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

[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.

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?

This is a far more muddy situation than abortion in cases of rape or incest. Right to life vs. right to life is far less tricky than right to live vs right to property.

[Galloism]

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.

You know, if a person consents to being pregnant by having sex, because she knew it was a possibility, then a person consents to being robbed by walking down the street, because they knew it was a possibility.

[Necroghastia]

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.

What gives something that literally cannot even think a right to life?

Also, do you consent to being run over by a drunk driver if you go outside somewhere?

[Godular]

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.

In the instance of 'elective' abortions, it does a significant injustice to the woman to claim that she's just doing it 'for the sake of convenience'. A lot of consideration goes into the decision to seek out such services, and whatever those considerations might be, they are sufficient justification to that woman.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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?

The pregnant woman is different because she is being asked to support her own child.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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.

If the right to life trumps all, do we have the right to forcibly, against their will, inject Jehova's Witnesses with blood transfusions from foreign sources of blood? Even if the act of not doing so leaves them dying inevitably? The medical community seems to believe otherwise.

[Antityranicals]

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.

You know, if a person consents to being pregnant by having sex, because she knew it was a possibility, then a person consents to being robbed by walking down the street, because they knew it was a possibility.

The reason why humans are capable of having sex is because it has evolved as a mechanism of procreation. Walking down the street was not invented for the express purpose of getting robbed.

[Neutraligon]

You know, if a person consents to being pregnant by having sex, because she knew it was a possibility, then a person consents to being robbed by walking down the street, because they knew it was a possibility.

The reason why humans are capable of having sex is because it has evolved as a mechanism of procreation. Walking down the street was not invented for the express purpose of getting robbed.

Bonobos.

[Godular]

You know, if a person consents to being pregnant by having sex, because she knew it was a possibility, then a person consents to being robbed by walking down the street, because they knew it was a possibility.

The reason why humans are capable of having sex is because it has evolved as a mechanism of procreation. Walking down the street was not invented for the express purpose of getting robbed.

Such a wondrous thing for us to be able to act outside of our biological imperatives. Why, one might almost conclude that even though sex is biologically intended as a linchpin for procreation, we might just be capable of applying significance to the act that goes BEYOND that established parameter.

[Farnhamia]

The reason why humans are capable of having sex is because it has evolved as a mechanism of procreation. Walking down the street was not invented for the express purpose of getting robbed.

Bonobos.

Atque panes panisci. *nodnod*

[Galloism]

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?

This is a far more muddy situation than abortion in cases of rape or incest. Right to life vs. right to life is far less tricky than right to live vs right to property.

It's always muddy.

I had a good friend (who later died from something else). His wife was in labor. Healthy pregnancy. Things going fine.

Had the baby. Immediately started bleeding. And I mean bleeding from everywhere. Her eyes, her ears, her nose, her mouth, her vagina, her ass, literally everywhere. Bleeding internally and externally from every single feasible point.

And was dead in less than 60 seconds, with no warning.

Every pregnancy is a risk of life. And you don't always get warnings. That's why it should be something that has to be consented to - not the possibility of, but the actuality of. You don't suddenly push people out of airplanes because by riding an airplane they consented to the possibility of someone shoving them out. They jump out because they want to, or not at all.

[Neutraligon]

The reason why humans are capable of having sex is because it has evolved as a mechanism of procreation. Walking down the street was not invented for the express purpose of getting robbed.

Such a wondrous thing for us to be able to act outside of our biological imperatives. Why, one might almost conclude that even though sex is biologically intended as a linchpin for procreation, we might just be capable of applying significance to the act that goes BEYOND that established parameter.

Like I said, Bonobos.

[Antityranicals]

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.

If the right to life trumps all, do we have the right to forcibly, against their will, inject Jehova's Witnesses with blood transfusions from foreign sources of blood? Even if the act of not doing so we leave the dying inevitably? The medical community seems to believe otherwise.

Our good friend the Jehovah's Witness has intentionally refused a procedure which is not the same as preventing his death, but merely something which drastically reduces his chances of death. Our good friend the fetus has no choice in the matter.

[Cappuccina]

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

In the instance of 'elective' abortions, it does a significant injustice to the woman to claim that she's just doing it 'for the sake of convenience'. A lot of consideration goes into the decision to seek out such services, and whatever those considerations might be, they are sufficient justification to that woman.

Your faith in humanity is strong.....

How does that work with people who get multiple abortions? Not sure how much thought goes into that.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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.

If the right to life trumps all, do we have the right to forcibly, against their will, inject Jehova's Witnesses with blood transfusions from foreign sources of blood? Even if the act of not doing so leaves them dying inevitably? The medical community seems to believe otherwise.

If right to life trumps all, do my fully informed and lucid self still have the right to refuse necessary chemotherapy conducted in order to save my life?

[Godular]

If the right to life trumps all, do we have the right to forcibly, against their will, inject Jehova's Witnesses with blood transfusions from foreign sources of blood? Even if the act of not doing so we leave the dying inevitably? The medical community seems to believe otherwise.

Our good friend the Jehovah's Witness has intentionally refused a procedure which is not the same as preventing his death, but merely something which drastically reduces his chances of death. Our good friend the fetus has no choice in the matter.

When it's incapable of making a decision for itself, the decisionmaking is left to its next of kin... guess who that is?

[Galloism]

You know, if a person consents to being pregnant by having sex, because she knew it was a possibility, then a person consents to being robbed by walking down the street, because they knew it was a possibility.

The reason why humans are capable of having sex is because it has evolved as a mechanism of procreation. Walking down the street was not invented for the express purpose of getting robbed.

Whether it was or it wasn't isn't really relevant. We do lots of things that had a different evolutionary mechanism to start with.

[Godular]

In the instance of 'elective' abortions, it does a significant injustice to the woman to claim that she's just doing it 'for the sake of convenience'. A lot of consideration goes into the decision to seek out such services, and whatever those considerations might be, they are sufficient justification to that woman.

Your faith in humanity is strong.....

How does that work with people who get multiple abortions? Not sure how much thought goes into that.

Circumstances can differ every time. It's not my business to judge whether one reason is better than the other.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If the right to life trumps all, do we have the right to forcibly, against their will, inject Jehova's Witnesses with blood transfusions from foreign sources of blood? Even if the act of not doing so we leave the dying inevitably? The medical community seems to believe otherwise.

Our good friend the Jehovah's Witness has intentionally refused a procedure which is not the same as preventing his death, but merely something which drastically reduces his chances of death. Our good friend the fetus has no choice in the matter.

The case in question I am citing discusses a woman, who upon losing 80% of her total blood volume, being described by her medical team as looking "cadaverous" post-op, still refused blood transfusion, leading to her certain death. Did she still have the right to refuse or should the doctors have forcibly transfused her in order to save her life?

[Antityranicals]

The reason why humans are capable of having sex is because it has evolved as a mechanism of procreation. Walking down the street was not invented for the express purpose of getting robbed.

Such a wondrous thing for us to be able to act outside of our biological imperatives. Why, one might almost conclude that even though sex is biologically intended as a linchpin for procreation, we might just be capable of applying significance to the act that goes BEYOND that established parameter.

Congrats, you put your penis in a vagina. (Or the other way around) How damn significant of you...

[Neutraligon]

In the instance of 'elective' abortions, it does a significant injustice to the woman to claim that she's just doing it 'for the sake of convenience'. A lot of consideration goes into the decision to seek out such services, and whatever those considerations might be, they are sufficient justification to that woman.

Your faith in humanity is strong.....

How does that work with people who get multiple abortions? Not sure how much thought goes into that.

Why wouldn't it work for people with multiple abortions?

[Galloism]

Such a wondrous thing for us to be able to act outside of our biological imperatives. Why, one might almost conclude that even though sex is biologically intended as a linchpin for procreation, we might just be capable of applying significance to the act that goes BEYOND that established parameter.

Congrats, you put your penis in a vagina. (Or the other way around) How damn significant of you...

You put a vagina in your penis?

[Godular]

Such a wondrous thing for us to be able to act outside of our biological imperatives. Why, one might almost conclude that even though sex is biologically intended as a linchpin for procreation, we might just be capable of applying significance to the act that goes BEYOND that established parameter.

Congrats, you put your penis in a vagina. (Or the other way around) How damn significant of you...

Indeed! The act has all the significance that my partner and I would choose to give it!

And if a penis should happen to appear in a woman's vagina without that woman's consent, she doesn't have to let it finish!

In extension, if a fetus should happen to appear in her uterus without her consent, she shouldn't have to let it finish!

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Our good friend the Jehovah's Witness has intentionally refused a procedure which is not the same as preventing his death, but merely something which drastically reduces his chances of death. Our good friend the fetus has no choice in the matter.

The case in question I am citing discusses a woman, who upon losing 80% of her total blood volume, being described by her medical team as looking "cadaverous" post-op, still refused blood transfusion, leading to her certain death. Did she still have the right to refuse or should the doctors have forcibly transfused her in order to save her life?

I am of the opinion that even though I would vehemently disagree with her decision, I would still contenance that she had the right to do as she wished with her bodily sovereignty.

[Antityranicals]

Our good friend the Jehovah's Witness has intentionally refused a procedure which is not the same as preventing his death, but merely something which drastically reduces his chances of death. Our good friend the fetus has no choice in the matter.

The case in question I am citing discusses a woman, who upon losing 80% of her total blood volume, is described by her medical team as looking "cadaverous" post-op, and still refused blood transfusion, leading to her certain death. Did she still have the right to refuse or should the doctors have forcibly transfused her in order to save her life?

It all comes down to free will. The fetus never intentionally gave up it's right to life. The woman, if I'm interpreting you right, did. The life-over-all-else rule only applies between two different people. There can be no conflict between one's own right to life and one's own right to liberty.