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

[Zex]

Good, lower taxes, this is how the debate on abortion should be framed.

Okey, how ‘bout “There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without disrupting anyone’s access to such services, and executing those policies would save more money than is spent.”?

Best O’ both worlds, neh?

It will always be cheaper to not pay then to pay less, you won't be able to sway me with just this; you'll have to appeal to my self interest or my desire to bring about suffering on others.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

That's the general idea, yes. With contraception access and a bevy of other policies in place that really don't cost all that much when one considers the savings, the idea of elective abortions would be virtually unheard of. Banning it at that juncture would just be wasteful.

It would be pointless. Which is what makes me crazy about much religious pro-life position. Restricting access to contraception guarantees more abortion. What to make abortion go away? Make it rain contraception across all the land.

And comprehensive sex ed, and welfare supports for single mothers, maybe state-funded/free pregnancy related health care. The savings would cover the costs. Otherwise, preach it!

Heh. Preach. Irony.

Yeap. Also known as viability.

I suppose we can quibble about whether a 50% chance at death (or life, at the 50% mark it's the same) rises to the level of "viability," but meh.

At this juncture we're sorta arguing about to what degree we agree. Viability is pretty much 'an even steven chance' according to the medical profession, if need be I can rustle up a link to a medical dictionary somewhere.

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

As the saying goes, what the Lord gives, the Lord can take away.

I don't really possess, in any meaningful sense, anything that can just as quickly be arbitrarily taken away.

Such is merely brute power. There is no "right" in it.

'sides which, God has to exist for "God given rights" to be a coherent concept anyway.

This discussion is also pretty much a microcosm of everything wrong with secularists.

God bless 'em.

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

At this juncture we're sorta arguing about to what degree we agree.

Sweet. I'm stickin' a fork in it, and going for coffee.

Have fun with the "natural rights" lot.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Okey, how ‘bout “There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without disrupting anyone’s access to such services, and executing those policies would save more money than is spent.”?

Best O’ both worlds, neh?

It will always be cheaper to not pay then to pay less, you won't be able to sway me with just this; you'll have to appeal to my self interest or my desire to bring about suffering on others.

See, you misunderstand.

Spend 10 bucks now to free up 30. Maybe then the freed-up funds could go into financing other services that might be of interest to you, like better internet infrastructure, better trained police, better schools, or if you just want a tax break I'm sure that'd have a lot of support too.

One can't make money from the stock market if they don't buy stocks.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

At this juncture we're sorta arguing about to what degree we agree.

Sweet. I'm stickin' a fork in it, and going for coffee.

Have fun with the "natural rights" lot.

Oh I do.

[Hakons]

Lol, natural law exists.

No it doesn't.

It's literally why we have a nation in the first place.

Are we talking the declaration of independence? Those are 'inalienable', not natural.

Thankfully, natural law is not based upon if people recognize them, they are based off of God.

Also known as Mr. McDoesn'tExist.

Having a human develop within the womb is not stripping "bodily autonomy,"

It is if the woman doesn't want it and you won't let her rectify the problem. And yes it is a problem.

though strangely those words aren't even in the amendment you're addressing.

Neither is the right to life. Strange, that.

Killing a human within the womb is overriding the natural right to life, specifically to life that has done no wrong because it quite literally can't yet take any action to do wrong.

It's in a woman's body without her permission. Wrong has been done. Whether it was intentional or not is functionally irrelevant. Trying to claim that it is innocent is also attempting to capitalize on an irrelevant consideration. One does not have time to determine whether a man charging at them with a knife is 'innocent' or 'guilty'. They cannot wait for a tribunal to determine whether protecting oneself in such circumstances is justified. They simply recognize a problem and take steps to either defend themselves or escape. In the case of a woman who does not wish to be pregnant happens to become pregnant (and her actions beforehand aren't really relevant either), she can't exactly run away from the problem. She can only work to defend herself.

To deny her the right to do so is inconsistent.

The 14th amendment clearly defined citizenship, but it also referred to "persons."

Born.

A person is different than a citizen.

Yuh huh. Still doesn't give it special permissions over other persons though.

The fetus can't ask for permission.

Irrelevant.

It is remarkably unjust to kill a human because they don't meet requirements that are inherently impossible for them to maintain.

Not at all. It isn't a violation of the fetus' rights to deny it the support it requires to survive. You may think it 'pretty shitty' but that is unfortunately the way of the world... that your exceedingly non-existent god allegedly created.

If you open up with "natural rights don't exist der der," there's a good chance I, nor the rest of America, will take you as morally coherent.

A "problem"? Life is not a "problem." When you were in your mother's womb, were you a "problem" that needed to be "resolved"? Far from it! You were a gift since life is a gift, and not a "problem." It is profoundly to argue for standards that call life "problems" when if those same standards were applied to you you would be dead.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." Did you even read the amendment?

"Defend herself"? As the abortionist crowd usually does, you unironically compared a tiny, helpless human fetus to a vicious assailant attacking a woman. The fetus can't make the choice to attack the woman, not that its mere existence can even be construed to be an attack. It is utterly depraved lunacy to say a fetus is attacking a woman. The only one doing the attacking is the abortionists, where you rip apart the limbs of humans and crush their little skulls. Once again, it's fundamentally impossible for a fetus to "ask" for permission. The fetus acts only by the biological forces it has been designed for. To make it ask for permission is lunacy, in this case murderous lunacy. Of course, I don't think you're a lunatic. That would be far too charitable. You're just plain murderous if you set unattainable standards that when they are not met will lead to execution.

Yes, citizens are persons born in the United States. That doesn't say what a person is, just that we have birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court, with all of its outrageously immoral rulings on this issue, already recognizes the personhood of trimester babies.

A human within the womb doesn't need "special permissions."

It's completely relevant, and the fact that you only replied with a "nu-uh" suggests you don't have an answer for it. You declare the gateway to being a human is determined by gaining "permission" to exist, but it's plainly obvious that is impossible for a fetus to do. Your vapid moral philosophy necessitates and intrinsic impossibility.

An abortion isn't denying nutrients, its the bloody murder of the fetus. You know this. We all know this. So it's best to stop beating around the bush. Your refusal to recognize God only further adds to your own moral depravity and the continual confirmation of the depravity of the pro-choice abortionist crowd.

[Zex]

It will always be cheaper to not pay then to pay less, you won't be able to sway me with just this; you'll have to appeal to my self interest or my desire to bring about suffering on others.

See, you misunderstand.

Spend 10 bucks now to free up 30. Maybe then the freed-up funds could go into financing other services that might be of interest to you, like better internet infrastructure, better trained police, better schools, or if you just want a tax break I'm sure that'd have a lot of support too.

One can't make money from the stock market if they don't buy stocks.

I'll need some figures; or at least a real description of what you are going on about.

[Internationalist Bastard]

No it doesn't.



Are we talking the declaration of independence? Those are 'inalienable', not natural.



Also known as Mr. McDoesn'tExist.



It is if the woman doesn't want it and you won't let her rectify the problem. And yes it is a problem.



Neither is the right to life. Strange, that.



It's in a woman's body without her permission. Wrong has been done. Whether it was intentional or not is functionally irrelevant. Trying to claim that it is innocent is also attempting to capitalize on an irrelevant consideration. One does not have time to determine whether a man charging at them with a knife is 'innocent' or 'guilty'. They cannot wait for a tribunal to determine whether protecting oneself in such circumstances is justified. They simply recognize a problem and take steps to either defend themselves or escape. In the case of a woman who does not wish to be pregnant happens to become pregnant (and her actions beforehand aren't really relevant either), she can't exactly run away from the problem. She can only work to defend herself.

To deny her the right to do so is inconsistent.



Born.



Yuh huh. Still doesn't give it special permissions over other persons though.



Irrelevant.



Not at all. It isn't a violation of the fetus' rights to deny it the support it requires to survive. You may think it 'pretty shitty' but that is unfortunately the way of the world... that your exceedingly non-existent god allegedly created.

If you open up with "natural rights don't exist der der," there's a good chance I, nor the rest of America, will take you as morally coherent.

A "problem"? Life is not a "problem." When you were in your mother's womb, were you a "problem" that needed to be "resolved"? Far from it! You were a gift since life is a gift, and not a "problem." It is profoundly to argue for standards that call life "problems" when if those same standards were applied to you you would be dead.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." Did you even read the amendment?

"Defend herself"? As the abortionist crowd usually does, you unironically compared a tiny, helpless human fetus to a vicious assailant attacking a woman. The fetus can't make the choice to attack the woman, not that its mere existence can even be construed to be an attack. It is utterly depraved lunacy to say a fetus is attacking a woman. The only one doing the attacking is the abortionists, where you rip apart the limbs of humans and crush their little skulls. Once again, it's fundamentally impossible for a fetus to "ask" for permission. The fetus acts only by the biological forces it has been designed for. To make it ask for permission is lunacy, in this case murderous lunacy. Of course, I don't think you're a lunatic. That would be far too charitable. You're just plain murderous if you set unattainable standards that when they are not met will lead to execution.

Yes, citizens are persons born in the United States. That doesn't say what a person is, just that we have birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court, with all of its outrageously immoral rulings on this issue, already recognizes the personhood of trimester babies.

A human within the womb doesn't need "special permissions."

It's completely relevant, and the fact that you only replied with a "nu-uh" suggests you don't have an answer for it. You declare the gateway to being a human is determined by gaining "permission" to exist, but it's plainly obvious that is impossible for a fetus to do. Your vapid moral philosophy necessitates and intrinsic impossibility.

An abortion isn't denying nutrients, its the bloody murder of the fetus. You know this. We all know this. So it's best to stop beating around the bush. Your refusal to recognize God only further adds to your own moral depravity and the continual confirmation of the depravity of the pro-choice abortionist crowd.

Yes yes we're all awful.
Abortion is a necessity to many people, and no amount of yelling about abstinence changes this

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

.
Then what constitutes murder's illegality? If you aren't wronging a person by killing them.

My (and I suspect your) preference as we agree to codify in law.

This doesn't do too much about strokes (which is better addressed by science through medicine anyway), but murder is covered and there's still no God.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

No it doesn't.



Are we talking the declaration of independence? Those are 'inalienable', not natural.



Also known as Mr. McDoesn'tExist.



It is if the woman doesn't want it and you won't let her rectify the problem. And yes it is a problem.



Neither is the right to life. Strange, that.



It's in a woman's body without her permission. Wrong has been done. Whether it was intentional or not is functionally irrelevant. Trying to claim that it is innocent is also attempting to capitalize on an irrelevant consideration. One does not have time to determine whether a man charging at them with a knife is 'innocent' or 'guilty'. They cannot wait for a tribunal to determine whether protecting oneself in such circumstances is justified. They simply recognize a problem and take steps to either defend themselves or escape. In the case of a woman who does not wish to be pregnant happens to become pregnant (and her actions beforehand aren't really relevant either), she can't exactly run away from the problem. She can only work to defend herself.

To deny her the right to do so is inconsistent.



Born.



Yuh huh. Still doesn't give it special permissions over other persons though.



Irrelevant.



Not at all. It isn't a violation of the fetus' rights to deny it the support it requires to survive. You may think it 'pretty shitty' but that is unfortunately the way of the world... that your exceedingly non-existent god allegedly created.

If you open up with "natural rights don't exist der der," there's a good chance I, nor the rest of America, will take you as morally coherent.

Aw, lookit you claiming you know what the rest of America thinks.

A "problem"? Life is not a "problem."

It is if it is causing harm. Bacterial infections, Cancer, Brain-Eating Amoebae... strange that all three of these things are causing harm without direct intent to do so. One might almost think it a parallel to something.

When you were in your mother's womb, were you a "problem" that needed to be "resolved"?

My parents specifically intended to bring me into the world. The comparison fails when the whole thing happens when it is not planned or desired.

Far from it! You were a gift since life is a gift, and not a "problem."

A gift becomes a problem when it is not wanted yet is still forced upon them. If you were to 'gift' me with the forced injection of a massive amount of penicillin I'd fucking shoot you in the face because I'm ALLERGIC TO THAT SHIT and it could potentially kill me or cause any number of most unfortunate medical complications.

It is profoundly to argue for standards that call life "problems" when if those same standards were applied to you you would be dead.

No I wouldn't. My parents WANTED me. If they had not, what I think about that would not be an issue because I would never have possessed the capacity to express disappointment.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." Did you even read the amendment?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

WHY YES I DID READ THAT THANG. DID YOU? Notice the 'or'? I don't see any fucking HIERARCHICAL CLASSIFICATION THERE, where one is more important than the other.

You're essentially arguing in favor of one at the expense of the other TWO. The woman's basic rights to seek medical attention or to defend herself from harm, the woman's basic rights to control her own body which is the most fundamentally 'HER PROPERTY' thing that exists...

"Defend herself"? As the abortionist crowd usually does, you unironically compared a tiny, helpless human fetus to a vicious assailant attacking a woman.

Emotional appeal noted and discarded out of hand.

The fetus can't make the choice to attack the woman, not that its mere existence can even be construed to be an attack.

If the woman does not wish it to be there, an attack it is.

It is utterly depraved lunacy to say a fetus is attacking a woman.

I have cause to doubt your metrics. I say it is utterly depraved lunacy to say that a woman's rights automagically vanish the instant a wild gravidity appears.

The only one doing the attacking is the abortionists, where you rip apart the limbs of humans and crush their little skulls.

Emotional appeal noted and discarded out of hand. You cannot claim something to be cruel when the there is no pain inflicted. You're engaging in fluffy kitten bullshit and that just strikes as insipid.

Once again, it's fundamentally impossible for a fetus to "ask" for permission.

Irrelevant. Whether it intended harm or not, or 'wished' to be there, are fundamentally moot considerations. Typically medical decisions involving such individuals falls to the next of kin. Who is more next-of-kin than the woman within which that fetus resides?

The fetus acts only by the biological forces it has been designed for.

And it can be removed by other forces that are just as 'natural' (that is, can happen in this universe) and even more specifically designed.

To make it ask for permission is lunacy, in this case murderous lunacy.

I never said it had to ask for permission. I'm fairly certain that I said the very idea was irrelevant. Also silly. The 'permission' is solely the prerogative of the woman.

Of course, I don't think you're a lunatic. That would be far too charitable.

Personal insult noted. Will inquire further with mods.

You're just plain murderous if you set unattainable standards that when they are not met will lead to execution.

The standards are not unattainable if EVERY BORN PERSON CAN SATISFY THEM.

Yes, citizens are persons born in the United States. That doesn't say what a person is, just that we have birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court, with all of its outrageously immoral rulings on this issue, already recognizes the personhood of trimester babies.

Still doesn't grant them any special permissions. If we're talking about pregnancies past viability, as has already been addressed: the woman has generally already declared her intent to keep the pregnancy, barring medical emergencies.

A human within the womb doesn't need "special permissions."

If you want it to stay there when the woman has expressed revocation of consent to continue carrying that human, yes it very much does.

It's completely relevant,

No it is not. The only thing that matters is the woman's consent.

and the fact that you only replied with a "nu-uh" suggests you don't have an answer for it.
You declare the gateway to being a human is determined by gaining "permission" to exist, but it's plainly obvious that is impossible for a fetus to do.

Why yes. It is impossible for the fetus to procure that permission. And yet somehow permission is given by the woman's consent. Oh. Hey. Guess that means it isn't impossible for the fetus to gain permission. OH MY FUCKING GOODNESS A WILD REALITY APPEARED.

Your vapid moral philosophy necessitates and intrinsic impossibility.

I'd say 'nah', but then you'd somehow forget what I just wrote and claim I somehow don't have an answer for it.

An abortion isn't denying nutrients, its the bloody murder of the fetus.

No. It is the severing of the connection in whichever way happens to be the safest / least painful for the woman.

You know this.

How can I know this when you are wrong?

We all know this.

How can we know this when you are wrong?

So it's best to stop beating around the bush.

Aye, might I suggest running back to the CDT where your big friendly echo chamber can commiserate about them damn dirty atheists/abortionists? I mean, in THAT thread you have the benefit of knowing that everybody accepts the existence of your preferred god. Once you leave that thread it becomes something of a crap shoot. Your inviolable truth is not inviolable because not everybody on the planet believes the exact same thing you do.

Your refusal to recognize God only further adds to your own moral depravity and the continual confirmation of the depravity of the pro-choice abortionist crowd.

Personal insult noted. Will inquire further with mods.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

See, you misunderstand.

Spend 10 bucks now to free up 30. Maybe then the freed-up funds could go into financing other services that might be of interest to you, like better internet infrastructure, better trained police, better schools, or if you just want a tax break I'm sure that'd have a lot of support too.

One can't make money from the stock market if they don't buy stocks.

I'll need some figures; or at least a real description of what you are going on about.

I'll have to get that for you tomorrow if ya dun' mind. The precedent was in Colorado but it was a few years back.

[Telconi]

If you open up with "natural rights don't exist der der," there's a good chance I, nor the rest of America, will take you as morally coherent.

A "problem"? Life is not a "problem." When you were in your mother's womb, were you a "problem" that needed to be "resolved"? Far from it! You were a gift since life is a gift, and not a "problem." It is profoundly to argue for standards that call life "problems" when if those same standards were applied to you you would be dead.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." Did you even read the amendment?

"Defend herself"? As the abortionist crowd usually does, you unironically compared a tiny, helpless human fetus to a vicious assailant attacking a woman. The fetus can't make the choice to attack the woman, not that its mere existence can even be construed to be an attack. It is utterly depraved lunacy to say a fetus is attacking a woman. The only one doing the attacking is the abortionists, where you rip apart the limbs of humans and crush their little skulls. Once again, it's fundamentally impossible for a fetus to "ask" for permission. The fetus acts only by the biological forces it has been designed for. To make it ask for permission is lunacy, in this case murderous lunacy. Of course, I don't think you're a lunatic. That would be far too charitable. You're just plain murderous if you set unattainable standards that when they are not met will lead to execution.

Yes, citizens are persons born in the United States. That doesn't say what a person is, just that we have birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court, with all of its outrageously immoral rulings on this issue, already recognizes the personhood of trimester babies.

A human within the womb doesn't need "special permissions."

It's completely relevant, and the fact that you only replied with a "nu-uh" suggests you don't have an answer for it. You declare the gateway to being a human is determined by gaining "permission" to exist, but it's plainly obvious that is impossible for a fetus to do. Your vapid moral philosophy necessitates and intrinsic impossibility.

An abortion isn't denying nutrients, its the bloody murder of the fetus. You know this. We all know this. So it's best to stop beating around the bush. Your refusal to recognize God only further adds to your own moral depravity and the continual confirmation of the depravity of the pro-choice abortionist crowd.

Yes yes we're all awful.
Abortion is a necessity to many people, and no amount of yelling about abstinence changes this

That old depend on how we define "many" I suppose.

[Lamoni]

No it doesn't.



Are we talking the declaration of independence? Those are 'inalienable', not natural.



Also known as Mr. McDoesn'tExist.



It is if the woman doesn't want it and you won't let her rectify the problem. And yes it is a problem.



Neither is the right to life. Strange, that.



It's in a woman's body without her permission. Wrong has been done. Whether it was intentional or not is functionally irrelevant. Trying to claim that it is innocent is also attempting to capitalize on an irrelevant consideration. One does not have time to determine whether a man charging at them with a knife is 'innocent' or 'guilty'. They cannot wait for a tribunal to determine whether protecting oneself in such circumstances is justified. They simply recognize a problem and take steps to either defend themselves or escape. In the case of a woman who does not wish to be pregnant happens to become pregnant (and her actions beforehand aren't really relevant either), she can't exactly run away from the problem. She can only work to defend herself.

To deny her the right to do so is inconsistent.



Born.



Yuh huh. Still doesn't give it special permissions over other persons though.



Irrelevant.



Not at all. It isn't a violation of the fetus' rights to deny it the support it requires to survive. You may think it 'pretty shitty' but that is unfortunately the way of the world... that your exceedingly non-existent god allegedly created.

If you open up with "natural rights don't exist der der," there's a good chance I, nor the rest of America, will take you as morally coherent.

A "problem"? Life is not a "problem." When you were in your mother's womb, were you a "problem" that needed to be "resolved"? Far from it! You were a gift since life is a gift, and not a "problem." It is profoundly to argue for standards that call life "problems" when if those same standards were applied to you you would be dead.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." Did you even read the amendment?

"Defend herself"? As the abortionist crowd usually does, you unironically compared a tiny, helpless human fetus to a vicious assailant attacking a woman. The fetus can't make the choice to attack the woman, not that its mere existence can even be construed to be an attack. It is utterly depraved lunacy to say a fetus is attacking a woman. The only one doing the attacking is the abortionists, where you rip apart the limbs of humans and crush their little skulls. Once again, it's fundamentally impossible for a fetus to "ask" for permission. The fetus acts only by the biological forces it has been designed for. To make it ask for permission is lunacy, in this case murderous lunacy. Of course, I don't think you're a lunatic. That would be far too charitable. You're just plain murderous if you set unattainable standards that when they are not met will lead to execution.

Yes, citizens are persons born in the United States. That doesn't say what a person is, just that we have birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court, with all of its outrageously immoral rulings on this issue, already recognizes the personhood of trimester babies.

A human within the womb doesn't need "special permissions."

It's completely relevant, and the fact that you only replied with a "nu-uh" suggests you don't have an answer for it. You declare the gateway to being a human is determined by gaining "permission" to exist, but it's plainly obvious that is impossible for a fetus to do. Your vapid moral philosophy necessitates and intrinsic impossibility.

An abortion isn't denying nutrients, its the bloody murder of the fetus. You know this. We all know this. So it's best to stop beating around the bush. Your refusal to recognize God only further adds to your own moral depravity and the continual confirmation of the depravity of the pro-choice abortionist crowd.

One does not need to believe in God in order to not be depraved. Similarly, a belief in God does not confer immunity from being depraved. Further, the pro-choice crowd is not depraved. Therefore, you have earned a...

*** Warning for Flaming ***

[Durzan]

The fact of the matter is that there are two main issues at play here:

The right to life (of the baby), and the right of personal property (of the mother's body). Only by reconciling the supposed and actual contradictions these two fundamental rights pose to each other can true justice be had regarding the subject of abortion.

[Zex]

I'll need some figures; or at least a real description of what you are going on about.

I'll have to get that for you tomorrow if ya dun' mind. The precedent was in Colorado but it was a few years back.

Very well, if you cannot find it then I will accept a more general description of your plot for scrutiny.

[Attempted Socialism]

I'll have to get that for you tomorrow if ya dun' mind. The precedent was in Colorado but it was a few years back.

Very well, if you cannot find it then I will accept a more general description of your plot for scrutiny.

I swear I had something on this...

(...) First, that abstinence-only is an abject failure in every way, shape and form [5], and the proponents of abstinence-only are directly promoting teen pregnancies, teen abortions, social ruination, adverse economic effects and more. Abstinence-only is directly responsible for more abortions, more teen pregnancies and higher STD spread rate.
Second, that while comprehensive sexual education is a right way to go, it is not the only right way to go. Colorado had a huge success with its IUD programme, which lead to a dramatic fall in unintended pregnancies, which in return lead to fewer abortions of said unintended pregnancies [6]. Offering free IUDs to women around the onset of sexual maturity is also economically viable, as the savings offset the health-costs. Furthermore, one has to assess the empowering factor of giving women control over their own reproduction, and the process of family planning that starts already when taking the IUD out, when a woman desire to get pregnant.
To sum up: For women, abortion is associated with fewer health risks than pregnancy and birth. It is comparable to birth in mental health risks, though some as-yet unaccounted-for factors may show abortion to have fewer mental health effects than birth. Social condemnation is substantial and at times dangerous. Meanwhile, to prevent abortions, one has to prevent pregnancies through comprehensive sexual education and free IUDs, while abstinence-only proponents fail at every level. (...)

(...)
References:
(...)
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
[6] https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/ ... Report.pdf
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/ ... nbirthrate
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/scie ... ccess.html

[Page]

Let us compare and contrast the following: A soy sprout, a chicken, and an adult human.

Soysprout: A living thing, no subjective experience, no sentience.

Chicken: A living thing, subjective experience, no sentience.

Adult human: A living thing, subjective experience, sentience.

There is near unanimous agreement that killing a soysprout is not a moral question, and there is near unanimous agreement that killing an adult human is morally wrong (killing here meaning murder, not including such things as killing in self-defense or euthanasia).

But with the chicken, there is a moral question. Some say it is acceptable to kill a chicken, some say it is not. We all acknowledge that is has subjective experience, it can feel pain for example, but also that it is not sentient. The moral debate over humans consuming animals is rooted in the question of whether subjective experience alone is enough to confer a right to live.

A fetus attains subjective experience around the start of the third trimester. So whether late term abortions are justified is a moral question. The fetus feels things, experiences things. It is not yet sentient but it does have its own experiences.

However, whether it is acceptable to terminate a fetus before this point is not a moral question, as then the fetus has not even subjective experience. An early fetus is like a soysprout. If we don't have a moral debate over whether one can kill a soysprout, why have one about killing a fetus?

I contend that early abortions are not morally wrong or right, they are amoral in the same way eating a soysprout or painting a wall are amoral actions. I further contend that the pro-choice side has damaged their own cause by arguing that the rights of the pregnant adult human take precedent over the rights of the fetus, because this argument unnecessarily concedes that an early fetus has any rights at all. A chicken might have less rights than a human but a soysprout has none. By failing to recognize early abortion as amoral, they have given their opponents too much ground.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I'll have to get that for you tomorrow if ya dun' mind. The precedent was in Colorado but it was a few years back.

Very well, if you cannot find it then I will accept a more general description of your plot for scrutiny.

Here’s an article that describes the program:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/amp/

Guess it was more recent than I thought.

Basic gist, Colorado got a 28 million dollar grant to offer extremely subsidized IUDs to teens and low-income folks. Teen pregnancy rates nose-dived and the state wound up saving about 70 million-ish by not having to pay for medical expenses relating to low-income families.

It was just a small thing with relatively limited scope, but the effects were quite profound. Shame they didn’t keep it going.

[Estanglia]

A "problem"? Life is not a "problem."

Inherently no. Life can become a problem in some circumstances to some people. Bacteria are alive, and they cause problems for us up to killing us. There, the life that is the bacteria is a problem. Likewise, to a pregnant woman, her fetus could be a problem to her, whether it's as minor as an inconvenience or as major as threatening her life.

You were a gift since life is a gift, and not a "problem."

And gifts can be unwanted, and become problems.

It is profoundly to argue for standards that call life "problems" when if those same standards were applied to you you would be dead.

If one is wanted, it wouldn't. And even if it would, Valkyrie/Godular wouldn't have the capability to know (or care, or maybe not even feel it) about it (no offence).

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." Did you even read the amendment?

It also made reference to born or naturalised persons having this right.

It's also debatable whether a fetus constitutes a person before the 3rd trimester.

The fetus can't make the choice to attack the woman, not that its mere existence can even be construed to be an attack.

An attack doesn't inherently need the 'attacker' to choose to do so. Our immune system attacks bacteria, doesn't mean it chooses to do so. The E. coli pathogens don't choose to infect us with diseases, does it not attack us (or, at the least, our immune system) then? Is it's mere existence inside our body, doing things to it we don't want them to do, not an attack on us?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, Attack could mean:

1.2 (of a disease, organism, or other agent) act harmfully or destructively on.

Is taking your bodily resources not harming you?

You're just plain murderous if you set unattainable standards that when they are not met will lead to execution.

If these standards are so unobtainable, how are the over 7 billion born people on this Earth achieving it? Seems pretty obtainable to me.

Your refusal to recognize God only further adds to your own moral depravity and the continual confirmation of the depravity of the pro-choice abortionist crowd.

One does not require God to be moral.

And pro-choice =/= abortionist.

[The New California Republic]

Your refusal to recognize God only further adds to your own moral depravity and the continual confirmation of the depravity of the pro-choice abortionist crowd.

You once had the gall to accuse me of being murderous in one of these abortion threads, and then you promptly ran away, so this comment does not surprise me in the least.

[The Black Forrest]

If you open up with "natural rights don't exist der der," there's a good chance I, nor the rest of America, will take you as morally coherent.

Well? If you follow up with "morally coherent" you will find your argument getting dismissed. Whose morals are superior? You really want to go down that rat hole?

A "problem"? Life is not a "problem." When you were in your mother's womb, were you a "problem" that needed to be "resolved"? Far from it! You were a gift since life is a gift, and not a "problem." It is profoundly to argue for standards that call life "problems" when if those same standards were applied to you you would be dead.

That's a rather simplistic view of the process. For example; if life is a gift why are there so many miscarriages? Why are there diseases which will end the life of a new born soon after birth? Why are there cases were the fetus is actually killing the mother?

There is much more to labor and delivery then the "gift of life"

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." Did you even read the amendment?

That arguement might work if birth was guaranteed and the state was ohhh mandating eugenics.

"Defend herself"? As the abortionist crowd usually does, you unironically compared a tiny, helpless human fetus to a vicious assailant attacking a woman. The fetus can't make the choice to attack the woman, not that its mere existence can even be construed to be an attack. It is utterly depraved lunacy to say a fetus is attacking a woman. The only one doing the attacking is the abortionists, where you rip apart the limbs of humans and crush their little skulls. Once again, it's fundamentally impossible for a fetus to "ask" for permission. The fetus acts only by the biological forces it has been designed for. To make it ask for permission is lunacy, in this case murderous lunacy. Of course, I don't think you're a lunatic. That would be far too charitable. You're just plain murderous if you set unattainable standards that when they are not met will lead to execution.

It's best to leave off labels. The moment you introduce them; the point of your statement tends to be ignored.

If you look at it, the fetus is basically a parasite so yes in a way it does attack. There are the very rare cases of where the fetus was actually "made wrong" and has a "toxic" effect on the mother. Again very rare.

Yes, citizens are persons born in the United States. That doesn't say what a person is, just that we have birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court, with all of its outrageously immoral rulings on this issue, already recognizes the personhood of trimester babies.

You might want to source that as I don't think the rulings mean what you think they mean.

A human within the womb doesn't need "special permissions."

It's completely relevant, and the fact that you only replied with a "nu-uh" suggests you don't have an answer for it. You declare the gateway to being a human is determined by gaining "permission" to exist, but it's plainly obvious that is impossible for a fetus to do. Your vapid moral philosophy necessitates and intrinsic impossibility.

Hmmm? The problem you have is birth is not guaranteed.

An abortion isn't denying nutrients, its the bloody murder of the fetus. You know this. We all know this. So it's best to stop beating around the bush. Your refusal to recognize God only further adds to your own moral depravity and the continual confirmation of the depravity of the pro-choice abortionist crowd.

Again the labels never mind the fact God and moral depravity comments automatically go no where.

[Zex]

Very well, if you cannot find it then I will accept a more general description of your plot for scrutiny.

I swear I had something on this...

(...) First, that abstinence-only is an abject failure in every way, shape and form [5], and the proponents of abstinence-only are directly promoting teen pregnancies, teen abortions, social ruination, adverse economic effects and more. Abstinence-only is directly responsible for more abortions, more teen pregnancies and higher STD spread rate.
Second, that while comprehensive sexual education is a right way to go, it is not the only right way to go. Colorado had a huge success with its IUD programme, which lead to a dramatic fall in unintended pregnancies, which in return lead to fewer abortions of said unintended pregnancies [6]. Offering free IUDs to women around the onset of sexual maturity is also economically viable, as the savings offset the health-costs. Furthermore, one has to assess the empowering factor of giving women control over their own reproduction, and the process of family planning that starts already when taking the IUD out, when a woman desire to get pregnant.
To sum up: For women, abortion is associated with fewer health risks than pregnancy and birth. It is comparable to birth in mental health risks, though some as-yet unaccounted-for factors may show abortion to have fewer mental health effects than birth. Social condemnation is substantial and at times dangerous. Meanwhile, to prevent abortions, one has to prevent pregnancies through comprehensive sexual education and free IUDs, while abstinence-only proponents fail at every level. (...)

(...)
References:
(...)
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
[6] https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/ ... Report.pdf
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/ ... nbirthrate
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/scie ... ccess.html

Very well, if you cannot find it then I will accept a more general description of your plot for scrutiny.

Here’s an article that describes the program:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/amp/

Guess it was more recent than I thought.

Basic gist, Colorado got a 28 million dollar grant to offer extremely subsidized IUDs to teens and low-income folks. Teen pregnancy rates nose-dived and the state wound up saving about 70 million-ish by not having to pay for medical expenses relating to low-income families.

It was just a small thing with relatively limited scope, but the effects were quite profound. Shame they didn’t keep it going.

Jesus fucking Christmas, you both have either spent too long debating christians or there is a significant misunderstanding here. I don't care about handing out contraceptions, this is irrelevant to what I want as I could grant this and still not agree that woman deserve abortions.

[Attempted Socialism]

It will always be cheaper to not pay then to pay less, you won't be able to sway me with just this; you'll have to appeal to my self interest or my desire to bring about suffering on others.

Jesus fucking Christmas, you both have either spent too long debating christians or there is a significant misunderstanding here. I don't care about handing out contraceptions, this is irrelevant to what I want as I could grant this and still not agree that woman deserve abortions.

You mean the misunderstanding where we answered your request to appeal to your self interest to pay less?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I swear I had something on this...

Here’s an article that describes the program:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/amp/

Guess it was more recent than I thought.

Basic gist, Colorado got a 28 million dollar grant to offer extremely subsidized IUDs to teens and low-income folks. Teen pregnancy rates nose-dived and the state wound up saving about 70 million-ish by not having to pay for medical expenses relating to low-income families.

It was just a small thing with relatively limited scope, but the effects were quite profound. Shame they didn’t keep it going.

Jesus fucking Christmas, you both have either spent too long debating christians or there is a significant misunderstanding here. I don't care about handing out contraceptions, this is irrelevant to what I want as I could grant this and still not agree that woman deserve abortions.

The misunderstanding is on your end. Enacting a ban on abortions would end up costing more (especially with the other policies in place) since it would effectively be legislating on a non-issue.