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

[Alouite]

And now let's see, of these 27 White men, and 8 white women, what portion of the population of Alabama they represent.

• Total 4,887,871 (2018)

Of that, 68.5% White (67.0% Non-Hispanic White and 1.5% Hispanic White), 26.2% Black or African American, 3.9% Hispanic or Latino of any race, 1.1% Asian, 0.6% American Indian and Alaska Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 2.0% from Some Other Race, and 1.5% from Two or More Races


Well, fuck a duck. Those folks are not representative of the people of Alabama. Not one black person there, and they make up more than a quarter of the population. And I was unaware that in Alabama, men make up 70% of the population.

No wonder they want to keep all the women pregnant if they only comprise 30% of the population!

Daily reminder these people represent the voters who put them there - around 51% of the voters being women in Alabama.

Fairly sexist to assume that the women in Alabama couldn’t vote for who they wanted to represent their interests.

Thank you! I know we disagree on the legality of abortion, but this goes generally. The whole narrative that the evul huWhites have banded together is quite frankly rediculous and on an issue like abortion race shouldnt be relevant. Furthermore, as you rightly point out, the female majority state of Alabama are the ones who put majority pro-life candidates into office, and the female governor put her stamp of approval on the bill passed by a majority of women in the Alabama House of Reps.

[Alouite]

And now let's see, of these 27 White men, and 8 white women, what portion of the population of Alabama they represent.

• Total 4,887,871 (2018)

Of that, 68.5% White (67.0% Non-Hispanic White and 1.5% Hispanic White), 26.2% Black or African American, 3.9% Hispanic or Latino of any race, 1.1% Asian, 0.6% American Indian and Alaska Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 2.0% from Some Other Race, and 1.5% from Two or More Races


Well, fuck a duck. Those folks are not representative of the people of Alabama. Not one black person there, and they make up more than a quarter of the population. And I was unaware that in Alabama, men make up 70% of the population.

No wonder they want to keep all the women pregnant if they only comprise 30% of the population!

Because it's the 1820s and people elect their legislators based on race

This is literally how some of these IDPol weirdos think. When you view the world through a racialist lense you will find that race is a motivating factor behind literally everything.

[Alouite]

Because it's the 1820s and people elect their legislators based on race

Oh, let’s not pretend that everyone in Alabama is a paragon of racial equality.

#NotAll

[Godular]

Considering that morality is rather completely subjective, it would seem that trying to use it as a basis for your position is rather counterproductive.

>snorp<

I'd nickel and dime this, but nah.

Moral relativism is absurd and objectively false view of reality.

Incorrect. Morality is a human construct, and pretty much anything constructed by humans (barring certain mathematical axioms which have no fundamental bearing on this discussion) is itself based upon the perceptions and thought processes of those humans, and therefore inherently subjective.

Maybe you're willing to follow it to its logical conclusions, but then you can't prove my statement that abortion is an objective evil is actually wrong- all you can do is state your own subjective opinion.

Considering that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is correct, and that you are going to have some difficulty doing so when you've been sitting there blathering on about taking my position to its purportedly logical extreme and then fucking up that one tiny logical detail... I'm fine with things as they are.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So, for you, there is nothing that Hitler said which was objectively wrong and is just as good a person as everyone else? I mean if it's true that there is no objective morality and it's all based upon personal morality of "societal morality" (whatever the majority a particular country/group happens to agree upon at a time)? If there is no objective morality, there is no standard from which to determine whether something is right or wrong- even "Western Social Morality" is just yet one of many valid subjective views that happens to have a majority in the West, and my point still stands- no objective morality really means no common good to fight for. If morality is, as you say, morality is merely an imposition on others of one's subjective opinion, than this "Western Social Morality" is all just one big imposition of a group's opinion. I just want to know if you are willing to take it to that conclusion.

Well, if we take what you said, that, I see no reason to convict people of murder or rape other than the majority of Americans have agreed that these are wrong. In a sense, a thing is right or wrong as long as the general public opinion meter is over 50%. So if the majority Americans were to say "Ok now, rape is perfectly fine", and then rape became a part of "Western Social Morality", there wouldn't be anything wrong with that despite your personal subjective view. I mean already, if somebody claims rape is good and we say "no it's evil" and then we arrest him for raping someone, all we'd be doing is merely imposing our own morality on them.

Problem here is, "wrong" and "immoral" are not the same thing.

I think Hitler was evil, but that is my personal valuation of the man based on my morals.

Now, was he factually wrong in a lot of things he said? Yes, he was a dipshit. But depending on who you ask, me, the guy in NSG posting this, or a German in 1940s Nazi Germany, we're going to tell you different things about whether or not Hitler was evil, and we'd both be right, because we both value right and wrong differently.

[Kowani]

Oh, let’s not pretend that everyone in Alabama is a paragon of racial equality.

#NotAll

I didn’t say that everyone in Alabama was racist. But a disproportionate amount of racists do live there.
From Students to Editors, these sort of attitudes don’t just foster in the closet.
HB 56 doesn’t sound particularly nonracial to me, either.

[Alouite]

#NotAll

I didn’t say that everyone in Alabama was racist. But a disproportionate amount of racists do live there.
From Students to Editors, these sort of attitudes don’t just foster in the closet.
HB 56 doesn’t sound particularly nonracial to me, either.

The first two cases are isolated incidents and I could find similar incidents in the North. As for the HB, it is targeting trespassing foreign nationals who tend to be hispanic, you don't see many illegal Swedes and Irishmen, do you? Look- if you want to see modern day segregation look no further than the Big Apple aka NYC. Hell just recently the city council is gonna take another crack at ending it, we will see if this time it works unlike the last several times they tried.

https://abc7ny.com/education/nyc-council-holds-hearing-on-racial-segregation-in-schools/5279562/

[Kowani]

I didn’t say that everyone in Alabama was racist. But a disproportionate amount of racists do live there.
From Students to Editors, these sort of attitudes don’t just foster in the closet.
HB 56 doesn’t sound particularly nonracial to me, either.

The first two cases are isolated incidents and I could find similar incidents in the North. As for the HB, it is targeting trespassing foreign nationals who tend to be hispanic, you don't see many illegal Swedes and Irishmen, do you? Look- if you want to see modern day segregation look no further than the Big Apple aka NYC.

Yes, I’m sure you’ll find many cases of people calling for the KKK in the North. Oh, but these are just two examples. I could find more.

However. HB01 was, beyond being a catastrophic failure, was found by a judge to be racially motivated.

As for segregation, I don’t claim that the north is innocent. But look at any metric for Alabama, and you’ll find that it’s not anywhere close to postracial.

[Galloism]

The first two cases are isolated incidents and I could find similar incidents in the North. As for the HB, it is targeting trespassing foreign nationals who tend to be hispanic, you don't see many illegal Swedes and Irishmen, do you? Look- if you want to see modern day segregation look no further than the Big Apple aka NYC.

Yes, I’m sure you’ll find many cases of people calling for the KKK in the North. Oh, but these are just two examples. I could find more.

However. HB01 was, beyond being a catastrophic failure, was found by a judge to be racially motivated.

As for segregation, I don’t claim that the north is innocent. But look at any metric for Alabama, and you’ll find that it’s not anywhere close to postracial.

The church of the kkk was literally incorporated in Indiana.

[Imperii Ecclesia]

So, for you, there is nothing that Hitler said which was objectively wrong and is just as good a person as everyone else? I mean if it's true that there is no objective morality and it's all based upon personal morality of "societal morality" (whatever the majority a particular country/group happens to agree upon at a time)? If there is no objective morality, there is no standard from which to determine whether something is right or wrong- even "Western Social Morality" is just yet one of many valid subjective views that happens to have a majority in the West, and my point still stands- no objective morality really means no common good to fight for. If morality is, as you say, morality is merely an imposition on others of one's subjective opinion, than this "Western Social Morality" is all just one big imposition of a group's opinion. I just want to know if you are willing to take it to that conclusion.

Well, if we take what you said, that, I see no reason to convict people of murder or rape other than the majority of Americans have agreed that these are wrong. In a sense, a thing is right or wrong as long as the general public opinion meter is over 50%. So if the majority Americans were to say "Ok now, rape is perfectly fine", and then rape became a part of "Western Social Morality", there wouldn't be anything wrong with that despite your personal subjective view. I mean already, if somebody claims rape is good and we say "no it's evil" and then we arrest him for raping someone, all we'd be doing is merely imposing our own morality on them.

Problem here is, "wrong" and "immoral" are not the same thing.

I think Hitler was evil, but that is my personal valuation of the man based on my morals.

Now, was he factually wrong in a lot of things he said? Yes, he was a dipshit. But depending on who you ask, me, the guy in NSG posting this, or a German in 1940s Nazi Germany, we're going to tell you different things about whether or not Hitler was evil, and we'd both be right, because we both value right and wrong differently.

Well, what do you think right and wrong is? I would posit that what is "right" in the sense I was speaking of would be whether or not it is a good moral act or a thing good and of itself. And that which is wrong which is a morally evil act or thing evil of itself. You cannot have something be "right" or "wrong" without morality, so saying something is immoral is to say that it is wrong. If there was no good or evil, it would impossible to say things are "right" and "wrong", for there are no actions which you can say it is "right" for a person to do if there is no good for which to aim that act. Likewise one can do not "wrong" if no evil comes about through an act which they do. If there is no morality or morality is merely subjective and thus there is no good or evil, there simply cannot be right or wrong. It could only be right or wrong according to your particular judgement. So if morality is subjective you could say Hitler did wrong by doing evil things but it would be just as valid as a person who said Hitler did nothing wrong because he did good things.

Incorrect. Morality is a human construct, and pretty much anything constructed by humans (barring certain mathematical axioms which have no fundamental bearing on this discussion) is itself based upon the perceptions and thought processes of those humans, and therefore inherently subjective.

Considering that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is correct, and that you are going to have some difficulty doing so when you've been sitting there blathering on about taking my position to its purportedly logical extreme and then fucking up that one tiny logical detail... I'm fine with things as they are.

Either your conclusion follows from your premises or it doesn't. Brushing that off by saying I'm just "******* up one tiny logical detail" and the claiming the burden of proof is on me when I've shown that moral relativism has some pretty serious wild conclusions is a pretty impolite move to make. But that doesn't matter I guess, since civility doesn't seem to be an important commodity here.

Anyway, on to the claim that it's just a human construction. Does that really refute anything that I've said about the absurdities of the conclusions of moral relativism? And the fact that only in the past 2 centuries that people have become "woke" enough to see that good and evil don't really exist when the vast majority of the human experience includes a more or less essential core of moral values (arguing over the particular differences in moral structures is not vitally important for the fact to remain that there are things which remain constant throughout all of human history as being accepted as wrong with only few exceptions) and people have believed that good and evil existed seems a tad bit fishy, but we can put that aside for the moment because that isn't really a full argument. And if "pretty much anything constructed by humans" is subjective, then well I guess science is not an expression about truths of the natural world, but rather is a subjective construction by humans- keep in mind the scientific method, measurement and measuring devices, scientific writings, and are only seen through human perception and is derived through thought process.

[Kowani]

Yes, I’m sure you’ll find many cases of people calling for the KKK in the North. Oh, but these are just two examples. I could find more.

However. HB01 was, beyond being a catastrophic failure, was found by a judge to be racially motivated.

As for segregation, I don’t claim that the north is innocent. But look at any metric for Alabama, and you’ll find that it’s not anywhere close to postracial.

The church of the kkk was literally incorporated in Indiana.

How long ago? And for that matter, what are Indiana’s incorporation laws?

[Alouite]

Yes, I’m sure you’ll find many cases of people calling for the KKK in the North. Oh, but these are just two examples. I could find more.

However. HB01 was, beyond being a catastrophic failure, was found by a judge to be racially motivated.

As for segregation, I don’t claim that the north is innocent. But look at any metric for Alabama, and you’ll find that it’s not anywhere close to postracial.

The church of the kkk was literally incorporated in Indiana.

Lol, was gonna say that. Not to mention that this year in NYC at a segregated white majority school the only black kid at the school was harassed for his race. If you want to play a game of case for case, then fine. But it will never end.

[Galloism]

The church of the kkk was literally incorporated in Indiana.

How long ago? And for that matter, what are Indiana’s incorporation laws?

August 10th, 2000.

As for the incorporation laws, you’ll need to ask a more specific question.

[Alouite]

How long ago? And for that matter, what are Indiana’s incorporation laws?

August 10th, 2000.

As for the incorporation laws, you’ll need to ask a more specific question.

>Cognative disonance intensifies

[Kowani]

How long ago? And for that matter, what are Indiana’s incorporation laws?

August 10th, 2000.

As for the incorporation laws, you’ll need to ask a more specific question.

You’lol excuse me if I believe that societal attitudes may have changed over 19 years.

Never mind that, wrong kind of incorporation.

[Galloism]

August 10th, 2000.

As for the incorporation laws, you’ll need to ask a more specific question.

You’lol excuse me if I believe that societal attitudes may have changed over 19 years.

Never mind that, wrong kind of incorporation.

You’ll notice 3 of the 4 officers live in Indiana. They are a couple years behind on their franchise reports, but according to this site anyway, the corporation is still active, if delinquent.

Looks like the last report they filed with the state was in 2016 for the 2015 tax year (these things are typically filed a year behind).

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, what do you think right and wrong is? I would posit that what is "right" in the sense I was speaking of would be whether or not it is a good moral act or a thing good and of itself. And that which is wrong which is a morally evil act or thing evil of itself. You cannot have something be "right" or "wrong" without morality, so saying something is immoral is to say that it is wrong. If there was no good or evil, it would impossible to say things are "right" and "wrong", for there are no actions which you can say it is "right" for a person to do if there is no good for which to aim that act. Likewise one can do not "wrong" if no evil comes about through an act which they do. If there is no morality or morality is merely subjective and thus there is no good or evil, there simply cannot be right or wrong. It could only be right or wrong according to your particular judgement. So if morality is subjective you could say Hitler did wrong by doing evil things but it would be just as valid as a person who said Hitler did nothing wrong because he did good things.

See, you are making the mistake to think that your moral opinion is an absolute.

It absolutely isn't. I bet you between you and I we differ in moral valuations of a specific action.

You are also assuming that just because we can disagree on what is evil and what is good that there's somehow no concept of good and evil. Which is false. There is a concept of good and evil, it just so happens we disagree on what it is.

Good and evil are those things which I consider good and evil either because society taught me it or because I reached thru my own conclusions that it was good or evil.

Yes, both positions are valid. We merely enforced our morality thru force when we defeated Hitler in WWII. Had Hitler won, his morality would be the one enforced thru force.

There is nothing in this world that is, by itself, evil or good. Because nature doesn't make moral valuations, it just exists. We make moral valuations, but we make moral valuations based on what we know/think is best for us.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Anyway, on to the claim that it's just a human construction. Does that really refute anything that I've said about the absurdities of the conclusions of moral relativism? And the fact that only in the past 2 centuries that people have become "woke" enough to see that good and evil don't really exist when the vast majority of the human experience includes a more or less essential core of moral values (arguing over the particular differences in moral structures is not vitally important for the fact to remain that there are things which remain constant throughout all of human history as being accepted as wrong with only few exceptions) and people have believed that good and evil existed seems a tad bit fishy, but we can put that aside for the moment because that isn't really a full argument. And if "pretty much anything constructed by humans" is subjective, then well I guess science is not an expression about truths of the natural world, but rather is a subjective construction by humans- keep in mind the scientific method, measurement and measuring devices, scientific writings, and are only seen through human perception and is derived through thought process.

It actually does.

The question moral objectivism poses is "do morals exist outside of humanity, or outside the individual?", and the answer is no, it doesn't.

Most humans agree on certain things being evil, but not because nature actually dictates they are evil. They are evil because it either:

1 - Harms our survival
2 - Harms social order, which is related to 1.

Both of which are merely human interests. A tiger killing a man is no more evil than a man falling off a cliff by accident.

Or, we can use Wittgenstein's example of the Jewish refugee. If lying is objectively wrong in a society or most humans agree that lying is objectively wrong, then it makes sense to tell the truth to a Nazi that a Jew is hiding in your house. If it is subjectively wrong, then that is your own personal valuation of what is more important at play and you are going to lie that the Jewish refugee is there because you value the life of the Jewish refugee far more than your morality to not tell lies.

Also, science doesn't make objective statements about the world. It makes statements that allow us to understand the world. You yourself admit it when you say it is an "expression" about things that happen. Expression means we filter it thru for us to understand. Also, measurement and measuring devices are things of convenience for us. The measurements do not exist outside of us because they are inventions made to measure things. The scientific method is a method of discovery, not an objective method.

Almost everything you mentioned about science is subjective as hell, and it doesn't change the fact that facts can be distorted by an individual and filtered thru, which makes individual truths not objective.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

>sneep<

You’ve shown nothing. You have engaged in significant bouts of verbosity that boil down to ‘It is absurd because I don’t like any of these statements!’

Your wishful thinking does not itself constitute contrary evidence.

Anyway, on to the claim that it's just a human construction. Does that really refute anything that I've said about the absurdities of the conclusions of moral relativism?

Yes. You haven’t proven to me how such things are absurd. Seems like you were just rattling off scenarios in a disbelieving tone, more than anything.

And the fact that only in the past 2 centuries that people have become "woke" enough to see that good and evil don't really exist when the vast majority of the human experience includes a more or less essential core of moral values (arguing over the particular differences in moral structures is not vitally important for the fact to remain that there are things which remain constant throughout all of human history as being accepted as wrong with only few exceptions) and people have believed that good and evil existed seems a tad bit fishy, but we can put that aside for the moment because that isn't really a full argument. And if "pretty much anything constructed by humans" is subjective, then well I guess science is not an expression about truths of the natural world, but rather is a subjective construction by humans- keep in mind the scientific method, measurement and measuring devices, scientific writings, and are only seen through human perception and is derived through thought process.

Pretty much. Where it gains traction over just spewing opinions is its focus on backing up a statement with evidence. That is kind of important.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Anyway, on to the claim that it's just a human construction. Does that really refute anything that I've said about the absurdities of the conclusions of moral relativism? And the fact that only in the past 2 centuries that people have become "woke" enough to see that good and evil don't really exist when the vast majority of the human experience includes a more or less essential core of moral values (arguing over the particular differences in moral structures is not vitally important for the fact to remain that there are things which remain constant throughout all of human history as being accepted as wrong with only few exceptions) and people have believed that good and evil existed seems a tad bit fishy, but we can put that aside for the moment because that isn't really a full argument. And if "pretty much anything constructed by humans" is subjective, then well I guess science is not an expression about truths of the natural world, but rather is a subjective construction by humans- keep in mind the scientific method, measurement and measuring devices, scientific writings, and are only seen through human perception and is derived through thought process.

It actually does.

The question moral objectivism poses is "do morals exist outside of humanity, or outside the individual?", and the answer is no, it doesn't.

Most humans agree on certain things being evil, but not because nature actually dictates they are evil. They are evil because it either:

1 - Harms our survival
2 - Harms social order, which is related to 1.

Both of which are merely human interests. A tiger killing a man is no more evil than a man falling off a cliff by accident.

Or, we can use Wittgenstein's example of the Jewish refugee. If lying is objectively wrong in a society or most humans agree that lying is objectively wrong, then it makes sense to tell the truth to a Nazi that a Jew is hiding in your house. If it is subjectively wrong, then that is your own personal valuation of what is more important at play and you are going to lie that the Jewish refugee is there because you value the life of the Jewish refugee far more than your morality to not tell lies.

Also, science doesn't make objective statements about the world. It makes statements that allow us to understand the world. You yourself admit it when you say it is an "expression" about things that happen. Expression means we filter it thru for us to understand. Also, measurement and measuring devices are things of convenience for us. The measurements do not exist outside of us because they are inventions made to measure things. The scientific method is a method of discovery, not an objective method.

Almost everything you mentioned about science is subjective as hell, and it doesn't change the fact that facts can be distorted by an individual and filtered thru, which makes individual truths not objective.

Crud. I was gonna save the societal necessity stuff for the morning, but ya beat me to it.

Did a better job than I would have, too.

[Autumn Wind]

Similarly, murder is the unlawful taking of a human life with malice afore thought. It is a legal definition, a subset of homicide - the taking of a human life. Most people would agree that murder is evil, but given that the definition of murder can change from one jurisdiction to the next, what one person considers murder might be considered self defense or some form of negligent homicide, decidedly less “evil” than murder.

And that’s not even bringing up “collateral damage” in wartime where moral responsibility for civilian deaths can be dismissed because ... well... national self-interests gotta national self-interest.

My point being that few people consider the killing of people, in and of itself, to be necessarily immoral, but rather object to the morally, culturally and legally subjective concept of murder.

[Great Nortend]

Im not going to justify those posts with a quote. But requiring women to become pregnant when they do not wish to be, or requiring them to remain pregnant when they do not wish to be, is an act of violence even if 100% compliance is attained. You don't suddenly not become a rapist if your victim doesn't fight.

That's literally why the definition of rape removed the requirement for violence...

All laws are effectively artificial.

As are rights. This right to life thingie you speak of, that's pretty damned artificial.[/quote]

Yes, it is artificial. All rights in existence are artificially created, whether they are from natural principles or not. But arguing that a right ought to exist because of a natural principle (which is obviously artificially recognised by humans) is the basis for every 'right' there is.

What you want *does* factor into it, actually, as it is incredibly irresponsible to agree to a job you are unwilling to perform, as you would not give your all in performing it.

As to what the problem is, the problem, in the case of people who do not wish to be parents, is birthing the child at all, not to mention going through the difficulties of pregnancy, not just raising a child. And avoiding the creation of a child is not as simple as you imagine. Birth control can fail, and lifelong abstinence is unreasonable to demand from the vast majority of humans, and unhealthy besides.

Unhealthy? Uh all right. You seem to founding your argument on the premise that women, if they do not wish to be parents, have the right to not be. In reality, biological processes are foisted upon everyone. If they are inherently bad, we try and cure it. Creating life is not something that needs to be cured. If people are irresponsible enough to accidentally fall pregnant, they should have to live with the direct and natural consequences of their action.

First off, getting pregnant isn't signing on to be a parent. That part comes at the 24-week point, when you are carrying a sapient being and not a bundle of cells with no more will or volition than your liver or your lungs. Also useful to note is the fact that the majority of elective abortions are performed after other methods of preventing pregnancy have failed. Contraception is not perfect, even when properly layered.

Second, yes, actually, you can voluntarily terminate your employment without penalty, so long as your employment contract did not stipulate a minimum length of employment or otherwise forbid you to do so, and, even then, such contracts do not hold up in countries/states that practice At-Will Employment.

So... you've basically just negated your own argument. “[Giving] birth to an unwanted child and then immediately giving it to someone else is no different than not wanting to do a job, but taking it anyway and foisting the work on someone else. You have a chance to avoid taking on the job before your start day by turning it down.”

Would you like to hear the story of a ten-year-old who tried to kill himself by swallowing dish soap and wished on an almost daily basis that he'd never been born due to the actions of his abusive mother? Or the statistics for children in foster care who are abused? Or the levels of neglect and child homelessness that occur because the system already has more children than it can handle and too many fall through the cracks? Or how that unstable childhood you so blithely dismiss often leads to lifelong homelessness and/or people turning to crime?

It is incredibly disrespectful and demeaning to characterise the lives of those put up for adoption as being entirely without value so far as to claim or imply that people put up for adoption all want to commit suicide. My grandmother was put up for adoption and you know what? Despite living through war she had a relatively happy childhood. Homeless people and criminals surely DO NOT want to die.

About as much as the 18th Amendment induced sobriety.

Spoiler alert: It didn't. In fact, it caused *more* alcohol-related deaths and problems because people turned to inexpertly making their own alcohol or buying it from smugglers/illegal brewers/the Mafia, which lead to unregulated alcohol often being toxic and/or contaminated in ways that often lead to painful deaths. There's a reason the term 'rotgut' cam into being.

Making it illegal to have sex or use contraceptives won't stop people from having sex or inventing their own contraceptives. You're delusional if you think it will.

So why do we criminalise anything? After all, people will always break the law anyway... We shouldn't punish them because they would do it anyway?

And once again, I find myself dealing with someone who has no clue what he's on about.

First off, arresting isn't the only violence involved. Prison is rather violent, especially when people are lead to believe their fellow inmates have harmed children (and no, a fetus is not a child. A human is not a child until they are born, nor are they a legal person until then. As for whether or not they *should* be considered a person, sapience isn't even possible until the 24-week point.).

Additionally, if you're talking about that old hoax of a fetus being dragged out of the womb and then dismembered, you've not done your research.

Pray tell then, how are abortions performed? They don't just poof into nonexistence. Giving mothers drugs to cause them to miscarry only comprises around a quarter of abortions. 89% of abortions are undertaken by surgical methods. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm

Abortions are also not generally performed on people unless there's a medical need. Elective abortions beyond the 24-week point are incredibly rare.

https://www.thenation.com/article/romne ... abortions/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/report- ... -7jz6.html

Stop talking complete lies. By far the most common reason people have an abortion is for social reasons.

Also, that "It only requires violence if people flaunt the law" is like saying "There's only a need for auto insurance if people get into wrecks". People *will* flaunt it, just as people *will* get into wrecks, because we are dealing with humans, who are flawed and adverse to being told what they can and cannot do. This argument that violence is not required to enforce prohibition is nothing more than self-serving rationalisation of the "Well, the only people violence will be enacted upon are the ones who are bad" variety that accomplishes nothing save acting as a piss-poor excuse to avoid the question of "*Should* it be illegal?".

You, or another one of the pro-abortionists, brought up the fact that enforcement is violent. Imprisonment is not the only sentence available. Fines, CCOs, suspended sentences &c. are all options. And it's frankly disingenuous to claim that arrests are violent. Yes, there may be instances where arrests are violent, but requiring relatively minor and temporary physical force to arrest someone is in no way comparable to a serious injury, which the Crimes Act of Victoria defines as including an abortion, given your penchant for laws.

[The Free Joy State]

Definitionally false. Like, seriously, look at the sentence you just wrote. How can you force someone to do anything without violence or compulsion? It's contradictory.

I admit I phrased that badly. Requiring women to have sex would not in theory require any violence or physical compulsion.

What the actual fuck?

You can't require anyone to do something they don't want to do without force, either mental or physical.

Requiring someone to have sex they do not want is rape. The Handmaid's Tale has already explored many of the issues with a nightmare world of forced copulation and forced impregnation.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A person who chooses not to have sex is, probably, entirely capable of reproducing. So if the King's desire for more subjects can justify forcing a woman to stay pregnant and produce a new subject, why can that desire not justify forcing a woman to become pregnant and stay pregnant and produce a new subject?

I suspect the difference is that you believe that banning abortions would be a peaceful, non-violent affair, but that forcing women to become pregnant would be some brutal atrocity. But arresting women for seeking or procuring an abortion is violence. Locking up those women and anyone who helped them is violence. It's just violence that we're used to. We only think of things as violent if they stick out from that usual violence that happens every day, almost like getting used to a smell and not noticing it any more. But whether you can smell it or not, you're talking about using violence against people to make them produce new subjects for the King.

You are taking this the wrong way around. If there were a law requiring women to produce, or attempt to produce, children, then this would be a valid justification. Similarly, a law against abortion would be justified by this. That is, if such a law were in place, this would be a reason to retain the law. It could be a reason to create the law as well, but unless there is an urgent requirement for new subjects, I would say that other considerations, such as moral and ethical ones, would be more pertinent.

Also, your characterisation of abortion criminalisation as being inherently violent is false. If people followed the law, there would be no violence. Similarly, forcing women to have sex would in theory not require any violent act or compulsion. The difference is that stopping abortions requires a person to cease from a voluntary act, whereas forcing women to have sex is requiring a person to do an act, and forcing people to do an act is more likely to require force or violence to enforce, than a law that prohibits a person from doing something which must be actively sought out. It is just human nature to resist being forced to do an act. Is it in human nature to follow prohibitions? I would imagine that we are more happy to not do something than to be forced to do something.

You're essentially saying there would be violence if people followed the law.

Which implies that, essentially, banning abortion would bring about punitive measures.

I don't think this is the route I would want to argue this, tbh. While yes, I have moral objections about abortion, I think the criminal justice system is woefully incapable of being anything other than punitive, and this would make any law against abortion passed be perceived as something out of moral vindictiveness, or moral punitive value, rather than a moral statement. Because at that point, you are not proving your morals are right, but that they are merely enforceable under the threat of the state's gun barrel.

Abortion criminalization, even while I think that, morally, abortion is wrong, is a bad solution to the problem, imo. At least while there's no criminal justice reform for the system to be more holistic and use both punitive and reformative/non-punitive measures, which is sorely needed.

[Great Nortend]

I'm actually saying the complete opposite. There would be no violence if people followed the law. And yes, banning abortion is likely to entail punitive measures to punish offenders. Ultimately it's impossible to prove a moral stance as being right. Decriminalising everything because the judicial system is not effective is not an appropriate response.