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

[The Free Joy State]

>snorp<

Man, it would be great if you actually answered my question.

Well, it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt, Caleshan.

You could always ask again, just to make sure they didn't miss it...

It was an excellent question. I'd love to know the answer.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Man, it would be great if you actually answered my question.

Well, it's best to give people the benefit of the doubt, Caleshan.

You could always ask again, just to make sure they didn't miss it...

It was an excellent question. I'd love to know the answer.

I shall re-iterate the question then, for their benefit:

So how do you want your outlook to be addressed, and why do you think it should be so? YOU need to convince US why it should be this way.

Mihnoa: This question does not immediately presume you to be right or wrong. Please answer this question.

[Jebslund]

So geographical location determines what is or isn't a person?

No. Physical location does. Geographical location is a person's location on Earth, hence the word "Geographical". The prefix geo- means "Earth".

Just because there are no laws against it automatically makes it morally right?

There are so many more factors at play here than simply legality.

Heartbeat=Life

No. As said above, it's possible to get a heart that's been completely removed from the body to beat. Does that mean we've suddenly created a new human?

It's not self-defense if there is no attack.

Maybe finish middle school before you start banging on about what does and doesn't constitute self-defense. Short version: If you believe someone is about to cause you harm, whether or not it is by directly attacking you, you have the right to stop them by the use of the minimum amount of force it will take to prevent them from harming you.

Oh ok, so it's morally justified to kill someone with nerve damage because they can't feel it. Didn't know that.

Not unless that person asks you to or is putting you in mortal peril. But the difference between that and abortion is that the person with nerve damage is a born person who is sapient, while the vast majority of abortions are performed before sapience has been achieved.

[The New California Republic]

In terms of personhood, yes.

So geographical location determines what is or isn't a person?

Not alone, no.

It isn't a person, and there are no laws against it, and bodily sovereignty of the woman.

Just because there are no laws against it automatically makes it morally right?

Is there a reason you cherrypicked one part of what I said?

And what does that matter?

Heartbeat=Life

What a shit definition.

[Hanafuridake]

Heartbeat=Life

How are we defining life here?

[The New California Republic]

Heartbeat=Life

How are we defining life here?

In the shittiest manner possible clearly.

[Cappuccina]

How are we defining life here?

In the shittiest manner possible clearly.

It isn't easy to define when people on either side aren't even talking about the same thing. One reason why debates on abortion are usually pointless.

[The New California Republic]

In the shittiest manner possible clearly.

It isn't easy to define when people on either side aren't even talking about the same thing. One reason why debates on abortion are usually pointless.

But saying "heartbeat = life" says fuck all about anything and is flat out wrong.

[Godular]

In the shittiest manner possible clearly.

It isn't easy to define when people on either side aren't even talking about the same thing. One reason why debates on abortion are usually pointless.

Or at least repetitive. The biggest issue with a goodly number of pro-life folks is that it is not so black and white as they choose to believe. 'Abortion is Murder' 'Abortion kills Babies' and so on. Abortion is very much a moral gray area, in that SOMEBODY'S rights are going to suffer no matter which side one takes. Either the fetus suffers in that its existence is terminated, or the woman suffers in that she loses the right to control her own body. The majority of the argument boils down to who deserves higher priority.

The best solution is to establish ways of reducing the chance that such a conflict arises in the first place.

[The Alma Mater]

It isn't easy to define when people on either side aren't even talking about the same thing. One reason why debates on abortion are usually pointless.

Or at least repetitive. The biggest issue with a goodly number of pro-life folks is that it is not so black and white as they choose to believe. 'Abortion is Murder' 'Abortion kills Babies' and so on. Abortion is very much a moral gray area, in that SOMEBODY'S rights are going to suffer no matter which side one takes. Either the fetus suffers in that its existence is terminated, or the woman suffers in that she loses the right to control her own body. The majority of the argument boils down to who deserves higher priority.

The best solution is to establish ways of reducing the chance that such a conflict arises in the first place.

Which, ironically, involves things like contraception and sex-education, which pro-lifers tend to oppose.

[Godular]

Or at least repetitive. The biggest issue with a goodly number of pro-life folks is that it is not so black and white as they choose to believe. 'Abortion is Murder' 'Abortion kills Babies' and so on. Abortion is very much a moral gray area, in that SOMEBODY'S rights are going to suffer no matter which side one takes. Either the fetus suffers in that its existence is terminated, or the woman suffers in that she loses the right to control her own body. The majority of the argument boils down to who deserves higher priority.

The best solution is to establish ways of reducing the chance that such a conflict arises in the first place.

Which, ironically, involves things like contraception and sex-education, which pro-lifers tend to oppose.

Though we have seen on this thread (and previous iterations) that many pro-life folks for the most part are willing to listen to some degree of reason on that front. I just wish that direction of discussion were more widely spread.

[The Alma Mater]

Which, ironically, involves things like contraception and sex-education, which pro-lifers tend to oppose.

Though we have seen on this thread (and previous iterations) that many pro-life folks for the most part are willing to listen to some degree of reason on that front. I just wish that direction of discussion were more widely spread.

Perhaps the next poll question should be "How can we reduce the need for abortion".

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Though we have seen on this thread (and previous iterations) that many pro-life folks for the most part are willing to listen to some degree of reason on that front. I just wish that direction of discussion were more widely spread.

Perhaps the next poll question should be "How can we reduce the need for abortion".

Hmm. That is a good suggestion.

While technically that’s the intent of the current question, it probably would do to make the next one a more specific variant with the opportunity to make multiple choices. It’s nice to be prepared this far in advance for the next round.

[Cappuccina]

Or at least repetitive. The biggest issue with a goodly number of pro-life folks is that it is not so black and white as they choose to believe. 'Abortion is Murder' 'Abortion kills Babies' and so on. Abortion is very much a moral gray area, in that SOMEBODY'S rights are going to suffer no matter which side one takes. Either the fetus suffers in that its existence is terminated, or the woman suffers in that she loses the right to control her own body. The majority of the argument boils down to who deserves higher priority.

The best solution is to establish ways of reducing the chance that such a conflict arises in the first place.

Which, ironically, involves things like contraception and sex-education, which pro-lifers tend to oppose.

Agreed. I'm on the "pro-life" side, but I realize that it makes zero sense to oppose abortion and also discourage sex-ed and contraception, we should be aiming to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Most "pro-lifers" devolve into a perverse natalism "what ever you do don't stop the pregnancies!"

[Vassenor]

Which, ironically, involves things like contraception and sex-education, which pro-lifers tend to oppose.

Agreed. I'm on the "pro-life" side, but I realize that it makes zero sense to oppose abortion and also discourage sex-ed and contraception, we should be aiming to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Most "pro-lifers" devolve into a perverse natalism "what ever you do don't stop the pregnancies!"

#everyspermissacred

You're welcome.

[Bear Stearns]

Where's the option for people should be compelled to have abortions under certain circumstances.

[Northern Davincia]

Can someone explain to me why this is anything less than monstrous?

[Vassenor]

Can someone explain to me why this is anything less than monstrous?

Maybe you should explain your position first. It's kind of hard to argue against your view when we don't know what that view is.

[Vassenor]

Where's the option for people should be compelled to have abortions under certain circumstances.

And those "certain circumstances" would be what, exactly?

[Bear Stearns]

Can someone explain to me why this is anything less than monstrous?

Probably because the woman in question is a nutcase who shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

[Northern Davincia]

Can someone explain to me why this is anything less than monstrous?

Maybe you should explain your position first. It's kind of hard to argue against your view when we don't know what that view is.

Needless to say, I'm wholeheartedly against forced abortions and find the ruling of the court to be utterly vile.

Can someone explain to me why this is anything less than monstrous?

Probably because the woman in question is a nutcase who shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

Let's not disturb Margaret Sanger's grave, shall we?

[Bear Stearns]

Maybe you should explain your position first. It's kind of hard to argue against your view when we don't know what that view is.

Needless to say, I'm wholeheartedly against forced abortions and find the ruling of the court to be utterly vile.

Probably because the woman in question is a nutcase who shouldn't be polluting the gene pool.

Let's not disturb Margaret Sanger's grave, shall we?

Why? She was a great eugenicist.

[Northern Davincia]

Needless to say, I'm wholeheartedly against forced abortions and find the ruling of the court to be utterly vile.

Let's not disturb Margaret Sanger's grave, shall we?

Why? She was a great eugenicist.

This circles back into my view that eugenics are monstrous. People with disabilities aren't a scourge on humanity.

[Bear Stearns]

Why? She was a great eugenicist.

This circles back into my view that eugenics are monstrous. People with disabilities aren't a scourge on humanity.

I refuse to debate scientific fact (the first part, not the second) with an avowed member of the Roman church.

[Northern Davincia]

This circles back into my view that eugenics are monstrous. People with disabilities aren't a scourge on humanity.

I refuse to debate scientific fact (the first part, not the second) with an avowed member of the Roman church.

Do scientific ethics not exist?