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

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

No it doesn't. You might assume or hope that it does, but it doesn't.


Reproduction as a whole, yes. Nature doesn't really give a shit about the deaths of individual fetuses though.


Innocence is irrelevant if the fetus is there without the consent of the woman.


I do. Vegetarians and vegans do too, when they justify eating plants and not animals on the basis of consciousness.


Nobody is disputing the former or the latter.


I don't see how that is a fault. I would switch off the life support machine of a human who was brain dead...

I really can't talk with you if you think it's fine to kill humans. As is usual for this thread, carry on with your murderous barbarism.

I find myself amused that you treat their response as being ‘fine’ with killing humans. That is neither the case nor the intent of their message. Making blanket statements and then retreating to your echo chambers is pretty shitty form.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yes, not everyone shares my religion, but the truths espoused by my religion are not contained exclusively within it, but are universally true.

I thought the age where a bunch of Catholic priests claimed an universal monopoly on morality and people accepted this claim were long gone? <.<

[Galloism]

I draw the line when you abort 12 or more months of the fetus, or aborting during birth, or aborting even after brith

Abortion after birth is called infanticide

Ironically, a lesser crime than murder, in places with an infanticide statute on the books.

[Luziyca]

In my opinion, abortion should be completely unrestricted until 20 weeks, but after that, it should only be permitted if there is a medical emergency.

But I am a guy who has never conducted an abortion before, so... take my opinion with a spoonful of salt.

[The South Falls]

Abortion after birth is called infanticide

Ironically, a lesser crime than murder, in places with an infanticide statute on the books.

Infanticide is murder. Abortion is not murder.

[Galloism]

Ironically, a lesser crime than murder, in places with an infanticide statute on the books.

Infanticide is murder. Abortion is not murder.

Like I said, where places have put an infanticide statute on the books, it was to be infanticide and not murder, or reduce the punishment for murder of an infant compared with "standard" murder.

Here's a couple examples.

[The South Falls]

Infanticide is murder. Abortion is not murder.

Like I said, where places have put an infanticide statute on the books, it was to be infanticide and not murder, or reduce the punishment for murder of an infant compared with "standard" murder.

Here's a couple examples.

I mean, there needs to be more punishment for such an infanticide. It's a born human being killed. It's odd that there's much less punishment for it.


Darth Vader ets an extra 50 years for each count, and everyone else gets life.

[The Free Joy State]

You don't crawl inside someone else's body and get hooked up to their organs to take a nap.

But abortionists do crawl inside another persons body to dismember a second person.

What dreadfully inaccurate imagery.

They give a little pill or injection (in the early stages, where 92% of abortion are performed) and the foetus is expelled.

And the foetus is not a person.

Someone in a coma is not using someone else's body against their will.

Indeed. The abortionist believes that some magical property of the female person grants them the right to determine the value of life.

That's anti-egalitarian claptrap.

No. A woman gets to choose because currently, only a woman can conceive. A woman gets to choose because the foetus is leeching her blood and her nutrients. She gets to choose because she could die if she carries it to term, or because she was raped to conceive it, or because she was left to raise it alone.

If someone born male could conceive, you can bet that every pro-choicer would say "his body, his choice".

This forced use of an unwilling person's body, not to mention forcing another person risk their mental and physical wellbeing, is where the issue is.

No. The issue is the forced termination of life.

Human life.

Period.

No. My issue is the woman's quality of life, and the foetus' eventual quality of life (should it be born).

Basic functioning of cells is not a life. The person who is born, sentient and suffering has a life that needs protecting.

Or, doesn't the woman count?

By the way, personhood does have a quantifiable benchmark. Someone is defined as being a person from birth in the US code:

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

US Code
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

Indeed. But that isn't the definition TNCR used, is it? If that's the definition you use for person... I rather think you're being incredibly disingenuous. Because this definition bares no mark on the efficacy of the question central to the thread: "where do you draw the line?"

You're hiding behind the legal definition as it stands. That's fine. Fair even. But doing that means that you have to implicitly acknowledge the just cause that I, or other anti-abortionists, have in seeking to amend or repeal certain parts of that definition.

Oh, I know certain groups are all for eroding women's civil liberties in the US and trying to grant personhood to newly conceived zygotes. I've also read about attempts to make miscarriage a crime.

By the way, I didn't only do the US one. There's also the British and UN one, apparently omitted from your quote:

Here it is again:

Likewise, UK law does not award rights to foetuses ("At present UK Law states that the unborn child only becomes a legal person invested with legal rights and full protections, like other human persons, at birth.")

The UN's first article states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Key word: "born", as the UN has also discussed adding an amendment to codify that a foetus is not separate person in law.

So, I'd say that, rather than being abstract, personhood is pretty clearly defined in international law.

If that's the hill you want to stand on. Do it. Cool. Just means that you're ill prepared to argue against the anti-abortionists.

Emotional arguments against pro-choice facts and figures? I think pro-choicers will be fine.

You are, effectively, defending the right to kill on the basis that, at the moment in America, it is legal to kill.

No. It's not legal to kill. It's legal to have an abortion.

Pro-choicers do not believe in abortion or defend abortion because it is legal. There were abortions performed before it before it was legal and pro-choicers defended it before it was legal.

Pro-choicers defend abortion because -- whether we like abortions or not (most pro-choicers don't) -- we believe a woman who will/may die (with eclampsia, with uterine cancer, with an ectopic pregnancy, with a heart condition) should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term; a woman or girl who was raped should not be forced to carry her rapist's foetus to term; a woman who discovers her foetus will be born to experience a short life filled only with suffering (or to die at birth) should be able to spare them, and themselves, that; a woman who cannot feed and support a child, or who is trapped in an abusive relationship, should have that choice.

Pro-choicers believe in giving the woman the agency to make that choice. Nothing more.

[Distruzio]

But abortionists do crawl inside another persons body to dismember a second person.

What dreadfully inaccurate imagery.

They give a little pill or injection (in the early stages, where 92% of abortion are performed) and the foetus is expelled.

And the foetus is not a person.

Indeed. That was a mistake on my part, a mistype. A fetus is not a person. It's a human.

Indeed. The abortionist believes that some magical property of the female person grants them the right to determine the value of life.

That's anti-egalitarian claptrap.

No. A woman gets to choose because currently, only a woman can conceive. A woman gets to choose because the foetus is leeching her blood and her nutrients. She gets to choose because she could die if she carries it to term, or because she was raped to conceive it, or because she was left to raise it alone.

If someone born male could conceive, you can bet that every pro-choicer would say "his body, his choice".

Maybe... until men can carry children however, the abortionists are making the exact same anti-egalitarian arguments that slavers made: if a black was born white, they would have the same rights = if a man was born a woman, he would have the same rights.

By asserting that they with the ability to carry a human inside them have a special right (to kill that human or not), abortionists are making an undeniably anti-egalitarian claim. That may sound icky. But it's the utter truth.

No. The issue is the forced termination of life.

Human life.

Period.

No. My issue is the woman's quality of life, and the foetus' eventual quality of life (should it be born).

Those are separate issues entirely. And to invoke them is to dance dangerously close to, "better dead than less wealthy".

The quality of life for the woman is her responsibility. Should she deign not to kill the fetus, so is the quality of life for the eventual baby. If social programs are necessary to aid her, that is a discussion separate from the abortionist insistence that a woman has the special, magical, right to kill a fetus. It's a red herring.

Basic functioning of cells is not a life.

Incorrect. Middle school biology.

The person who is born, sentient and suffering has a life that needs protecting.

I agree. I just don't stop at "born".

Or, doesn't the woman count?

I'm not the one arguing for her death. Abortionists are.

Oh, I know certain groups are all for eroding women's civil liberties in the US and trying to grant personhood to newly conceived zygotes. I've also read about attempts to make miscarriage a crime.

Miscarriage a crime? That's ridiculous. I'm with you there.

By the way, I didn't only do the US one. There's also the British and UN one, apparently omitted from your quote:

Don't care. Not British. Human rights are secondary to individual rights. That may come across as overly callous, which is not my intent. I'm only trying to place the greatest degree of emphasis on abortionism in America as possible, since that is where my concern lies. If you aren't American... then we will be speaking past each other (and I offer an apology of sorts for that).

Emotional arguments against pro-choice facts and figures? I think pro-choicers will be fine.


No. It's not legal to kill. It's legal to have an abortion.

An abortion literally results in the termination of a human life. Not a cow. Not a pig. Not a blade of grass. Human. It was alive before the abortion. Then afterwards, it is no longer alive. That is death. Since it is legal, it is, indeed, a legal killing.

Pro-choicers do not believe in abortion or defend abortion because it is legal. There were abortions performed before it before it was legal and pro-choicers defended it before it was legal.

You made that argument. You did.

That abortionists killed before abortion was legal nationally doesn't change the fact. I'm not surprised with their obsession, either.

Pro-choicers defend abortion because -- whether we like abortions or not (most pro-choicers don't) -- we believe a woman who will/may die (with eclampsia, with uterine cancer, with an ectopic pregnancy, with a heart condition) should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term

Agree.

a woman or girl who was raped should not be forced to carry her rapist's foetus to term

What crime did the fetus commit? Why should the fetus be put to death for the crimes of another?

a woman who discovers her foetus will be born to experience a short life filled only with suffering (or to die at birth) should be able to spare them

By killing them? That's warped.

and themselves, that; a woman who cannot feed and support a child, or who is trapped in an abusive relationship, should have that choice.

Better dead than less wealthy, amirite?

Pro-choicers believe in giving the woman the agency to make that choice. Nothing more.

Exactly. I'm not contesting that. In fact, I've made it VERY clear that I agree with that - abortionists believe there is something magical that grants a woman the right to determine the value of life... and end that life. I'm saying the EXACT same thing you are, I'm just not pretending it isn't gruesome or an appeal for "equality". It isn't. I'm not even making a religious argument or a conservative argument. I'm even refusing to argue against the absence of personhood in a fetus (my earlier mistype notwithstanding). I'm simply saying that, by the VERY SAME definitions abortionists use they want the right to kill human beings for women only.

[The Free Joy State]

No. A woman gets to choose because currently, only a woman can conceive. A woman gets to choose because the foetus is leeching her blood and her nutrients. She gets to choose because she could die if she carries it to term, or because she was raped to conceive it, or because she was left to raise it alone.

If someone born male could conceive, you can bet that every pro-choicer would say "his body, his choice".

Maybe... until men can carry children however, the abortionists are making the exact same anti-egalitarian arguments that slavers made: if a black was born white, they would have the same rights = if a man was born a woman, he would have the same rights.

By asserting that they with the ability to carry a human inside them have a special right (to kill that human or not), abortionists are making an undeniably anti-egalitarian claim. That may sound icky. But it's the utter truth.

It doesn't sound "icky". It sounds nitpicky. And a false-equivalence. The only arguable way slavery could ever be applied to forced pregnancy is when discussing the woman who (because she was born female) is expected to be beholden to a foetus she may not have chosen to conceive and (even with consensual sex) probably took steps to avoid conceiving -- and risk to her personal health and mental wellbeing -- for nine-months.

Your argument also rather sounds like blaming women for a fact they can't control -- that only they can conceive -- and using it to accuse pro-choicers (not all pro-choicers perform abortions and, thus, are not "abortionists") of being somehow opposed to men.

No. My issue is the woman's quality of life, and the foetus' eventual quality of life (should it be born).

Those are separate issues entirely. And to invoke them is to dance dangerously close to, "better dead than less wealthy".

"Quality of life" means so much more than wealth, and it seems disingenuous to claim otherwise. A life with money but sick and in pain is low in quality of life,

The quality of life for the woman is her responsibility. Should she deign not to kill the fetus, so is the quality of life for the eventual baby. If social programs are necessary to aid her, that is a discussion separate from the abortionist insistence that a woman has the special, magical, right to kill a fetus. It's a red herring.

Many pro-lifers are not overly enamoured with social welfare. The words "leeches" often comes in.

"Sluts having babies to get welfare," comes up a lot from pro-lifers, too.

Yes, social welfare should be expanded and destigmatised. That might reduce some abortions. That would be good.

But, as I said, "quality of life" is about so much more than money.

Basic functioning of cells is not a life.

Incorrect. Middle school biology.

I said "a life", meaning a meaningful life. The word "a" carried the implicit difference.

The person who is born, sentient and suffering has a life that needs protecting.

I agree. I just don't stop at "born".

I'm guessing you mean foetuses. With the exception of the tiny (less than 0.1% in the UK) percentage of foetuses aborted at a late stage for serious health problems, foetuses that are aborted (unlike the women who are pregnant) don't suffer and aren't sentient. Foetuses are not sentient and feel no pain until the third trimester, well past the point of elective abortion in many countries

Or, doesn't the woman count?

I'm not the one arguing for her death. Abortionists are.

Most pro-choice advocates don't perform abortions.

And pro-choicers are very keen to avoid the needless deaths of women. That's why safe and legal abortions are so vital.

Maternity causes 830 deaths daily worldwide.

Pro-choicers do not believe in abortion or defend abortion because it is legal. There were abortions performed before it before it was legal and pro-choicers defended it before it was legal.

You made that argument. You did.

That abortionists killed before abortion was legal nationally doesn't change the fact. I'm not surprised with their obsession, either.

It's not an obsession. It's acceptance of reality.

Pregnancy has always been dangerous. Some people have always been unable to raise a child. There used to be no social support at all. One more unplanned child could land a family on the street. Contraception wasn't freely available or reliable. Of course there were always abortions.

I've heard it said that -- even now -- some people in the US are only one unexpected medical bill away from bankruptcy (I'm not American, so can't judge). I believe pregnancy and childbirth -- not to mention 18 years of childhood scrapes, sniffles and bugs -- would carry a lot of medical bills.

a woman or girl who was raped should not be forced to carry her rapist's foetus to term

What crime did the fetus commit? Why should the fetus be put to death for the crimes of another?

It's unfortunate that the foetus must be terminated. But its presence risks the woman's mental wellbeing. If the rape victim was a young girl, it -- more even than with a usual pregnancy -- risks her physical wellbeing.

The woman is the priority. She should not have her body autonomy removed again, for the sake of a rapist's foetus.

a woman who discovers her foetus will be born to experience a short life filled only with suffering (or to die at birth) should be able to spare them

By killing them? That's warped.

Rather than bring a child into the world, born to die after a few days of enduring nothing but pain?

I wouldn't term it kindness to see a person born to suffer a short life nothing but pain, if they were guaranteed to experience nothing else, but it takes all sorts.

and themselves, that; a woman who cannot feed and support a child, or who is trapped in an abusive relationship, should have that choice.

Better dead than less wealthy, amirite?

Hmm, I say "cannot feed the child" (someone who literally cannot afford to buy food for another mouth) and "abusive relationship" -- someone's been mistreated by their partner, who may limit their contraceptive access, and quite often the only way to have a chance of breaking free is to abort -- and you interpret it as "better dead than less wealthy".

Oh well...


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This ended up needing many edits and clarifications.

[Attempted Socialism]

Plus, what do you define as human life? If you define it by consciousness and mental ability to suffer (as I personally do), then a foetus is not alive until 24-30 weeks. If you define it by autonomy (can it survive outside the womb?), then a foetus is not alive until viability (at the very least 20 weeks).

I define it by its species. Is it human? Then it cannot be killed unless it poses a threat to the mother, or society.

No other option is reasonable.

If we take your definition, then sleeping humans can be killed. The mentally challenged can be killed. Those who live only due to surgeries, in comas, or due to technological intervention can be killed.

While your understanding of concepts like personhood, consciousness and mental ability to suffer is clearly incorrect since the strawmen you erect are silly, I'd rather address your fixation on "human". To put it mildly, it's a folly: By species, my hair, appendix and future cancer cells are all as human as I am, and I am fully allowed to attempt to remove all of them without any legal ramifications. If "human" is your criterion, there are a large number of medical procedures that become illegal. You might try to get around it by claiming that we are allowed to remove parts of humans as medical procedures, but that could lead to organ harvesting or limb removal being legal.
A clear, sensible definition of personhood, and affording all persons bodily sovereignty, is a better foundation, as I have explained before [1].

Human rights are based on humanity, not some abstraction called personhood. It is contrary to God's will, nature, and basic morality to kill a fetus because that is killing a human. An abortion is undeniably the killing of a human life, and retreating to philosophical abstraction doesn't change that.

Your known-to-not-exist deity shall be welcome to stop by tomorrow and explain why its will is more important than mine. "God", as an argument, only works if you know that everyone present gives any value to some random cherry-picking from your favourite book. Personally I don't.
You may want to rephrase any argument from your religion to remove the reliance on sharing your position ex ante, if you want to convince people.
As for "human" life, I don't find that as compelling as you do, for reasons I've gone through before [2].

Someone in a coma is not using someone else's body against their will.

Indeed. The abortionist believes that some magical property of the female person grants them the right to determine the value of life.

That's anti-egalitarian claptrap.

This is not the argument of any "abortionist" I've ever heard of. You might want to get a source for your strawman. Next, you might also read up on the opinions of pro-choice advocates, rather than some imagined "abortionists".

This forced use of an unwilling person's body, not to mention forcing another person risk their mental and physical wellbeing, is where the issue is.

No. The issue is the forced termination of life.

Human life.

And we terminate human life all the time when going through chemo-therapy. Can you go through the steps that you'd use to classify human life in a way that would not, e.g., outlaw other medical procedures than abortion?

You're hiding behind the legal definition as it stands. That's fine. Fair even. But doing that means that you have to implicitly acknowledge the just cause that I, or other anti-abortionists, have in seeking to amend or repeal certain parts of that definition.

If that's the hill you want to stand on. Do it. Cool. Just means that you're ill prepared to argue against the anti-abortionists.

You're misreading their arguments.
The philosophical foundation is used to establish personhood, implicit or explicit, in all Western countries I have checked for, exactly because it allows us to include rights to meaningful individuals, rather than e.g. the already-dead, the hypotheticals and the leftovers of medical procedures.
It's not that a law was passed and philosophy adopted, rather the other way around.

[1] viewtopic.php?f=20&t=415543&p=33188351#p33188351
[2] viewtopic.php?p=34126020#p34126020

[The V O I D]

Counterargument re: Dist's “women are getting special rights” argument.

How? Please, explain to me how giving women the same sovereignty that men get over their bodies is giving them special rights. Explain to me how giving them the same control over their bodies that we allow the fucking dead to have is “special rights.”

If anything, pro-lifers/anti-abortionists/what-have-you are the ones arguing for special rights. No born human being/person has the right to use another person's body against that person's will; we usually call it rape or assault when that happens. So, why the ever-loving fuck do we give unborn humans more rights than any born person? Why the fuck do we reduce women to less equitable treatment than fucking dead people?

Please. Explain that to me.

[Distruzio]

It doesn't sound "icky". It sounds nitpicky. And a false-equivalence. The only arguable way slavery could ever be applied to forced pregnancy is when discussing the woman who (because she was born female) is expected to be beholden to a foetus she may not have chosen to conceive and (even with consensual sex) probably took steps to avoid conceiving -- and risk to her personal health and mental wellbeing -- for nine-months.

I'm not arguing that pregnancy is equivalent to slavery. I'm arguing that abortion is equivalent to slavery.

I'm saying that abortion turns the womb into a plantation. How else can one justify, "this human being is a threat to my mental wellbeing, I have a right to kill it" or "this human being is a threat to my financial stability, I have a right to kill it", etc etc.

Your argument also rather sounds like blaming women for a fact they can't control -- that only they can conceive -- and using it to accuse pro-choicers (not all pro-choicers perform abortions and, thus, are not "abortionists") of being somehow opposed to men.

I'm not objecting to contraceptives, abstinence, or marriage. How can my words be interpreted to be "blaming women"? I'm elevating the agency they possess over their bodies. I don't care what they do with themselves. I'm not opposed to any choices that a woman might make concerning herself.

I only care that she feels she can choose to kill.

"Quality of life" means so much more than wealth, and it seems disingenuous to claim otherwise. A life with money but sick and in pain is low in quality of life,

And now you pivot to "better dead than less healthy." Convenient.

Might as well argue that it's better to be dead than imperfect or without a utopia.

Many pro-lifers are not overly enamoured with social welfare. The words "leeches" often comes in.

"Sluts having babies to get welfare," comes up a lot from pro-lifers, too.

Yes, social welfare should be expanded and destigmatised. That might reduce some abortions. That would be good.

But, as I said, "quality of life" is about so much more than money.

Again.. we aren't discussing social welfare. We're discussing where the line is drawn regarding abortion - which begs the question, "what is abortion?" If the question were, "what could make abortion less attractive to abortionists?" we could discuss welfare reforms.

I'm guessing you mean foetuses. With the exception of the tiny (less than 0.1% in the UK) percentage of foetuses aborted at a late stage for serious health problems, foetuses that are aborted (unlike the women who are pregnant) don't suffer and aren't sentient. Foetuses are not sentient and feel no pain until the third trimester, well past the point of elective abortion in many countries

Well then I don't see why we take issue with beheadings any more. No suffering, after all. Or why we shouldn't feel free to kill those in coma's (who may awaken)? Or why we shouldn't kill those with brain damage or physical deformities.

Most pro-choice advocates don't perform abortions.

A fact I'm both grateful for and alarmed by.

And pro-choicers are very keen to avoid the needless deaths of women. That's why safe and legal abortions are so vital.

Except in the case of female fetuses, amirite?

Maternity causes 830 deaths daily worldwide.

And the WHO estimates there are 125,000 abortions daily worldwide.

It's not an obsession. It's acceptance of reality.

Pregnancy has always been dangerous. Some people have always been unable to raise a child. There used to be no social support at all. One more unplanned child could land a family on the street. Contraception wasn't freely available or reliable. Of course there were always abortions.

It's a reality that contraception is not freely available or reliable... today?

I've heard it said that -- even now -- some people in the US are only one unexpected medical bill away from bankruptcy (I'm not American, so can't judge). I believe pregnancy and childbirth -- not to mention 18 years of childhood scrapes, sniffles and bugs -- would carry a lot of medical bills.

Did you really just use, "yeah, but... kids get sick and could have to go to hospital!" as an example to refute my charge that abortionists are obsessed with killing? Really?

How, exactly, is it not an obsession when you essentially say that if a person is prevented from killing they might not have enough money?

It's unfortunate that the foetus must be terminated. But its presence risks the woman's mental wellbeing. If the rape victim was a young girl, it -- more even than with a usual pregnancy -- risks her physical wellbeing.

The woman is the priority. She should not have her body autonomy removed again, for the sake of a rapist's foetus.

Not an obsession. Right?

You just justified abortion on the basis of the most tragic situation you could think of. Would you say that young physically underdeveloped rape victims are a majority of those seeking abortions? How about a plurality?

If those were the only abortions being advocated for, folks like me would have a loooooooot harder of a time justifying opposition to killing fetuses. A lot harder time. But that isn't the argument you're making, and you know it. So does every other abortionist.

You're saying that because the most terrible thing possible could happen in an extremely rare circumstance... all women should have the right to determine the value of life. You believe this so fervently, that you insist that the right to kill is a human right.

Rather than bring a child into the world, born to die after a few days of enduring nothing but pain?

Again with the marginal examples to justify an embarrassingly broad response.

[Distruzio]

I define it by its species. Is it human? Then it cannot be killed unless it poses a threat to the mother, or society.

No other option is reasonable.

If we take your definition, then sleeping humans can be killed. The mentally challenged can be killed. Those who live only due to surgeries, in comas, or due to technological intervention can be killed.

While your understanding of concepts like personhood, consciousness and mental ability to suffer is clearly incorrect since the strawmen you erect are silly, I'd rather address your fixation on "human". To put it mildly, it's a folly: By species, my hair, appendix and future cancer cells are all as human as I am, and I am fully allowed to attempt to remove all of them without any legal ramifications. If "human" is your criterion, there are a large number of medical procedures that become illegal. You might try to get around it by claiming that we are allowed to remove parts of humans as medical procedures, but that could lead to organ harvesting or limb removal being legal.
A clear, sensible definition of personhood, and affording all persons bodily sovereignty, is a better foundation, as I have explained before [1].

I do not accept the validity of an argument that is more convenient for your purposes. Not out of hand, I should clarify. But to avoid allowing myself to make religious arguments opposed to abortion.

Someone in a coma is not using someone else's body against their will.

Indeed. The abortionist believes that some magical property of the female person grants them the right to determine the value of life.

That's anti-egalitarian claptrap.

This is not the argument of any "abortionist" I've ever heard of. You might want to get a source for your strawman. Next, you might also read up on the opinions of pro-choice advocates, rather than some imagined "abortionists". [/quote]



Have you heard abortionist arguments before? How about this... why don't you justify the right to kill to me... without implying that men who disagree with killing do not have a right to an opinion on this issue?

No. The issue is the forced termination of life.

Human life.

And we terminate human life all the time when going through chemo-therapy. Can you go through the steps that you'd use to classify human life in a way that would not, e.g., outlaw other medical procedures than abortion?

Actually, that's an example of abortion I consider reasonable and justifiable.

[San Lumen]

While your understanding of concepts like personhood, consciousness and mental ability to suffer is clearly incorrect since the strawmen you erect are silly, I'd rather address your fixation on "human". To put it mildly, it's a folly: By species, my hair, appendix and future cancer cells are all as human as I am, and I am fully allowed to attempt to remove all of them without any legal ramifications. If "human" is your criterion, there are a large number of medical procedures that become illegal. You might try to get around it by claiming that we are allowed to remove parts of humans as medical procedures, but that could lead to organ harvesting or limb removal being legal.
A clear, sensible definition of personhood, and affording all persons bodily sovereignty, is a better foundation, as I have explained before [1].

I do not accept the validity of an argument that is more convenient for your purposes. Not out of hand, I should clarify. But to avoid allowing myself to make religious arguments opposed to abortion.

Indeed. The abortionist believes that some magical property of the female person grants them the right to determine the value of life.

That's anti-egalitarian claptrap.

This is not the argument of any "abortionist" I've ever heard of. You might want to get a source for your strawman. Next, you might also read up on the opinions of pro-choice advocates, rather than some imagined "abortionists".

Have you heard abortionist arguments before? How about this... why don't you justify the right to kill to me... without implying that men who disagree with killing do not have a right to an opinion on this issue?

No. The issue is the forced termination of life.

Human life.

And we terminate human life all the time when going through chemo-therapy. Can you go through the steps that you'd use to classify human life in a way that would not, e.g., outlaw other medical procedures than abortion?

Actually, that's an example of abortion I consider reasonable and justifiable.[/quote]
And why should a women who was raped or a victim of incest be forced to carry the child to term?

What if it is toxic pregnancy? Should it be allowed then?

[Distruzio]

Counterargument re: Dist's “women are getting special rights” argument.

How? Please, explain to me how giving women the same sovereignty that men get over their bodies is giving them special rights. Explain to me how giving them the same control over their bodies that we allow the fucking dead to have is “special rights.”

"Her body, her choice"

Ever heard that? Do women reproduce asexually? No? Then what, precisely, grants a women the right to end human life? Does a man have that same right? Does a man get to eliminate the life within her without her consent? No? Then what makes her superior? What egalitarian ethic can we see in the insistence that only women have the right to kill?

If anything, pro-lifers/anti-abortionists/what-have-you are the ones arguing for special rights. No born human being/person has the right to use another person's body against that person's will; we usually call it rape or assault when that happens. So, why the ever-loving fuck do we give unborn humans more rights than any born person? Why the fuck do we reduce women to less equitable treatment than fucking dead people?

Please. Explain that to me.

More rights? I'm insisting on ONE right - the right to life. I'm not suggesting the mother must love or care for the fetus. I'm not saying that the mother must eat a healthy diet or take prenatals. I'm only saying that the mother does not have the super duper kamehameha hocus pocus juju right to kill just because another human being happens to be inside her.

If it isn't the womans fault that she was born with a womb, then how is it the fetus fault where it was conceived?

I'm merely stating that a fetus, and the baby it will grow into, have a single - one - right. The right to life.

[The New California Republic]

Then what, precisely, grants a women the right to end human life? Does a man have that same right? Does a man get to eliminate the life within her without her consent? No? Then what makes her superior? What egalitarian ethic can we see in the insistence that only women have the right to kill?

Perhaps because it is in her body leeching nutrients off of her, and that it shouldn't remain there without her consent?

Are you seriously still pretending not to know the difference between male and female reproductive systems and how that makes a difference? It's getting tiresome. Please stop. I mean for fuck's sake...

[The New California Republic]

I'm only saying that the mother does not have the ... right to kill just because another human being happens to be inside her.

Yes she does. Until we can find a way to get it out of her without killing it, we will just have to deal with the death of the fetus. Sorry. I wouldn't accept a parasitic twin remaining inside me without my consent. That fucker is getting scooped out.

If it isn't the womans fault that she was born with a womb, then how is it the fetus fault where it was conceived?

It isn't. We aren't attributing blame here.

[San Lumen]

Counterargument re: Dist's “women are getting special rights” argument.

How? Please, explain to me how giving women the same sovereignty that men get over their bodies is giving them special rights. Explain to me how giving them the same control over their bodies that we allow the fucking dead to have is “special rights.”

"Her body, her choice"

Ever heard that? Do women reproduce asexually? No? Then what, precisely, grants a women the right to end human life? Does a man have that same right? Does a man get to eliminate the life within her without her consent? No? Then what makes her superior? What egalitarian ethic can we see in the insistence that only women have the right to kill?

If anything, pro-lifers/anti-abortionists/what-have-you are the ones arguing for special rights. No born human being/person has the right to use another person's body against that person's will; we usually call it rape or assault when that happens. So, why the ever-loving fuck do we give unborn humans more rights than any born person? Why the fuck do we reduce women to less equitable treatment than fucking dead people?

Please. Explain that to me.

More rights? I'm insisting on ONE right - the right to life. I'm not suggesting the mother must love or care for the fetus. I'm not saying that the mother must eat a healthy diet or take prenatals. I'm only saying that the mother does not have the super duper kamehameha hocus pocus juju right to kill just because another human being happens to be inside her.

If it isn't the womans fault that she was born with a womb, then how is it the fetus fault where it was conceived?

I'm merely stating that a fetus, and the baby it will grow into, have a single - one - right. The right to life.

Again I ask would you force a rape or incest victim to carry the child to term?

What about a toxic pregnancy? Does the life of the fetus matter more than the mother? In some toxic pregnancies the fetus is not viable.

[The V O I D]

Dist, I don't know what you're on, but I don't want any of it.

Bodily sovereignty is a fundamental right of all born human beings. We grant even the dead the ability to determine what happens to their body (cremation, burial; organ donation or not). Women having absolute bodily autonomy like any other born human being is equal rights.

When someone is using another human being's body against their autonomy, we call it assault or rape or any other number of criminal acts. The victim is always guaranteed the right to defend themselves, even if it results in the other born human being dying.

So, saying that a fetus' so-called “right to life” overrides bodily autonomy grants it special, bonus rights that literally no other human being that is born has. It is downgrading a woman's ability to determine what happens to her body; it'd be like prosecuting a victim for murder and convicting him or her for killing their rapist during the act of rape. It turns the woman into a slave to the fetus. That is not equal rights. That is inherently unequal.

Even if we regard the fetus as a person, even if we grant it autonomy, etc. - hell, even the “right to life” that you and yours insist upon... it doesn't change anything. A rapist's right to life doesn't protect him from being killed during the act by his or her victim. Why do we remove a woman's right to defend herself, her autonomy, EXCLUSIVELY for the unborn? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I didn't bother reading your reply all the way through as soon as I realized how dumb your argument was going to be, but hopefully, I've addressed most of your points anyway.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Speaking of the ‘right to life’ as if it supercedes other rights brings up far more cans of worms than the argument is worth. Roving bands of organ harvesters, the inability to defend oneself with deadly force against rape and other bodily violations, and any number of things I’m certain conservative pro-life types would only get behind in a fit of immediately regretted emotive shortsightedness.

No right supercedes any other. No right holds priority. All that should matter is which party is imposing on the other.

Correct answer: The fetus, inherently.

If the woman doesn’t want it within her body, it is no imposition to remove it from the support it is presently receiving.

[The Free Joy State]

It doesn't sound "icky". It sounds nitpicky. And a false-equivalence. The only arguable way slavery could ever be applied to forced pregnancy is when discussing the woman who (because she was born female) is expected to be beholden to a foetus she may not have chosen to conceive and (even with consensual sex) probably took steps to avoid conceiving -- and risk to her personal health and mental wellbeing -- for nine-months.

I'm not arguing that pregnancy is equivalent to slavery. I'm arguing that abortion is equivalent to slavery.

I know what your argument is. I'm arguing that it's a silly one.

Slaves were wrongly, wickedly forced into slavery because of their ancestry. In the ideal world of the hardline pro-lifer, women would be forced to remain pregnant because she happened to be born a woman and happened to have her contraception fail.

Slaves bodies were subject to the whims of another. Women's bodies would be subject to a foetus.

Slaves could be killed. Women could die.

A much easier comparison to make, unless you're reaching.

"Quality of life" means so much more than wealth, and it seems disingenuous to claim otherwise. A life with money but sick and in pain is low in quality of life,

And now you pivot to "better dead than less healthy." Convenient.

Might as well argue that it's better to be dead than imperfect or without a utopia.

"How many ways can Distruzio deliberately misrepresent my points. Let me count the ways..."

Many pro-lifers are not overly enamoured with social welfare. The words "leeches" often comes in.

"Sluts having babies to get welfare," comes up a lot from pro-lifers, too.

Yes, social welfare should be expanded and destigmatised. That might reduce some abortions. That would be good.

But, as I said, "quality of life" is about so much more than money.

Again.. we aren't discussing social welfare. We're discussing where the line is drawn regarding abortion - which begs the question, "what is abortion?" If the question were, "what could make abortion less attractive to abortionists?" we could discuss welfare reforms.

Actually, this is the general abortion thread.

Unless the OP or a moderator asks me to stop bringing in relevant tangents, it's not for you to try and shut them down.

How women are expected to support these umpteen babies they're to be forced to have is relevant.

I'm guessing you mean foetuses. With the exception of the tiny (less than 0.1% in the UK) percentage of foetuses aborted at a late stage for serious health problems, foetuses that are aborted (unlike the women who are pregnant) don't suffer and aren't sentient. Foetuses are not sentient and feel no pain until the third trimester, well past the point of elective abortion in many countries

Well then I don't see why we take issue with beheadings any more. No suffering, after all. Or why we shouldn't feel free to kill those in coma's (who may awaken)? Or why we shouldn't kill those with brain damage or physical deformities.

Sentience. The person was and/or is sentient.

That was my second key point. I've underlined it in my previous post to make it clearer.

The person to be executed or with a disability can experience things and perceive. The person in a coma has previously been sentient. The foetus lacks sentience.

It's not an obsession. It's acceptance of reality.

Pregnancy has always been dangerous. Some people have always been unable to raise a child. There used to be no social support at all. One more unplanned child could land a family on the street. Contraception wasn't freely available or reliable. Of course there were always abortions.

It's a reality that contraception is not freely available or reliable... today?

And doesn't always work.

I've heard it said that -- even now -- some people in the US are only one unexpected medical bill away from bankruptcy (I'm not American, so can't judge). I believe pregnancy and childbirth -- not to mention 18 years of childhood scrapes, sniffles and bugs -- would carry a lot of medical bills.

Did you really just use, "yeah, but... kids get sick and could have to go to hospital!" as an example to refute my charge that abortionists are obsessed with killing? Really?

No. I said unplanned pregnancy and childbirth could push someone into literal bankruptcy. I underlined my previous post to make it clearer.

It's unfortunate that the foetus must be terminated. But its presence risks the woman's mental wellbeing. If the rape victim was a young girl, it -- more even than with a usual pregnancy -- risks her physical wellbeing.

The woman is the priority. She should not have her body autonomy removed again, for the sake of a rapist's foetus.

Not an obsession. Right?

You just justified abortion on the basis of the most tragic situation you could think of.

That was a response to a direct question you asked about rape. Here:

a woman or girl who was raped should not be forced to carry her rapist's foetus to term

What crime did the fetus commit? Why should the fetus be put to death for the crimes of another?

When you ask a question, you can expect an answer.

Rather than bring a child into the world, born to die after a few days of enduring nothing but pain?

Again with the marginal examples to justify an embarrassingly broad response.

Again, that was a direct response to something from you. Here it is, to remind you:

a woman who discovers her foetus will be born to experience a short life filled only with suffering (or to die at birth) should be able to spare them

By killing them? That's warped.

Anyway, I think I've said all I need to say on this to you. When you've started comparing pregnant women to slaveowners and cannot appear to see the significant impact pregnancy has on a woman's body, rather than a man's -- and why her needs might thus be weighted more in the decision to abort (preferring to put it down as "super duper... hocus pocus") -- I think nothing more can come from this discussion.

[Napkiraly]

Only in the event of severe and life threatening medical emergencies.

[San Lumen]

Only in the event of severe and life threatening medical emergencies.

A rape or incest victim should be forced to carry the child to term?

[Napkiraly]

Only in the event of severe and life threatening medical emergencies.

A rape or incest victim should be forced to carry the child to term?

Yes.