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

[Antityranicals]

Legislature could well be used for the former purpose, but today is more a method of systemically violating rights with the strongmanship of the state.

Hey, I never said the legislature was particularly good at it.

Wait, I thought you did, multiple times... perfect, in fact.

[Kernen]

You mean laws? Laws are a method of benefiting and regulating society, not enforcing right and wrong as abstract concepts.

Not necessarily laws. But we determine that many Arabic states are "morally wrong" for their treatment of women, and many places in Africa for FGM. Why are those immoral or wrong, if their laws work for them?

Evidence suggests that it isn't working particularly well, given the poor conditions for the oppressed.

[Godular]

And I reject that.



Which it is.



Which you're not.

I'm gonna call "prove it", if you're going to say that so definitively.

Don't have to. So far, you've been failing to present sufficient evidence to support your positive statement that objective morality exists. Your efforts to call my own subjective morality into question have served only to reinforce the fact that morality is in fact subjective, moreso reinforced by your occasional outburst damning the state for daring to run counter to your purportedly objective morality.

Without evidence to support your position, I must logically default to its negation.

[NewLakotah]

Not necessarily laws. But we determine that many Arabic states are "morally wrong" for their treatment of women, and many places in Africa for FGM. Why are those immoral or wrong, if their laws work for them?

Because they violate the inalienable rights given to all by God himself?

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Not necessarily laws. But we determine that many Arabic states are "morally wrong" for their treatment of women, and many places in Africa for FGM. Why are those immoral or wrong, if their laws work for them?

Evidence suggests that it isn't working particularly well, given the poor conditions for the oppressed.

Some of the richest nations are in the Middle East... So I'd say that's debatable. Not to mention, saying that FGM and suppression of women is the reason why a nation's economy or state isn't doing well is unrelated. And, what is working well and not well, again, would be a subjective, thus you couldn't say one way or another. Unless you spoke objectively.

[Kernen]

Hey, I never said the legislature was particularly good at it.

Wait, I thought you did, multiple times... perfect, in fact.

That the legislature doesn't align with my ideals all the time doesn't mean the law is anything less than the law, and that there is any less an obligation to obey. At the end of the day, I'm a utilitarian.

[Antityranicals]

I'm gonna call "prove it", if you're going to say that so definitively.

Don't have to. So far, you've been failing to present sufficient evidence to support your positive statement that objective morality exists. Your efforts to call my own subjective morality into question have served only to reinforce the fact that morality is in fact subjective, moreso reinforced by your occasional outburst damning the state for daring to run counter to your purportedly objective morality.

Without evidence to support your position, I must logically default to its negation.

I don't want to threadjack, so do you want to go to the atheism thread to discuss this?

[Godular]

Don't have to. So far, you've been failing to present sufficient evidence to support your positive statement that objective morality exists. Your efforts to call my own subjective morality into question have served only to reinforce the fact that morality is in fact subjective, moreso reinforced by your occasional outburst damning the state for daring to run counter to your purportedly objective morality.

Without evidence to support your position, I must logically default to its negation.

I don't want to threadjack, so do you want to go to the atheism thread to discuss this?

I'm simply pointing out that your overarching tactic has been a failure. If you would like to convince us to accept your position, you will have to find a way to argue from our point of view why your position should be the one that is accepted. We do not accept your god as a basis for any arguments as to why Abortion should be seen as murder. How can I accept your god as a basis when I am rather specifically Atheist? Why would I change my opinion on the whim of what amounts to your imaginary friend in whom you are emotionally invested to a degree that I would find particularly unreasonable and more than a little disturbing?

If you would like to bring up that aspect of your argument in the Atheism thread, you're more than welcome to do so. I find no reason to follow it.

[The Free Joy State]

No, it's just a comment on the general argumentation line you've used -- and I doubt I'll be the only one to have noticed -- of rejecting everything as "subjective".

Rights are not subjective (as they are legal facts, established in court cases), though the interpretation of them is up for debate.

You have also rejected science as being subjective, even that based on recent research, requoted for your convenience:

You do know you completely dismissed my link without even reading it, yet attack me for being subjective in dealing with science. When, the article I posted, more or less agreed with the findings of your source

You criticised me for guessing (correctly) that you were pro-life (despite you using many of the talking points, and the obvious flag "pro-abortionist" (so noticeable, it can be seen from space), and then guesstimate that I did not read your source.

Of course I did -- and much of the writer's tedious Twitter page (which was much less professional) -- though I saw the way it was going by the sight of the oversized image of the foetus.

The science does somewhat line up (although my source notes that there is no evidence the foetus is awake until 30 weeks, this suggests 23), but then there's a lot of sentimentalist noise about lava responding to stimuli and how that suggests consciousness (which is not necessarily sound, as trees respond to stimuli -- light -- yet are not conscious).

So, I did read it, I just found a lot of flags in there. And then the guy's Twitter page did nothing to recommend him.

Of course, being pro-life and pro-choice are both subjective views: the science and law underpinning them are not. Open to change, open to debate, open to new discoveries... certainly. But not subjective.

The law is subjective. Some nations outlaw abortions. Some nations don't. There is no universal law that says abortion is a human right. The science of defining when human life, as we define it, is subjective. Is it when we feel pain? As you and many other seems to be pointing towards. The of my point was, that the aspect of dealing with pain doesn't push the envelope either way, feeling pain doesn't make abortion more or less moral.

If, in your nation, you have the right to have an abortion. Then you have the right to have an abortion. If that right is taken away, you no longer have the right to have an abortion. Right? Right. That's not complicated, when you state that rights are only what we decide them to be and nothing more. Then, you cannot say, "I have the right to my own body and to have an abortion", because that right doesn't exist anymore. Now, if you are saying that our human rights are derived from something more than just a group of people decided what "rights" we have and don't then the argument shifts.

Actually, on universal law, the UN was writing an amendment clarifying that human rights do not extend to a foetus. And there are few nations that completely outlaw abortion (six, if I recall), making abortion pretty widely recognised.

Right now, those laws -- in the countries that have them -- are facts (not subjective). They exist. If you want to change them -- should your country allow abortion -- you are looking to overturn the default, and you need a good reason to do so.

And if that good reason is that no-one should be able to say "I have the right to my own body" -- that really should apply to everyone and I'll be taking your kidney a week on Tuesday.

… Or would that be a problem?

Not necessarily laws. But we determine that many Arabic states are "morally wrong" for their treatment of women, and many places in Africa for FGM. Why are those immoral or wrong, if their laws work for them?

Because they violate the inalienable rights given to all by God himself?

Haven't I already highlighted, in great detail, how this argument is bullshit and that the Bible not only encourages death in certain places -- "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", anyone -- but also the Bible actually has a recipe for abortion and outlines (in detail) why a foetus is of less worth than the mother.

[TETistan]

Not necessarily laws. But we determine that many Arabic states are "morally wrong" for their treatment of women, and many places in Africa for FGM. Why are those immoral or wrong, if their laws work for them?

Because they violate the inalienable rights given to all by God himself?

Hmm. I do need to chime in here. If you accept Christianity you have to reject the idea of rights.

[NewLakotah]

You do know you completely dismissed my link without even reading it, yet attack me for being subjective in dealing with science. When, the article I posted, more or less agreed with the findings of your source

You criticised me for guessing (correctly) that you were pro-life (despite you using many of the talking points, and the obvious flag "pro-abortionist" (so noticeable, it can be seen from space), and then guesstimate that I did not read your source.

Of course I did -- and much of the writer's tedious Twitter page (which was much less professional) -- though I saw the way it was going by the sight of the oversized image of the foetus.

The science does somewhat line up (although my source notes that there is no evidence the foetus is awake until 30 weeks, this suggests 23), but then there's a lot of sentimentalist noise about lava responding to stimuli and how that suggests consciousness (which is not necessarily sound, as trees respond to stimuli -- light -- yet are not conscious).

So, I did read it, I just found a lot of flags in there. And then the guy's Twitter page did nothing to recommend him.

I don't remember criticizing you for guessing nor were you correct, just pointing out that you were making assumptions about things that I supported, without actually having information to support that. If I remember correctly, you presumed that I supported FGM and was anti-abortion. And since you so enjoy making assumptions, you just keep making them. Tbh, I hate the dichotomy of saying "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". Its like asking are you "Pro-2nd Amendment" or "Pro-gun control"? Umm, yes and yes. Hence my wording.

Both sources are medical research, one is formatted as a academic source. Both say virtually the same thing. Yet, you dismiss, the same position, simply due to the researchers personal belief? That's... interesting.

The law is subjective. Some nations outlaw abortions. Some nations don't. There is no universal law that says abortion is a human right. The science of defining when human life, as we define it, is subjective. Is it when we feel pain? As you and many other seems to be pointing towards. The of my point was, that the aspect of dealing with pain doesn't push the envelope either way, feeling pain doesn't make abortion more or less moral.

If, in your nation, you have the right to have an abortion. Then you have the right to have an abortion. If that right is taken away, you no longer have the right to have an abortion. Right? Right. That's not complicated, when you state that rights are only what we decide them to be and nothing more. Then, you cannot say, "I have the right to my own body and to have an abortion", because that right doesn't exist anymore. Now, if you are saying that our human rights are derived from something more than just a group of people decided what "rights" we have and don't then the argument shifts.

Actually, on universal law, the UN was writing an amendment clarifying that human rights do not extend to a foetus. And there are few nations that completely outlaw abortion (six, if I recall), making abortion pretty widely recognised.

Right now, those laws -- in the countries that have them -- are facts (not subjective). They exist. If you want to change them -- should your country allow abortion -- you are looking to overturn the default, and you need a good reason to do so.

And if that good reason is that no-one should be able to say "I have the right to my own body" -- that really should apply to everyone and I'll be taking your kidney a week on Tuesday.

… Or would that be a problem?

If the idea that morality/human rights are only determined by what we determine at any given moment and are not based in anything, that whatever law the unbinding law that the UN has on it, is irrelevant. If, a nation determined that the human rights should be extended to a fetus, and it was, then the "right" to life, would outweigh any right to choose. Thus the right to choose would cease to exist. If a state deemed that violation of the unborn child's right to choose and to life overrode the woman's right to choose, then the right would cease to exist. And the subjective stance of "rights" would mean that you don't have the right. Again, if the US were to say, the right to bear arms no longer exists, then the right would no longer exist, as the right is only derived from it existing, and not from anything else beyond that. Free Speech is heavily censored in many parts of the world, and is considered a "right" in many others. Hate speech is classified as protected speech and a "right" in the US, but is denied and not protected by Canada. Suppose a shift happened across "western civilization" and the right to free speech was taken away. Then that right, since we have determined collectively that it shouldn't exist, would cease to exist.

So, since the fact that laws can and will change and differ from nation to nation, means that laws are subjective. And considering that most nations have a court system in place to define laws, and that defining is based on the opinion of the court, then yeah, its still subjective. And since laws in nations differ on the protection of "rights" the idea of universal human rights is bogus, if they are supported or denied in half the world.

So again, if you are saying that rights are only something that we determine in the moment and have no basis, then the right to choose is a relatively recent right. One that could change, depending on how the shifting culture decides to change to.

And again, a large number of nations have determined that the right to choose is voided after the first, sometimes second, trimester, unless the mother's life is in danger, etc, etc. That means, by then, the right to choose is no longer valid, and the right to life overrides it. Or, in the case of the American Convention of Human Rights, which was signed by at least 20 nations, deemed that life began at conception, thus making there right to life a multinational one.

Because they violate the inalienable rights given to all by God himself?

Hmm. I do need to chime in here. If you accept Christianity you have to reject the idea of rights.

Thats not how that works, but ok

[Kowani]

Because they violate the inalienable rights given to all by God himself?

Hmm. I do need to chime in here. If you accept Christianity you have to reject the idea of rights.

Kind of the other way around.

[Neanderthaland]

Hmm. I do need to chime in here. If you accept Christianity you have to reject the idea of rights.

Kind of the other way around.

I'm not sure that it's either way. Rights are a relatively modern concept. Christianity and Judaism are chiefly concerned with Law.

[The Free Joy State]

You criticised me for guessing (correctly) that you were pro-life (despite you using many of the talking points, and the obvious flag "pro-abortionist" (so noticeable, it can be seen from space), and then guesstimate that I did not read your source.

Of course I did -- and much of the writer's tedious Twitter page (which was much less professional) -- though I saw the way it was going by the sight of the oversized image of the foetus.

The science does somewhat line up (although my source notes that there is no evidence the foetus is awake until 30 weeks, this suggests 23), but then there's a lot of sentimentalist noise about lava responding to stimuli and how that suggests consciousness (which is not necessarily sound, as trees respond to stimuli -- light -- yet are not conscious).

So, I did read it, I just found a lot of flags in there. And then the guy's Twitter page did nothing to recommend him.

I don't remember criticizing you for guessing nor were you correct,

Luckily, I remember:

Since neither of you were apart of the original thread, you have no idea what point I am trying to make, so why the assumption that a) I am pro-life and b) am in favour of allowing FGM?

And, since you asked, or actually didn't but assumed. I am pro-life, but I am not for the outright ban of abortion.

just pointing out that you were making assumptions about things that I supported, without actually having information to support that. If I remember correctly, you presumed that I supported FGM and was anti-abortion. And since you so enjoy making assumptions, you just keep making them. Tbh, I hate the dichotomy of saying "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". Its like asking are you "Pro-2nd Amendment" or "Pro-gun control"? Umm, yes and yes. Hence my wording.

Incidentally, I never assumed you supported FGM. I don't know how you pulled that from this answer, and I find it ironic you use the deliberately demonising phrase "pro-abortionists", oh --> right here:

Unless you are trying to pull up a self-defence argument, I really fail to see where you are headed with this. And yes, it doesn't denote immorality. However, the general argument that pro-abortionists claim, is that denying a woman a right to choose what to do with her own body is immoral, as she should have the right to do what she wants to.

And then complain about the dichotomy. No pro-choicer is pro-abortion/abortionist. We are pro- the woman's rights over her body.

Both sources are medical research, one is formatted as a academic source. Both say virtually the same thing. Yet, you dismiss, the same position, simply due to the researchers personal belief? That's... interesting.

Yours' cites a professor. Mine cites the JAMA Journal (a respected publication) and an OB/GYN. They're equivalent, and my source doesn't come with all the additional weight.

Actually, on universal law, the UN was writing an amendment clarifying that human rights do not extend to a foetus. And there are few nations that completely outlaw abortion (six, if I recall), making abortion pretty widely recognised.

Right now, those laws -- in the countries that have them -- are facts (not subjective). They exist. If you want to change them -- should your country allow abortion -- you are looking to overturn the default, and you need a good reason to do so.

And if that good reason is that no-one should be able to say "I have the right to my own body" -- that really should apply to everyone and I'll be taking your kidney a week on Tuesday.

… Or would that be a problem?

If the idea that morality/human rights are only determined by what we determine at any given moment and are not based in anything, that whatever law the unbinding law that the UN has on it, is irrelevant. If, a nation determined that the human rights should be extended to a fetus, and it was, then the "right" to life, would outweigh any right to choose. Thus the right to choose would cease to exist. If a state deemed that violation of the unborn child's right to choose and to life overrode the woman's right to choose, then the right would cease to exist.

Again, it would really depend on wording. States with "foetal personhood" don't always ban abortion.

And would you favour me taking your kidney, if the state said no-one had any bodily sovereignty?

So, since the fact that laws can and will change and differ from nation to nation, means that laws are subjective. And considering that most nations have a court system in place to define laws, and that defining is based on the opinion of the court, then yeah, its still subjective. And since laws in nations differ on the protection of "rights" the idea of universal human rights is bogus, if they are supported or denied in half the world.

You really need to stop flinging around the word "subjective". You've abused it so badly, it should take out a restraining order.

The national laws are not subjective. A subjective law would be one open to personal application. That would mean every person would have their own personal interpretation of murder and someone could decide that it's subjectively not murder to go out and kill people who pick their noses and they subjectively feel it's rude.

The laws are objective -- because, in each nation, they apply to every single person. That's the proper use of the word.

That they are different in each nation is not subjectivity, it's variability. If I went to a different country, I would still be treated objectively the same under their law. I would not be able to follow the laws of my country even if I subjectively feel they're better.

Something being open to change in the future does not mean the practise of the law is subjective now.

So again, if you are saying that rights are only something that we determine in the moment and have no basis, then the right to choose is a relatively recent right. One that could change, depending on how the shifting culture decides to change to.

Yes, the rights could change.

As I said, the rights we have now are the default -- and you've still said no good reason for changing that default.

If the law changed it would be back to backstreet abortions, coathangers, knitting needles, and women dying needlessly in alleys. The law can change. Abortion will never go away.

And again, a large number of nations have determined that the right to choose is voided after the first, sometimes second, trimester, unless the mother's life is in danger, etc, etc. That means, by then, the right to choose is no longer valid, and the right to life overrides it. Or, in the case of the American Convention of Human Rights, which was signed by at least 20 nations, deemed that life began at conception, thus making there right to life a multinational one.

You know, most of those countries allow abortions. Meaning the right is not absolute.

Just what I said earlier about foetal personhood -- call foetuses people: changes flat zero, either about the morality of abortion or -- in many places -- the legality.

[The New California Republic]

Not necessarily laws. But we determine that many Arabic states are "morally wrong" for their treatment of women, and many places in Africa for FGM. Why are those immoral or wrong, if their laws work for them?

Because they violate the inalienable rights given to all by God himself?

It has been repeatedly shown to you that the right to life which you consider "inalienable" in fact isn't, so you have resorted to sticking your head in the sand and just repeating the same shit over and over.

[Estanglia]

I don't care if it's a specific god or not. Claiming that rights comes from one is both subjective and incorrect.

It is objectively true that the only place which rights could come from is from that which created the universe. Rights are objective laws of the universe.

You've made four massive assumptions in two sentences:

1) That rights can only come from God.
2) That it is objectively true that they can only come from God.
3) That God was the one to create the universe.
4) That rights are objective laws of the universe.

All four are complete and utter bullshit.

ABORTION IS THE SICKEST KIND OF MURDER

It is, by definition, not murder if it's legal.

I'm sorry, It was just an expression, I'm just outraged. What kind of health policy is one in which two living beings enter a clinic and only one comes out alive while another is thrown into a bag of pathogenic waste.

Don't apologize. If the dictionary says that murder requires illegality, the dictionary is dead wrong. Whether or not something is murder is determined by the same who gave everyone the right to life, God Himself.

The dictionary is 100% right. Words don't suddenly change meaning because you want them to.

No warning or anything like that, just a note to keep it on topic since I have seen (and participated) in threadjacks that start like this.

This can't be argued without God. Without God, there is no morality, there are no rights, there is no point to this. Without God, there is no reason other than practical ones why one cannot kill, rape, and terrorize, and there is thus no debate, because even if I do get it across that abortion is murder, it doesn't matter.

Incorrect.

[The Free Joy State]

This can't be argued without God. Without God, there is no morality, there are no rights, there is no point to this. Without God, there is no reason other than practical ones why one cannot kill, rape, and terrorize, and there is thus no debate, because even if I do get it across that abortion is murder, it doesn't matter.

Incorrect.

Well, as Antityranicals wants to talk of God's love of all people, especially little children:

Exodus 12:29 (smiting all the firstborn males)

And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

2 Samuel 12:14-18 (God striking down David and Bathsheba's baby)

Psalm 137.9 (the destruction of Babylon)

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

I already talked about the Ordeal of the Bitter water earlier -- summarised, if a pregnant woman drank it, it would force an abortion had she been unfaithful (that's Numbers 5:11-31). God was full of handy ideas like that.

And there's still Exodus 21:22-25, which clarifies that the foetus is not of equal worth than the mother (if the mother miscarries, her attacker pays a fine; if she is injured, the attacker suffers lex talionis).

It seems anyone trying to prove an irrevocable right to live, using God, may need a back-up argument.

[The New California Republic]

Incorrect.

Well, as Antityranicals wants to talk of God's love of all people, especially little children:

Exodus 12:29 (smiting all the firstborn males)

And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

2 Samuel 12:14-18 (God striking down David and Bathsheba's baby)

Psalm 137.9 (the destruction of Babylon)

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

I already talked about the Ordeal of the Bitter water earlier -- summarised, if a pregnant woman drank it, it would force an abortion had she been unfaithful (that's Numbers 5:11-31). God was full of handy ideas like that.

And there's still Exodus 21:22-25, which clarifies that the foetus is not of equal worth than the mother (if the mother miscarries, her attacker pays a fine; if she is injured, the attacker suffers lex talionis).

It seems anyone trying to prove an irrevocable right to live, using God, may need a back-up argument.

He has tried arguing that there is an inalienable right to life from a legal perspective. That failed. He tried arguing that there is an inalienable right to life from a Judaeo-Christian perspective. That failed too. Therefore, his argument that fetuses have an inalienable right to life from both legal and Judaeo-Christian perspectives fails completely. I hope he has something else to give us, as right now he doesn't have a leg to stand on, as we have swiped them out from under him.

[NewLakotah]

I don't remember criticizing you for guessing nor were you correct,

Luckily, I remember:

Since neither of you were apart of the original thread, you have no idea what point I am trying to make, so why the assumption that a) I am pro-life and b) am in favour of allowing FGM?

And, since you asked, or actually didn't but assumed. I am pro-life, but I am not for the outright ban of abortion.

just pointing out that you were making assumptions about things that I supported, without actually having information to support that. If I remember correctly, you presumed that I supported FGM and was anti-abortion. And since you so enjoy making assumptions, you just keep making them. Tbh, I hate the dichotomy of saying "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". Its like asking are you "Pro-2nd Amendment" or "Pro-gun control"? Umm, yes and yes. Hence my wording.

Incidentally, I never assumed you supported FGM. I don't know how you pulled that from this answer, and I find it ironic you use the deliberately demonising phrase "pro-abortionists", oh --> right here:

Unless you are trying to pull up a self-defence argument, I really fail to see where you are headed with this. And yes, it doesn't denote immorality. However, the general argument that pro-abortionists claim, is that denying a woman a right to choose what to do with her own body is immoral, as she should have the right to do what she wants to.

And then complain about the dichotomy. No pro-choicer is pro-abortion/abortionist. We are pro- the woman's rights over her body.

Both sources are medical research, one is formatted as a academic source. Both say virtually the same thing. Yet, you dismiss, the same position, simply due to the researchers personal belief? That's... interesting.

Yours' cites a professor. Mine cites the JAMA Journal (a respected publication) and an OB/GYN. They're equivalent, and my source doesn't come with all the additional weight.

Except even wiki refers to it as the "Abortion Rights Movement" first. Thus, pro-abortion rights.

And acting like "pro-abortion" rights is somehow a negative term, is well, you're own issue, to be honest. So, I don't use the term in a demonizing way. That's, again, just your false assumption, just as you were wrong that I am anti-abortion... Especially as the idea that the pro-life movement, or anti-abortion movement, believes that it is not about the right to choose about their own body, but exerting influence over another body.

Oh and yeah, cause the BMJ is sooo unreliable. The NIH is where its located, too. Damn, National Institute of Health!

Actually, on universal law, the UN was writing an amendment clarifying that human rights do not extend to a foetus. And there are few nations that completely outlaw abortion (six, if I recall), making abortion pretty widely recognised.

Right now, those laws -- in the countries that have them -- are facts (not subjective). They exist. If you want to change them -- should your country allow abortion -- you are looking to overturn the default, and you need a good reason to do so.

And if that good reason is that no-one should be able to say "I have the right to my own body" -- that really should apply to everyone and I'll be taking your kidney a week on Tuesday.

… Or would that be a problem?

The whole kidney argument is arguably the worst pro-choice argument out there, which is why I didn't engage in the first place. Especially when we waive the right to choose in most countries after the first trimester. So, after a set period of time, you can have my kidney?
If the idea that morality/human rights are only determined by what we determine at any given moment and are not based in anything, that whatever law the unbinding law that the UN has on it, is irrelevant. If, a nation determined that the human rights should be extended to a fetus, and it was, then the "right" to life, would outweigh any right to choose. Thus the right to choose would cease to exist. If a state deemed that violation of the unborn child's right to choose and to life overrode the woman's right to choose, then the right would cease to exist.
Again, it would really depend on wording. States with "foetal personhood" don't always ban abortion.

And would you favour me taking your kidney, if the state said no-one had any bodily sovereignty?

The whole kidney argument is arguably the worst pro-choice argument out there, which is why I didn't engage in the first place. Especially when we waive the right to choose in most countries after the first trimester. So, after a set period of time, you can have my kidney?

So, since the fact that laws can and will change and differ from nation to nation, means that laws are subjective. And considering that most nations have a court system in place to define laws, and that defining is based on the opinion of the court, then yeah, its still subjective. And since laws in nations differ on the protection of "rights" the idea of universal human rights is bogus, if they are supported or denied in half the world.
You really need to stop flinging around the word "subjective". You've abused it so badly, it should take out a restraining order.

The national laws are not subjective. A subjective law would be one open to personal application. That would mean every person would have their own personal interpretation of murder and someone could decide that it's subjectively not murder to go out and kill people who pick their noses and they subjectively feel it's rude.

The laws are objective -- because, in each nation, they apply to every single person. That's the proper use of the word.

That they are different in each nation is not subjectivity, it's variability. If I went to a different country, I would still be treated objectively the same under their law. I would not be able to follow the laws of my country even if I subjectively feel they're better.

Something being open to change in the future does not mean the practise of the law is subjective now.

You're still misunderstanding the whole argument. Rights/morality, in the original argument that was made, was that rights and morality were subjective and they form our basis in laws, and are protected by our laws. However, if they are subjective and laws are subject to change, then laws and rights are subjective in nature. Yes, they apply objectively, only when they apply in those circumstances, but the nature of law is subjective.

So again, if you are saying that rights are only something that we determine in the moment and have no basis, then the right to choose is a relatively recent right. One that could change, depending on how the shifting culture decides to change to.
Yes, the rights could change.

As I said, the rights we have now are the default -- and you've still said no good reason for changing that default.

If the law changed it would be back to backstreet abortions, coathangers, knitting needles, and women dying needlessly in alleys. The law can change. Abortion will never go away.

Again, I have never stated I wanted to change the law lol. Depending on what you want the law to be and where you live, and what laws you have in place. Hence the reasons I don't want the law to change necessarily. However, the fact remains that if the law changes, ideals change, then the idea of the fact that abortion is a "right" goes away, and if we change our perspective, then abortion would be consider the immoral act, rather than the idea that denying a woman a right to choose is the immoral act. And to say abortion will never go away, well, that's just a opinion.

And again, a large number of nations have determined that the right to choose is voided after the first, sometimes second, trimester, unless the mother's life is in danger, etc, etc. That means, by then, the right to choose is no longer valid, and the right to life overrides it. Or, in the case of the American Convention of Human Rights, which was signed by at least 20 nations, deemed that life began at conception, thus making there right to life a multinational one.

You know, most of those countries allow abortions. Meaning the right is not absolute.

Just what I said earlier about foetal personhood -- call foetuses people: changes flat zero, either about the morality of abortion or -- in many places -- the legality.

Actually, those nations have some of the heaviest restrictions, usually only allowing in cases of mother's life or extreme cases involving the baby. Some deny it even in those cases.

And thats.... my whole point.... And some the don't have fetal personhood deny abortions in most cases, except in danger to mother's life, etc, etc.

And it does change. The 8th Amendment of Ireland, for example. Even in the determination in Roe v. Wade. Both before stood behind the idea of personhood for the fetus, and then both were denied afterwards, due to the repeal or new understanding of the law.

[Thepeopl]

-snip-
Again, I have never stated I wanted to change the law lol. Depending on what you want the law to be and where you live, and what laws you have in place. Hence the reasons I don't want the law to change necessarily. However, the fact remains that if the law changes, ideals change, then the idea of the fact that abortion is a "right" goes away, and if we change our perspective, then abortion would be consider the immoral act, rather than the idea that denying a woman a right to choose is the immoral act. And to say abortion will never go away, well, that's just a opinion.
-snip-

If the law changes, the ideals do not change.

Before legalisation of abortion, people condemned cheating, rape and premarital sex.

After legalisation, people condemned cheating, rape and premarital sex.

Only with the growing numbers of atheists in the Netherlands, did premarital sex become normalised, because a growing number of people didn't want to marry, but they did want to have sex. The sexual revolution in the sixties was also a contributing factor.
Watch dutch movies like Turks fruit or amsterdammed
Dutch view sex as natural and relaxing, not dirty or sinful.

The nakedness is just that, naked, genitalia are fully shown.

Most pregnancies are prevented by contraception, of the slip ups, most are "aborted" by morning after pill.( this pill prevents fertilisation of the egg and makes the womb lining hostile for the egg.)

As you can read in the article (Dutch, but you can machine translate it) the Netherlands has the lowest number of abortions in the world. Despite us having the most liberal laws regarding abortion.

Very important for the woman who is faced with this dilemma, is making an informed decision. Both options are discussed and available. If the woman keeps the fetus, she will be helped to find financial support and emotional support. Same goes for if she doesn't keep the fetus.

Most abortions are done by married women with prior children. (Article NHS, no link included, but English, so you can find it)

https://www.rutgers.nl/nieuws-opinie/ni ... er-abortus

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Dutch view sex as natural and relaxing, not dirty or sinful.

This was probably useful when the early Christians wanted to contrast themselves with the more idgaf nature of Hellenistic religion... and when the Jews wanted to prevent dilution of their populace to foreign states... but we live in 2019 CE now.

[Kowani]

Kind of the other way around.

I'm not sure that it's either way. Rights are a relatively modern concept. Christianity and Judaism are chiefly concerned with Law.

Fair point.

[Thepeopl]

I don't think laws create cohesion amongst citizens. Culture, shared history and borders do.

Those are ways of creating cohesion definitely, but laws also create cohesion to ensure a society functions properly, especially in multi-ethnic or multicultural states.

Laws which protect the males but not the females, are not creating cohesion. Laws who infringe upon the rights of prisoners, minorities or other groups do not create cohesion.

you stated laws against free speech doesn't protect you

But it protects targeted groups from hate mongering. It protects the right to be treaded fairly and respectfully.

you wrote: right to carry arms, not self defence. I can't be bothered to re edit it back

The American law states:

An individual right to own a gun for personal use was affirmed in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the federal District of Columbia.[7] In the Heller decision, the court's majority opinion said that the Second Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

the excerpt about abortion before legalisation,
and you assessment that it wasn't relevant for your argument

Actually no, this is very relevant. Even though the law forbade abortion. The practice was very much tolerated. So the right to not be a social pariah, the right not to birth more children when you are already struggling to care for your firstborns did very much exist.

Changing the wording doesn't negate anything that I was saying. At all. It's a nice attempt, but again you're not addressing what I was saying at all. As I continued later. If we determined that us, the government or mother, had no "right" to determine whether a fetus should be killed or not, then the right to choose would not exist and we would have determined the right to life outweighs the right to choice.

eugenics, you stated you were talking about the eugenics practices after 1970s. While I pointed out that eugenics where in uses when abortion was illegal.

Do you really think that if the practice hadn't been active before legalisation, after legalisation government would start with eugenics? After world war II?
The German government was inspired by the American Eugenics movement.

So, my stance on abortion is that it should be legal. Till viability of the fetus, which in my book means, if the fetus is born, it can breathe on its own, doesn't need any medication for lung development nor extra oxygen to survive.
But abortion really should be the last resort.
Good sex education and easily available contraception should be there. This includes morning after pill and abortion pill. When one receives the map or AP, they should get extensive information about said pills and if they had multiple map/ AP for different occasions, they should be send to a doctor to see what should be changed in their contraception.
When the woman faces the dilemma of unwanted pregnancy, there should be objective non judgemental information about all options, and all risks adherent to said options.

[Strahcoin]

No it isn't. We have had contraceptives for thousands of years, but they are not 100% effective. It isn't as black and white as having sex = pregnant as you seem to think.

Abortion has also existed for thousands of years.

It's a natural consequence. The same as if you don't study for an important exam, you may fail and have to retake the course.

And yet, if you fail an exam, you may retake it. In this way, you may rectify an undesirable situation.

Similarly, if a woman's contraception fails, she may become pregnant. Then she may choose an abortion and similarly rectify (what she found) an undesirable situation.

1. So has slavery. Doesn't make it right, however.
2. Not all the time. Also, retaking an exam doesn't involve murder. And nobody's saying that the woman couldn't abstain from sex.

Well, if a fetus is alive and a member of the Homo sapiens species, then he/she is a human being. It is logically impossible for a living member of the Homo sapiens species to not be a human being.

Wrong. We have repeatedly told you why this is wrong. If you want to keep burying your head in the sand despite being told why it is wrong then that is entirely on you.

Do it if and only if the mother's life is in immediate danger. Otherwise, carry it to full term.

Doesn't answer what I said.

It's a natural consequence. The same as if you don't study for an important exam, you may fail and have to retake the course.

No it isn't. We have had contraceptives for thousands of years, but they are not 100% effective. It isn't as black and white as having sex = pregnant as you seem to think.

We're all talking about abortion (which is more or less the same thing).

No. You keep saying that a child is being killed in the case of abortion. Words mean things. You keep getting confused regarding definitions, which leads you towards thinking that two different concepts are actually the same, and that subsequently leads to your arguments becoming incoherent.

1. No, you haven't. You have merely denied it.
2. For reference, you asked:

So we should induce early pregnancy? Well at the very least it won't be an option until 24 weeks, after the point at which abortion is restricted anyway, as that's the point that the fetus has a 50% chance of surviving. And even then there is a huge rise in the risk of serious health complications for the premature baby that results. So this suggestion doesn't really solve anything.

I believe I have answered it clearly.
3. Abstinence is 100% effective.
4. Fine. A human being is being killed - deliberately and immorally - in the case of abortion.

Splitting this post up so it's smaller;

3. It's a natural consequence. The same as if you don't study for an important exam, you may fail and have to retake the course.

And there are ways to rectify natural consequences.

A natural consequence of drinking heavily is liver failure.
We don't say to heavy drinkers, "Right, your liver is screwed. Have a nice day!" without doing anything to help.

Cancer is also a natural consequence of certain cells mutating and dividing out of control.
Yet we treat cancer.

3. I find the pro-choice stance more inconsistent. While we almost universally condemn killing an innocent infant out of the womb, some feel that it is okay to kill him/her before he/she exits the womb?

Because, before the fetus is born, it is infringing upon the rights of the mother. A situation that, if the mother chooses to rectify immediately, unfortunately, ends in the fetuses death.

Notice how none of us are happy that abortion occurs.

Also, the mother was once a fetus, and she has "infringed upon her mother's body", so... what right does she have to kill those who do to her as she has done to her mother?

The fact that she is now a person, though when she was in her mother's body she wasn't?

Am I not allowed to tell people 'don't smoke' if I smoked and it harmed me?
Am I not allowed to tell people 'drive carefully' if I got into a car accident?

4. No. It is avoiding responsibility, just like how robbing a bank to pay off debts is avoiding responsibility.

Robbing a bank to pay off your debts is taking responsibility for your debts, because you are taking actions to solve them.
The fact that these actions are immoral doesn't change that.

1. I have yet to hear of a treatment for liver failure or cancer that involves murder.
2. Is a toddler who drinks from his/her mother's breasts and accidentally hurts her "infringing upon the rights of the mother"? Is a five-year-old who always shouts "Mommy! Mommy!" when her mother is doing something very important "infringing upon the rights of the mother"? Maybe so, but practically everyone knows and acknowledges that the mother has no right to kill her child.
3. How is a fetus not a person? It is a Homo sapien, it has human DNA (generally 46 chromosomes) different from that of his/her parents, he/she is alive, and it is not a part of his/her mother.
For context, here is a 20 month fetus: [img=https://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_tools/fetal_development_slideshow/nilsson_rm_photo_of_20_week_fetus.jpg]
You are allowed to say the things listed. However, those statements are false comparisons to what I'm implying, and I don't see how you could connect them to my statement. So please explain.
4. Regardless, robbery is still illegal. So is slavery - even though it would help grow enough food to survive.

[list=][/list]
One wonders if Strahcoin, upon realising it is raining and he has neglected to bring an umbrella, simply stands in the rain, seeing as he sees avoiding undesirable natural consequences after they start happening to be avoiding responsibility.

Now, Jebslund, there are many ways to "take responsibility" for undesirable natural consequences:

• Not putting a sticking plaster on a cut knee (If you'd have been careful, you wouldn't have fallen).
• Not putting a broken ankle in plaster (If you'd been careful, you wouldn't have slipped on that wet floor)
• Not taking paracetamol for your headache (If you'd been careful, you'd have realised there was strobe lighting in that movie)
• Collapsing with hypoglycaemia, rather than go to a café (If you'd been careful, you'd have taken a sandwich)
• Refusing a life-saving blood transfusion (If you'd been careful, you wouldn't have gotten pregnant leading to childbirth leading to severe bleeding)

Consistency, people!

I do hope Strahcoin is this consistent -- believing literally all people, male and female -- should experience the suffering (up to death and permanent disability -- both of which are significant risks in pregnancy -- if necessary) of the full and unassuaged natural consequences of one ill-conceived moment. If it's only women meant to suffer up until death and permanent disablement, it seems kind of inconsistent.

It's a good thing, then, that getting my umbrella/putting a plaster (in the United States, we call them bandages/casts) on a damaged body part/taking paracetamol/going to a cafe/taking a life-saving blood transfusion doesn't involve murdering another. There's a difference between taking a life-saving blood transfusion (which is okay) and forcefully injuring another and collecting their blood (which is not okay) - even if there are no matching donors.

Ah. Wordplay. One aborts the pregnancy, not the fertilised egg.

Why would it not count as killing for pro-lifers who tend to argue that life starts at fertilisation ?

Is using a condom abortion? I mean, the sperm are going to die in there. How about male masturbation? Unless he keeps those sperm cells alive, they cannot fertilize and egg. Is that technically abortion?

There is a difference between sperm and human beings.

I am of the opinion that others - especially men - should not be allowed to dictate what women can and can't do with their bodies. If a woman feels that abortion is the best/only option available to her, then she should have the ability and right to do so without interference of religion, society or government. The question of abortion should be left up to the conscience of the person in question and the rest of the world should keep their nose out of it, it's not for them to decide. If people believe abortion is a sin because of their religion, great for you, keep it to yourself and don't force your convictions onto another. If you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion, great for you, keep it to yourself and don't force your convictions onto another. Seriously, people need to stop forcing their morals, beliefs, convictions, thoughts etc etc onto other people. There is no 'one truth', let everyone make up their own mind and find their own truth.

Unfortunately, the fetus is unable to speak. Therefore, the pro-life speak for them.

[The Free Joy State]

Abortion has also existed for thousands of years.


And yet, if you fail an exam, you may retake it. In this way, you may rectify an undesirable situation.

Similarly, if a woman's contraception fails, she may become pregnant. Then she may choose an abortion and similarly rectify (what she found) an undesirable situation.

1. So has slavery. Doesn't make it right, however.

You're right. Slavery is a disgusting evil. So why do you want to enslave the woman's body -- subject her body to the risks and effects of pregnancy?

2. Not all the time. Also, retaking an exam doesn't involve murder. And nobody's saying that the woman couldn't abstain from sex.

1. Abortion is not murder -- despite your repeated insistence.
2. Why is the onus on the woman? And should couples in long-term, dedicated relationships (who account for an increasing percentage of abortions) just never have sex -- miss out on a whole aspect of intimacy and improved bonding?

Now, Jebslund, there are many ways to "take responsibility" for undesirable natural consequences:

• Not putting a sticking plaster on a cut knee (If you'd have been careful, you wouldn't have fallen).
• Not putting a broken ankle in plaster (If you'd been careful, you wouldn't have slipped on that wet floor)
• Not taking paracetamol for your headache (If you'd been careful, you'd have realised there was strobe lighting in that movie)
• Collapsing with hypoglycaemia, rather than go to a café (If you'd been careful, you'd have taken a sandwich)
• Refusing a life-saving blood transfusion (If you'd been careful, you wouldn't have gotten pregnant leading to childbirth leading to severe bleeding)

Consistency, people!

I do hope Strahcoin is this consistent -- believing literally all people, male and female -- should experience the suffering (up to death and permanent disability -- both of which are significant risks in pregnancy -- if necessary) of the full and unassuaged natural consequences of one ill-conceived moment. If it's only women meant to suffer up until death and permanent disablement, it seems kind of inconsistent.

It's a good thing, then, that getting my umbrella/putting a plaster (in the United States, we call them bandages/casts) on a damaged body part/taking paracetamol/going to a cafe/taking a life-saving blood transfusion doesn't involve murdering another. There's a difference between taking a life-saving blood transfusion (which is okay) and forcefully injuring another and collecting their blood (which is not okay) - even if there are no matching donors.

Then how can you not oppose forced pregnancy, after all? To use your words:

forcefully injuring another and collecting their blood (which is not okay)

What do you think forced pregnancy is? It is a woman having her organs invaded by a foetus (possibly causing irreparable damage), her blood used against her will, her filtration system used against her will, her whole body being surrendered to another being -- a person, if you seriously want us to believe you.

So, either it's wrong for any being to be allowed to forcefully use another's organs, to use their blood to support another life -- even if there's no-one else who can do it (which would have to include the foetus), or else what you meant was "There's a difference between taking a life-saving blood transfusion (which is okay) and forcefully injuring a man and collecting his blood (which is not okay)".

How consistent are you?

[The New California Republic]

1. No, you haven't. You have merely denied it.

Wrong. Your claim has been repeatedly made by several others too in this and other abortion threads, and each time it has been annihilated.

Abstinence is 100% effective.

That answers fuck all, as shown by the places that have abstinence only sex ed having sky high unwanted pregnancy and STD rates in comparison to the average, as others have shown.

Fine. A human being is being killed - deliberately and immorally - in the case of abortion.

Wrong again. You keep getting your terms mixed up, and at this juncture there really is no excuse for it, given the number of times we have repeatedly told you.