NATION

PASSWORD

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

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What policies would you use to reduce abortion numbers?

Welfare Support for Single Mothers
46
18%
Free Pregnancy-Related Health Care
46
18%
Comprehensive Sex Education
56
22%
Free Contraception
48
19%
Monetary Incentives (Child Care, Tax Incentives, Kid-Related Healthcare, specify if needed)
34
13%
No Changes
4
2%
Procedure Ban (Not outlawing abortion itself, but specific procedures)
1
0%
Outright Ban (With exceptions or without)
17
7%
 
Total votes : 252

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9848
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:55 am

San Lumen wrote:You therefore think a rape or incest victim should be forced to carry to term a child they dont want?

I am so tired that of this 140 pages and endless rehashings of this point in on this thread later I want an antiabortionist to come in and honestly declare: "Yes, I want a rape or incest victim, no matter the age to be forced by the mandate of law to carry to term a fetus they explicitly and with full information declared that they do not wish to carry."

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:58 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:You therefore think a rape or incest victim should be forced to carry to term a child they dont want?

I am so tired that of this 140 pages and endless rehashings of this point in on this thread later I want an antiabortionist to come in and honestly declare: "Yes, I want a rape or incest victim, no matter the age to be forced by the mandate of law to carry to term a fetus they explicitly and with full information declared that they do not wish to carry."


so you don't believe that?

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15945
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:58 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Also, since a baby has been born at 21 weeks, surely it's only acceptable to disallow it after that date?

Extremely rare and very much the exception. Babies prematurely born before 24 weeks (the point from which abortions are usually banned except in extreme circumstances) have much higher mortality and a much higher risk of long-term disability:

Image
Last edited by Friedrich Nietzsche on Thu Jan 03, 1889 13:05 pm, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the complete victory over Caesar's Legion, and the pacification and annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.
Current President of The NCR: Aaron Kimball.
Current NCR Ambassador to The World Assembly: Colonel James Hsu, NCR Army (Ret.)
.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11767
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:59 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Also, since a baby has been born at 21 weeks, surely it's only acceptable to disallow it after that date?

Extremely rare and very much the exception. Babies prematurely born before 24 weeks (the point from which abortions are usually banned except in extreme circumstances) have much higher mortality and a much higher risk of long-term disability:

Image

A risk of disability should not a law make.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15945
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:03 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Extremely rare and very much the exception. Babies prematurely born before 24 weeks (the point from which abortions are usually banned except in extreme circumstances) have much higher mortality and a much higher risk of long-term disability:

(Image)

A risk of disability should not a law make.

Fine. Ignore the rest of the content of my post with some selective reading. :roll:
Last edited by Friedrich Nietzsche on Thu Jan 03, 1889 13:05 pm, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the complete victory over Caesar's Legion, and the pacification and annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.
Current President of The NCR: Aaron Kimball.
Current NCR Ambassador to The World Assembly: Colonel James Hsu, NCR Army (Ret.)
.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9848
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:08 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I am so tired that of this 140 pages and endless rehashings of this point in on this thread later I want an antiabortionist to come in and honestly declare: "Yes, I want a rape or incest victim, no matter the age to be forced by the mandate of law to carry to term a fetus they explicitly and with full information declared that they do not wish to carry."


so you don't believe that?

I do believe that. I just want some antiabortionist to be entirely honest with people instead of referring to their nebulous utopic ideas about how things work. Because however much one wishes that shit were black and white and one can condemn all the people who opt for an abortion for being homicidal murderers, that's still not how things work in real life. Instead of every last woman who opt for abortions being sadistic, psychopathic murderers we have pre-teens who need it because the pregnancy would kill them otherwise, instead of masses of evil women who do it out of a sense of convenience we have people who wanted babies but have been unfortunately rendered unable to care for them, or been struck with conditions that would poison and kill their own bodies.
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:10 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
so you don't believe that?

I do. I just want some antiabortionist to be entirely honest with people instead of referring to their nebulous utopic ideas about how things work. Because however much one wishes that shit were black and white and one can condemn all the people who opt for an abortion for being homicidal murderers, that's still not how things work in real life.

Why should a rape or incest victim have to carry to term a child they do not want?

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9848
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:14 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I do. I just want some antiabortionist to be entirely honest with people instead of referring to their nebulous utopic ideas about how things work. Because however much one wishes that shit were black and white and one can condemn all the people who opt for an abortion for being homicidal murderers, that's still not how things work in real life.

Why should a rape or incest victim have to carry to term a child they do not want?

I should've said that I do believe that but I think my posts here very much demonstrates that I am in no way for any abortion bans in the name of utopic ideals.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:16 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Why should a rape or incest victim have to carry to term a child they do not want?

I should've said that I do believe that but I think my posts here very much demonstrates that I am in no way for any abortion bans in the name of utopic ideals.


Therefore your personally pro life but do not believe in bans on abortion?

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9848
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:18 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I should've said that I do believe that but I think my posts here very much demonstrates that I am in no way for any abortion bans in the name of utopic ideals.


Therefore your personally pro life but do not believe in bans on abortion?

I'm sorry I am confused... <.< probably a sign of me requiring dinner.
I meant that I believe that rape and incest victims should be provided with abortion services on demand (like everybody else), and that it should be covered by universal healthcare plans from the government like any other medical procedure.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:19 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Therefore your personally pro life but do not believe in bans on abortion?

I'm sorry I am confused... <.< probably a sign of me requiring dinner.
I meant that I believe that rape and incest victims should be provided with abortion services on demand (like everybody else), and that it should be covered by universal healthcare plans from the government like any other medical procedure.

On that I agree with you.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11767
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:28 am

San Lumen wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I'm sorry I am confused... <.< probably a sign of me requiring dinner.
I meant that I believe that rape and incest victims should be provided with abortion services on demand (like everybody else), and that it should be covered by universal healthcare plans from the government like any other medical procedure.

On that I agree with you.

Because that child obviously chose how it was conceived...

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:37 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
San Lumen wrote:On that I agree with you.

Because that child obviously chose how it was conceived...


Of course it didnt but that doesn't mean a fetus should have special rights. If a pregnancy is a result of rape or incest it should not be forced upon them to carry it to term

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11767
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:41 am

San Lumen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Because that child obviously chose how it was conceived...


Of course it didnt but that doesn't mean a fetus should have special rights. If a pregnancy is a result of rape or incest it should not be forced upon them to carry it to term

The only way I could agree is in the case of someone under the age of consent.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:42 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Of course it didnt but that doesn't mean a fetus should have special rights. If a pregnancy is a result of rape or incest it should not be forced upon them to carry it to term

The only way I could agree is in the case of someone under the age of consent.


Why should a women be forced to carry to term a child she does not want? Pregnancy is a lot to ask of someone. They have to watch what they eat and what physical activity they do among other things. It should be something that is wanted not forced.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11767
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:46 am

San Lumen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The only way I could agree is in the case of someone under the age of consent.


Why should a women be forced to carry to term a child she does not want? Pregnancy is a lot to ask of someone. They have to watch what they eat and what physical activity they do among other things. It should be something that is wanted not forced.

It's all about proportionality. Does the temporary discomfort of the mother justify killing the child? I don't think so.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:50 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Why should a women be forced to carry to term a child she does not want? Pregnancy is a lot to ask of someone. They have to watch what they eat and what physical activity they do among other things. It should be something that is wanted not forced.

It's all about proportionality. Does the temporary discomfort of the mother justify killing the child? I don't think so.


And what right do you have to force someone to have a child they dont want?

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11767
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:57 am

San Lumen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:It's all about proportionality. Does the temporary discomfort of the mother justify killing the child? I don't think so.


And what right do you have to force someone to have a child they dont want?

It's not about the mother having the child, the mother preferably doesn't even come into it. It's about the childs right to life.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15945
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:00 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
And what right do you have to force someone to have a child they dont want?

It's not about the mother having the child, the mother preferably doesn't even come into it. It's about the childs right to life.

It isn't a child, it's a fetus. Let's try to use the correct terminology to avoid confusion, hm?

a child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child
Last edited by Friedrich Nietzsche on Thu Jan 03, 1889 13:05 pm, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the complete victory over Caesar's Legion, and the pacification and annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.
Current President of The NCR: Aaron Kimball.
Current NCR Ambassador to The World Assembly: Colonel James Hsu, NCR Army (Ret.)
.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:01 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
And what right do you have to force someone to have a child they dont want?

It's not about the mother having the child, the mother preferably doesn't even come into it. It's about the childs right to life.


well if we are going to give a fetus special rights why dont we count them in the census?

That fetus is feeding off the mother and taking from her which she did not consent too. Why does a fetus have that right?

Why do you have to give consent to donate blood, give a DNA sample or donate bone marrow or an organ? Why does a fetus have special rights?

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11767
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:02 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:It's not about the mother having the child, the mother preferably doesn't even come into it. It's about the childs right to life.


well if we are going to give a fetus special rights why dont we count them in the census?

That fetus is feeding off the mother and taking from her which she did not consent too. Why does a fetus have that right?

Why do you have to give consent to donate blood, give a DNA sample or donate bone marrow or an organ? Why does a fetus have special rights?

Sure, count them in the census, no problem for me.
I'm not entirely sure you should have to give consent to donate organs, at least after you're dead.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:04 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
well if we are going to give a fetus special rights why dont we count them in the census?

That fetus is feeding off the mother and taking from her which she did not consent too. Why does a fetus have that right?

Why do you have to give consent to donate blood, give a DNA sample or donate bone marrow or an organ? Why does a fetus have special rights?

Sure, count them in the census, no problem for me.
I'm not entirely sure you should have to give consent to donate organs, at least after you're dead.


We ought to count those who are unborn in the census?

I believe next of kin has to give consent but you dodged my question. Why does a fetus have the right to use someone else's body without their consent a right we give no one else?

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11767
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:07 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Sure, count them in the census, no problem for me.
I'm not entirely sure you should have to give consent to donate organs, at least after you're dead.


We ought to count those who are unborn in the census?

I believe next of kin has to give consent but you dodged my question. Why does a fetus have the right to use someone else's body without their consent a right we give no one else?

Sure, I don't really believe in the census anyway. Best get rid of it, but if you're going to do it then count fetuses.

It's a case of act vs. omission. Refusing consent to give blood is similar to refusing to have sex, whereas deciding that the fetus has to be removed from you after the sex has been had is more akin as demanding that the blood be returned to you after you've given it.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15945
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:09 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:deciding that the fetus has to be removed from you after the sex has been had is more akin as demanding that the blood be returned to you after you've given it.

Oh shit, not more "having sex is consent to pregnancy" nonsense again. :eyebrow:
Last edited by Friedrich Nietzsche on Thu Jan 03, 1889 13:05 pm, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the complete victory over Caesar's Legion, and the pacification and annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.
Current President of The NCR: Aaron Kimball.
Current NCR Ambassador to The World Assembly: Colonel James Hsu, NCR Army (Ret.)
.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28583
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:10 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
We ought to count those who are unborn in the census?

I believe next of kin has to give consent but you dodged my question. Why does a fetus have the right to use someone else's body without their consent a right we give no one else?

Sure, I don't really believe in the census anyway. Best get rid of it, but if you're going to do it then count fetuses.

It's a case of act vs. omission. Refusing consent to give blood is similar to refusing to have sex, whereas deciding that the fetus has to be removed from you after the sex has been had is more akin as demanding that the blood be returned to you after you've given it.


having accurate representation is a bad thing to you? But that's a topic for another thread.

If we are going to consider fetuses as part of household can we count pets as well?

No it isn't. I dont know how you made that leap. Why does a fetus have the right to use someone else's body without their consent? A right given to no one else.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Aeritai, Ayissor, Bear Stearns, Camelone, Cekoviu, Crockerland, ECKU, Free Transhumanists, Godular, Greater Adamsia, Heloin, Infected Mushroom, Kowani, Lord Dominator, Magocratic Aidonaia, Nanatsu no Tsuki, New Tetraland, Northern Davincia, Ordenstaat Burgundy, Pacomia, Salus Maior, Scomagia, Serconas, The Two Jerseys, Totally Not OEP, United New England, Victorious Decepticons

Advertisement

Remove ads