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

[Genivaria]

reveal me the secret of what you thing a foetus, a HUMAN foetus, not a dog foetus, is if it isn't a human.

What the actual fuck?

I'll be honest I couldn't understand that statement.

[Vassenor]

Only about 0,5-1% of kids is aborted because of rape and/or incest. About 42% of kids are aborted either because the woman can't bare the responsibility of being a mother, or she just isn't feeling like giving birth. Why do you focus so much on mere 0,75% of causes, while you are totally missing the main cause of planned abortions?

I see that I have to repeat my self... I'm not telling you what you can or can not do with YOUR body, I'm just telling you what you shouldn't do with your CHILD'S body. It is wrong and cruel to kill your child whether it is inside your womb or elsewhere, weather it has 40 years or it is in its earliest stages of development.

And finally, please, reveal me the secret of what you thing a foetus, a HUMAN foetus, not a dog foetus, is if it isn't a human.

Any chance of actual data to back up that claim?

[The Free Joy State]

Now for some real abortion stats from the UK.

From 2017, 98% of abortions were under Ground C. That means that 2 doctors agreed that the woman was at risk of mental or physical health problems if the pregnancy continued (that's not just "nah, don't feel like it mate", but includes rape and incest, potentially serious mental health disorders and health conditions that risk her or the foetus including diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, epilepsy, and circulatory disease). 2% of abortions were performed under Ground E (after 24 weeks for severe foetal abnormality or maternal risk): 22% of which for congenital malformations of the nervous system, 34% for chromosomal abnormalities, 17% for other conditions and 27% for other congenital conditions.

180 abortions were carried out in 2017 under grounds A and B (that's immediate danger to life).

Other grounds are rare.

Most (92%) of abortions are performed below 13 weeks, with 77% performed under 10 weeks.

EDIT: And, as for some estimate (source?) that only 0.5-1% of abortions are due to rape, there are an estimated 32,101 impregnated victims of rape in the US alone every year. 5% of all rape victims will fall pregnant, of which 32.4% will not discover they are pregnant until the second trimester (possibly too late) and 50% will want to abort.

And none of those victims should have that right removed because someone doesn't think there's enough of them to count.

reveal me the secret of what you thing a foetus, a HUMAN foetus, not a dog foetus, is if it isn't a human.

What the actual fuck?

I think he thinks pro-choicers are saying the foetus isn't human.

It is human, of course. It isn't a person, yet. But it has human DNA.

Personhood would make no difference here, of course. McFall v Shimp is clear that no born human can be legally compelled to use another human's body (in that case, bone marrow) to keep another person alive.

If pro-lifers wish to argue foetuses are people, to be afforded the rights of other people, let them argue that. But people do not have the right to use the body of others' for their own benefit against that other person's will. So there's still no argument against abortion.

[The New California Republic]

What the actual fuck?

I think he thinks pro-choicers are saying the foetus isn't human.

It is human, of course. It isn't a person, yet. But it has human DNA.

Personhood would make no difference here, of course. McFall v Shimp is clear that no born human can be legally compelled to use another human's body (in that case, bone marrow) to keep another person alive.

If pro-lifers wish to argue foetuses are people, to be afforded the rights of other people, let them argue that. But people do not have the right to use the body of others' for their own benefit against that other person's will. So there's still no argument against abortion.

I kinda thought that's what he meant, but the phrasing of it threw me off, and the fact that I could not remember anyone here saying the fetus wasn't human, so I didn't know what he was referring to. He seems to be getting muddled up with the concepts "human" and "person"; I was going to say that it was an attempt at strawmanning on his part, but I think it was just his careless reading.

[Frievolk]

Now for some real abortion stats from the UK.

From 2017, 98% of abortions were under Ground C. That means that 2 doctors agreed that the woman was at risk of mental or physical health problems if the pregnancy continued (that's not just "nah, don't feel like it mate", but includes rape and incest, potentially serious mental health disorders and health conditions that risk her or the foetus including diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, epilepsy, and circulatory disease). 2% of abortions were performed under Ground E (after 24 weeks for severe foetal abnormality or maternal risk): 22% of which for congenital malformations of the nervous system, 27% for chromosomal abnormalities, 17% for other conditions and 27% for other congenital conditions.

180 abortions were carried out in 2017 under grounds A and B (that's immediate danger to life).

Other grounds are rare.

Most (92%) of abortions are performed below 12 weeks, with 77% performed under 10 weeks.

What the actual fuck?

I think he thinks pro-choicers are saying the foetus isn't human.

It is human, of course. It isn't a person, yet. But it has human DNA.

Personhood would make no difference here, of course. McFall v Shimp is clear that no born human can be legally compelled to use another human's body (in that case, bone marrow) to keep another person alive.

If pro-lifers wish to argue foetuses are people, to be afforded the rights of other people, let them argue that. But people do not have the right to use the body of others' for their own benefit against that other person's will. So there's still no argument against abortion.

At this point I'm 98% sure that the majority of the Pro-Lifers just want to enslave women and give zero fucks about persons, humans, babies, or anything else.

[Estanglia]

When you abort a baby you basically execute innocent person without any accusation or trial.

They ain't people, buddy.

Fetuses aren't people.

Yes they are people and there is no way you can disproof that. I mean, what you think, that they are some sort of aliens or plants?

1) Human =/= person
2) It isn't sentient or sapient, and it doesn't fulfil the legal definition of a person.

What right do you have to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body? What about rape or incest?

A fetus is not a person. Did you know that for reasons unknown many fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus? I guess any women whose had more than one period is a serial killer

How dare you force a rape or incest victim to have their assailant's child

I have the right of free speech, duh. I was talking about what you can or can't do with the baby's body (not yours) anyway, so your argument is pointless. Besides that, you can always give the living baby you hate so much for an adoption. There are plenty of people who would like to have a child and they would have never thought about killing it when it is most vulnerable.
Of course the women aren't serial killers. Spontaneous abortions don't happen because the woman wants them to happen. The fact that your child accidentally dies doesn't make you a murderer.
Last but not least, I've never forced rape or incest victims to have their and their assailant's child, nor I ever advised them to kill it. You accuse me of things that I haven't done (yet), just like the GESTAPO and KGB did.

Are you really comparing us to the Gestapo and KGB?

And finally, please, reveal me the secret of what you thing a foetus, a HUMAN foetus, not a dog foetus, is if it isn't a human.

Human =/= person.

[Richtlant]

It seems like this thread became less of a discussion and more of some sort of a safe space for anti-lifers. And since I've got 34 more brain tumors after listing through the stacks of nonsense you've written so far, I've decided to leave you alone with your utopian ideals. I of course could have answered to all your posts, but since I don't want to leave 10 000 word posts, I will leave you to realize the truth yourself.
Please don't quote on this post because I'm not gonna answer you since this is a hopeless situation, and you will never agree with me. But such is life. I have the right to disagree, you have the right to disagree, and nobody has the right to kill humans.
Thanks for attention.

[Vassenor]

It seems like this thread became less of a discussion and more of some sort of a safe space for anti-lifers. And since I've got 34 more brain tumors after listing through the stacks of nonsense you've written so far, I've decided to leave you alone with your utopian ideals. I of course could have answered to all your posts, but since I don't want to leave 10 000 word posts, I will leave you to realize the truth yourself.
Please don't quote on this post because I'm not gonna answer you since this is a hopeless situation, and you will never agree with me. But such is life. I have the right to disagree, you have the right to disagree, and nobody has the right to kill humans.
Thanks for attention.

Cool. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[San Lumen]

It seems like this thread became less of a discussion and more of some sort of a safe space for anti-lifers. And since I've got 34 more brain tumors after listing through the stacks of nonsense you've written so far, I've decided to leave you alone with your utopian ideals. I of course could have answered to all your posts, but since I don't want to leave 10 000 word posts, I will leave you to realize the truth yourself.
Please don't quote on this post because I'm not gonna answer you since this is a hopeless situation, and you will never agree with me. But such is life. I have the right to disagree, you have the right to disagree, and nobody has the right to kill humans.
Thanks for attention.

and you should also defend your position instead of running away.

[Kowani]

It seems like this thread became less of a discussion and more of some sort of a safe space for anti-lifers. And since I've got 34 more brain tumors after listing through the stacks of nonsense you've written so far, I've decided to leave you alone with your utopian ideals. I of course could have answered to all your posts, but since I don't want to leave 10 000 word posts, I will leave you to realize the truth yourself.
Please don't quote on this post because I'm not gonna answer you since this is a hopeless situation, and you will never agree with me. But such is life. I have the right to disagree, you have the right to disagree, and nobody has the right to kill humans.
Thanks for attention.

Don’t be this guy, people. Don’t come in and not actually defend your points, then run away.

[Frievolk]

It seems like this thread became less of a discussion and more of some sort of a safe space for anti-lifers. And since I've got 34 more brain tumors after listing through the stacks of nonsense you've written so far, I've decided to leave you alone with your utopian ideals. I of course could have answered to all your posts, but since I don't want to leave 10 000 word posts, I will leave you to realize the truth yourself.
Please don't quote on this post because I'm not gonna answer you since this is a hopeless situation, and you will never agree with me. But such is life. I have the right to disagree, you have the right to disagree, and nobody has the right to kill humans.
Thanks for attention.

Don’t be this guy, people. Don’t come in and not actually defend your points, then run away.

Apparently a place becomes a "Safe space" when you talk shit, can't back it up, and get pounded into pieces by like-minded individuals instead.

[Agarntrop]

Don’t be this guy, people. Don’t come in and not actually defend your points, then run away.

Apparently a place becomes a "Safe space" when you talk shit, can't back it up, and get pounded into pieces by like-minded individuals instead.

He' new. He dosen't understand how things work, obviously,

[The New California Republic]

It seems like this thread became less of a discussion and more of some sort of a safe space for anti-lifers. And since I've got 34 more brain tumors after listing through the stacks of nonsense you've written so far, I've decided to leave you alone with your utopian ideals. I of course could have answered to all your posts, but since I don't want to leave 10 000 word posts, I will leave you to realize the truth yourself.
Please don't quote on this post because I'm not gonna answer you since this is a hopeless situation, and you will never agree with me. But such is life. I have the right to disagree, you have the right to disagree, and nobody has the right to kill humans.
Thanks for attention.

Read: "I have no counters to your arguments, so I will throw a hissy fit by accusing you all of talking nonsense and then run away from the thread".

[Jakker]

It seems like this thread became less of a discussion and more of some sort of a safe space for anti-lifers. And since I've got 34 more brain tumors after listing through the stacks of nonsense you've written so far, I've decided to leave you alone with your utopian ideals. I of course could have answered to all your posts, but since I don't want to leave 10 000 word posts, I will leave you to realize the truth yourself.
Please don't quote on this post because I'm not gonna answer you since this is a hopeless situation, and you will never agree with me. But such is life. I have the right to disagree, you have the right to disagree, and nobody has the right to kill humans.
Thanks for attention.

You're welcome to disagree with others' beliefs, but there's no need to refer to a group of players as "anti-lifers." It can be regarded as flamebaiting/trolling. Keep that in mind moving forward. I'd recommend you check out our forum rules: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

It seems like this thread became less of a discussion and more of some sort of a safe space for anti-lifers. And since I've got 34 more brain tumors after listing through the stacks of nonsense you've written so far, I've decided to leave you alone with your utopian ideals. I of course could have answered to all your posts, but since I don't want to leave 10 000 word posts, I will leave you to realize the truth yourself.
Please don't quote on this post because I'm not gonna answer you since this is a hopeless situation, and you will never agree with me. But such is life. I have the right to disagree, you have the right to disagree, and nobody has the right to kill humans.
Thanks for attention.

Self-defense says otherwise.

[Katganistan]

So basically, gravedug thread, didn't bother to read any of it, had silly statements called out, and left after throwing a few insults around.

Another fine Tuesday in Sunnydale.

[Andsed]

My thoughts on abortion is this. I feel there are only a couple of situations where I find it okay.

1. When the pregnancy is caused by rape
2. When the mother would be put at risk higher than usual by the birth
3. When the pregnancy happened even though the couple used proper protection.

In these three situations the pregnancy was not the fault of a choice made by the women so she should not be forced to have a child. But in any other situations I don’t think abortion is okay. I find it a bit cowardly for someone to do. If they have made the choice to have unprotected sex that baby is the consequence they should accept like adults.

But I understand that some couples can’t support a child so my ideal solution would be that couples can get an abortion up until a certain point in the pregnancy. After that point the couple cannot get an abortion. But for couples in the three situations I listed above they can get an abortion anytime in the pregnancy accept during or after the birth of course.

All in all. USE PROTECTION GODDAMMIT!

[Byzconia]

Completely support a woman's right to choose (I do believe the father should have a say--assuming he's around--but the ultimate decision lies with the woman, as it's her body).

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

My thoughts on abortion is this. I feel there are only a couple of situations where I find it okay.

1. When the pregnancy is caused by rape
2. When the mother would be put at risk higher than usual by the birth
3. When the pregnancy happened even though the couple used proper protection.

In these three situations the pregnancy was not the fault of a choice made by the women so she should not be forced to have a child. But in any other situations I don’t think abortion is okay. I find it a bit cowardly for someone to do. If they have made the choice to have unprotected sex that baby is the consequence they should accept like adults.

But I understand that some couples can’t support a child so my ideal solution would be that couples can get an abortion up until a certain point in the pregnancy. After that point the couple cannot get an abortion. But for couples in the three situations I listed above they can get an abortion anytime in the pregnancy accept during or after the birth of course.

All in all. USE PROTECTION GODDAMMIT!

Protection can fail.

[Byzconia]

My thoughts on abortion is this. I feel there are only a couple of situations where I find it okay.

1. When the pregnancy is caused by rape
2. When the mother would be put at risk higher than usual by the birth
3. When the pregnancy happened even though the couple used proper protection.

In these three situations the pregnancy was not the fault of a choice made by the women so she should not be forced to have a child. But in any other situations I don’t think abortion is okay. I find it a bit cowardly for someone to do. If they have made the choice to have unprotected sex that baby is the consequence they should accept like adults.

But I understand that some couples can’t support a child so my ideal solution would be that couples can get an abortion up until a certain point in the pregnancy. After that point the couple cannot get an abortion. But for couples in the three situations I listed above they can get an abortion anytime in the pregnancy accept during or after the birth of course.

All in all. USE PROTECTION GODDAMMIT!

Protection can fail.

There's also the issue of people who don't have access to contraception (thanks, Catholic Church!).

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Now for some real abortion stats from the UK.

From 2017, 98% of abortions were under Ground C. That means that 2 doctors agreed that the woman was at risk of mental or physical health problems if the pregnancy continued (that's not just "nah, don't feel like it mate", but includes rape and incest, potentially serious mental health disorders and health conditions that risk her or the foetus including diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, epilepsy, and circulatory disease). 2% of abortions were performed under Ground E (after 24 weeks for severe foetal abnormality or maternal risk): 22% of which for congenital malformations of the nervous system, 34% for chromosomal abnormalities, 17% for other conditions and 27% for other congenital conditions.

180 abortions were carried out in 2017 under grounds A and B (that's immediate danger to life).

Other grounds are rare.

Most (92%) of abortions are performed below 13 weeks, with 77% performed under 10 weeks.

EDIT: And, as for some estimate (source?) that only 0.5-1% of abortions are due to rape, there are an estimated 32,101 impregnated victims of rape in the US alone every year. 5% of all rape victims will fall pregnant, of which 32.4% will not discover they are pregnant until the second trimester (possibly too late) and 50% will want to abort.

And none of those victims should have that right removed because someone doesn't think there's enough of them to count.

What the actual fuck?

I think he thinks pro-choicers are saying the foetus isn't human.

It is human, of course. It isn't a person, yet. But it has human DNA.

Personhood would make no difference here, of course. McFall v Shimp is clear that no born human can be legally compelled to use another human's body (in that case, bone marrow) to keep another person alive.

If pro-lifers wish to argue foetuses are people, to be afforded the rights of other people, let them argue that. But people do not have the right to use the body of others' for their own benefit against that other person's will. So there's still no argument against abortion.

Side note your second last sentence is one of the reasons I oppose the welfare state.

Back to my thought.
You know I still don’t know if anyone has ever presented statistics for the number of rapists who fell pregnant during their crime. I’m guessing it’s going to be higher than zero.

Do we even know when this happens?

Like can a rape victim go to jail for failure to pay child support to his rapist.

In this instance do people support giving the father of the foetus the right to terminate?

[The Free Joy State]

Now for some real abortion stats from the UK.

From 2017, 98% of abortions were under Ground C. That means that 2 doctors agreed that the woman was at risk of mental or physical health problems if the pregnancy continued (that's not just "nah, don't feel like it mate", but includes rape and incest, potentially serious mental health disorders and health conditions that risk her or the foetus including diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, epilepsy, and circulatory disease). 2% of abortions were performed under Ground E (after 24 weeks for severe foetal abnormality or maternal risk): 22% of which for congenital malformations of the nervous system, 34% for chromosomal abnormalities, 17% for other conditions and 27% for other congenital conditions.

180 abortions were carried out in 2017 under grounds A and B (that's immediate danger to life).

Other grounds are rare.

Most (92%) of abortions are performed below 13 weeks, with 77% performed under 10 weeks.

EDIT: And, as for some estimate (source?) that only 0.5-1% of abortions are due to rape, there are an estimated 32,101 impregnated victims of rape in the US alone every year. 5% of all rape victims will fall pregnant, of which 32.4% will not discover they are pregnant until the second trimester (possibly too late) and 50% will want to abort.

And none of those victims should have that right removed because someone doesn't think there's enough of them to count.


I think he thinks pro-choicers are saying the foetus isn't human.

It is human, of course. It isn't a person, yet. But it has human DNA.

Personhood would make no difference here, of course. McFall v Shimp is clear that no born human can be legally compelled to use another human's body (in that case, bone marrow) to keep another person alive.

If pro-lifers wish to argue foetuses are people, to be afforded the rights of other people, let them argue that. But people do not have the right to use the body of others' for their own benefit against that other person's will. So there's still no argument against abortion.

Side note your second last sentence is one of the reasons I oppose the welfare state.

Back to my thought.
You know I still don’t know if anyone has ever presented statistics for the number of rapists who fell pregnant during their crime. I’m guessing it’s going to be higher than zero.

Do we even know when this happens?

Like can a rape victim go to jail for failure to pay child support to his rapist.

In this instance do people support giving the father of the foetus the right to terminate?

I'm clearly referring to medically keeping a person alive. Invading another human beings physical body medically -- for blood, bone marrow or organs -- without their consent is completely different to being asked to pay a little tax to help those in need.

But this isn't the venue for that,

As for your later questions: if a woman has raped a man, he absolutely should not be allowed to force her to have an abortion. Why? Because that would -- again -- be giving another human being (the man) the right of control over the woman's physical body.

Women should neither be forced to keep a foetus they do not want nor be forced to have an abortion.

However -- before anyone starts complaining about double standards -- if a woman has raped a man, in that circumstance he should absolutely be able to get a paper abortion and waive parental responsibility (should she choose to keep it).

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Side note your second last sentence is one of the reasons I oppose the welfare state.

Back to my thought.
You know I still don’t know if anyone has ever presented statistics for the number of rapists who fell pregnant during their crime. I’m guessing it’s going to be higher than zero.

Do we even know when this happens?

Like can a rape victim go to jail for failure to pay child support to his rapist.

In this instance do people support giving the father of the foetus the right to terminate?

I'm clearly referring to medically keeping a person alive. Invading another human beings physical body medically -- for blood, bone marrow or organs -- without their consent is completely different to being asked to pay a little tax to help those in need.

But this isn't the venue for that,

As for your later questions: if a woman has raped a man, he absolutely should not be allowed to force her to have an abortion. Why? Because that would -- again -- be giving another human being (the man) the right of control over the woman's physical body.

Women should neither be forced to keep a foetus they do not want nor be forced to have an abortion.

However -- before anyone starts complaining about double standards -- if a woman has raped a man, in that circumstance he should absolutely be able to get a paper abortion and waive parental responsibility (should she choose to keep it).

Well I’m for paper abortions, even if I lean more towards women having a limited amount of time to get a mans approval to claim he’s the father.

I disagree that the foetus is part of her body, it’s it’s own person. Legally able to be terminated for any reason the mother so chooses.

So I’m a fan of the mother’s right to choose being dismissed in proven cases of her raping.

Would it be appropriate to start a thread on its own for this topic?

[Blazelander]

Condoms are FREE at hospitals, being responsable it's cheaper than an abortion, if these people are not even responsable of their own birth control that means they dont even use protecion, what if they get a STD? They can't abort STD's like they would do with a child, i's 2019 and we have methods to avoid this kind of stuff, thats why women can't just kill their own offspring to make the "problem" dissapear, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Same to men, part of being a MAN and a MACHO, is taking responsability of everything you do, what kind of "man" is eager to kill his own blood to avoid responsability? Fucking cowards without honor pieces of shit, once a baby is conceived it is already an individual with rights, the argument of "my body and my rules" is a fallacy because at the moment that the mother consented to the sexual relationship then she legally accepted to carry the baby for 9 months, it's actually very simple, even if giving birth means the death of the mother it's a price that must be paid because it's the natural cycle of life.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm clearly referring to medically keeping a person alive. Invading another human beings physical body medically -- for blood, bone marrow or organs -- without their consent is completely different to being asked to pay a little tax to help those in need.

But this isn't the venue for that,

As for your later questions: if a woman has raped a man, he absolutely should not be allowed to force her to have an abortion. Why? Because that would -- again -- be giving another human being (the man) the right of control over the woman's physical body.

Women should neither be forced to keep a foetus they do not want nor be forced to have an abortion.

However -- before anyone starts complaining about double standards -- if a woman has raped a man, in that circumstance he should absolutely be able to get a paper abortion and waive parental responsibility (should she choose to keep it).

Well I’m for paper abortions, even if I lean more towards women having a limited amount of time to get a mans approval to claim he’s the father.

I disagree that the foetus is part of her body, it’s it’s own person. Legally able to be terminated for any reason the mother so chooses.

So I’m a fan of the mother’s right to choose being dismissed in proven cases of her raping.

Would it be appropriate to start a thread on its own for this topic?

I'm not sure. In your eyes, would it be its own distinct topic, separate to and distinct from the general abortion discussion thread?