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

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Well, at least now I know you know next to nothing about abortion.

I'm not into murderous gore, therefore I'm not going to know the exact details of how an abortion is executed (<-- double entendre)

The cure for an ectopic pregnancy... are doses of Methotrexate. Barring contraindications for chemotherapy agents it's not really extremely complicated. The extremely complicated and dangerous part comes when the fetus has grown to such size that it is impeding and threatening the blood vessels around it, some of them major blood vessels of the body. At which point the surgical removal of which without causing an exsanguination of the woman I would rate - as a layman - as complicated as operating on an aortic aneurysm.

[United Muscovite Nations]

"God, what is WRONG with people trying to make parents take care of their children"

That's what this sounds like to me.

Just making sure in case you didn't see it, since I was genuinely interested in your response.

How can something which has not developed brain cells be considered a child?

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Just making sure in case you didn't see it, since I was genuinely interested in your response.

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

Is the exsanguination of women in the developing world due to ectopic pregnancies preferable then?

[Hanafuridake]

Just making sure in case you didn't see it, since I was genuinely interested in your response.

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

So if someone doesn't accept the existence of a soul, then there's no basis for calling a fetus in the earliest stages a child?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

Is the exsanguination of women in the developed world due to ectopic pregnancies preferable then?

Ectopic pregnancies happen, unfortunately, that is part of the fallen world we live in that is to be redeemed.

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

So if someone doesn't accept the existence of a soul, then there's no basis for calling a fetus in the earliest stages a child?

I suppose not, but this has no bearing on my point of view.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is the exsanguination of women in the developed world due to ectopic pregnancies preferable then?

Ectopic pregnancies happen, unfortunately, that is part of the fallen world we live in that is to be redeemed.

So do you prefer that women get their condition cured, their lives preserved or that they die horribly?

[Ayytaly]

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

So if someone doesn't accept the existence of a soul, then there's no basis for calling a fetus in the earliest stages a child?

The secular equivalent is that if the law does not consider it as "human", it's a-ok to snuff it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Ectopic pregnancies happen, unfortunately, that is part of the fallen world we live in that is to be redeemed.

So do you prefer that women get their condition cured, their lives preserved or that they die horribly?

I said earlier if the woman would die from the pregnancy that abortion can be justified.

[The Free Joy State]

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

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

Women don't have a duty to take care of their born children. They can leave them in foster care immediately, or at a safe drop site for babies. Unfortunately, that's not an option for pregnancies -- abortion is the closest option to allow a woman immediate legal abdication of parenthood.

Why does a pregnant woman have fewer rights than one who has given birth?

And would you remain attached to the violinist, by the way?

Incidentally, thank you for answering the analogy. We have different views on the debate, but I do think it's an interesting question.

[Ayytaly]

So do you prefer that women get their condition cured, their lives preserved or that they die horribly?

I said earlier if the woman would die from the pregnancy that abortion can be justified.

I agree. It's best to lose the child, get over the loss as time passes, and try again. It's much harder to find a significant other if she's the one who dies, because chances are the baby dies as well.

[Galloism]

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

Women don't have a duty to take care of their born children. They can leave them in foster care immediately, or at a safe drop site for babies. Unfortunately, that's not an option for pregnancies -- abortion is the closest option to allow a woman immediate legal abdication of parenthood.

Why does a pregnant woman have fewer rights than one who has given birth?

And would you remain attached to the violinist, by the way?

Incidentally, thank you for answering the analogy. We have different views on the debate, but I do think it's an interesting question.

I probably would, tbh.

Someone better be paying the bills though.

[Hanafuridake]

So if someone doesn't accept the existence of a soul, then there's no basis for calling a fetus in the earliest stages a child?

I suppose not, but this has no bearing on my point of view.

My point is more you're using emotionally charged language based on a proposition that most posters here probably don't accept, which can come across as confusing or manipulative, rather than the proposition you hold being wrong (which would be a wholly separate topic divorced from this one).

[Antityranicals]

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

Women don't have a duty to take care of their born children. They can leave them in foster care immediately, or at a safe drop site for babies. Unfortunately, that's not an option for pregnancies -- abortion is the closest option to allow a woman immediate legal abdication of parenthood.

Why does a pregnant woman have fewer rights than one who has given birth?

And would you remain attached to the violinist, by the way?

Incidentally, thank you for answering the analogy. We have different views on the debate, but I do think it's an interesting question.

Because the right of the innocent to life overrides all other rights.

[New haven america]

Just making sure in case you didn't see it, since I was genuinely interested in your response.

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

And last time I checked America isn't a Christian Theocracy, so this argument is useless.

Next!

[Kowani]

Women don't have a duty to take care of their born children. They can leave them in foster care immediately, or at a safe drop site for babies. Unfortunately, that's not an option for pregnancies -- abortion is the closest option to allow a woman immediate legal abdication of parenthood.

Why does a pregnant woman have fewer rights than one who has given birth?

And would you remain attached to the violinist, by the way?

Incidentally, thank you for answering the analogy. We have different views on the debate, but I do think it's an interesting question.

Because the right of the innocent to life overrides all other rights.

Ahh, so the innocent get extra rights.

[Godular]

Women don't have a duty to take care of their born children. They can leave them in foster care immediately, or at a safe drop site for babies. Unfortunately, that's not an option for pregnancies -- abortion is the closest option to allow a woman immediate legal abdication of parenthood.

Why does a pregnant woman have fewer rights than one who has given birth?

And would you remain attached to the violinist, by the way?

Incidentally, thank you for answering the analogy. We have different views on the debate, but I do think it's an interesting question.

Because the right of the innocent to life overrides all other rights.

No it doesn't.

[Antityranicals]

Because it has a soul from the Christian point of view.

And last time I checked America isn't a Christian Theocracy, so this argument is useless.

Next!

Christian point of view or not, a human either has a soul, or it doesn't. If one does, Christian theocracy or not, the government has a duty to ban abortion. If one does not, then there is no reason why murder should be wrong at all.

[New haven america]

Women don't have a duty to take care of their born children. They can leave them in foster care immediately, or at a safe drop site for babies. Unfortunately, that's not an option for pregnancies -- abortion is the closest option to allow a woman immediate legal abdication of parenthood.

Why does a pregnant woman have fewer rights than one who has given birth?

And would you remain attached to the violinist, by the way?

Incidentally, thank you for answering the analogy. We have different views on the debate, but I do think it's an interesting question.

Because the right of the innocent to life overrides all other rights.

Here we see a libertarian arguing that people shouldn't have the right to bodily autonomy.

[Godular]

That’s arguable.

Both are painful

Not to a fetus.

[Antityranicals]

Because the right of the innocent to life overrides all other rights.

No it doesn't.

What right would you put ahead of the right of the innocent to life?

[Geneviev]

And last time I checked America isn't a Christian Theocracy, so this argument is useless.

Next!

Christian point of view or not, a human either has a soul, or it doesn't. If one does, Christian theocracy or not, the government has a duty to ban abortion. If one does not, then there is no reason why murder should be wrong at all.

Other than in the Christian point of view, there are no souls.

[Antityranicals]

Because the right of the innocent to life overrides all other rights.

Here we see a libertarian arguing that people shouldn't have the right to bodily autonomy.

Here we see a libertarian arguing that people shouldn't have the right to murder their children.

[Hanafuridake]

Women don't have a duty to take care of their born children. They can leave them in foster care immediately, or at a safe drop site for babies. Unfortunately, that's not an option for pregnancies -- abortion is the closest option to allow a woman immediate legal abdication of parenthood.

Why does a pregnant woman have fewer rights than one who has given birth?

And would you remain attached to the violinist, by the way?

Incidentally, thank you for answering the analogy. We have different views on the debate, but I do think it's an interesting question.

Because the right of the innocent to life overrides all other rights.

How can something which hasn't developed brain cells be considered life, in the same sense than you or I?

[Godular]

No it doesn't.

What right would you put ahead of the right of the innocent to life?

The right to life does not exist, so it can't really override anything.

[New haven america]

Here we see a libertarian arguing that people shouldn't have the right to bodily autonomy.

Here we see a libertarian arguing that people shouldn't have the right to murder their children.

A child actually has to exist out of the uterus.