NationStates

The South Falls wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:If it involves another person, it should.

So the sovereignty of a non human goes over that of the mother?

>Non-human

Is it jackal?

Godular wrote:Finally got home to my computer so I could think up a decent poll.

Before anybody says anything about that last option: Well, it IS unreasonable!

You're missing the stance of most pro-lifers, myself included--opposition to abortion only in cases where the mother's health is in danger.

Hopefully I'll be more active here.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Godular wrote:Finally got home to my computer so I could think up a decent poll.

Before anybody says anything about that last option: Well, it IS unreasonable!

You're missing the stance of most pro-lifers, myself included--opposition to abortion only in cases where the mother's health is in danger.

Hopefully I'll be more active here.

'Medical Complications'

United Massachusetts wrote:

Godular wrote:Finally got home to my computer so I could think up a decent poll.

Before anybody says anything about that last option: Well, it IS unreasonable!

You're missing the stance of most pro-lifers, myself included--opposition to abortion only in cases where the mother's health is in danger.

Hopefully I'll be more active here.

Only or excluding?

Godular wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:You're missing the stance of most pro-lifers, myself included--opposition to abortion only in cases where the mother's health is in danger.

Hopefully I'll be more active here.

'Medical Complications'

That should be more specific.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Godular wrote:
'Medical Complications'

That should be more specific.

I think it's pretty clear cut. If you wish to specify an order of magnitude you can do so in a post.

Telconi wrote:

The South Falls wrote:So the sovereignty of a non human goes over that of the mother?

>Non-human

Is it jackal?

It has human genetics, and in many cases, human features.

A fetus is in every medical sense of the phrase a living organism. That cannot be denied. I think human genetics lend us to assume it is human. The question, therefore, is when it is OK to kill a living, human organism?

Telconi wrote:

The South Falls wrote:So the sovereignty of a non human goes over that of the mother?

>Non-human

Is it jackal?

When it is born, it is human.

Godular wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:That should be more specific.

I think it's pretty clear cut. If you wish to specify an order of magnitude you can do so in a post.

It doesn't specify what degree of complication or on who's end. For instance, a complication that could risk the life of the child is not a valid reason for abortion.

Apparently, a fifteen-year-old Indonesian girl was recently jailed after aborting a baby that was the product of incest and rape at the hands of her brother. Thoughts on this?

Personally, it's some fucked up shit. Abortion should genuinely be a human right that women have because women have numerous, legitimate reasons to get an abortion; it shouldn't be denied to them because of religious beliefs or what-have-you. Sure as shit there'll be people that abuse the system, but all in all, it should be elective (at least, until viability).

United Massachusetts wrote:

Telconi wrote:
>Non-human

Is it jackal?

It has human genetics, and in many cases, human features.

A fetus is in every medical sense of the phrase a living organism. That cannot be denied. I think human genetics lend us to assume it is human. The question, therefore, is when it is OK to kill a living, human organism?

Not in war.
Not as punishment/revenge.
Not because someone tripped onto your yard from the sidewalk.
None of those are certain threats. Medically required is more certain than being robbed.

The South Falls wrote:

Telconi wrote:
>Non-human

Is it jackal?

When it is born, it is human.

Why? Is there any developmental difference between a fetus at eight/nine months and an infant? If you're going to argue for abortion, at least try to argue that the right to bodily sovereignty entails the right to abortion (a questionable and false argument for other reasons). Don't draw arbitrary lines of human-ness. That's literally ableism.

The South Falls wrote:

Telconi wrote:
>Non-human

Is it jackal?

When it is born, it is human.

What is it before?

United Massachusetts wrote:

Godular wrote:
I think it's pretty clear cut. If you wish to specify an order of magnitude you can do so in a post.

It doesn't specify what degree of complication or on who's end. For instance, a complication that could risk the life of the child is not a valid reason for abortion.

That is another option, however.

Telconi wrote:

The South Falls wrote:When it is born, it is human.

What is it before?

A parasitic human fetus/embryo.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Godular wrote:
I think it's pretty clear cut. If you wish to specify an order of magnitude you can do so in a post.

It doesn't specify what degree of complication or on who's end. For instance, a complication that could risk the life of the child is not a valid reason for abortion.

See, at that point you're being obtuse picky (used the wrong word). I have a separate option for fetal abnormality, and invite posters to specify if they feel it necessary to do so. Polls have a maximum of 10 options, and I worked to cover every base I could think of.

Torrocca wrote:Apparently, a fifteen-year-old Indonesian girl was recently jailed after aborting a baby that was the product of incest and rape at the hands of her brother. Thoughts on this?

Personally, it's some fucked up shit. Abortion should genuinely be a human right that women have because women have numerous, legitimate reasons to get an abortion; it shouldn't be denied to them because of religious beliefs or what-have-you. Sure as shit there'll be people that abuse the system, but all in all, it should be elective (at least, until viability).

Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:It has human genetics, and in many cases, human features.

A fetus is in every medical sense of the phrase a living organism. That cannot be denied. I think human genetics lend us to assume it is human. The question, therefore, is when it is OK to kill a living, human organism?

Not in war.
Not as punishment/revenge.
Not because someone tripped onto your yard from the sidewalk.
None of those are certain threats. Medically required is more certain than being robbed.

Would one be justified in killing a person that they welcomed onto a property just because they wanted to?

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:

Telconi wrote:
What is it before?

A parasitic human fetus/embryo.

Huh...

United Massachusetts wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Apparently, a fifteen-year-old Indonesian girl was recently jailed after aborting a baby that was the product of incest and rape at the hands of her brother. Thoughts on this?

Personally, it's some fucked up shit. Abortion should genuinely be a human right that women have because women have numerous, legitimate reasons to get an abortion; it shouldn't be denied to them because of religious beliefs or what-have-you. Sure as shit there'll be people that abuse the system, but all in all, it should be elective (at least, until viability).

Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.

No one should be punished for abortions, bar illegal ones past the point of viability in the fetus' development.[/quote]

United Massachusetts wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Apparently, a fifteen-year-old Indonesian girl was recently jailed after aborting a baby that was the product of incest and rape at the hands of her brother. Thoughts on this?

Personally, it's some fucked up shit. Abortion should genuinely be a human right that women have because women have numerous, legitimate reasons to get an abortion; it shouldn't be denied to them because of religious beliefs or what-have-you. Sure as shit there'll be people that abuse the system, but all in all, it should be elective (at least, until viability).

Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:Not in war.
Not as punishment/revenge.
Not because someone tripped onto your yard from the sidewalk.
None of those are certain threats. Medically required is more certain than being robbed.

Would one be justified in killing a person that they welcomed onto a property just because they wanted to?

Eh, the no punishment for women is silly, we punish people who hire hit men, despite not having actually physically harmed anyone.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Apparently, a fifteen-year-old Indonesian girl was recently jailed after aborting a baby that was the product of incest and rape at the hands of her brother. Thoughts on this?

Personally, it's some fucked up shit. Abortion should genuinely be a human right that women have because women have numerous, legitimate reasons to get an abortion; it shouldn't be denied to them because of religious beliefs or what-have-you. Sure as shit there'll be people that abuse the system, but all in all, it should be elective (at least, until viability).

Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:Not in war.
Not as punishment/revenge.
Not because someone tripped onto your yard from the sidewalk.
None of those are certain threats. Medically required is more certain than being robbed.

Would one be justified in killing a person that they welcomed onto a property just because they wanted to?

Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).
But if someone invited two people and one of them turned one of the other two into a life support for the third (making the third parasitic and life threatening), then the third could be morally removed. If they can be saved, okay.

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.


Would one be justified in killing a person that they welcomed onto a property just because they wanted to?

Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).

Wait, so there are non-human people?

Godular wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:It doesn't specify what degree of complication or on who's end. For instance, a complication that could risk the life of the child is not a valid reason for abortion.

See, at that point you're being obtuse. I have a separate option for fetal abnormality, and invite posters to specify if they feel it necessary to do so. Polls have a maximum of 10 options, and I worked to cover every base I could think of.

I'll live, but you're shoving a lot of people into an option that you stigmatise, even though they don't agree with it. It seems as if you think that anyone who doesn't support abortion in cases of rape (a stance that some pro-lifers hold), for instance, is just a horrible human being. And you're reflecting that in the poll. At least try to have a fair OP.

Telconi wrote:

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).

Wait, so there are non-human people?

That's worked so well in history.

Telconi wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.


Would one be justified in killing a person that they welcomed onto a property just because they wanted to?

Eh, the no punishment for women is silly, we punish people who hire hit men, despite not having actually physically harmed anyone.

It's the same approach we should (but don't) take for drug-related offenses; don't punish the users, punish the dealers.

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Women should not be punished for abortion. Doctors should.


Would one be justified in killing a person that they welcomed onto a property just because they wanted to?

Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).

Some humans aren't people, then?

Telconi wrote:

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:Never. (However, I use a definition of person that does not include all humans, and humans does not include all people).

Wait, so there are non-human people?

I consider Kanzi and most great apes and dogs and hypothetical AI's to have more of a claim to being people than someone who is braindead.
Basically, if it has a mediumly to highly functioning brain, I consider it a person.