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

[Jebslund]

Due process is not a get out of consent free card any more than going through due process to force a woman to carry to term, with steep fines and prison time if she doesn't, but giving a dotted line to sign, would be a get out of consent free card for forcing her to carry to term. That's the whole point of arguing that abortion should not be banned.

I disagree. There are parallels, such as the false choice given in the GA law of six weeks, in that both are due process very much intended to present a situation as optional that is de-facto compulsory (the felony offense alone makes the draft compulsory. The idea that it is not is as absurd as saying murder is a valid option despite there being laws against it and criminal punishments for it.), that make it both a valid argument and relevant to the thread at large. That said, it's not an excuse to ban abortion (in fact, it's very much an argument for decriminalisation of refusing to be voluntold for the draft.). I find it very condescending that you seem hellbent on seeing it as optional when There are CRIMINAL fucking PENALTIES for refusing to do so. I see it the same as you would if I said that abortions aren't banned in Georgia because of that six-week period.

Again, I fundamentally disagree. I’ve gone over this and taxation before, and I continue to consider both as things for which people do receive benefits of various sorts and as such cannot be considered a parallel with denying a woman the right to control her own body.

Frankly, whether it counts as optional or not strikes me as a tangent best addressed elsewhere.

(also, I’m not IN FAVOR of selective service... I’d be quite pleased were it done away with entirely)

It doesn't count as giving benefits when one half of the population gets them anyway. That's like having a daughter and a son the same age and telling one she can get a good bed regardless of what she does and the boy that he has to do extra chores or else. Taxes are something everyone gets benefits from, even if they dodge them. Selective service is not. It is not "receiving benefits for signing up", it is "withholding benefits others get regardless of whether or not they sign up, as well as applying punishments, for refusing". There is a difference, much as there is a difference between saying that abortion is legal for any reason until 24 weeks and saying abortion is only legal up to six weeks. One is a choice (in the case of the draft, receiving extra benefits, with no penalties for refusal, would constitute a choice with incentives), the other is merely the illusion of choice. It's like a parent offering a "choice" of activities, neither choice inherently bad, then grounding the child for a month if they choose the wrong one.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I am somewhat amused rn by the sheer outrage over some 40 years of legalised abortion from the Christians when antisemitism and genocide is as "popular" as they are thanks to more than a millenia of agitation propaganda due to one institution in particular. But don't let me stop you all...

[Ifreann]

So God gets to tell people to murder infants and that's cool, but stopping a pregnancy long before it's anything near an infant is a horrid crime.

And no, it's not a mistranslation. It's just not the one YOU agree with, Northern Davincia.

God hasn't told anyone to murder infants, and I remain certain that you're working with a faulty translation. Get a better one.
Lumi already addressed your total misinterpretation of scripture.

Well if abortion is banned, it definitely would result in a larger burden on the welfare state, and for calls to expand the thing.

A negative income tax resolves the issue entirely. Besides, it would embolden the police state if anything.

It wasn't God, just King Dave.

Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Psalm 137:7-9

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think we should do both. Just because we can prevent abortions best through financial incentives doesn't mean we should allow abortion imo.

See, that’s where the failure arises. You do not know the woman’s situation, and for all intents and purposes you cannot know. You might have eliminated the reason for a great deal of women to find abortion services necessary, but such policies do not cover everything. There will always be a need for such services so long as a woman gets pregnant and does not wish to be. Discounting her reasons is both unjust and insensitive to how serious the situation is to the woman.

Better to reduce the need than to ban outright.

The only reason that can justify it is if it will kill the mother if carried to term, the child's life is of as much importance as anyone else's.

[Northern Davincia]

God hasn't told anyone to murder infants, and I remain certain that you're working with a faulty translation. Get a better one.
Lumi already addressed your total misinterpretation of scripture.

A negative income tax resolves the issue entirely. Besides, it would embolden the police state if anything.

It wasn't God, just King Dave.

Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Psalm 137:7-9

That wasn't even a command. It describes an emotional state, that Babylon is deeply hated.

[Northern Davincia]

I am somewhat amused rn by the sheer outrage over some 40 years of legalised abortion from the Christians when antisemitism and genocide is as "popular" as they are thanks to more than a millenia of agitation propaganda due to one institution in particular. But don't let me stop you all...

This doesn't make any sense.

[Neutraligon]

See, that’s where the failure arises. You do not know the woman’s situation, and for all intents and purposes you cannot know. You might have eliminated the reason for a great deal of women to find abortion services necessary, but such policies do not cover everything. There will always be a need for such services so long as a woman gets pregnant and does not wish to be. Discounting her reasons is both unjust and insensitive to how serious the situation is to the woman.

Better to reduce the need than to ban outright.

The only reason that can justify it is if it will kill the mother if carried to term, the child's life is of as much importance as anyone else's.

There are plenty of others, like her not wanting to be pregnant.

[Northern Davincia]

The only reason that can justify it is if it will kill the mother if carried to term, the child's life is of as much importance as anyone else's.

There are plenty of others, like her not wanting to be pregnant.

We can just ignore that.

[Kowani]

There are plenty of others, like her not wanting to be pregnant.

We can just ignore that.

Yeah, that’s an argument.

[Northern Davincia]

We can just ignore that.

Yeah, that’s an argument.

Allow me to rephrase it then.
Should a woman seek an abortion simply because she does not want to be pregnant, and no other reasons exist, she should be denied the opportunity.

[Neutraligon]

There are plenty of others, like her not wanting to be pregnant.

We can just ignore that.

You plugging your ears and saying lalala does not change that it is a reason to have an abortion.

[Neutraligon]

Yeah, that’s an argument.

Allow me to rephrase it then.
Should a woman seek an abortion simply because she does not want to be pregnant, and no other reasons exist, she should be denied the opportunity.

No she should not.

[Northern Davincia]

We can just ignore that.

You plugging your ears and saying lalala does not change that it is a reason to have an abortion.

It's a poor reason, I suppose.

Allow me to rephrase it then.
Should a woman seek an abortion simply because she does not want to be pregnant, and no other reasons exist, she should be denied the opportunity.

No she should not.

I'm not convinced. It's a special kind of callousness for that situation, equivalent to throwing a live newborn into a dumpster. The punishment should be the same.

[Neutraligon]

You plugging your ears and saying lalala does not change that it is a reason to have an abortion.

It's a poor reason, I suppose.

No she should not.

I'm not convinced. It's a special kind of callousness for that situation, equivalent to throwing a live newborn into a dumpster. The punishment should be the same.

It isn't a poor reason. AS to you being convinced, my argument was about as convincing as yours, which would be not at all. Not wanting to be pregnant is no more callous then not wanting to donate an organ even if yours is the only organ that can save a life. It is not the equivalent of throwing a new born in a dumpster since the newborn is not infringing on the bodily sovereignty of the mother, unlike the fetus inside the woman. As the two situations are not anywhere near equivalent the two punishments should not be equivalent, particularly since having an abortion should not be punished.

[Kowani]

You plugging your ears and saying lalala does not change that it is a reason to have an abortion.

It's a poor reason, I suppose.

No she should not.

I'm not convinced. It's a special kind of callousness for that situation, equivalent to throwing a live newborn into a dumpster. The punishment should be the same.

Only in one of those situations does the child suffer.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The only reason that can justify it is if it will kill the mother if carried to term, the child's life is of as much importance as anyone else's.

There are plenty of others, like her not wanting to be pregnant.

I wouldn't say that that justifies it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's a poor reason, I suppose.

I'm not convinced. It's a special kind of callousness for that situation, equivalent to throwing a live newborn into a dumpster. The punishment should be the same.

It isn't a poor reason. AS to you being convinced, my argument was about as convincing as yours, which would be not at all. Not wanting to be pregnant is no more callous then not wanting to donate an organ even if yours is the only organ that can save a life. It is not the equivalent of throwing a new born in a dumpster since the newborn is not infringing on the bodily sovereignty of the mother, unlike the fetus inside the woman. As the two situations are not anywhere near equivalent the two punishments should not be equivalent, particularly since having an abortion should not be punished.

What this ignores is that there is a place in morality for special relationships between people, that family members can care more for each other than for the generalized other.

[Neutraligon]

There are plenty of others, like her not wanting to be pregnant.

I wouldn't say that that justifies it.

And I think it does.

It isn't a poor reason. AS to you being convinced, my argument was about as convincing as yours, which would be not at all. Not wanting to be pregnant is no more callous then not wanting to donate an organ even if yours is the only organ that can save a life. It is not the equivalent of throwing a new born in a dumpster since the newborn is not infringing on the bodily sovereignty of the mother, unlike the fetus inside the woman. As the two situations are not anywhere near equivalent the two punishments should not be equivalent, particularly since having an abortion should not be punished.

What this ignores is that there is a place in morality for special relationships between people, that family members can care more for each other than for the generalized other.

They can, they need not do so, or do you think an abusive mother should be loved by her children?

[United Muscovite Nations]

What this ignores is that there is a place in morality for special relationships between people, that family members can care more for each other than for the generalized other.

They can, they need not do so, or do you think an abusive mother should be loved by her children?

I would say a parent has a duty to their children, and that that duty is reciprocal. Nevertheless, that example doesn't apply to a child in the womb.

[Northern Davincia]

It's a poor reason, I suppose.

I'm not convinced. It's a special kind of callousness for that situation, equivalent to throwing a live newborn into a dumpster. The punishment should be the same.

It isn't a poor reason. AS to you being convinced, my argument was about as convincing as yours, which would be not at all. Not wanting to be pregnant is no more callous then not wanting to donate an organ even if yours is the only organ that can save a life. It is not the equivalent of throwing a new born in a dumpster since the newborn is not infringing on the bodily sovereignty of the mother, unlike the fetus inside the woman. As the two situations are not anywhere near equivalent the two punishments should not be equivalent, particularly since having an abortion should not be punished.

Bodily sovereignty is irrelevant. A newborn still requires care, and thus the sovereignty of the caretaker is lost.

It's a poor reason, I suppose.

I'm not convinced. It's a special kind of callousness for that situation, equivalent to throwing a live newborn into a dumpster. The punishment should be the same.

Only in one of those situations does the child suffer.

You could kill someone in their sleep and they wouldn't suffer. Furthermore, a fetus can feel pain in later stages.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They can, they need not do so, or do you think an abusive mother should be loved by her children?

Idk about loving but arguing against parents is a crime warranting the death penalty under OT.

[Ifreann]

It wasn't God, just King Dave.

Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Psalm 137:7-9

That wasn't even a command. It describes an emotional state, that Babylon is deeply hated.

Yup, Big Davey wasn't saying "Go do this", just "If you did this it'd be baller".

[Northern Davincia]

That wasn't even a command. It describes an emotional state, that Babylon is deeply hated.

Yup, Big Davey wasn't saying "Go do this", just "If you did this it'd be baller".

I'll take Hyperbole for 600.

[Neutraligon]

It isn't a poor reason. AS to you being convinced, my argument was about as convincing as yours, which would be not at all. Not wanting to be pregnant is no more callous then not wanting to donate an organ even if yours is the only organ that can save a life. It is not the equivalent of throwing a new born in a dumpster since the newborn is not infringing on the bodily sovereignty of the mother, unlike the fetus inside the woman. As the two situations are not anywhere near equivalent the two punishments should not be equivalent, particularly since having an abortion should not be punished.

Bodily sovereignty is irrelevant.

That's nice get I get to steal all your extra organs and strap you down and take your blood. Guess I also get to torture you however I want.

A newborn still requires care, and thus the sovereignty of the caretaker is lost.

Except that the caretaker gets to decide if the remain the caretaker. The infant is not dependent on one specific person to survive.

[quo]Only in one of those situations does the child suffer.

You could kill someone in their sleep and they wouldn't suffer. Furthermore, a fetus can feel pain in later stages.

Guess what, most abortions occur before 13 weeks. Those that occur later tend to be for the life of the mother.

[Galloism]

That wasn't even a command. It describes an emotional state, that Babylon is deeply hated.

Yup, Big Davey wasn't saying "Go do this", just "If you did this it'd be baller".

I mean, I've said a person was fortunate to die before, because the alternative was worse. Usually involving cancer.

Hell, I've argued in favor of euthanasia being available to those who suffer intolerably.