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

[Genivaria]

1. Yes I have. Nothing happens at birth to give people rights, that doesn't even make sense! There is not some cosmic event at that point, which magically grants humans personhood. If someone has personhood the moment after birth, and nothing happens to give this someone personhood at birth, it stands to reason that he or she had personhood before birth. That's not to mention that you are muddling the definition of personhood to hell and back. Personhood is simply the state of being an individual, indivisible, genetically sovereign human being, all of which a fetus is.

A fetus is demonstrably not an individual, and "genetically sovereign" makes no sense whatsoever. Neither does, "indivisible," come to think of it.

Has he back-pedaled enough yet?

[Estanglia]

Will and desire give us rights because we want to do something, and are given the right (i.e ability) to do so as long as it doesn't conflict with others' rights.

If we had no will to, say, own property, there would be no need for a right to own property because nobody would engage in buying property.

If I was wealthy enough, and the owners were willing enough, I could probably buy the Empire State Building.

And even if "desires and will" couldn't be used as a qualifier, suffering can.

But I just pointed out a conflict of wills and desires. Why do the nominal owners of the empire state building get it, and not you? There's a lot more than will and desire to rights... Same can go for suffering, just the other way around.

Then fine, let's for the sake of argument drop will and desire from the equation.

We have rights in order to protect us from suffering. I have a right to life because I suffer when I'm killed, and I feel said suffering in most instances. Likewise, I have a right to not be attacked, because attacking me causes suffering to me that I can feel.

The fetus does not qualify for these rights, as it is incapable of feeling suffering, thus does not need said protections because it effectively does not suffer (if one doesn't feel suffering from an action, one probably doesn't suffer from it).

[Godular]

If someone is hurting me, or is about to hurt me, why should I ever have to allow that? Shouldn't I be allowed to use force to defend myself, regardless of whether the person is intentionally trying to hurt me or it's an accident or they're somehow unaware of what they're doing or not in control of their own actions or whatever?

Sure you can use force, just not lethal force.

You can use whatever force is necessary, lethal or otherwise. So long as the aversive situation is remedied with immediacy and effect.

[Antityranicals]

1. Yes I have. Nothing happens at birth to give people rights, that doesn't even make sense! There is not some cosmic event at that point, which magically grants humans personhood. If someone has personhood the moment after birth, and nothing happens to give this someone personhood at birth, it stands to reason that he or she had personhood before birth.

One, nothing happens at birth to give people rights to you.
Two, you're missing the big event: being born.

That's not to mention that you are muddling the definition of personhood to hell and back. Personhood is simply the state of being an individual, indivisible, genetically sovereign human being, all of which a fetus is.

"Individual" could totally be argued to not apply here, considering the fetus is not only not independent, but so wholly and entirely dependent upon the mother to survive that with our current technology there's no way to remove a fetus from her without killing it for the majority of its existence.

Individual and independent are not synonyms. I'm sure you'll admit that a baby is a human, but there isn't a baby in the world which is not dependent upon others for survival.

[Necroghastia]

A fetus is demonstrably not an individual, and "genetically sovereign" makes no sense whatsoever. Neither does, "indivisible," come to think of it.

If a fetus is demonstrably not an individual, go ahead and demonstrate. And "genetically sovereign" just means that an organism has his or her own genetics. If you divide a fetus, you don't get two fetuses. That's what indivisible means.

Point out to me where a fetus ends and the carrier begins.

[Antityranicals]

A fetus is demonstrably not an individual, and "genetically sovereign" makes no sense whatsoever. Neither does, "indivisible," come to think of it.

Has he back-pedaled enough yet?

I am not in any way "back-pedaling." I can entertain a notion without accepting it.

[The New California Republic]

What makes a fetus more distinct than, say, a tumour or a severed leg?

He has used the unique DNA argument on previous occasions, but that doesn't hold water as tumours also contain unique DNA.

Nothing happens at birth to give people rights, that doesn't even make sense!

Legally speaking yes there is. They are separated from a connection to the mother. And it is also the current status quo, so you need to prove to us why it shouldn't be. But you have yet to do so.

There is not some cosmic event at that point, which magically grants humans personhood. If someone has personhood the moment after birth, and nothing happens to give this someone personhood at birth, it stands to reason that he or she had personhood before birth.

That doesn't hold, as there is an event that happens at birth at which point we can say they are an individual person: they are separated from a connection to the mother.

That's not to mention that you are muddling the definition of personhood to hell and back. Personhood is simply the state of being an individual, indivisible, genetically sovereign human being, all of which a fetus is.

Given your piss-poor history of muddying definitions left right and centre, methinks it is obvious regarding who here is confusing matters.

[Estanglia]

One, nothing happens at birth to give people rights to you.
Two, you're missing the big event: being born.



"Individual" could totally be argued to not apply here, considering the fetus is not only not independent, but so wholly and entirely dependent upon the mother to survive that with our current technology there's no way to remove a fetus from her without killing it for the majority of its existence.

Individual and independent are not synonyms.

Cambridge definition of individual;
a single person or thing, especially when compared to the group or set to which they belong.

Independent;
not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things.

There is, at the very least, crossover between the two. If I am not independent at all compared to a particular person (i.e they have total, complete and irremovable control over me, and I am totally, completely and irremovably dependent upon them), am I really an individual?

I'm sure you'll admit that a baby is a human, but there isn't a baby in the world which is not dependent upon others for survival.

Yes, but a baby isn't dependent upon one specific human. A fetus is.

[The New California Republic]

And "genetically sovereign" just means that an organism has his or her own genetics.

Tumours are genetically sovereign too. So do you really want to go down that road?

[Jebslund]

A non-sentient and never-previously-sentient entity has no desires or will. It is fundamentally incapable of suffering (or, at the very least, of feeling the suffering) or of any desires, wants, emotions etc. Thus, it does not require the protection afforded by giving it rights, because there are no desires that need to be fulfilled nor no suffering that needs to be stopped.

And how do desires and will give people rights? I can desire the Empire State Building, but I don't have a right to it.

Sure you do, if you can convince the current owners to part with it. The will to own the Empire State Building gives you the right to attempt to obtain it. There are methods you have the right to use (purchase, persuasion, inheritance, etc) and methods you do not (theft, murder, blackmail, etc), but you have the right to attempt to obtain it.

Leaving aside the blatant red herring, though, having desires and will are the basis of why we have rights at all. Sure, you can give a table rights, but it'll benefit it as much as being made of reinforced gold alloy benefits a toilet (less, even, or more, depending on your aesthetic preferences). Before you go there, being something that will have desires and will isn't reasoning either. We don't punish someone for buying a car on the basis that they will get into a wreck that injures someone, right? Nor do we issue every speeding ticket that person will ever get then. Getting insurance, too, requires actually having a car to insure. So there's no point giving a nonsapient fetus rights when it has no more consciousness than that table I mentioned earlier.

[Oubliettica]

"If a fetus is demonstrably not an individual, go ahead and demonstrate. And "genetically sovereign" just means that an organism has his or her own genetics. If you divide a fetus, you don't get two fetuses. That's what indivisible means.[/quote]"

Nice try, no cigar. Religious cults have zero right to stick their noses up women's wombs until THEY prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that science supports the canard that fetuses are real human beings, especially before the 24th to 26th week when a fetus "might" be viable but also "might" develop serious defects that would shorten the future life, possibly at outrageous costs to both mother and society. Science does NOT support the oppressive cults' desires and the court of public opinion does NOT support the cult's right to force women to be involuntary incubators, risk their health (even their own lives) and their futures for an unwanted pregnancy.

The semantics game that lead to the fallacious claim that a fetus is an "unborn child" is a sham, and the intellectually dishonest hyperbole term was crammed into the US Code when the medieval cult-hijacked GOP had a majority and could pull it off. The invented "unborn child" term actually refers to a fantasy maybe baby since it has NO guarantee of reaching birth, the point when most of humanity has historically conveyed HUMAN BEING status (the unproven BELIEFS of oppressive religious monoliths to the contrary.) It's an brash attempt to elevate a developing fetus' status above the female host's rights and that is a blatantly oppressively wrong policy.

The recent lame attempts to make "fetal pain" (actually, an autonomic muscular reflex) or the "fetal heart beat" (when every species with hearts develop that muscle during development) "proof of human being status" doesn't make the heart "speshul." As a "proof" of human being status, both claims are shams, religious myth cloaked in pseudoscience and a callous disregard for the real LIFE of a real LIVING woman. It's shameful, but misogynists have no shame. They want to control women, blame women, condemn women to be chattel, perpetuating another sordid legacy of religion. Their own loaded buzz words show that, with the equally dishonest but oft quoted accusation that the women were "irresponsible" when unwanted pregnancies occur for MANY reasons, from abusive men to failed birth control.

[Nuroblav]

Nice try, no cigar. Religious cults have zero right to stick their noses up women's wombs until THEY prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that science supports the canard that fetuses are real human beings, especially before the 24th to 26th week when a fetus "might" be viable but also "might" develop serious defects that would shorten the future life, possibly at outrageous costs to both mother and society. Science does NOT support the oppressive cults' desires and the court of public opinion does NOT support the cult's right to force women to be involuntary incubators, risk their health (even their own lives) and their futures for an unwanted pregnancy.

The semantics game that lead to the fallacious claim that a fetus is an "unborn child" is a sham, and the intellectually dishonest hyperbole term was crammed into the US Code when the medieval cult-hijacked GOP had a majority and could pull it off. The invented "unborn child" term actually refers to a fantasy maybe baby since it has NO guarantee of reaching birth, the point when most of humanity has historically conveyed HUMAN BEING status (the unproven BELIEFS of oppressive religious monoliths to the contrary.) It's an brash attempt to elevate a developing fetus' status above the female host's rights and that is a blatantly oppressively wrong policy.

The recent lame attempts to make "fetal pain" (actually, an autonomic muscular reflex) or the "fetal heart beat" (when every species with hearts develop that muscle during development) "proof of human being status" doesn't make the heart "speshul." As a "proof" of human being status, both claims are shams, religious myth cloaked in pseudoscience and a callous disregard for the real LIFE of a real LIVING woman. It's shameful, but misogynists have no shame. They want to control women, blame women, condemn women to be chattel, perpetuating another sordid legacy of religion. Their own loaded buzz words show that, with the equally dishonest but oft quoted accusation that the women were "irresponsible" when unwanted pregnancies occur for MANY reasons, from abusive men to failed birth control.

I mean, not all pro-life people are against abortion, particularly where I am on the far-left. Many leftists are against abortion as it encourages irresponsibility. Speaking as someone who supports abortion, this is probably the best argument against abortion.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

I mean..

What exactly is abortion.

It is the destruction of the fetus.



It’s really a morals issue.

As far as I can tell there are two schools of thought.

Either the fetus is a person or it is not. (Also an argument about stopping the creation of a human, but that’s some what separate).

If the fetus is not a person then abortion is simply contraception.

If the fetus is a person then abortion is killing humans who don’t have control over their surroundings.


The implications being that either you are killing humans or are forcing people to give birth. There is no middle ground. You can soften the blow on forcing people to give birth with subzidations but that doesn't change the underlying issue.

Hopefully one day technology will allow for some easy procedure where instead of destroying (or killing) the fetus, or forcing someone to give birth that it can continue to be grown in some other way and become an orphaned or so thing. No forced brith, no killing babies. Win win. Ideal if gov pays for it. (My opinion anyways).

But as far as it goes for now. It’s either one or the other. Killing babies, or forcing people to give birth. (And by that I mean from the different sides, not to say that destroying a fetus is killing a baby, I don’t personally know). Right now one side will always be unhappy. Just up to people on what they believe and what is worth more. (All though even that gets into what right do people have to put beliefs on others, and then that includes the (babies) and back and forth. ... so complicated ...

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

I mean..

What exactly is abortion.

It is the destruction of the fetus.



It’s really a morals issue.

As far as I can tell there are two schools of thought.

Either the fetus is a person or it is not. (Also an argument about stopping the creation of a human, but that’s some what separate).

If the fetus is not a person then abortion is simply contraception.

If the fetus is a person then abortion is killing humans who don’t have control over their surroundings.


The implications being that either you are killing humans or are forcing people to give birth. There is no middle ground. You can soften the blow on forcing people to give birth with subzidations but that doesn't change the underlying issue.

Hopefully one day technology will allow for some easy procedure where instead of destroying (or killing) the fetus, or forcing someone to give birth that it can continue to be grown in some other way and become an orphaned or so thing. No forced brith, no killing babies. Win win. Ideal if gov pays for it. (My opinion anyways).

But as far as it goes for now. It’s either one or the other. Killing babies, or forcing people to give birth. (And by that I mean from the different sides, not to say that destroying a fetus is killing a baby, I don’t personally know). Right now one side will always be unhappy. Just up to people on what they believe and what is worth more. (All though even that gets into what right do people have to put beliefs on others, and then that includes the (babies) and back and forth. ... so complicated ...

Definitely support further research to try to determine if a fetus is alive.

[Estanglia]

Nice try, no cigar. Religious cults have zero right to stick their noses up women's wombs until THEY prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that science supports the canard that fetuses are real human beings, especially before the 24th to 26th week when a fetus "might" be viable but also "might" develop serious defects that would shorten the future life, possibly at outrageous costs to both mother and society. Science does NOT support the oppressive cults' desires and the court of public opinion does NOT support the cult's right to force women to be involuntary incubators, risk their health (even their own lives) and their futures for an unwanted pregnancy.

The semantics game that lead to the fallacious claim that a fetus is an "unborn child" is a sham, and the intellectually dishonest hyperbole term was crammed into the US Code when the medieval cult-hijacked GOP had a majority and could pull it off. The invented "unborn child" term actually refers to a fantasy maybe baby since it has NO guarantee of reaching birth, the point when most of humanity has historically conveyed HUMAN BEING status (the unproven BELIEFS of oppressive religious monoliths to the contrary.) It's an brash attempt to elevate a developing fetus' status above the female host's rights and that is a blatantly oppressively wrong policy.

The recent lame attempts to make "fetal pain" (actually, an autonomic muscular reflex) or the "fetal heart beat" (when every species with hearts develop that muscle during development) "proof of human being status" doesn't make the heart "speshul." As a "proof" of human being status, both claims are shams, religious myth cloaked in pseudoscience and a callous disregard for the real LIFE of a real LIVING woman. It's shameful, but misogynists have no shame. They want to control women, blame women, condemn women to be chattel, perpetuating another sordid legacy of religion. Their own loaded buzz words show that, with the equally dishonest but oft quoted accusation that the women were "irresponsible" when unwanted pregnancies occur for MANY reasons, from abusive men to failed birth control.

I mean, not all pro-life people are against abortion, particularly where I am on the far-left. Many leftists are against abortion as it encourages irresponsibility. Speaking as someone who supports abortion, this is probably the best argument against abortion.

I'd argue it is one of the worst.

It basically says "I don't care how much you suffer for your actions, I'm not gonna help you at all because you made decisions I don't like you doing". It just sounds like a whole load of spite, not done out of any moral principles other than "I don't want you doing this".

[Oubliettica]

I mean, not all pro-life people are against abortion, particularly where I am on the far-left. Many leftists are against abortion as it encourages irresponsibility. Speaking as someone who supports abortion, this is probably the best argument against abortion.

Since I'm part of the centrist Silent Majority (i.e., the 40% of the eligible electorate that has no voice in the gamed and rigged voting process nor even with the polarized and biased 4th estate that ignores OUR larger than either "sides'" size - admittedly for a number of reasons) the "far left" is as disgusting to me as is the far right. Both "sides" of the aisle are corrupt to the core and lack any credibility or critical thinkers. Your claim that "many" leftists" are against abortion because it encourages "irresponsibility" is (to my knowledge) lacking any factual proof. It's not a "because" it's a false belief. Do you have any stats (not from biased ignorant fringe bloggers or shills for religion sites, please) to support your statement? I know that some religious lemming dems are now trying to sway voters to the leftist side by making the same fallacy appeal to emotions regarding little humans swimming in the womb, but I haven't read any data confirming that "many" leftists are align with rightwingers on that fetus personhood claim. That would truly be scary (for the nation) not that it would surprise me considering religion rots brains.

The right wing's aggressive decades-long battle to muzzle sex education and hinder availability of safe birth control methods (and their new push for religious-based phony clinics that intentionally refuse to offer equal air time to abortion methods and instead push/guilt-shame and "counsel" distraught women to go to term, the ignorant cath "be fruitful and multiply" garbage, as well as the left wing's aggressive attempts to open our borders to a demographic inundation of woefully UNinformed illegals are prime causes of unwanted/ill-advised pregnancy.

FACT - if the right wing (and your reported subset of left wingers) were intellectually honest, the fallacious proLife term would in fact be renamed pro-MISERY because that is what it causes, but the duplicitous religious propaganda Handbook of Canards specifically prohibits intellectual honesty.

I rarely stay in Nationstates long enough to become embroiled with religious radicals or even with rational posters. Typically, the more I write, the more guaranteed I am to be muzzled by the mods who don't like free unfettered expression by those who don't waste time parsing their comments to appease the ubersensitives.

If I don't see your response, please don't misinterpret that as "running away" as so many trolls and proslytizers have done on many forums. I care about women, I care about ethics and honesty (the GOP tried to kill the Congressional Office of Ethics, btw), and I strongly support science, not bard-embellished myths, pseudoscience, alt-facts or man-invented religions because the sordidly cruel, callous, oppressive history of religious tyranny and their cult followers kinda speaks for itself. I don't care to constantly rehash a subject of abortion that NEVER should have arisen in a supposedly free country, was supposed to have been determined by SCOTUS in the 80's. Sadly, the jihad against women festers again and I occasionally wade into these ridiculous arguments with my take, not for argument or debate because it's been done over and over and over. The aim of the proMISERY crowd is to play this game to wear people down, not to win honestly with a true majority. They're happy to wag the tail with their pathetic 30% of the electorate and rigged courts and gerrymandered legislatures. Women have rights to their own destinies, bodies and anything developing inside them... religious zealots should NOT.

To the last two posters - the morality pleader and the one asking for "research" to prove a fetus is "alive" - sorry, more red herrings. Law of the land should not rest on a minority view of who's got the bestest moral high ground when they're happy killing women and doctors who aid them; and research IS being conducted on all areas of living tissue, just not into a mythical concept of "spirits" and "souls" - a truly vacuous and wholly UNproven concept at best. Not only do the religious instinctively IGNORE anything that doesn't comport with THEIR fallacious beliefs, they don't do any honest research. They can only cherry pick flowery quotes from religious embryologists and they play fallacious semantic philosophy games. I'm done now. With 466 pages and no resolution, it's clear this is one of many nationally divisive subjects that should NEVER be forced down everyone's throats by one side or the other. In this case, it should be left to the rational decision of a woman with a rational educated doctor's input. Government and zealots should keep their noses out of women's wombs.

ooops, just noticed Estanglia's post. I wholeheartedly agree with you!

[Nuroblav]

I mean, not all pro-life people are against abortion, particularly where I am on the far-left. Many leftists are against abortion as it encourages irresponsibility. Speaking as someone who supports abortion, this is probably the best argument against abortion.

I'd argue it is one of the worst.

It basically says "I don't care how much you suffer for your actions, I'm not gonna help you at all because you made decisions I don't like you doing". It just sounds like a whole load of spite, not done out of any moral principles other than "I don't want you doing this".

Fair enough. It's still a pretty shit argument either way

I mean..

What exactly is abortion.

It is the destruction of the fetus.



It’s really a morals issue.

As far as I can tell there are two schools of thought.

Either the fetus is a person or it is not. (Also an argument about stopping the creation of a human, but that’s some what separate).

If the fetus is not a person then abortion is simply contraception.

If the fetus is a person then abortion is killing humans who don’t have control over their surroundings.

Yep...

The implications being that either you are killing humans or are forcing people to give birth.

Actually before 24 weeks it isn't really a human so...

Hopefully one day technology will allow for some easy procedure where instead of destroying (or killing) the fetus, or forcing someone to give birth that it can continue to be grown in some other way and become an orphaned or so thing. No forced brith, no killing babies. Win win.

Well not exactly win win. I mean, I can't imagine the orphan would be particularly happy...otherwise fine.

Ideal if gov pays for it. (My opinion anyways).

Fair enough. I'm not really a government person as you can tell.

But as far as it goes for now. It’s either one or the other. Killing babies, or forcing people to give birth. (And by that I mean from the different sides, not to say that destroying a fetus is killing a baby, I don’t personally know).

Oh ok. Fyi up until 24 weeks I'd say it's fine. After fine is where it gets tricky.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Nice try, no cigar. Religious cults have zero right to stick their noses up women's wombs until THEY prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that science supports the canard that fetuses are real human beings, especially before the 24th to 26th week when a fetus "might" be viable but also "might" develop serious defects that would shorten the future life, possibly at outrageous costs to both mother and society. Science does NOT support the oppressive cults' desires and the court of public opinion does NOT support the cult's right to force women to be involuntary incubators, risk their health (even their own lives) and their futures for an unwanted pregnancy.

The semantics game that lead to the fallacious claim that a fetus is an "unborn child" is a sham, and the intellectually dishonest hyperbole term was crammed into the US Code when the medieval cult-hijacked GOP had a majority and could pull it off. The invented "unborn child" term actually refers to a fantasy maybe baby since it has NO guarantee of reaching birth, the point when most of humanity has historically conveyed HUMAN BEING status (the unproven BELIEFS of oppressive religious monoliths to the contrary.) It's an brash attempt to elevate a developing fetus' status above the female host's rights and that is a blatantly oppressively wrong policy.

The recent lame attempts to make "fetal pain" (actually, an autonomic muscular reflex) or the "fetal heart beat" (when every species with hearts develop that muscle during development) "proof of human being status" doesn't make the heart "speshul." As a "proof" of human being status, both claims are shams, religious myth cloaked in pseudoscience and a callous disregard for the real LIFE of a real LIVING woman. It's shameful, but misogynists have no shame. They want to control women, blame women, condemn women to be chattel, perpetuating another sordid legacy of religion. Their own loaded buzz words show that, with the equally dishonest but oft quoted accusation that the women were "irresponsible" when unwanted pregnancies occur for MANY reasons, from abusive men to failed birth control.

I mean, not all pro-life people are against abortion, particularly where I am on the far-left. Many leftists are against abortion as it encourages irresponsibility. Speaking as someone who supports abortion, this is probably the best argument against abortion.

"Pro-life" is defined as being anti-abortion, and you're the first leftist I've ever heard of, much less talked to, who's against abortion.

[The New California Republic]

Many leftists are against abortion as it encourages irresponsibility.

"Pro-life" is defined as being anti-abortion, and you're the first leftist I've ever heard of, much less talked to, who's against abortion.

Yeah I haven't known of "many" leftists who are against abortion.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

"Pro-life" is defined as being anti-abortion, and you're the first leftist I've ever heard of, much less talked to, who's against abortion.

Yeah I haven't known of "many" leftists who are against abortion.

Then again, judging from this:

Oh ok. Fyi up until 24 weeks I'd say it's fine. After fine is where it gets tricky.

I think Nuroblav might just be confused as to what exactly "pro-life" actually means. Pro-lifers are against abortion regardless of how far along the pregnancy is, sometimes with exceptions (such as if the pregnancy was the result of rape), sometimes not.

[Nuroblav]

-snip-

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I never said it was a good opinion. It's a pretty shit opinion that they have. I do agree with a lot of the things you have said so don't think I am pro-life.

Also, I could see how some of the far-left could be labelled as 'corrupt' and would indeed agree. But not all. Definitely not all. What about the anarchists? Anarcho-Communists?

Nonetheless, great argument. Consider me impressed!

Yeah I haven't known of "many" leftists who are against abortion.

Then again, judging from this:

Oh ok. Fyi up until 24 weeks I'd say it's fine. After fine is where it gets tricky.

I think Nuroblav might just be confused as to what exactly "pro-life" actually means. Pro-lifers are against abortion regardless of how far along the pregnancy is, sometimes with exceptions (such as if the pregnancy was the result of rape), sometimes not.

No. I know what pro-life means. I never said I was against abortion. Anywhere. I have specifically outlined that I am not pro-life. I have specifically said that I support abortion and am not against it. Unless you can point out to me where I have a different opinion, of course...

[Cantelo]

Since I'm part of the centrist Silent Majority (i.e., the 40% of the eligible electorate that has no voice in the gamed and rigged voting process nor even with the polarized and biased 4th estate that ignores OUR larger than either "sides'" size - admittedly for a number of reasons) the "far left" is as disgusting to me as is the far right. Both "sides" of the aisle are corrupt to the core and lack any credibility or critical thinkers. Your claim that "many" leftists" are against abortion because it encourages "irresponsibility" is (to my knowledge) lacking any factual proof. It's not a "because" it's a false belief. Do you have any stats (not from biased ignorant fringe bloggers or shills for religion sites, please) to support your statement? I know that some religious lemming dems are now trying to sway voters to the leftist side by making the same fallacy appeal to emotions regarding little humans swimming in the womb, but I haven't read any data confirming that "many" leftists are align with rightwingers on that fetus personhood claim. That would truly be scary (for the nation) not that it would surprise me considering religion rots brains.

The right wing's aggressive decades-long battle to muzzle sex education and hinder availability of safe birth control methods (and their new push for religious-based phony clinics that intentionally refuse to offer equal air time to abortion methods and instead push/guilt-shame and "counsel" distraught women to go to term, the ignorant cath "be fruitful and multiply" garbage, as well as the left wing's aggressive attempts to open our borders to a demographic inundation of woefully UNinformed illegals are prime causes of unwanted/ill-advised pregnancy.

FACT - if the right wing (and your reported subset of left wingers) were intellectually honest, the fallacious proLife term would in fact be renamed pro-MISERY because that is what it causes, but the duplicitous religious propaganda Handbook of Canards specifically prohibits intellectual honesty.

I rarely stay in Nationstates long enough to become embroiled with religious radicals or even with rational posters. Typically, the more I write, the more guaranteed I am to be muzzled by the mods who don't like free unfettered expression by those who don't waste time parsing their comments to appease the ubersensitives.

If I don't see your response, please don't misinterpret that as "running away" as so many trolls and proslytizers have done on many forums. I care about women, I care about ethics and honesty (the GOP tried to kill the Congressional Office of Ethics, btw), and I strongly support science, not bard-embellished myths, pseudoscience, alt-facts or man-invented religions because the sordidly cruel, callous, oppressive history of religious tyranny and their cult followers kinda speaks for itself. I don't care to constantly rehash a subject of abortion that NEVER should have arisen in a supposedly free country, was supposed to have been determined by SCOTUS in the 80's. Sadly, the jihad against women festers again and I occasionally wade into these ridiculous arguments with my take, not for argument or debate because it's been done over and over and over. The aim of the proMISERY crowd is to play this game to wear people down, not to win honestly with a true majority. They're happy to wag the tail with their pathetic 30% of the electorate and rigged courts and gerrymandered legislatures. Women have rights to their own destinies, bodies and anything developing inside them... religious zealots should NOT.

To the last two posters - the morality pleader and the one asking for "research" to prove a fetus is "alive" - sorry, more red herrings. Law of the land should not rest on a minority view of who's got the bestest moral high ground when they're happy killing women and doctors who aid them; and research IS being conducted on all areas of living tissue, just not into a mythical concept of "spirits" and "souls" - a truly vacuous and wholly UNproven concept at best. Not only do the religious instinctively IGNORE anything that doesn't comport with THEIR fallacious beliefs, they don't do any honest research. They can only cherry pick flowery quotes from religious embryologists and they play fallacious semantic philosophy games. I'm done now. With 466 pages and no resolution, it's clear this is one of many nationally divisive subjects that should NEVER be forced down everyone's throats by one side or the other. In this case, it should be left to the rational decision of a woman with a rational educated doctor's input. Government and zealots should keep their noses out of women's wombs.

ooops, just noticed Estanglia's post. I wholeheartedly agree with you!

This right here should end the thread, honestly. I've gotten far too frustrated at strangers on a roleplaying site debating abortion, and it was all for no reason because nobody here is going to change the opinion of a person that holds the opinion that I should not have bodily autonomy and if I get raped and pregnant then my own trauma means shit compared to a precious wad of tissue. All thinly veiled with religion and insincere philosophical musings.

[Nuroblav]

This right here should end the thread, honestly. I've gotten far too frustrated at strangers on a roleplaying site debating abortion, and it was all for no reason because nobody here is going to change the opinion of a person that holds the opinion that I should not have bodily autonomy and if I get raped and pregnant then my own trauma means shit compared to a precious wad of tissue. All thinly veiled with religion and insincere philosophical musings.

I agree. While it's a fun topic to debate this has honestly got tiring.

[Oubliettica]

Oh ok. Fyi up until 24 weeks I'd say it's fine. After fine is where it gets tricky.

I think Nuroblav might just be confused as to what exactly "pro-life" actually means. Pro-lifers are against abortion regardless of how far along the pregnancy is, sometimes with exceptions (such as if the pregnancy was the result of rape), sometimes not.[/quote]

Bingo. Prolifers (from the ProMISERY cult) want not to just move the goal posts from 24-26 weeks but to shove them right up the woman's Fallopian tubes with a complete ban from conception. They've often admitted this, when even moving the goal posts to (let's pick a number out of a proMISERY cultists butt) 20 weeks, 18 weeks, 6 weeks means that at least in the PRESENT, those fetuses have a ZERO viability/survival rate, and often only at outrageous cost at the current 24 weeks.) When it's an unwanted fetus for any reason (and I bridle at the intellectual dishonesty of those cultists who use hyperbole to claim it's "eugenics" to terminate certain genetic defects when in a free country, a woman would be FREE to have a defective child if she wishes), who the heck do these cultists think they are to impose their bizarre "morality" on others? It's the most disgusting attempt to hijack rights and turn women into breeder chattel and it has to be stopped before the nation is plunged into a medieval dystopia.

Nuroblav, by saying I'm centrist, I presumed my indictment of the extremes being corrupt included by default ALL the crazies, zanies and loonies - commies, antifa, et al.

[Oubliettica]

Sorry, you guys slip in comments while I'm writing my novels. I agree, topic should die a natural death here cause arguing doesn't improve viability.