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

[San Lumen]

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

Yes.

Why?

[Napkiraly]

Yes.

Why?

A life shouldn't be ended just because one parent is a monster.

[San Lumen]

Why?

A life shouldn't be ended just because one parent is a monster.

Why should a women have to carry a child to term from a rape or incest? In the majority of cases they dont want the child. Who are you to tell them to carry a unwanted pregnancy?

[Napkiraly]

A life shouldn't be ended just because one parent is a monster.

Why should a women have to carry a child to term from a rape or incest?

See the post you are quoting from.

Who are you to tell them to carry a unwanted pregnancy?

Me.

[Neutraligon]

See the post you are quoting from.

So basically fuck the woman's mental health Napkiraly gets to decide for them.

Me.

So no one important to the woman's decision.

[Attempted Socialism]

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.

You'll encounter the problems that your strawmen are simply errors in understanding on your part, and even your own argument ("Human") is so error-prone that we can largely ignore it. As I go through in some detail, "human" as a qualifier may save foetuses, but it also saves cancer cells, your appendix, atrophied limbs and so on. You may think that shouting "human" is working for you, but all it really shows us is that you haven't got the faintest idea about the subject.
The reason I worked through my reasoning for personhood in the way I did was exactly to show how you can avoid setting traps for yourself.

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?

Unless you think you're mentally and physically on par with a foetus, and furthermore fully dependent on the consent of another person to get all your sustenance through them, that question is a red herring.
I assume by "abortionist" that you mean "doctor who at times perform abortions". Yes, I've heard their arguments before. Those arguments are nothing like what you're trying to claim here.

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.

And again your abject misunderstanding of the subject at hand rears its head. How on Earth is chemo-therapy against cancer an example of abortion you find reasonable and justifiable? If you followed along, you'd know that my opposition to your flawed use of "human" was that under such a delineation, cancer would also be protected. So again: How do you distinguish between the "human" you want to save, and the "human" I presume you don't? Without giving further erroneous arguments, please.

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?

Your questions here show a gross misunderstanding of basic legal principles. Furthermore, the assumptions you seem to have when you ask these questions give off a vibe of a man angry that women won't be uncubators for him. Unless that's your intent, you may want to rephrase future questions.
A person has a right to end life through the philosophical and legal principle of bodily sovereignty. If they are threatened, they may respond to that threat, and if another person is threatening their life, they will generally be justified in committing homicide in self-defence. The same principle gives persons the right to what goes on in their own body. A person who is unwilling to serve as a vehicle for nutrients for another will be justified in rectifying that situation.
We allow men and women to act in ways that we know can end the lives of other persons if the situation requires it. Why, then, should we disallow women to access that right just because someone without personhood is involved?

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.

A "right to life" is a right that we allow no other human being. I went over this argument before (And even referenced the post in the post you quoted above):

An absolute view of ‘right to life’
Some posters have tried to make an argument for an absolute right to life [2]. As the post in question starts off with assuming an absolute ‘right to life’, so it also ends up confirming it. The post in question is a finely crafted circular argument, and a few points need to be answered.
As I have said several times, ‘living’ and ‘human’ would include all kinds of cells that we would not afford rights (And, indeed, all modern countries plus many developing countries offer as a right the ability to get rid of), such as cancer. Inherent rights to life is an assumption that I need not grant. The second point jumps straight from ‘inability to consent’ to “society and individuals” has an “inherent responsibility” to protect a foetus’ “right to life on their behalf”. That simply does not follow. The error of making statements from which the conclusion does not follow is repeated in points three through five, just with some added factual errors.
Apart from these errors in establishing a positive justification for their position, there’s also, as first mentioned, the problem of circularly confirming a ‘right to life’ as an absolute. As the poster themselves later affirm, ‘right to life’ cannot be an absolute, as it is superseded in other circumstances by other rights [3].
A ‘right to life’ also has the unfortunate policy implication that organ-harvesting from people who will not die from the procedure can be allowed if it is meant to save other peoples’ lives, whereas sending soldiers off to kill other soldiers is illegal. No sound civilian would accept the former, no sound policymaker would accept the latter.
Investing too much argumentative power in a ‘right to life’ style reason for making abortion illegal has led the anti-choice advocates down a garden path with no productive end in sight.

[Skaldia]

While I find abortion (excluding cases of rape or medical dangers resulting in a necessary abortion) morally reprehensible, I'm not going to go so far as to declare it illegal. If a woman wants to abort her baby she's going to regardless of the legality of the abortion. That said, I also don't think it should be taxpayer funded. Women's right to choose, but don't expect me to have to subsidize your right.

[The New California Republic]

While I find abortion (excluding cases of rape or medical dangers resulting in a necessary abortion) morally reprehensible, I'm not going to go so far as to declare it illegal. If a woman wants to abort her baby she's going to regardless of the legality of the abortion. That said, I also don't think it should be taxpayer funded. Women's right to choose, but don't expect me to have to subsidize your right.

So that would mean that low income and vulnerable women, the women who most often need it, would have less access to abortion...?

Here in most areas of the UK the NHS provides abortions and abortion pills, meaning that low income and vulnerable women have the same access as middle and upper income women.

[Napkiraly]

See the post you are quoting from.

So basically fuck the woman's mental health[quote]No?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

While I find abortion (excluding cases of rape or medical dangers resulting in a necessary abortion) morally reprehensible, I'm not going to go so far as to declare it illegal. If a woman wants to abort her baby she's going to regardless of the legality of the abortion. That said, I also don't think it should be taxpayer funded. Women's right to choose, but don't expect me to have to subsidize your right.

And if allowing it saved you and the government upwards of 2 times what is spent?

[Skaldia]

While I find abortion (excluding cases of rape or medical dangers resulting in a necessary abortion) morally reprehensible, I'm not going to go so far as to declare it illegal. If a woman wants to abort her baby she's going to regardless of the legality of the abortion. That said, I also don't think it should be taxpayer funded. Women's right to choose, but don't expect me to have to subsidize your right.

So that would mean that low income and vulnerable women, the women who most often need it, would have less access to abortion...?

Here in most areas of the UK the NHS provides abortions and abortion pills, meaning that low income and vulnerable women have the same access as middle and upper income women.

I see the conundrum and understand why a addendum on having your abortion paid for by the government if your income is too low. However, I think this is a slippery slope you come to. Although I think the need for abortion in low income and vulnerable women can be lowered if more emphasis is placed on contraceptive measures. Also, I know of no other 'right' that is subsidized by the government unless you want to say that health care is a right in which case you come to another conundrum; after all, is getting an abortion a necessary procedure for those that want it?

These are just thoughts, barely formed, and welcome the opportunity to have my mind changed on it.

[Napkiraly]

While I find abortion (excluding cases of rape or medical dangers resulting in a necessary abortion) morally reprehensible, I'm not going to go so far as to declare it illegal. If a woman wants to abort her baby she's going to regardless of the legality of the abortion. That said, I also don't think it should be taxpayer funded. Women's right to choose, but don't expect me to have to subsidize your right.

And if allowing it saved you and the government upwards of 2 times what is spent?

Money is not the most important thing in the world. I would still make it illegal and have it enforced even if doing do was 10x as expensive as legalizing and subsidizing it.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

So basically fuck the woman's mental health

No?

Nah, he pretty much nailed it.

It’s wrong to treat an abortion like a punishment, like you are doing in this scenario. You may think a pregnancy is a gift, but in some situations that could be equivalent to ‘gifting’ people with Ricin. They don’t fucking want it and if you want to force it on them they have the right to kill you to stop you.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

And if allowing it saved you and the government upwards of 2 times what is spent?

Money is not the most important thing in the world. I would still make it illegal and have it enforced even if doing do was 10x as expensive as legalizing and subsidizing it.

Oh, who was it that kept yakking up some argument about taxes being a violation of bodily sovereignty...

[Kowani]

And if allowing it saved you and the government upwards of 2 times what is spent?

Money is not the most important thing in the world. I would still make it illegal and have it enforced even if doing do was 10x as expensive as legalizing and subsidizing it.

Well, hello there back alleyway morally questionable abortion doctors!

[Napkiraly]

No?

Nah, he pretty much nailed it.

Not at all.

It’s wrong to treat an abortion like a punishment,

I'm not.

You may think a pregnancy is a gift, but in some situations that could be equivalent to ‘gifting’ people with Ricin.

It's about preserving life, not about whether or not it's a gift.

They don’t fucking want it and if you want to force it on them they have the right to kill you to stop you.

Then they would be committing murder.

[Napkiraly]

Money is not the most important thing in the world. I would still make it illegal and have it enforced even if doing do was 10x as expensive as legalizing and subsidizing it.

Well, hello there back alleyway morally questionable abortion doctors!

Yes, criminals would inevitably exist. And?

[Napkiraly]

Money is not the most important thing in the world. I would still make it illegal and have it enforced even if doing do was 10x as expensive as legalizing and subsidizing it.

Oh, who was it that kept yakking up some argument about taxes being a violation of bodily sovereignty...

Not me? I mean I want the establishment of a universal healthcare system in America, so...

[San Lumen]

Well, hello there back alleyway morally questionable abortion doctors!

Yes, criminals would inevitably exist. And?

I still dont understand why a rape or incest victim should be forced to carry a child they dont want. who are you to make medical decisions for someone

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Nah, he pretty much nailed it.

Not at all.

It’s wrong to treat an abortion like a punishment,

I'm not.

You may think a pregnancy is a gift, but in some situations that could be equivalent to ‘gifting’ people with Ricin.

It's about preserving life, not about whether or not it's a gift.

They don’t fucking want it and if you want to force it on them they have the right to kill you to stop you.

Then they would be committing murder.

Yes it did, yes you are, no it isn’t, and no they wouldn’t.

You’re punishing the woman for being raped.
You’re claiming it doesn’t deserve to die for the actions of its forebears.
You’re acting as if the woman should be happy to be pregnant.
You don’t know how self-defense works.

[Napkiraly]

Yes, criminals would inevitably exist. And?

I still dont understand why a rape or incest victim should be forced to carry a child they dont want.

I've already told you why.

[Napkiraly]

You’re punishing the woman for being raped.

No I am not. I am preventing the unnecessary destruction of another life simply based upon how it was created, even if horrendously.

You’re claiming it doesn’t deserve to die for the actions of its forebears.

Yes? Thinking that people should die for the actions of its parent(s) is generally considered barbaric and stupid.

You’re acting as if the woman should be happy to be pregnant.

I never said they should be happy. I wouldn't expect them to be and it is/would be perfectly understandable.

You don’t know how self-defense works.

Wanting to make abortion illegal is not a valid grounds for self-defense unless I was trying to prevent them from getting one in the event of it being necessary to save their life. A scenario in which I already stated it would be acceptable to terminate the pregnancy. Try again, friendo.

[San Lumen]

I still dont understand why a rape or incest victim should be forced to carry a child they dont want.

I've already told you why.

Because one parent is a monster? Thats not an answer. To force a rape or incest victim to carry a child they dont want is morally wrong. Your forcing someone to have a child they dont want and treating the mother as less important that her fetus

[Napkiraly]

Because one parent is a monster? Thats not an answer.

No, not wanting to destroy the unnecessary destruction of life.

To force a rape or incest victim to carry a child they dont want is morally wrong.

The unnecessary destruction of life is the height of immorality.

Your forcing someone to have a child they dont want and treating the mother as less important that her fetus

I'm not, if I was I wouldn't think it was okay to terminate the pregnancy even in the instances when it would save the mothers life to do so.

[The New California Republic]

So that would mean that low income and vulnerable women, the women who most often need it, would have less access to abortion...?

Here in most areas of the UK the NHS provides abortions and abortion pills, meaning that low income and vulnerable women have the same access as middle and upper income women.

I see the conundrum and understand why a addendum on having your abortion paid for by the government if your income is too low. However, I think this is a slippery slope you come to.

Why is it a slippery slope?

---

Although I think the need for abortion in low income and vulnerable women can be lowered if more emphasis is placed on contraceptive measures.

Sure. Most pro-choice people favour a dual approach of access to abortion in conjunction with better access to contraceptives and the morning after pill etc, as well as abortion pills so that they don't need to undergo the regular abortion procedure in a clinic.

---

Also, I know of no other 'right' that is subsidized by the government

The right to vote as one example? That most definitely is subsidized by the government...

---

unless you want to say that health care is a right in which case you come to another conundrum; after all, is getting an abortion a necessary procedure for those that want it?

Yes, I would say that access to healthcare is a right. And abortion is a necessary procedure to preserve the bodily sovereignty of the woman as a person. It's the same reason why gender reassignment surgery/HRT is a necessary procedure for transgender people should they want it.