NationStates

Galloism wrote:

New haven america wrote:2. It's no different from forcing a rape victim to keep their child. 2 heinous extremes that I would rather society not have the need to argue about, but here we are.
3. You're right. The public at large is still ok with male rape and sexual harassment. Incest no, except for maybe in Alabama it seems... Should've clarified that bit.

4. Coerced incest is a thing, dude. Hell, I read a story a few days ago about a women who's dad paid them to have sex with them when the author was practically homeless and the mom or other family didn't/couldn't help.

1. So in the case of coerced incest, then the victim of said coercion. 2. How about uncoerced?

1. Yes.
2. IIRC, there have been lawmakers that have tried to make that required abortion(And others who are defenders of it). Anyway, incest bad, parties involved shouldn't even be participating in it let alone getting pregnant from it, again this falls into 2 heinous extremes where they're forced to keep the pregnancy full term and create a child with possible numerous health-defects, or they're forced to perform an abortion against their willfor the sake of public health. IDK, this is a tricky subject.

The New California Republic wrote:

New haven america wrote:So the man in this case should have the right to force one if they feel it necessary.

Forced abortions just seems all kinds of fucked up. I know that criminals give up some degree of bodily sovereignty as punishment for crimes etc, but this? I mean, it'd entail forcefully sedating the woman in order to carry it out, as otherwise she is more than likely to resist pretty fiercely. And if she knew that was going to happen then in all likelihood she would flee the country.

Babies conceieved by incest should be aborted. The last thing we need is them contaminating the gene pool.

The New California Republic wrote:

New haven america wrote:So the man in this case should have the right to force one if they feel it necessary.

Forced abortions just seems all kinds of fucked up. I know that criminals give up some degree of bodily sovereignty as punishment for crimes etc, but this? I mean, it'd entail forcefully sedating the woman in order to carry it out, as otherwise she is more than likely to resist pretty fiercely. And if she knew that was going to happen then in all likelihood she would flee the country.

Did you miss the part where I mention that it's a heinous extreme that I wish society didn't have the need to discuss, just like the discussion of whether a woman should be forced to keep a pregnancy caused by rape to full term?

New haven america wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Forced abortions just seems all kinds of fucked up. I know that criminals give up some degree of bodily sovereignty as punishment for crimes etc, but this? I mean, it'd entail forcefully sedating the woman in order to carry it out, as otherwise she is more than likely to resist pretty fiercely. And if she knew that was going to happen then in all likelihood she would flee the country.

Did you miss the part where I mention that it's a heinous extreme that I wish society didn't have the need to discuss, just like the discussion of whether a woman should be forced to keep a pregnancy caused by rape to full term?

I know it is an extreme, but I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that the man can ask the courts to carry out a compulsory abortion on a woman, regardless of what she did.

The New California Republic wrote:

New haven america wrote:Did you miss the part where I mention that it's a heinous extreme that I wish society didn't have the need to discuss, just like the discussion of whether a woman should be forced to keep a pregnancy caused by rape to full term?

I know it is an extreme, but I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that the man can ask the courts to carry out a compulsory abortion on a woman, regardless of what she did.

And I'm not comfortable with it either.

But a rapist claiming parental rights over a pregnancy they caused and having the state to force their victim to not only have their child but allow them to see said child is less fucked up? Because that's how it is in a lot of areas, eve in the developed world.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Forced abortions just seems all kinds of fucked up. I know that criminals give up some degree of bodily sovereignty as punishment for crimes etc, but this? I mean, it'd entail forcefully sedating the woman in order to carry it out, as otherwise she is more than likely to resist pretty fiercely. And if she knew that was going to happen then in all likelihood she would flee the country.

Babies conceieved by incest should be aborted. The last thing we need is them contaminating the gene pool.

"Contaminating the genepool".

Not condoning incest, but unless the two parents are really closely related, or themselves the product of incest, the risk of deformation is basically nihil. The genepool isn't that fragile.

Cappuccina wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Babies conceieved by incest should be aborted. The last thing we need is them contaminating the gene pool.

"Contaminating the genepool".

Not condoning incest, but unless the two parents are really closely related, or themselves the product of incest, the risk of deformation is basically nihil. The genepool isn't that fragile.

Why risk it? An ounce of prevention and all that. Mandatory abortions for serious genetic abnormalities.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Katganistan wrote:No, not accepting it.

It kinda seems like you're swatting away an olive branch really dismissively.

Ok, why should, "I really don't know when a fetus becomes able to sense anything but respect my position it's twelve weeks" be accepted? Because it's not based on anything really.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:It kinda seems like you're swatting away an olive branch really dismissively.

People who are very left-wing don't take olive branches.

People who are very right wing don't accept logic. See, I can do that too.

Cappuccina wrote:

Katganistan wrote:They have no problem ending a sentient life, but a big problem scraping out non-sapient cells whilst crowing about being pro-life.

Being Pro-Death penalty does seem to oppose the position of being pro-life.

Not really, as most pro-lifer positions are anti-abortion due to seeing the fetus or embryo as an innocent being or soul (if they're religious) and abortion as an undeserved death. Pro-death penalty is targeted at criminals, usually ones who've committed heinous crimes.

The quotes got screwed up along the way. I would never define myself as pro-life.

Katganistan wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:Not really, as most pro-lifer positions are anti-abortion due to seeing the fetus or embryo as an innocent being or soul (if they're religious) and abortion as an undeserved death. Pro-death penalty is targeted at criminals, usually ones who've committed heinous crimes.

The quotes got screwed up along the way. I would never define myself as pro-life.

It's still contradictory to be both "pro-life" and "pro death penalty" simultaneously.

There is the enormous amount of evidence that many who have been executed in the US may have been innocent, or the argument that even the lives, the very sentient lives, of otherwise despicable human beings still deserve the most basic right of existence.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Galloism wrote:I'm opposed to jailing fetuses and in support of jailing adult criminals.

So what happens to pregnant criminals?

They give birth in prisons, if they don't abort. And some become pregnant while in prison.

I know of one such child, grown now. She had a pretty difficult life given her mom was away, her grandmother and aunt who raised her were ill, and she had all sorts of problems in school and with fitting in. She's a divorcee and single mom now. It's not to say she's not a good person but even she has said she sometimes wonders if would have been better not to have been born (usually when she gets dealt another shit hand that's related to the circumstances of her conception and birth)

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
Did I mention those motivations? I am merely saying that the position is ignorant of facts, and hinges more on sentiments regarding idea of a potential person than the well-being of an actual person. Certainly there are malicious pro-lifers, but I believe ignorance is a larger issue, especially willful ignorance when acknowledgement of facts would contradict beliefs.

Well then do not treat them as if they are malicious.

Then some of your brothers and sisters in the pro-life camp need to stop treating pro-choice people as malicious.

Katganistan wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:
Not really, as most pro-lifer positions are anti-abortion due to seeing the fetus or embryo as an innocent being or soul (if they're religious) and abortion as an undeserved death. Pro-death penalty is targeted at criminals, usually ones who've committed heinous crimes.

The quotes got screwed up along the way. I would never define myself as pro-life.

We can rebuild them; we have the technology.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Beggnig wrote:Stop murdering children.

You first. Stop witholding your precious blood from dying kids, you monster.

I actually donate blood, so...

Beggnig wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
You first. Stop witholding your precious blood from dying kids, you monster.

I actually donate blood, so...

How much? Of course, the state owns your body, you must donate it all. Otherwise you get 99 years in prison. No exceptions.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:The argument here is based on the premise that the fetus is going or is able to be taken to an artificial womb or something, as that has been mentioned several times in the past few pages or so, and has formed a backdrop to the entire discussion.

But aren’t you then engaging in a hypothetical scenario here? Artificial wombs are in the works but are not yet a thing, AFAIK.

While admirable, they will introduce problems namely: 1)who will support the child, if neither mother nor father wants the responsibility and 2) how will the already overburdened foster care system be expected to absorb all these Awomb babies? Conservatives are notoriously tight when it comes to welfare and support programs.

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:Abortion is MURDER!

One liners are spam. Sit down, think out your argument, and get back to us.

Katganistan wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
But aren’t you then engaging in a hypothetical scenario here? Artificial wombs are in the works but are not yet a thing, AFAIK.

While admirable, they will introduce problems namely: 1)who will support the child, if neither mother nor father wants the responsibility and 2) how will the already overburdened foster care system be expected to absorb all these Awomb babies? Conservatives are notoriously tight when it comes to welfare and support programs.

It's one of the things that, as someone who wants to see abortions go down thru social programs, bemoan a lot.

The fact that abortions will go down because of a ban on abortions doesn't ensure a lasting peace. It just ensure a short term gain, eventually, the problem of births without proper social support for pregnant women will become so unsolvable that we will be back to the current status quo if we go thru bans without a solution for the social ills behind motherhood.

As I said, I don't lean one way or the other in bans, is whatever society thinks is best in the future as a matter of consensus, but still.

Katganistan wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
But aren’t you then engaging in a hypothetical scenario here? Artificial wombs are in the works but are not yet a thing, AFAIK.

While admirable, they will introduce problems namely: 1)who will support the child, if neither mother nor father wants the responsibility and 2) how will the already overburdened foster care system be expected to absorb all these Awomb babies? Conservatives are notoriously tight when it comes to welfare and support programs.

That’s a question I’ve asked. Ok, so the live birth happens, then what? Because this couldn’t be only important while in utero. What about what comes after?

The New California Republic wrote:

New haven america wrote:So the man in this case should have the right to force one if they feel it necessary.

Forced abortions just seems all kinds of fucked up. I know that criminals give up some degree of bodily sovereignty as punishment for crimes etc, but this? I mean, it'd entail forcefully sedating the woman in order to carry it out, as otherwise she is more than likely to resist pretty fiercely. And if she knew that was going to happen then in all likelihood she would flee the country.

I am against forced abortion, just as I am against forced pregnancy.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Katganistan wrote:While admirable, they will introduce problems namely: 1)who will support the child, if neither mother nor father wants the responsibility and 2) how will the already overburdened foster care system be expected to absorb all these Awomb babies? Conservatives are notoriously tight when it comes to welfare and support programs.

That’s a question I’ve asked. Ok, so the live birth happens, then what? Because this couldn’t be only important while in utero. What about what comes after?

I'd say the state should take care of them, or at least find them good homes.

The system of foster care is a mess, and one that should be helped more. It certainly does no one favors that we have decided to not invest resources on the babies we have just shoved into it. We should instead invest more.

New haven america wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I know it is an extreme, but I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that the man can ask the courts to carry out a compulsory abortion on a woman, regardless of what she did.

And I'm not comfortable with it either.

But a rapist claiming parental rights over a pregnancy they caused and having the state to force their victim to not only have their child but allow them to see said child is less fucked up? Because that's how it is in a lot of areas, eve in the developed world.

The act of rape should terminate any rights one would have for seeing the child for the rapist. The rapist should be made to support the child given the other party was unwilling.

Note that this post is ungendered. If a woman committed the rape, she should have to provide the support; if a man committed it, he should have to provide the support. Unless the rapist carried and birthed the child, they should have no right to visitation, and no right to demand their victim either get or not get an abortion.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
That’s a question I’ve asked. Ok, so the live birth happens, then what? Because this couldn’t be only important while in utero. What about what comes after?

I'd say the state should take care of them, or at least find them good homes.

The system of foster care is a mess, and one that should be helped more. It certainly does no one favors that we have decided to not invest resources on the babies we have just shoved into it. We should instead invest more.

Ok, are you willing, just as everyone else who opposes abortion on whatever basis, to invest from your own pocket and as a tax payer, into improving the foster care system so that these live births have homes?

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
That’s a question I’ve asked. Ok, so the live birth happens, then what? Because this couldn’t be only important while in utero. What about what comes after?

I'd say the state should take care of them, or at least find them good homes.

The system of foster care is a mess, and one that should be helped more. It certainly does no one favors that we have decided to not invest resources on the babies we have just shoved into it. We should instead invest more.

And then our budgets were taken up with many frivolous things that complicate the foster system. If legislators are going to shove children into the foster system, it needs to be overhauled.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
I'd say the state should take care of them, or at least find them good homes.

The system of foster care is a mess, and one that should be helped more. It certainly does no one favors that we have decided to not invest resources on the babies we have just shoved into it. We should instead invest more.

Ok, are you willing, just as everyone else who opposes abortion on whatever basis, to invest from your own pocket and as a tax payer, into improving the foster care system so that these live births have homes?

I believe I have said it before, but yes, I would be willing to part with my money into improving foster care.

Major-Tom wrote:

Katganistan wrote:The quotes got screwed up along the way. I would never define myself as pro-life.

It's still contradictory to be both "pro-life" and "pro death penalty" simultaneously.

There is the enormous amount of evidence that many who have been executed in the US may have been innocent, or the argument that even the lives, the very sentient lives, of otherwise despicable human beings still deserve the most basic right of existence.

I know. My classes are debating the morality of the death penalty as we speak. I'd go into their points of debate, but -- better in a thread dedicated to that.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Ok, are you willing, just as everyone else who opposes abortion on whatever basis, to invest from your own pocket and as a tax payer, into improving the foster care system so that these live births have homes?

I believe I have said it before, but yes, I would be willing to part with my money into improving foster care.

Will everyone else do it too, that’s the thing? Because I often see that the interest wanes and ends after the birth. And really, it is after the birth that the help would be needed the most.