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

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

And why wouldn't any miscarriage be labeled as suspicious if a fetus is a person?

The same way every death isn't defacto murder. Miscarriage is an unfortunate and natural aspect of pregnancy. If I don't wake up tomorrow, the police aren't going to automatically arrest my wife for murder.

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Currently, 17 women in El Salvador (known by pro-choice campaigners as "Las 17") are serving 30 years' imprisonment for miscarriages.

[Triassica]

They are acting in bad faith. Same arguments that SocCons use about "state rights" which is really just code word for wanting to take away rights from gay and brown people. They know that their policies are extreme against public Opinon. So they do everything to hide and deceive people from their cruel and wicked intentions. Thus, while they declare that abortion is murder, they do everything they can to hide the logical conclusions of their arguments under the rug with dishonesty.

lol no they don't.

Like hell they do and to deny otherwise is to be blind to all the arguments and tactics they have used for decades. It makes you blind to the factual and objective reality.

[Freezic Vast]

lol no they don't.

Like hell they do and to deny otherwise is to be blind to all the arguments and tactics they have used for decades. It makes you blind to the factual and objective reality.

You mean people like you being blind to the fact that NOT EVERY SOCCON IS LIKE THAT!!!

[The New California Republic]

lol no they don't.

Like hell they do and to deny otherwise is to be blind to all the arguments and tactics they have used for decades. It makes you blind to the factual and objective reality.

Your wanton abuse of hyperbole obscures and obfuscates everything, and is entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion.

[Triassica]

Like hell they do and to deny otherwise is to be blind to all the arguments and tactics they have used for decades. It makes you blind to the factual and objective reality.

Your wanton abuse of hyperbole obscures and obfuscates everything, and is entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion.

Nothing I say is hyperbole. What I say is honest to God literal and not an exaggeration.

[The New California Republic]

Your wanton abuse of hyperbole obscures and obfuscates everything, and is entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion.

Nothing I say is hyperbole. What I say is honest to God literal and not an exaggeration.

It is irrelevant hyperbole. Ranting about black people and gay people getting rights snatched away by conservatives is hyperbole, and has nothing to do with abortion. The ridiculousness of the argument you are putting forward is so ridiculous that it is verging on parody, which makes me suspect even more that, as I said earlier, there is some major false flag bullshittery going on here.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Your wanton abuse of hyperbole obscures and obfuscates everything, and is entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion.

Nothing I say is hyperbole. What I say is honest to God literal and not an exaggeration.

Saying that the United States has a 100% chance of becoming a social conservative dystopia reminiscent of A Handmaid's Tale is hyperbole

[Godular]

Your wanton abuse of hyperbole obscures and obfuscates everything, and is entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion.

Nothing I say is hyperbole. What I say is honest to God literal and not an exaggeration.

*cough*

That does not inherently translate into a characterization of all conservatives.

It doesn't, but some SocCons in power seem to act that way.

That bit right there? That pretty much destroyed your point that everything you say is literal and not exaggerated, per your own admission. Because 'some' is not all, and 'seem' is not 'is'. Your overly emotional doom-and-gloom serve only to reinforce their position and make them double down harder. Should you wish to contribute to this topic, it would be highly appreciated if your argument did not rely upon gross generalizations, misrepresentations, and wanton falsehoods.

Stop. Giving. Them. Ammunition.

[Telconi]

It attributes them enough rights to being murdered.

Fetal homicide laws don't conflict with Roe v Wade though. And the capacity to be murdered doesn't attribute personhood.

We obviously care enough about the unborn to escalate punishments against pregnant women regardless of week count.

Not really, I care more about the women to be honest. At least they are people.

Well given that only persons are generally considered able to be murdered, it does seem to imply it.

[Telconi]

I don't see how, perhaps you could explain.

A simple question for you, Telconi. Would you rather a woman has a safe, legal abortion in a medical centre, or she has an unsafe, illegal abortion in a back-alley?

Nobody likes abortions, even when safe and legal.

But no one likes women bleeding to death on the bathroom floor from illegal abortions either. What should we do?

Neither, as has been pointed out, opposition to one does not imply support for another.

[San Lumen]

A simple question for you, Telconi. Would you rather a woman has a safe, legal abortion in a medical centre, or she has an unsafe, illegal abortion in a back-alley?

Neither, as has been pointed out, opposition to one does not imply support for another.

By your logic in this debate should you a voter be able to decide if LGBT people can get married or adopt children?

The fact that you vote does not give you the right to make medical decisions for people you dont know.

And why wouldn't any miscarriage be labeled as suspicious if a fetus is a person?

[The New California Republic]

Fetal homicide laws don't conflict with Roe v Wade though. And the capacity to be murdered doesn't attribute personhood.

Well given that only persons are generally considered able to be murdered, it does seem to imply it.

But clearly not, as abortion hasn't suddenly been made murder by the decision to prosecute fetal homicide...

[San Lumen]

Well given that only persons are generally considered able to be murdered, it does seem to imply it.

But clearly not, as abortion hasn't suddenly been made murder by the decision to prosecute fetal homicide...

But if a fetus is a person then it would be murder.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well my feelings on abortion are odd
I don’t consider the fetus to be a living human, but it does make me uncomfortable that you are stopping a fetus from becoming a person. But that ultimately isn’t very different from birth control. So I stay pro choice and say abortions make me uncomfortable

[Telconi]

Neither, as has been pointed out, opposition to one does not imply support for another.

By your logic in this debate should you a voter be able to decide if LGBT people can get married or adopt children?

The fact that you vote does not give you the right to make medical decisions for people you dont know.

And why wouldn't any miscarriage be labeled as suspicious if a fetus is a person?

Sure.

I thought you liked democracy?

Why isn't every death labelled suspicious, perhaps, the, uh, lack of suspicion???

[Geneviev]

But clearly not, as abortion hasn't suddenly been made murder by the decision to prosecute fetal homicide...

But if a fetus is a person then it would be murder.

Morally, it should be considered murder. Legally, it shouldn't be.

[Telconi]

Well given that only persons are generally considered able to be murdered, it does seem to imply it.

But clearly not, as abortion hasn't suddenly been made murder by the decision to prosecute fetal homicide...

Oh, no, it certainly implies it, the fact that the government maintains shit policies doesn't make those policies not shit. Or perhaps you're implying some sort of inherent legal truth?

[San Lumen]

By your logic in this debate should you a voter be able to decide if LGBT people can get married or adopt children?

The fact that you vote does not give you the right to make medical decisions for people you dont know.

And why wouldn't any miscarriage be labeled as suspicious if a fetus is a person?

Sure.

I thought you liked democracy?

Why isn't every death labelled suspicious, perhaps, the, uh, lack of suspicion???

Why should you have the right to decide personal matters for people?

When did I say I didn't? You do not have a right to impose your morals on people.

And why shouldnt a miscarriage be investigated for murder? After all a fetus is a person so shouldnt it be treated as suspicious until proven otherwise.

[Telconi]

Sure.

I thought you liked democracy?

Why isn't every death labelled suspicious, perhaps, the, uh, lack of suspicion???

Why should you have the right to decide personal matters for people?

When did I say I didn't? You do not have a right to impose your morals on people.

And why shouldnt a miscarriage be investigated for murder? After all a fetus is a person so shouldnt it be treated as suspicious until proven otherwise.

Why should anybody? -shrug-

Literally what laws are...

Uh, no, notice how we don't launch a criminal investigation whenever someone dies.

[The New California Republic]

But clearly not, as abortion hasn't suddenly been made murder by the decision to prosecute fetal homicide...

Oh, no, it certainly implies it, the fact that the government maintains shit policies doesn't make those policies not shit. Or perhaps you're implying some sort of inherent legal truth?

Not really, simply that the status of the fetus isn't legally changed to that of a person due to fetal homicide laws. Sure, it is a paradox that the fetus is an entity that is capable of having the term homicide applied to it, if it dies through the act of an outside party without the consent of the woman carrying the fetus, but the law is a very tangled web.

[San Lumen]

Why should you have the right to decide personal matters for people?

When did I say I didn't? You do not have a right to impose your morals on people.

And why shouldnt a miscarriage be investigated for murder? After all a fetus is a person so shouldnt it be treated as suspicious until proven otherwise.

Why should anybody? -shrug-

Literally what laws are...

Uh, no, notice how we don't launch a criminal investigation whenever someone dies.

Yes but the law should not be making medical decisions for people.

And if a fetus was person and a woman has a miscarriage how would you know it wasn't murder?

[Telconi]

Why should anybody? -shrug-

Literally what laws are...

Uh, no, notice how we don't launch a criminal investigation whenever someone dies.

Yes but the law should not be making medical decisions for people.

And if a fetus was person and a woman has a miscarriage how would you know it wasn't murder?

Says you.

Generally circumstance of death tends to be a good indicator, which is why coroners exist.

[San Lumen]

Yes but the law should not be making medical decisions for people.

And if a fetus was person and a woman has a miscarriage how would you know it wasn't murder?

Says you.

Generally circumstance of death tends to be a good indicator, which is why coroners exist.

By your logic should you get to decide if a gay people can marry or adopt children or anything else personal?

Therefore any miscarriage should be investigated as possible homicide?

[Telconi]

Says you.

Generally circumstance of death tends to be a good indicator, which is why coroners exist.

By your logic should you get to decide if a gay people can marry or adopt children or anything else personal?

Therefore any miscarriage should be investigated as possible homicide?

Why not?

Suspicious ones.

[San Lumen]

By your logic should you get to decide if a gay people can marry or adopt children or anything else personal?

Therefore any miscarriage should be investigated as possible homicide?

Why not?

Suspicious ones.

Because its none of your business.

And how would you know it if was suspicious without investigating first.