NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

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.

To use the organ donation thing:

Some may argue that what I did regarding a donated kidney was a dick move, but I was going through a bout of severe depression and I had been advised by my psychiatrists that going through such a traumatic operation could have permanent mental effects. So, a week prior to donating a kidney, I pulled out.
Abortion, however, would be more like me wanting to take my already donated kidney out of my friend.

San Lumen wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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.

As I said, it's an act vs. an omission. Withdrawing consent for certain things can be done prior to the start of what it is. I couldn't demand my donated blood back, but I could back out at any time; similarly a woman can't kill a fetus because it's already in her

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
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.

As I said, it's an act vs. an omission. Withdrawing consent for certain things can be done prior to the start of what it is. I couldn't demand my donated blood back, but I could back out at any time; similarly a woman can't kill a fetus because it's already in her

And why would anyone?

I say again why does a fetus have the right to use someone;s body without their consent? If you dont have a right to your body why do you need consent to give blood or donate a kidney?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Oh shit, not more "having sex is consent to pregnancy" nonsense again.

To use the organ donation thing:

Some may argue that what I did regarding a donated kidney was a dick move, but I was going through a bout of severe depression and I had been advised by my psychiatrists that going through such a traumatic operation could have permanent mental effects. So, a week prior to donating a kidney, I pulled out.
Abortion, however, would be more like me wanting to take my already donated kidney out of my friend.

Is your kidney leeching nutrients off your friend like a parasite that he will need to give birth to after a few months? And no, what you are saying is more like the father deciding that the woman gets an abortion, since the kidney is in your friend and it is you that is deciding to scoop it out, not your friend.

The analogy just fails on multiple levels. It is a complete trainwreck.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
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.

As I said, it's an act vs. an omission. Withdrawing consent for certain things can be done prior to the start of what it is. I couldn't demand my donated blood back, but I could back out at any time; similarly a woman can't kill a fetus because it's already in her

That is false.

I can invite someone into my house, then revoke that invitation at any time. In the case of a born person I have other means of recourse than lethal force, but there is no such luxury regarding a fetus within another person’s body. This does not in any way confer upon that fetus any form of special protection.

San Lumen wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:You may deny their personhood, but you cannot deny their humanity. In a few states, they retain some legal rights. I really don't care whose decision it is.

What are these legal rights because I've never heard of that.

And if you can make medical choices for someone else can I make them for you as well?

a fetus is not a human nor is a person.

Ever heard of heartbeat laws? States have wised up about it and are passing them. Fetal homicide is also a crime in most states.

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
What are these legal rights because I've never heard of that.

And if you can make medical choices for someone else can I make them for you as well?

a fetus is not a human nor is a person.

Ever heard of heartbeat laws? States have wised up about it and are passing them. Fetal homicide is also a crime in most states.

So .. you took an article about laws related to a third party committing a crime against a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the fetus and tried to spin it as an anti-abortion law?

Jebslund wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Ever heard of heartbeat laws? States have wised up about it and are passing them. Fetal homicide is also a crime in most states.

So .. you took an article about laws related to a third party committing a crime against a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the fetus and tried to spin it as an anti-abortion law?

It's an indicator that fetuses do have some legal protections, even if they are few in number.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Jebslund wrote:So .. you took an article about laws related to a third party committing a crime against a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the fetus and tried to spin it as an anti-abortion law?

It's an indicator that fetuses do have some legal protections, even if they are few in number.

No, it's an indication that there is legal acknowledgement to an assault essentially resulting in a forced abortion. Nice try, though

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
What are these legal rights because I've never heard of that.

And if you can make medical choices for someone else can I make them for you as well?

a fetus is not a human nor is a person.

Ever heard of heartbeat laws? States have wised up about it and are passing them. Fetal homicide is also a crime in most states.

I have issues with heartbeat laws. Its a backdoor way to banning abortion.

I ask you one more time why does a fetus have the right to use someone;s body without their consent? If you dont have a right to your body why do you need consent to give blood or donate a kidney?

San Lumen wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Ever heard of heartbeat laws? States have wised up about it and are passing them. Fetal homicide is also a crime in most states.

I have issues with heartbeat laws. Its a backdoor way to banning abortion.

I ask you one more time why does a fetus have the right to use someone;s body without their consent? If you dont have a right to your body why do you need consent to give blood or donate a kidney?

And what is so essential about heartbeat anyway? Having a heart isn't anywhere in the usual definitions of personhood, and it doesn't mean the fetus is viable outside of the womb, so I really don't see what difference a heartbeat makes. They may as well have chosen something equally as irrelevant, such as whether the fetus hiccups or not.

The New California Republic wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I have issues with heartbeat laws. Its a backdoor way to banning abortion.

I ask you one more time why does a fetus have the right to use someone;s body without their consent? If you dont have a right to your body why do you need consent to give blood or donate a kidney?

And what is so essential about heartbeat anyway? Having a heart isn't anywhere in the usual definitions of personhood, and it doesn't mean the fetus is viable outside of the womb, so I really don't see what difference a heartbeat makes. They may as well have chosen something equally as irrelevant, such as whether the fetus hiccups or not.

Like I said its a backdoor way to banning abortion

The New California Republic wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I have issues with heartbeat laws. Its a backdoor way to banning abortion.

I ask you one more time why does a fetus have the right to use someone;s body without their consent? If you dont have a right to your body why do you need consent to give blood or donate a kidney?

And what is so essential about heartbeat anyway? Having a heart isn't anywhere in the usual definitions of personhood, and it doesn't mean the fetus is viable outside of the womb, so I really don't see what difference a heartbeat makes. They may as well have chosen something equally as irrelevant, such as whether the fetus hiccups or not.

I could go up to the butcher and buy a cow's heart and hook it up to some batteries. Flick the switch on and off and there you go, heart's beating. I guess that would be a living cow?

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.

Fortunately, your permission is not required.

San Lumen wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Ever heard of heartbeat laws? States have wised up about it and are passing them. Fetal homicide is also a crime in most states.

I have issues with heartbeat laws. Its a backdoor way to banning abortion.

I ask you one more time why does a fetus have the right to use someone;s body without their consent? If you dont have a right to your body why do you need consent to give blood or donate a kidney?

I don't care about consent in this situation. When we make child abandonment a crime, we deprive caretakers of some form of consent. The right of a child to live is as essential as the right for you to not get killed simply because you were viewed as an inconvenience.

San Lumen wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:And what is so essential about heartbeat anyway? Having a heart isn't anywhere in the usual definitions of personhood, and it doesn't mean the fetus is viable outside of the womb, so I really don't see what difference a heartbeat makes. They may as well have chosen something equally as irrelevant, such as whether the fetus hiccups or not.

Like I said its a backdoor way to banning abortion

That's the goal, yes.

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I have issues with heartbeat laws. Its a backdoor way to banning abortion.

I ask you one more time why does a fetus have the right to use someone;s body without their consent? If you dont have a right to your body why do you need consent to give blood or donate a kidney?

I don't care about consent in this situation. When we make child abandonment a crime, we deprive caretakers of some form of consent. The right of a child to live is as essential as the right for you to not get killed simply because you were viewed as an inconvenience.

San Lumen wrote:Like I said its a backdoor way to banning abortion

That's the goal, yes.

If a fetus has the right to use ones body without consent then a right to ones body does not exist. Why do we need to give consent for organ donations or blood donation?

San Lumen wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I don't care about consent in this situation. When we make child abandonment a crime, we deprive caretakers of some form of consent. The right of a child to live is as essential as the right for you to not get killed simply because you were viewed as an inconvenience.

That's the goal, yes.

If a fetus has the right to use ones body without consent then a right to ones body does not exist. Why do we need to give consent for organ donations or blood donation?

Bodily autonomy is quite new in the realm of rights, as to believe in it fully means that the draft is illegitimate and those already born have no right to our labor or to rule over us.
It's the ultimate anarchist and anti-welfare belief. Also, the only reason you need consent to donate organs or blood is because that is what the law mandates.

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:If a fetus has the right to use ones body without consent then a right to ones body does not exist. Why do we need to give consent for organ donations or blood donation?

Bodily autonomy is quite new in the realm of rights, as to believe in it fully means that the draft is illegitimate and those already born have no right to our labor or to rule over us.
It's the ultimate anarchist and anti-welfare belief. Also, the only reason you need consent to donate organs or blood is because that is what the law mandates.

Why should a fetus get special rights no one else has?

San Lumen wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Bodily autonomy is quite new in the realm of rights, as to believe in it fully means that the draft is illegitimate and those already born have no right to our labor or to rule over us.
It's the ultimate anarchist and anti-welfare belief. Also, the only reason you need consent to donate organs or blood is because that is what the law mandates.

Why should a fetus get special rights no one else has?

Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Why should a fetus get special rights no one else has?

Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

When you or I pose a threat to their life, invade their home, or attempt to drink their blood, yes, actually. It's called the right to self-defense.

Otherwise, are you or I nonsapient clumps of cells that have never been sapient? Because, at the stage the vast majority of abortions are performed, the only difference between a fetus and a tumor is that the former has potential to achieve sapience. By that measure, you may as well charge women for involuntary manslaughter every time they menstruate.

Jebslund wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

When you or I pose a threat to their life, invade their home, or attempt to drink their blood, yes, actually. It's called the right to self-defense.

Otherwise, are you or I nonsapient clumps of cells that have never been sapient? Because, at the stage the vast majority of abortions are performed, the only difference between a fetus and a tumor is that the former has potential to achieve sapience. By that measure, you may as well charge women for involuntary manslaughter every time they menstruate.

Fetuses by and large do not pose a threat to life. As their creation is dependent on factors beyond their control and understanding, they are not invasive because their presence is dependent on the parents.
Sapience doesn't really matter because lacking it is a temporary condition, and the charge of manslaughter requires some active fault on the person responsible for it. Menstruation has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Jebslund wrote:When you or I pose a threat to their life, invade their home, or attempt to drink their blood, yes, actually. It's called the right to self-defense.

Otherwise, are you or I nonsapient clumps of cells that have never been sapient? Because, at the stage the vast majority of abortions are performed, the only difference between a fetus and a tumor is that the former has potential to achieve sapience. By that measure, you may as well charge women for involuntary manslaughter every time they menstruate.

Fetuses by and large do not pose a threat to life. 'As their creation is dependent on factors beyond their control and understanding, they are not invasive because their presence is dependent on the parents.

Just because the creation is based on factors beyond their control does not stop them from being invasive. And whether the person is willing to accept the risk posed is not up to you.

Sapience doesn't really matter because lacking it is a temporary condition, and the charge of manslaughter requires some active fault on the person responsible for it. Menstruation has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.

It might be a temporary condition.

Northern Davincia wrote:Fetuses by and large do not pose a threat to life.

Toxic pregnancies are a thing. And tell that to the women who have died because of complications related to pregnancies, and the many, many women who die each year. If I give you a bowl of candy and say that 5 out of the hundred will kill you painfully, and another 10 will leave you crippled, would you take any?

Northern Davincia wrote:As their creation is dependent on factors beyond their control and understanding, they are not invasive because their presence is dependent on the parents.

Blatantly false. Viruses and bacteria are created by factors beyond their control and understanding, yet they are still invasive.

Northern Davincia wrote:Sapience doesn't really matter because lacking it is a temporary condition,

Hence the part about never having been sapient. You don't stop being a person just because you're unconscious, but you also don't become a person until the first time you achieve sapience. It's like a computer isn't a Windows computer until a Windows operating system is installed. Prior to that point, it's just a collection of parts.

Northern Davincia wrote:and the charge of manslaughter requires some active fault on the person responsible for it. Menstruation has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.

The charge of manslaughter does. I was not talking about that, however. I was talking about involuntary manslaughter.

in·vol·un·tar·y man·slaugh·ter.

[involuntary manslaughter]

NOUN
law: the crime of killing another human being unlawfully but unintentionally.

If you want to outlaw abortion on the grounds that potentially sapient life is still people, you may as well rule that menstruation (manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, IE: Failure to get pregnant so as to allow that potential life to achieve sapience rather than dying), male masturbation (from the commission of a lawful act in a negligent or improper manner, IE not saving it for getting a woman pregnant, allowing potential sapients to die in the process), and wet dreams (same thing) are also illegally killing human.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Jebslund wrote:When you or I pose a threat to their life, invade their home, or attempt to drink their blood, yes, actually. It's called the right to self-defense.

Otherwise, are you or I nonsapient clumps of cells that have never been sapient? Because, at the stage the vast majority of abortions are performed, the only difference between a fetus and a tumor is that the former has potential to achieve sapience. By that measure, you may as well charge women for involuntary manslaughter every time they menstruate.

Fetuses by and large do not pose a threat to life. As their creation is dependent on factors beyond their control and understanding, they are not invasive because their presence is dependent on the parents.
Sapience doesn't really matter because lacking it is a temporary condition, and the charge of manslaughter requires some active fault on the person responsible for it. Menstruation has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.

It is still using ones body without their consent and no one has that right. If we are going to say life begins at conception than we might as will consider every women whose had more than one period a serial killer given that for reason unknown many fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:If a fetus has the right to use ones body without consent then a right to ones body does not exist. Why do we need to give consent for organ donations or blood donation?

Bodily autonomy is quite new in the realm of rights, as to believe in it fully means that the draft is illegitimate and those already born have no right to our labor or to rule over us.
It's the ultimate anarchist and anti-welfare belief. Also, the only reason you need consent to donate organs or blood is because that is what the law mandates.

I think you'll find bodily autonomy is not as new as you believe. 1865 comes to mind as a time when people were no longer legally allowed to use other people's bodies without permission.