NATION

PASSWORD

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

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What policies would you use to reduce abortion numbers?

Welfare Support for Single Mothers
462
17%
Free Pregnancy-Related Health Care
474
17%
Comprehensive Sex Education
581
21%
Free Contraception
477
17%
Monetary Incentives (Child Care, Tax Incentives, Kid-Related Healthcare, specify if needed)
358
13%
No Changes
45
2%
Procedure Ban (Not outlawing abortion itself, but specific procedures)
87
3%
Outright Ban (With exceptions or without)
267
10%
 
Total votes : 2751

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63508
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Genivaria » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:42 pm

Great Minarchistan wrote:
Jebslund wrote:Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

What does fault have to do with anything?
General Sherman did nothing wrong, fact.
Liberal Social Democrat.

YangGang2020

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63508
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Genivaria » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:47 pm

Great Minarchistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:You are mistaken if you think labour is the only biproduct or complication of pregnancy:
  • Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
  • High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
  • Life-threatening retained placenta
  • Complications related to epilepsy
  • Added risks related to kidney disease
  • Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
  • Added risk related to thyroid disease
  • Added risk related to lupus
  • Added risk related to mental health issues
  • Added risk related to sickle cell disease
  • Blood clots
  • Fifth Disease
  • Diabetes
  • Molar pregnancy
  • Hyperemesis gravidarum
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Sceptic miscarriage

All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitute malice) and the foetus is not a person.

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!


Why?
General Sherman did nothing wrong, fact.
Liberal Social Democrat.

YangGang2020

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10589
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:54 pm

Genivaria wrote:
Great Minarchistan wrote:All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child


Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder


A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!


Why?

I'm more interested in why anyone thinks foetuses having personhood would impact the legality of abortion.

We already have the rights to keep other people from using our bodies without our consent -- no-one can have organs taken without consent, blood cannot be taken without consent, people cannot be made to have sex against their will (and if someone tries, the invasion alone is sufficient that maximum force can be used to prevent it -- even if the attacker promises to let their victim live).

I'm unsure why anyone thinks the foetus -- if it were given personhood -- would or should get the right to use another person's body.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Godular
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9720
Founded: Sep 09, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Godular » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:56 pm

Great Minarchistan wrote:
Jebslund wrote:Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all


And it isn't punishing the fetus for the woman to seek treatment if the risk is borne through.
RL position
Active RP: ASCENSION
Active RP: SHENRYAX
Dormant RP: Throne of the Fallen Empire

Faction 1: The An'Kazar Control Framework of Godular-- An enormously advanced collective of formerly human bioborgs engaged in a galaxy-spanning reign of terror for as-yet-unknown reasons. (SWG)
A 1.45 civilization, according to this Nation Index Thingie
I don't normally use NS stats. But when I do, I prefer Dos Eckis I can STILL kill you.
Post responsibly.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Diplomat
 
Posts: 804
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Attempted Socialism » Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:45 am

Great Minarchistan wrote:A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!
Following this genetics argument, we'd give appendices, cancer cells, hair and more personhood. It's the third-worst type of argument I've seen (Second to "my god says" and whatever Keshiland said) in here.
Potential murder is a silly argument, as it's not potential and it's not murder.
Whether it's developing is also a non-starter.

...
And of course, even if we gave personhood to foeti, they wouldn't be allowed to use the womans body against her will; we don't allow forced organ donation, forced blood donation or the like either, even to save lives. The whole line of argument is either absurd, wrong or irrelevant.


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2564
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jebslund » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:07 am

Great Minarchistan wrote:
Jebslund wrote:Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

Implying abortion is a punishment and not the only way to remedy a situation of a fetus using a woman's body as life support against her will.

Risk aversion isn't a factor, either. Abstinence, again, isn't healthy. It increases stress, it impairs judgement, it can cause depression, and other mental issues. There are some people who can handle it, but the majority of humans cannot, no matter how adept they are at fooling themselves and others into thinking they can.

Then again, given your comments here, I'm beginning to suspect you're not here to argue in good faith.
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Page
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10790
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Page » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:11 am

Great Minarchistan wrote:
Jebslund wrote:Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all


Nothing is the fault of a fetus and nothing is a problem for a fetus either, because fetuses aren't sentient, sapient, and for the first 2 trimesters have no feeling or experience whatsoever, which is why there's nothing wrong with terminating a fetus.
I am a libertarian socialist.
I am ungovernable.
I owe no allegiance to any state.
I am bound to my conscience, not to the law.
I stand for liberty, justice, and peace.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19464
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:16 am

Great Minarchistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons


Yes. Dead bodies are just lumps of meat. They're useful and valuable for things, and we should put them to those uses.

The Free Joy State wrote:There is no "potential murder". That's like me walking into a supermarket, picking up a packet of toothpaste, putting it back and walking out without buying anything and being charged with potential shoplifting.

Not really, it's like you ripping a sapling in two and therefore committing potential murder of a tree


No, it's like playing conkers. People who play conkers are not killing trees, and "potential murder" isn't a thing.

The Free Joy State wrote:You can't weigh things on potential.

In this case it works rather well


No, it doesn't.

The Free Joy State wrote:For a start, pregnancy is not predictable.

Yes, and where did I refer to that? I said that the evolution of a fetus is predictable and linear


Simply untrue.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Page
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10790
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Page » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:25 am

Great Minarchistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons

The Free Joy State wrote:There is no "potential murder". That's like me walking into a supermarket, picking up a packet of toothpaste, putting it back and walking out without buying anything and being charged with potential shoplifting.

Not really, it's like you ripping a sapling in two and therefore committing potential murder of a tree

The Free Joy State wrote:You can't weigh things on potential.

In this case it works rather well

The Free Joy State wrote:For a start, pregnancy is not predictable.

Yes, and where did I refer to that? I said that the evolution of a fetus is predictable and linear -- you won't have a human fetus developing into a dog over the course of 30 months.


It is the brain of our loved ones that make them who they are. When that brain ceases to function, that person no longer exists and the body is in fact nothing more than decaying organic material.
I am a libertarian socialist.
I am ungovernable.
I owe no allegiance to any state.
I am bound to my conscience, not to the law.
I stand for liberty, justice, and peace.

User avatar
Honkworld
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Jul 06, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Honkworld » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:49 pm

Liriena wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
B-but the great replacement...

Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it does

User avatar
Kernen
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5404
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:50 pm

Honkworld wrote:
Liriena wrote:Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it does


Sucks for white people. Still not a reason to dictate who people can reproduce with. Or to not reproduce at all.
Last edited by Kernen on Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Get abortions, do drugs, own guns, but never misstate legal procedure.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11042
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:53 pm

Honkworld wrote:
Liriena wrote:Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it does

Nobody cares about what you want.

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 32065
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Katganistan » Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:15 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Great Minarchistan wrote:Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

You are mistaken if you think labour is the only by-product or complication of pregnancy:
  • Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
  • High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
  • Life-threatening retained placenta
  • Complications related to epilepsy
  • Added risks related to kidney disease
  • Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
  • Added risk related to thyroid disease
  • Added risk related to lupus
  • Added risk related to mental health issues
  • Added risk related to sickle cell disease
  • Blood clots
  • Fifth Disease
  • Diabetes
  • Molar pregnancy
  • Hyperemesis gravidarum
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Sceptic miscarriage

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility

It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitutes malice) and the foetus is not a person.

It doesn't matter. She ASKED for it.

And literally, the summation of Roe v. Wade was "it's nobody's business what medical decisions a woman and her doctor make."

I wish people would mind their business now. It's like the annoying 70 year old from the local HOA snooping around measuring whether your grass is a millimeter taller than it "should" be or saying that you can't put a garden in the back of your house, or complaining that your front door isn't painted in the exact shade of the 22 allowed shades and since it's off must be repainted.

Mind your business and stop making other people's lives more difficult/less enjoyable.
Last edited by Katganistan on Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Estanglia
Minister
 
Posts: 2528
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Estanglia » Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:20 pm

Great Minarchistan wrote:
Liriena wrote:This is some bizarre logic to apply to anything related to people's private health decisions.

Applied to people currently pregnant, it's beyond useless. Like telling someone with lung cancer that they shouldn't have smoked tobacco. They're already sick and they are asking for medical help. You don't get to pick and choose whether people should get the medical help they require based on whether the way they came to need that help morally offends you.

Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

Liriena wrote:Applied to people who are not currently pregnant, it's simplistic, myopic. Sometimes people miscalculate. Sometimes they change their mind. And no third party has the right to tell them that their individual autonomy is void if they make an honest mistake, or if the prevention they relied on fails.

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility


It isn't murder and it isn't a person.

Great Minarchistan wrote:
Necroghastia wrote:
Good thing no one's calling for people to be murdered, except I guess the ones who think the death penalty should be a thing.

Oh well, TIL that fetuses develop into dinosaurs and that they can't be considered homo sapiens sapiens as a result


Human =/= person.

Great Minarchistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:You are mistaken if you think labour is the only biproduct or complication of pregnancy:
  • Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
  • High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
  • Life-threatening retained placenta
  • Complications related to epilepsy
  • Added risks related to kidney disease
  • Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
  • Added risk related to thyroid disease
  • Added risk related to lupus
  • Added risk related to mental health issues
  • Added risk related to sickle cell disease
  • Blood clots
  • Fifth Disease
  • Diabetes
  • Molar pregnancy
  • Hyperemesis gravidarum
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Sceptic miscarriage

All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder


What is relevant is its legality.

If it's legal, it's not murder.

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitute malice) and the foetus is not a person.

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!


Human =/= person. These two words have different meanings, and "Being Human" is not the definition of person.

Potential is worth jack shit. The fetus could potentially be the next genocidal dictator or brutal murderer. I don't see you using that as an argument for abortion.

Great Minarchistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons


I call them people because they were, at one point, people.

The fetus was never a person in the first place.
Yeah: Egalitarianism, equality, the UN, the EU
Meh:
Nah: discrimination, justifying discrimination, authoritarianism, Brexit

Political compass test:
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9

8 Values.


Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"

Reploid Productions wrote:Two pages in... and everybody is pretty much agreeing that "This is fucking stupid!"? Dear gods, NSG agreeing on something?! I SPOTTED A UNICORN!!

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57671
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:08 am

Honkworld wrote:
Liriena wrote:Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it does

Thank you Joker meme dude very cool
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio
Diplomat
 
Posts: 693
Founded: Apr 14, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:15 pm

Great Minarchistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:You are mistaken if you think labour is the only biproduct or complication of pregnancy:
  • Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
  • High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
  • Life-threatening retained placenta
  • Complications related to epilepsy
  • Added risks related to kidney disease
  • Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
  • Added risk related to thyroid disease
  • Added risk related to lupus
  • Added risk related to mental health issues
  • Added risk related to sickle cell disease
  • Blood clots
  • Fifth Disease
  • Diabetes
  • Molar pregnancy
  • Hyperemesis gravidarum
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Sceptic miscarriage

All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitute malice) and the foetus is not a person.

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

Should HeLa cell cultures also be granted legal personhood and research utilizing them stopped because of the legal personhood (not because of the lack of previous consent of Henrietta Lacks or her family)?
Last edited by Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio on Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
❤Pro: Immigration, gun control, demilitarization, internationalism, socialism, direct democracy, disestablishmentarianism, feminism, open boarders, unity, peace, pacifism, vegetarianism, and lbgt+
Anti: Unfair wages/capitalism, war, military, violence, hate, ignorance, weapons, racism, imperialism, patriotism, nationalism, fascism, nativism, violent protest, ANTIFA, USA, and sexism
Collectivism score: 100
Authoritarianism score: 50
Internationalism score: 33
Tribalism score: -100
Liberalism score: 83
I apologize for all the hate and violence that has been caused and will be caused by humanity.
More detailed flag and Seal
[☮] and [_✯_] ☭
Kune ni sukcesos egale
Together we prosper equally

Вместе мы процветать в равной степени

User avatar
Petrolheadia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11321
Founded: May 02, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Petrolheadia » Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:47 am

Katganistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:You are mistaken if you think labour is the only by-product or complication of pregnancy:
  • Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
  • High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
  • Life-threatening retained placenta
  • Complications related to epilepsy
  • Added risks related to kidney disease
  • Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
  • Added risk related to thyroid disease
  • Added risk related to lupus
  • Added risk related to mental health issues
  • Added risk related to sickle cell disease
  • Blood clots
  • Fifth Disease
  • Diabetes
  • Molar pregnancy
  • Hyperemesis gravidarum
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Sceptic miscarriage


It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitutes malice) and the foetus is not a person.

It doesn't matter. She ASKED for it.

And literally, the summation of Roe v. Wade was "it's nobody's business what medical decisions a woman and her doctor make."

I wish people would mind their business now. It's like the annoying 70 year old from the local HOA snooping around measuring whether your grass is a millimeter taller than it "should" be or saying that you can't put a garden in the back of your house, or complaining that your front door isn't painted in the exact shade of the 22 allowed shades and since it's off must be repainted.

Mind your business and stop making other people's lives more difficult/less enjoyable.

You know, I believe in self-defence. And if a woman can defend herself from someone breaking into her house, then she can defend herself from someone breaking into her body, death allowed in both scenarios.
Capitalism, single-payer healthcare, pro-choice, LGBT rights, progressive personal taxation, low corporate tax, pro-business law, welfare for those in need.
Communism, socialism, Nazism, edgism, dogmatic statements, multiculturalism, most of Abrahamic-derived morality (esp. as law), welfare for those not in need.
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, classic rock fan, gamer, agnostic, centre-libertarian.
Where you can talk about cars!
"They're always saying I'm a Capitalist pig. I suppose I am, but, ah...it ah...it's good for my drumming, I think." - Keith Moon,
If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron. - Jan Nowicki.

User avatar
Petrolheadia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11321
Founded: May 02, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Petrolheadia » Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:48 am

Great Minarchistan wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons

I don't call them persons, because they aren't. It's "the corpse" or "corpse of X".
Capitalism, single-payer healthcare, pro-choice, LGBT rights, progressive personal taxation, low corporate tax, pro-business law, welfare for those in need.
Communism, socialism, Nazism, edgism, dogmatic statements, multiculturalism, most of Abrahamic-derived morality (esp. as law), welfare for those not in need.
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, classic rock fan, gamer, agnostic, centre-libertarian.
Where you can talk about cars!
"They're always saying I'm a Capitalist pig. I suppose I am, but, ah...it ah...it's good for my drumming, I think." - Keith Moon,
If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron. - Jan Nowicki.

User avatar
Petrolheadia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11321
Founded: May 02, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Petrolheadia » Tue Jul 23, 2019 12:50 am

Great Minarchistan wrote:A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

It is better. "Potential murder" is one of the most galaxybrained terms I've ever heard.
Capitalism, single-payer healthcare, pro-choice, LGBT rights, progressive personal taxation, low corporate tax, pro-business law, welfare for those in need.
Communism, socialism, Nazism, edgism, dogmatic statements, multiculturalism, most of Abrahamic-derived morality (esp. as law), welfare for those not in need.
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, classic rock fan, gamer, agnostic, centre-libertarian.
Where you can talk about cars!
"They're always saying I'm a Capitalist pig. I suppose I am, but, ah...it ah...it's good for my drumming, I think." - Keith Moon,
If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron. - Jan Nowicki.

User avatar
Petrolheadia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11321
Founded: May 02, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Petrolheadia » Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:10 am

Strahcoin wrote:I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.

We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.

Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being. (Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.

If my mother decided to get an abortion, I wouldn't care.

In fact, given opportunities like being able to have an easier time potentially emigrating or being able to go on trips outside school holidays, I think she wouldn't have turned out bad that way.
Capitalism, single-payer healthcare, pro-choice, LGBT rights, progressive personal taxation, low corporate tax, pro-business law, welfare for those in need.
Communism, socialism, Nazism, edgism, dogmatic statements, multiculturalism, most of Abrahamic-derived morality (esp. as law), welfare for those not in need.
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, classic rock fan, gamer, agnostic, centre-libertarian.
Where you can talk about cars!
"They're always saying I'm a Capitalist pig. I suppose I am, but, ah...it ah...it's good for my drumming, I think." - Keith Moon,
If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron. - Jan Nowicki.

User avatar
The Great Swedish Empire
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 152
Founded: Jun 05, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Great Swedish Empire » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:44 pm

Honestly, I think that abortion is very very morally grey in my eyes. I cannot stand the thought of something with the potential to birth life being taken away. A life's future is taken away is something that haunts me. I cannot stand that. Yet I still support abortion in my eyes because if we do outlaw the practice scared mothers will flock to back ally clinics and two lives will be lost.

So, is it morally wrong? In most sitations. But should the practice be outlawed? No, for it will only do more damage. The solution here is to provide advice, therapy, and support for these feldging mothers but if still decide to go through with the action then so be it.

As for the topic of child pregancy, typically from rape, I support it in those casses on hundred precent. I am still yet to decide for older rape victims.
Stuff. Just stuff.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20395
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:06 pm

The Great Swedish Empire wrote:Honestly, I think that abortion is very very morally grey in my eyes. I cannot stand the thought of something with the potential to birth life being taken away. A life's future is taken away is something that haunts me. I cannot stand that. Yet I still support abortion in my eyes because if we do outlaw the practice scared mothers will flock to back ally clinics and two lives will be lost.

So, is it morally wrong? In most sitations. But should the practice be outlawed? No, for it will only do more damage. The solution here is to provide advice, therapy, and support for these feldging mothers but if still decide to go through with the action then so be it.

As for the topic of child pregancy, typically from rape, I support it in those casses on hundred precent. I am still yet to decide for older rape victims.

Why is it that you find abortion morally repugnant when the pregnancy isn't a result of rape, but not so when it is? This has no relevance to the value of the "life" yet to be born.
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
The Great Swedish Empire
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 152
Founded: Jun 05, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Great Swedish Empire » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:14 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
The Great Swedish Empire wrote:Honestly, I think that abortion is very very morally grey in my eyes. I cannot stand the thought of something with the potential to birth life being taken away. A life's future is taken away is something that haunts me. I cannot stand that. Yet I still support abortion in my eyes because if we do outlaw the practice scared mothers will flock to back ally clinics and two lives will be lost.

So, is it morally wrong? In most sitations. But should the practice be outlawed? No, for it will only do more damage. The solution here is to provide advice, therapy, and support for these feldging mothers but if still decide to go through with the action then so be it.

As for the topic of child pregancy, typically from rape, I support it in those casses on hundred precent. I am still yet to decide for older rape victims.

Why is it that you find abortion morally repugnant when the pregnancy isn't a result of rape, but not so when it is? This has no relevance to the value of the "life" yet to be born.

I said that I haven't decided yet when it comes to rape victims. Admittedly my argument above may be flawed. But I just find abortion wrong, not disgusting as others see, but needed as the consequences of outlawing it is simply too much.
Stuff. Just stuff.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Senator
 
Posts: 4862
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:54 pm

The Great Swedish Empire wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Why is it that you find abortion morally repugnant when the pregnancy isn't a result of rape, but not so when it is? This has no relevance to the value of the "life" yet to be born.

I said that I haven't decided yet when it comes to rape victims. Admittedly my argument above may be flawed. But I just find abortion wrong, not disgusting as others see, but needed as the consequences of outlawing it is simply too much.

Abortion is inherently against my moral compass. Yet if I am to rely on my libertarian thinking, it should be legal.
Proud Red Tory.
An 8 Power Civilization, with Tier 9 Technology and Type 7 Influence.
I use NS stats for the Economy and GDP spending only.
Working on this right now!

Pro: Capitalism, Conservatism, Secular State, Right to Bear Arms, Death Penalty, Responsible Immigration Policies, Equality.
Against: SJWS, Modern Leftism, Socialism, Islamism, Discrimination, Orwellian Government.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
My favourite revenge would be:
Genivaria wrote:Giving him an anal probe with a bayonet?

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33711
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby New haven america » Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:02 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:
The Great Swedish Empire wrote:I said that I haven't decided yet when it comes to rape victims. Admittedly my argument above may be flawed. But I just find abortion wrong, not disgusting as others see, but needed as the consequences of outlawing it is simply too much.

Abortion is inherently against my moral compass. Yet if I am to rely on my libertarian thinking, it should be legal.

Considering libertarianism is an idea system based mostly off of the idea of "People shouldn't force their ideas or way of life on others" all the while trying to force their ideas and life style onto people who don't want to, yeah, no, you can be libertarian and still be against abortion legalization.
Last edited by New haven america on Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2020

That's all folks~

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amaseia, Auremena, Desmosthenes and Burke, Dooom35796821595, Drunkerland, Ethel mermania, Fartsniffage, Google [Bot], Gopnikea, Gorbehstan, Graag Brom, Greater Arab State, Greater Cesnica, Heloin, Ifreann, Isles of Metanoia, Loben The 2nd, Necroghastia, Novus America, Patriot States of North America, Salandriagado, The Two Jerseys, Torrocca, Totenborg, Valentine Z, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads