rights to life, liberty, and property belong to every person, so one must intentionally give these up by violating or attempting to violate someone else's rights.

Indeed, they do belong to every person, which is why it's so bizarre that you're arguing against them.

[Antityranicals]

We agree in general, but I'm still quite uncomfortable with the intentional killing of the innocent, even if well intentioned. It's a violation of the Hippocratic oath "above all, do no harm". I think there will always be better options than intentionally killing the baby, such as trying to remove the baby alive, but no medical research has been done into the possibility of doing that in years, because the default has tragically become "Kill it!"

Theoretically, a C-section in that situation might be considered an abortion, but it obviously doesn't mean that in the common parlance.

C-sections are great, and I'm sure that there are even better things possible if only the default was to treat both mother and child as humans which need to be saved.

[Godular]

How about if the woman just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term because it wasn't started on her terms? That's not punishing the fetus for anything, she just didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.

That would be even more unjust. As I said, our position is that a fetus is on the same level as a child, so that would be same to us as abandoning one's child simply because they decided they don't want it.

So the fuck what? Our position is that they're NOT the same, and it's your job to convince us why we should accept YOUR position. Ain't really gonna happen, if you're just gonna keep saying 'this is how we see it' (reply: so the fuck what?) and 'because muh bibble' (reply: why the fuck should that affect me?) and such.

[Galloism]

Whether the intruder is willfully doing so or not doesn't change the equation much. Even if the intruder is unwillingly doing so, it's still ok to kill them.

Remember the guy who had a bomb around his neck and was ordered by the bomb-maker to rob a bank or he would blow his head off?

Where does that fall in your moral compass?

Let him rob the bank, track him down, and get the money back later. Not complicated. It does very much change the equation whether or not there is intentional aggression. The rights to life, liberty, and property belong to every person, so one must intentionally give these up by violating or attempting to violate someone else's rights.

The victim had a gun and threatened the bankers as I recall (this when I was a young man). But it wasn't his choice. Isn't the banker as innocent as the guy with the bomb? The banker couldn't leave, as the guy with the bomb had them there, in the presence of a bomb.

Isn't the fact that the innocent banker also is under threat a factor here?

[Cappuccina]

So now we're killing for the sake of convenience? Great.

No, we're ensuring that a woman who has already undergone one of the most fundamental of violations isn't forced into yet ANOTHER trauma because your moralistic ass can't get off its high horse.

On the case of rape, this is true, but not in the instance of a non-rape pregnancy.

[Antityranicals]

Let him rob the bank, track him down, and get the money back later. Not complicated. It does very much change the equation whether or not there is intentional aggression. The rights to life, liberty, and property belong to every person, so one must intentionally give these up by violating or attempting to violate someone else's rights.

Indeed, they do belong to every person, which is why it's so bizarre that you're arguing against them.

I also understand that, in the very rare cases where one right contradicts another, life always takes highest priority, because one can have no other rights without life. Thus the child's right to life temporarily overrides the mother's right to property of her body. Besides, in the vast, vast majority of cases, the mother consents by consenting to having sex.

[Galloism]

I like this so I'm going to bring it back for Antityranicals:

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?