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

[The South Falls]

By the way, the fetus is only a potential person. Potential.

[Neutraligon]

It’s a woman’s bodily autonomy, whether you like it or not. You don’t know what she’s going through, and it makes women into state-regulated incubators to for any reason force them to use their own body to actively support another life without consent. Not to mention this could not be fairly enforced if there was heavy restrictions or a ban, and enforcement would involve apprehending women for miscarriages (10-20% of pregnancies) after all of that trauma they’ve already faced, to investigate because it could have been an abortion, often leading to the wrong conclusion… and jail. Abortion should be reduced with accurate sex ed and contraception coverage, which clearly lead to it being needed less.

A couple points here:

• A fetus is a living human organism seperate from the mother. The case must be made that she has the right to kill such an organism in the name of "bodily autonomy," and you have not made such a case.
• No one in the mainstream pro-life community seriously supports jailing women, or punishing miscarriages. The doctor would be liable

1) I would say until viability that a fetus is not in fact a separate organism from the mother.

[United Massachusetts]

Could you merge rape and abuse and add an other option? Or perhaps something pertaining to (hypothetical) artificial wombs/(advanced) incubators?

I'd like to avoid hypotheticals. I kept rape and abuse/incest separate because I have actually noted that some folks will say yes to one but not the other.

Really? I presume they'll say yes to the latter and no to the former?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Human genetics is too narrow. What about other lifeforms that are equally or more intelligent and sapient/sentient? Would a neanderthal or last common ancestor of homo and pan be a person?

They'd be considered persons, but not human, in the first case.

All humans are persons; not all persons are human.

Such is the definition. Saying that certain humans are not persons is a very dangerous road to walk down.

Yes, but I only wanted to exclude brain death (the legal definition of death in Kansas, USA and France).

[Godular]

I did not mess it up. Were this a pen and paper survey I'd have a box to specify if desired.

Hormonal issues can have a massive variety of effects on a woman, with the possibility of bringing her from zero to six feet under in the span of an 'I feel woozy'. If you're sitting there thinking the option is me saying it's A-okay for somebody to say 'HELL WITH THIS PREGNANCY!' because they feel a sudden craving for pickles, when I'm fairly certain THAT is covered in other options, then you're giving folks too little credit, says I.

Complications was still too vague. For instance, the risk of a miscarriage would be considered a complication. I appreciate the change.

I would count taking the 'risk' of complications as falling under 'elective'.

[United Massachusetts]

A couple points here:

• A fetus is a living human organism seperate from the mother. The case must be made that she has the right to kill such an organism in the name of "bodily autonomy," and you have not made such a case.
• No one in the mainstream pro-life community seriously supports jailing women, or punishing miscarriages. The doctor would be liable

1) I would say until viability that a fetus is not in fact a separate organism from the mother.

But that's false, because a fetus has its own unique genetic code.

But, more importantly why is viability are requirement now? Humans have to be viable in order to be human? People in persistent vegatative states are universally-acknowledged as human by any halfway decent person.

[Godular]

I'd like to avoid hypotheticals. I kept rape and abuse/incest separate because I have actually noted that some folks will say yes to one but not the other.

Really? I presume they'll say yes to the latter and no to the former?

I've seen both ways, surprisingly. Something something genetic integrity...

[Telconi]

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

So If a woman is raped, which is enough trauma, you want to jail her for murder? That's sad.

Uh, yes. Because giving people free passes because they're upset is bad juju.

[The Free Joy State]

Really? I presume they'll say yes to the latter and no to the former?

I've seen both ways, surprisingly. Something something genetic integrity...

I've already given my opinion, but I would like to say that I do agree with keeping rape and abuse/incest separately.

I agree that, often, I've seen people who accept the necessity of keeping abortion available for for one but not the other.

I think it's a good poll.

[Neutraligon]

1) I would say until viability that a fetus is not in fact a separate organism from the mother.

But that's false, because a fetus has its own unique genetic code.

But, more importantly why is viability are requirement now? Humans have to be viable in order to be human? People in persistent vegatative states are universally-acknowledged as human by any halfway decent person.

A parasitic twin might have it's own unique DNA. A single human can have different sets of DNA. That does not make the parasitic twin a truly separate organism. That does not make the person with more then two sets of DNA more than 1 organism. I am not sure I can say that conjoined twins that cannot be divided are separate organisms. (They are of separate people but not necessarily separate organisms).

Did I say anything about being human? A sheep is still an organism, even if it is not human.

[Sovaal]

By the way, the fetus is only a potential person. Potential.

The problem lies when it becomes a real person. Birth? When you cut the embolical cord? When it can survive outside do the womb on its own? Before?

[The South Falls]

By the way, I don't get y'all social conservative's viewpoints. You stigmatize welfare, then encourage people to have babies, which puts strain on the system. Then, you call the left hypocrites.

[Geneviev]

By the way, I don't get y'all social conservative's viewpoints. You stigmatize welfare, then encourage people to have babies, which puts strain on the system. Then, you call the left hypocrites.

Not everyone does that, you know.

[Washington Resistance Army]

By the way, I don't get y'all social conservative's viewpoints. You stigmatize welfare, then encourage people to have babies, which puts strain on the system. Then, you call the left hypocrites.

Better idea, we make welfare better and encourage people to have babies.

[Godular]

By the way, I don't get y'all social conservative's viewpoints. You stigmatize welfare, then encourage people to have babies, which puts strain on the system. Then, you call the left hypocrites.

To their credit, a goodly number of the pro-lifers actually support welfare support ‘n stuff. Not all (remembers one poster saying ‘That sounds like SOCIALISM!’), but a goodly number.

[Telconi]

By the way, I don't get y'all social conservative's viewpoints. You stigmatize welfare, then encourage people to have babies, which puts strain on the system. Then, you call the left hypocrites.

Not everyone does that, you know.

But sweeping generalizations are convenient!

[Dogmeat]

But that's false, because a fetus has its own unique genetic code.

But, more importantly why is viability are requirement now? Humans have to be viable in order to be human? People in persistent vegatative states are universally-acknowledged as human by any halfway decent person.

A parasitic twin might have it's own unique DNA. A single human can have different sets of DNA. That does not make the parasitic twin a truly separate organism. That does not make the person with more then two sets of DNA more than 1 organism. I am not sure I can say that conjoined twins that cannot be divided are separate organisms. (They are of separate people but not necessarily separate organisms).

Did I say anything about being human? A sheep is still an organism, even if it is not human.

Or even normal twins. By the DNA=inviduality logic, you could just go ahead and kill one of them, and you wouldn't have murdered anyone.

[The Free Joy State]

By the way, I don't get y'all social conservative's viewpoints. You stigmatize welfare, then encourage people to have babies, which puts strain on the system. Then, you call the left hypocrites.

While it's true that there are conservatives in the Rush Limbaugh model, who vaunt T-shirts wearing "Birth Control is for Sluts", and dismiss welfare and anyone on it as parasites, I don't think we should tar everyone who opposes abortion with the same broad brush.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm openly pro-choice.

But there are some pro-life people who do support more welfare and better education and healthcare.

I'm not sure where various factions stand on contraception.

The main difference is that, the pro-lifers who are in favour of those things want to see those things while restricting or illegalising abortion. Pro-choicers accept that -- legal or illegal, there will always be abortions (because there will always be rape and medical emergency) -- and most (because there are conservative pro-choicers) would like to see those things (healthcare, welfare, contraception and education) while making sure women have access to safe abortions.

[The Alma Mater]

By the way, I don't get y'all social conservative's viewpoints. You stigmatize welfare, then encourage people to have babies, which puts strain on the system. Then, you call the left hypocrites.

While it's true that there are conservatives in the Rush Limbaugh model, who vaunt T-shirts wearing "Birth Control is for Sluts", and dismiss welfare and anyone on it as parasites, I don't think we should tar everyone who opposes abortion with the same broad brush.

Why not ? This is topic 1 trillion on this subject or so and afaik sofar the number of peo-life people who advocate adoption as an alternative to abortion that has actually adopted a child is still exactly zero.

[Geneviev]

While it's true that there are conservatives in the Rush Limbaugh model, who vaunt T-shirts wearing "Birth Control is for Sluts", and dismiss welfare and anyone on it as parasites, I don't think we should tar everyone who opposes abortion with the same broad brush.

Why not ? This is topic 1 trillion on this subject or so and afaik sofar the number of peo-life people who advocate adoption as an alternative to abortion that has actually adopted a child is still exactly zero.

When I'm old enough and all I do intend to adopt, just so you know. And adoption is actually a good alternative in a lot of situations.

[Telconi]

While it's true that there are conservatives in the Rush Limbaugh model, who vaunt T-shirts wearing "Birth Control is for Sluts", and dismiss welfare and anyone on it as parasites, I don't think we should tar everyone who opposes abortion with the same broad brush.

Why not ? This is topic 1 trillion on this subject or so and afaik sofar the number of peo-life people who advocate adoption as an alternative to abortion that has actually adopted a child is still exactly zero.

Your brutally limited knowledge is pretty bad justification for stereotyping billions.

[The Free Joy State]

While it's true that there are conservatives in the Rush Limbaugh model, who vaunt T-shirts wearing "Birth Control is for Sluts", and dismiss welfare and anyone on it as parasites, I don't think we should tar everyone who opposes abortion with the same broad brush.

Why not ? This is topic 1 trillion on this subject or so and afaik sofar the number of peo-life people who advocate adoption as an alternative to abortion that has actually adopted a child is still exactly zero.

Well, we don't know their personal lives.

But, I never said that I considered adoption a viable alternative to abortion. The UK has more than 72,000 children in care, of which only just over 4,000 were adopted and more than 3,000 were still waiting after receiving adoption orders. In the States, there are 428,000 children in foster care with 114,556 waiting to be adopted.

It's not viable to add ever more children to the foster system.

Added to which, there are situations -- ectopic pregnancy, haemorrhage, sudden diagnosis of cancer needing urgent treatment -- where the woman would not be able to sustain a pregnancy long enough to give birth and live.

But I don't think we should demonise the other side where it's possible to find common-ground.

Save that for the people who want to ban everything, get rid of birth control, slash welfare, privatise all healthcare and education and tell the desperate, poor and dying: "Sort yourselves out, sluts. I've got mine."

[Ieskarios]

I'm against abortion outright. Both on a religious and a personal level, it is wrong for me to imagine someone killing their unborn child.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

By the way, I don't get y'all social conservative's viewpoints. You stigmatize welfare, then encourage people to have babies, which puts strain on the system. Then, you call the left hypocrites.

It comes from the viewpoint that it was “God’s plan” for said person to become pregnant, even if the pregnancy is a result of rape...

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

IMO abortion should be legal on demand up to 24-28 weeks (which is the point where, according to multiple scientific studies, a fetus is conscious and has the necessary brain connections to subjectively feel pain) and legal in medical emergencies afterwards.