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

[Neutraligon]

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.

Given I find most of the bible immoral bs why should I care what it says?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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

Given I find most of the bible immoral bs why should I care what it says?

On an antichristian roll tonight also you might have noticed that we are in the company of a few bible literalists.

[Neutraligon]

Given I find most of the bible immoral bs why should I care what it says?

On an antichristian roll tonight also you might have noticed that we are in the company of a few bible literalists.

If you mean anti christian people then nope. Christianity as an idea deserves the same treatment as any other idea. As to having a few bible literalists, that has nothing to do with the conversation I was having with UMN.

[Northern Davincia]

Bodily sovereignty is irrelevant.

1. 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.

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

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

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

1. The notion of bodily sovereignty is new, and the known immoralities of organ theft and torture predate the concept. You ought to establish a good reason for torturing someone beyond your own sadism.
2. Let's say a child is put up for adoption and will be handed over in a month. During that time, the parents revoke consent and allow the child to starve. Is that permissible?
3. "Life of the mother" is an argument I buy less and less each day, and I don't care about the 13 week deadline. The inability to feel pain does not sway me on the humanity of the child.

[Neutraligon]

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

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

1. The notion of bodily sovereignty is new, and the known immoralities of organ theft and torture predate the concept.
2. Let's say a child is put up for adoption and will be handed over in a month. During that time, the parents revoke consent and allow the child to starve. Is that permissible?
3. "Life of the mother" is an argument I buy less and less each day, and I don't care about the 13 week deadline. The inability to feel pain does not sway me on the humanity of the child.

1. First why does it matter if it is new. Second not really considering all our idea of rights is based on the idea of bodily sovereignty. Guess what the idea of torture being immoral is relatively recent as well...and the US has used it recently.
2. Given that parents can hand over children to certain places immediately your example makes no sense.
3. What do you mean you buy less and less each day? Do you mean that you don't think pregnancies can be dangerous for women? Then why did you talk about them feeling pain in the later stages?

[Luminesa]

Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

Consents to having the baby or consents to the sex? Cause of course a child cannot consent to having sex. I’m not sure about the laws regarding whether or not a child can consent to a medical decision on their own. I believe their parents, legal guardians, or some adults have to be involved to some degree.

[Luminesa]

There is no gif from lefttube, breadtube, or any YouTuber whomst is good for this Y I K E S.

The worst/best part about the aftermath of the failed attempt to legalize abortion last year has been watching the "save both lives" campaign proceed to show how much of their previous rhetoric was merely face-saving concern trolling.

Sex education in schools to prevent unwanted pregnancies? They allegedly loved the idea while they were debating the legalization of abortion... but now that there's an actual push to implement comprehensive sex education in schools, the Venn diagram between the "save both lives" campaign and the "not with my kids" campaign against comprehensive sex ed appears to be a perfect circle.

Exceptions in the cases of rape or serious health risks to the mother? In the past few months the leaders of their movement have repeatedly meddled in cases of pregnant child molestation survivors and, with the complicity of provincial governments, forced those same child molestation survivors to give birth despite the serious risk to both the girls and the fetus. Oh, and one of them got that horrid "child mothers with capital letters" op-ed where they cheered for the little girls who didn't abort the fetuses growing in their, and I quote, "almost infantile uteruses".

I’ve wondered on the idea of, and maybe this is just my thinking out-loud, babysitting clubs in high schools. Teaching teenagers about babies and such. Home economics as far as I know already does some of that, but I think schools could also have after-school programs/during-school programs for kids who do end-up being pregnant? I’m not sure how I would implement it, but it seems like a helpful thought.

[Northern Davincia]

1. The notion of bodily sovereignty is new, and the known immoralities of organ theft and torture predate the concept.
2. Let's say a child is put up for adoption and will be handed over in a month. During that time, the parents revoke consent and allow the child to starve. Is that permissible?
3. "Life of the mother" is an argument I buy less and less each day, and I don't care about the 13 week deadline. The inability to feel pain does not sway me on the humanity of the child.

1. First why does it matter if it is new. Second not really considering all our idea of rights is based on the idea of bodily sovereignty. Guess what the idea of torture being immoral is relatively recent as well.
2. Given that parents can hand over children to certain places immediately your example makes no sense.
3. What do you mean you buy less and less each day? Do you mean that you don't think pregnancies can be dangerous for women? Then why did you talk about them feeling pain in the later stages?

1. It matters because our understanding of natural rights came about independently of bodily sovereignty. The idea of torture being immoral is actually quite old, just uncommon.
2. And if they don't want to take the extra effort to hand them over immediately? Severe child neglect is not unheard of.
3. Pregnancies can indeed be dangerous, but instances of the mother's life being put in mortal danger are astronomically low, and are a subset of "medically necessary" abortions.

[Neutraligon]

1. First why does it matter if it is new. Second not really considering all our idea of rights is based on the idea of bodily sovereignty. Guess what the idea of torture being immoral is relatively recent as well.
2. Given that parents can hand over children to certain places immediately your example makes no sense.
3. What do you mean you buy less and less each day? Do you mean that you don't think pregnancies can be dangerous for women? Then why did you talk about them feeling pain in the later stages?

1. It matters because our understanding of natural rights came about independently of bodily sovereignty. The idea of torture being immoral is actually quite old, just uncommon.

And the idea of abortion being moral is also quiet old. And I don't believe in natural rights so...

2. And if they don't want to take the extra effort to hand them over immediately? Severe child neglect is not unheard of.
3. Pregnancies can indeed be dangerous, but instances of the mother's life being put in mortal danger are astronomically low, and are a subset of "medically necessary" abortions.

2. Of course not, when a child is taken home then consent to care for the child is given until said child is handed over for adoption. A person who becomes pregnant however has not agreed to take care of or maintain the pregnancy.
3. So then what do you men when you said you buy it less and less?

[Northern Davincia]

1. It matters because our understanding of natural rights came about independently of bodily sovereignty. The idea of torture being immoral is actually quite old, just uncommon.

And the idea of abortion being moral is also quiet old. And I don't believe in natural rights so...

2. And if they don't want to take the extra effort to hand them over immediately? Severe child neglect is not unheard of.
3. Pregnancies can indeed be dangerous, but instances of the mother's life being put in mortal danger are astronomically low, and are a subset of "medically necessary" abortions.

2. Of course not, when a child is taken home then consent to care for the child is given until said child is handed over for adoption. A person who becomes pregnant however has not agreed to take care of or maintain the pregnancy.
3. So then what do you men when you said you buy it less and less?

1. Do you believe in any rights?
2. Most pregnant women, I imagine, agree to maintain the pregnancy. I also imagine you believe women should be able to revoke that agreement whenever they please, which logically should extend after birth.
3. I have increasing doubts that abortion is medically necessary. That is what I mean.

[Neutraligon]

And the idea of abortion being moral is also quiet old. And I don't believe in natural rights so...

2. Of course not, when a child is taken home then consent to care for the child is given until said child is handed over for adoption. A person who becomes pregnant however has not agreed to take care of or maintain the pregnancy.
3. So then what do you men when you said you buy it less and less?

1. Do you believe in any rights?
2. Most pregnant women, I imagine, agree to maintain the pregnancy. I also imagine you believe women should be able to revoke that agreement whenever they please, which logically should extend after birth.
3. I have increasing doubts that abortion is medically necessary. That is what I mean.

1. I believe that all rights are human inventions and human enforced. That there is nothing in the natural world that makes rights. I think that all rights are legal rights.
2. Sure most do, those that have an abortion do not. That is kinda what an abortion is. If you mean I think that women (and men) should be able to give up their child for adoption at any time, yes. However since they have agreed to care for the child, until they have signed a document giving up the legal responsibilities they have accepted, they should not be legally allowed to neglect the child.
3.You just accepted that there are times when pregnancy can place a woman's life in danger...and now you are saying that that you doubt there are ones that are medically necessary? Have you heard of ectopic pregnancies?

[Liriena]

Soooooo... one of the organizers of the most recent rally against the legalization of abortion pulled the "what if the child consents tho" card in a discussion about a little girl who got pregnant after her grandmother's partner raped her.

These people are a political dead weight.

Consents to having the baby or consents to the sex?

The sex.

This has suddenly become a thing ever since some of the anti-abortion activists had to confront the reality that little girls as young as 11 who have been raped and impregnated exist and have a legally recognized right to terminate their pregnancy. Lots of weird online talk about "little girls these days aren't really little girls anymore".

[Liriena]

The worst/best part about the aftermath of the failed attempt to legalize abortion last year has been watching the "save both lives" campaign proceed to show how much of their previous rhetoric was merely face-saving concern trolling.

Sex education in schools to prevent unwanted pregnancies? They allegedly loved the idea while they were debating the legalization of abortion... but now that there's an actual push to implement comprehensive sex education in schools, the Venn diagram between the "save both lives" campaign and the "not with my kids" campaign against comprehensive sex ed appears to be a perfect circle.

Exceptions in the cases of rape or serious health risks to the mother? In the past few months the leaders of their movement have repeatedly meddled in cases of pregnant child molestation survivors and, with the complicity of provincial governments, forced those same child molestation survivors to give birth despite the serious risk to both the girls and the fetus. Oh, and one of them got that horrid "child mothers with capital letters" op-ed where they cheered for the little girls who didn't abort the fetuses growing in their, and I quote, "almost infantile uteruses".

I’ve wondered on the idea of, and maybe this is just my thinking out-loud, babysitting clubs in high schools. Teaching teenagers about babies and such. Home economics as far as I know already does some of that, but I think schools could also have after-school programs/during-school programs for kids who do end-up being pregnant? I’m not sure how I would implement it, but it seems like a helpful thought.

Isn't this literally the plot of a yaoi-ish anime???

[Luminesa]

I’ve wondered on the idea of, and maybe this is just my thinking out-loud, babysitting clubs in high schools. Teaching teenagers about babies and such. Home economics as far as I know already does some of that, but I think schools could also have after-school programs/during-school programs for kids who do end-up being pregnant? I’m not sure how I would implement it, but it seems like a helpful thought.

Isn't this literally the plot of a yaoi-ish anime???

If you’re thinking Ouran High School Host Club...nnnnnno.

[Luminesa]

Consents to having the baby or consents to the sex?

The sex.

This has suddenly become a thing ever since some of the anti-abortion activists had to confront the reality that little girls as young as 11 who have been raped and impregnated exist and have a legally recognized right to terminate their pregnancy. Lots of weird online talk about "little girls these days aren't really little girls anymore".

I mean anybody who’s saying an 11-year-old can consent to sex needs to be locked-up in prison. I don’t think the child should be aborted, albeit the pregnancy will obviously be more difficult and the little girl should be given maximum support and the best healthcare possible, but whoever is saying a preteen can consent to sex is not pro-life and should not call themselves a part of the movement.

[Neutraligon]

The sex.

This has suddenly become a thing ever since some of the anti-abortion activists had to confront the reality that little girls as young as 11 who have been raped and impregnated exist and have a legally recognized right to terminate their pregnancy. Lots of weird online talk about "little girls these days aren't really little girls anymore".

I mean anybody who’s saying an 11-year-old can consent to sex needs to be locked-up in prison. I don’t think the child should be aborted, albeit the pregnancy will obviously be more difficult and the little girl should be given maximum support and the best healthcare possible, but whoever is saying a preteen can consent to sex is not pro-life and should not call themselves a part of the movement.

you are aware that the pregnancy of girls that young is incredibly dangerous and traumatizing, right?

[Luminesa]

I mean anybody who’s saying an 11-year-old can consent to sex needs to be locked-up in prison. I don’t think the child should be aborted, albeit the pregnancy will obviously be more difficult and the little girl should be given maximum support and the best healthcare possible, but whoever is saying a preteen can consent to sex is not pro-life and should not call themselves a part of the movement.

you are aware that the pregnancy of girls that young is incredibly dangerous and traumatizing, right?

I did say that the pregnancy for a young girl would be difficult in the very post you’re responding to, didn’t I? I don’t think the baby should be punished for the sins of the rapist, however, in any situation. The biggest problem in this situation is because the rapist hardly ever gets in trouble, while the mother gets no support and the baby is aborted for nothing it did. Cases like this should be enough to push people to fight against child rape and for the protection of children who end-up in such circumstances, rather than having the baby die for existing in a less-than-ideal circumstance.

[Neutraligon]

you are aware that the pregnancy of girls that young is incredibly dangerous and traumatizing, right?

I did say that the pregnancy for a young girl would be difficult in the very post you’re responding to, didn’t I? I don’t think the baby should be punished for the sins of the rapist, however, in any situation. The biggest problem in this situation is because the rapist hardly ever gets in trouble, while the mother gets no support and the baby is aborted for nothing it did. Cases like this should be enough to push people to fight against child rape and for the protection of children who end-up in such circumstances, rather than having the baby die for existing in a less-than-ideal circumstance.

The point being difficult is underestimating the issue. Girls at 11 may have started having their periods and are able to get pregnant, but that does not mean that they are physically mature enough to safely have a child, let alone emotionally mature enough to go through a pregnancy.

[Liriena]

I did say that the pregnancy for a young girl would be difficult in the very post you’re responding to, didn’t I? I don’t think the baby should be punished for the sins of the rapist, however, in any situation. The biggest problem in this situation is because the rapist hardly ever gets in trouble, while the mother gets no support and the baby is aborted for nothing it did. Cases like this should be enough to push people to fight against child rape and for the protection of children who end-up in such circumstances, rather than having the baby die for existing in a less-than-ideal circumstance.

The point being difficult is underestimating the issue. Girls at 11 may have started having their periods and are able to get pregnant, but that does not mean that they are physically mature enough to safely have a child, let alone emotionally mature enough to go through a pregnancy.

Also, in both of the two recent cases where girls that young were forced to continue the pregnancy, the fetus had to be born through C-section very prematurely to avoid further endangering the girls... and both fetuses died shortly after.

So the end result of this "don't punish the baby and just 'support' the mother and her pregnancy" approach, in real life, is still death. The only real difference is that you made the whole thing a lot more traumatic for the little girl, both physically and mentally. You used a little girl as an incubator, against her will, and put her life at risk, just because you wanted some other being, whose survival was highly unlikely in the first place, to be born only to immediately die. It's inflicting suffering on an innocent person at the service of a pointless symbolic gesture of motherhood.

[Neanderthaland]

The point being difficult is underestimating the issue. Girls at 11 may have started having their periods and are able to get pregnant, but that does not mean that they are physically mature enough to safely have a child, let alone emotionally mature enough to go through a pregnancy.

Also, in both of the two recent cases where girls that young were forced to continue the pregnancy, the fetus had to be born through C-section very prematurely to avoid further endangering the girls... and both fetuses died shortly after.

So the end result of this "don't punish the baby and just 'support' the mother and her pregnancy" approach, in real life, is still death. The only real difference is that you made the whole thing a lot more traumatic for the little girl, both physically and mentally. You used a little girl as an incubator, against her will, and put her life at risk, just because you wanted some other being, whose survival was highly unlikely in the first place, to be born only to immediately die. It's inflicting suffering on an innocent person at the service of a pointless symbolic gesture of motherhood.

You should know by now that the hard-line pro-life crowd does not care about probable, or even inevitable outcomes. Even tubal pregnancies must be carried until one or both of them die. Just in case a miracle happens.

[Liriena]

Also, in both of the two recent cases where girls that young were forced to continue the pregnancy, the fetus had to be born through C-section very prematurely to avoid further endangering the girls... and both fetuses died shortly after.

So the end result of this "don't punish the baby and just 'support' the mother and her pregnancy" approach, in real life, is still death. The only real difference is that you made the whole thing a lot more traumatic for the little girl, both physically and mentally. You used a little girl as an incubator, against her will, and put her life at risk, just because you wanted some other being, whose survival was highly unlikely in the first place, to be born only to immediately die. It's inflicting suffering on an innocent person at the service of a pointless symbolic gesture of motherhood.

You should know by now that the hard-line pro-life crowd does not care about probable, or even inevitable outcomes. Even tubal pregnancies must be carried until one or both of them die. Just in case a miracle happens.

And that's why I'm campaigning for a law that says that brain dead patients must be kept alive in perpetuity, even against the wishes of their loved ones and medical professionals, just in case someone someday figures out a way to bring them back. Sure, some of them will start to decay after a while and it's gonna be a nightmare for people who want to mourn their loved ones and move on... but you gotta defend life, yo.

[The New California Republic]

And that's why I'm campaigning for a law that says that brain dead patients must be kept alive in perpetuity, even against the wishes of their loved ones and medical professionals, just in case someone someday figures out a way to bring them back.

Impossible. Once brain cells are dead then they are dead, there is no bringing them back. All personality, memories etc are wiped out when the brain cells die. Any being that is "brought back" would be completely different from the original. Would the family really want a new personality inhabiting the body of their loved one that bears no resemblance to the original personality etc?

It is wishful thinking to keep them alive in perpetuity on the chance that there will be some miracle.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

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.

That’s the main reason I’d prefer to see it done away with, since women are not required to sign up in order to get said benefits.

And again, I disagree. We’re going to have to agree to do so, as we seem to be operating under fundamentally different definitions regarding the matter.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

you are aware that the pregnancy of girls that young is incredibly dangerous and traumatizing, right?

I did say that the pregnancy for a young girl would be difficult in the very post you’re responding to, didn’t I? I don’t think the baby should be punished for the sins of the rapist, however, in any situation. The biggest problem in this situation is because the rapist hardly ever gets in trouble, while the mother gets no support and the baby is aborted for nothing it did. Cases like this should be enough to push people to fight against child rape and for the protection of children who end-up in such circumstances, rather than having the baby die for existing in a less-than-ideal circumstance.

It is wrong to think that an abortion is punishing the fetus.

[The Feylands]

Feylands, believe it or not, my post has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Making it all about yourself personally is frankly annoying, off-topic, and desperate for attention.

Yes it was, you emphasized that they were siding with "toxic men" and even capitalized and bolded the "YOU" to emphasize the accusation. It was both toxic and accusatory. Don't act like they're making up that you attacked them.

Thanks! And yeh.. a good way of having me "annoyingly" and "attention w***ingly" talk about myself is making me look like some "toxic submissive" strawwoman.

I don't like being prescribed a bunch of views just because I don't fit into a certain discourse of identity politics as a woman who is pro-life.

If anyone wants to know why I feel like that - do some research about what an abortion entails and what it looks like, instead of arcane intellectual red taping stuff about "rights" or "bodily autonomy" or whatever...