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

[Telconi]

Telconi, since you chose to make it personal and are not asking in good faith, we're done.

You can find what I said through the rest of the thread, and all the others, through the search function.

Anyhow, good talk. You have a good one.

[Saiwania]

I got a very simplified and cliff notes version of Handmaid's Tale outlining the entire work and just as I thought- it is filled with more nonsense than anything profound or insightful. Also, the author I wouldn't consider as qualified to be an expert on issues of motherhood. Like I said, she can almost be considered a spinster if she just barely made it to having one child during her lifespan.

[The Free Joy State]

Okay, so -- I'm genuinely interested in this -- if pregnancy is a matter of the woman's bodily sovereignty, why the specific restrictions on bodily sovereignty in this case?

In no other bodily sovereignty aspect is this a debate. If Doctor B wanted to operate to replace a kidney with a nice shiny new one and Person A refused, Doctor B wouldn't be able to force them to accept the kidney anyway saying "This kidney is a special gift for you. You'll love it when you get it." Person A would just refuse the kidney and that would be that. Likewise, if Doctor B wanted to remove bone marrow to implant into Person C -- Person A would refuse and (though some people might judge them) that would be that.

The weighting of rights interactions are always in debate, and this comes up whenever a person's physical body is involved. People's bodily sovereignty is under constant restriction. This is why someone cannot pee in your Cheerios, why someone can't rape people, why someone can't just up and leave a prison they're being held in. The list goes on ad astra

To act like termination of pregnancy is the only place anyone wishes to restrict anyone's bodily sovereignty is absurd.

The prison example is actually a workable comparison.

But raping another person is an offence against their bodily sovereignty, not an expression of the rapist's bodily sovereignty. And pissing in someone's cereal isn't a bodily sovereignty thing so much as... disgusting.

But a moral society only justifies imprisoning those who have committed a wrong. What wrong has a pregnant woman committed that justifies impinging her bodily sovereignty?

Parents of born children can and do say they don't want them. Then they hand them over to the state to languish in foster care, or because they do not have the wherewithal to properly raise them, neglect and abuse are very real dangers.

Better never to live than to potentially be beaten to death by a stressed-out parent or other involved adult (live in boyfriend or girlfriend) forced to have them.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's better to not exist than to have a bad existence.

Even those born doomed to short, pain-filled existences? Even those that will be born without a brain and doomed to death?

Even those who will go to bed crying with pain for a lack of food, shivering beneath an old coat because they don't have a blanket and there's no money for heat? Who go to school malnourished, wearing sandals long outgrown in winter because there's no money for new shoes -- feet blue with cold and shivering? And mother pregnant again... because 'abortion is wrong'?

If so, we disagree. I favour quality of life over quantity.

Curiosity question, why do you oppose late term abortions. If the foundational principle of your support for abortion is a women's right to make her own decision on pregnancy, why does that right get suspended part way through pregnancy.

Because in late term abortions, there's a greater chance that the fetus has achieved personhood.

Personhood has nothing to do with it for me. The foetus has no personhood until birth.

Late term abortions are more risky for the mother. The foetus is also viable (actually viable). I personally feel they should only be done for profound foetal abnormality or to save the mother's life -- which, is mostly, the only time they are done anyway (certainly in the UK).

[United Muscovite Nations]

The weighting of rights interactions are always in debate, and this comes up whenever a person's physical body is involved. People's bodily sovereignty is under constant restriction. This is why someone cannot pee in your Cheerios, why someone can't rape people, why someone can't just up and leave a prison they're being held in. The list goes on ad astra

To act like termination of pregnancy is the only place anyone wishes to restrict anyone's bodily sovereignty is absurd.

The prison example is actually a valid comparison.

But raping another person is an offence against their bodily sovereignty, not an expression of the rapist's bodily sovereignty. And pissing in someone's cereal isn't a bodily sovereignty thing so much as... disgusting.

But a moral society only justifies imprisoning those who have committed a wrong. What wrong has a pregnant woman committed that justifies impinging her bodily sovereignty?

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's better to not exist than to have a bad existence.

Even those born doomed to short, pain-filled existences? Even those that will be born without a brain and doomed to death?

Even those who will go to bed crying with pain for a lack of food, shivering beneath an old coat because they don't have a blanket and there's no money for heat? Who go to school malnourished, wearing sandals long outgrown in winter because there's no money for new shoes -- feet blue with cold and shivering? And mother pregnant again... because 'abortion is wrong'?

If so, we disagree. I favour quality of live over quantity.

Yes, even then, for however bad one's life is, we can at least say that one lived. Even at our worst, there are few of us who would say that we want it taken away from us.

[The Free Joy State]

The prison example is actually a valid comparison.

But raping another person is an offence against their bodily sovereignty, not an expression of the rapist's bodily sovereignty. And pissing in someone's cereal isn't a bodily sovereignty thing so much as... disgusting.

But a moral society only justifies imprisoning those who have committed a wrong. What wrong has a pregnant woman committed that justifies impinging her bodily sovereignty?

Even those born doomed to short, pain-filled existences? Even those that will be born without a brain and doomed to death?

Even those who will go to bed crying with pain for a lack of food, shivering beneath an old coat because they don't have a blanket and there's no money for heat? Who go to school malnourished, wearing sandals long outgrown in winter because there's no money for new shoes -- feet blue with cold and shivering? And mother pregnant again... because 'abortion is wrong'?

If so, we disagree. I favour quality of live over quantity.

Yes, even then, for however bad one's life is, we can at least say that one lived. Even at our worst, there are few of us who would say that we want it taken away from us.

Of course, not everyone feels that way. Some people wish they'd been aborted. As this woman's story can testify.

[Katganistan]

The prison example is actually a valid comparison.

But raping another person is an offence against their bodily sovereignty, not an expression of the rapist's bodily sovereignty. And pissing in someone's cereal isn't a bodily sovereignty thing so much as... disgusting.

But a moral society only justifies imprisoning those who have committed a wrong. What wrong has a pregnant woman committed that justifies impinging her bodily sovereignty?

Even those born doomed to short, pain-filled existences? Even those that will be born without a brain and doomed to death?

Even those who will go to bed crying with pain for a lack of food, shivering beneath an old coat because they don't have a blanket and there's no money for heat? Who go to school malnourished, wearing sandals long outgrown in winter because there's no money for new shoes -- feet blue with cold and shivering? And mother pregnant again... because 'abortion is wrong'?

If so, we disagree. I favour quality of live over quantity.

Yes, even then, for however bad one's life is, we can at least say that one lived. Even at our worst, there are few of us who would say that we want it taken away from us.

Except the people who commit suicide, or ask for euthanasia.

[Luminesa]

I got a very simplified and cliff notes version of Handmaid's Tale outlining the entire work and just as I thought- it is filled with more nonsense than anything profound or insightful. Also, the author I wouldn't consider as qualified to be an expert on issues of motherhood. Like I said, she can almost be considered a spinster if she just barely made it to having one child during her lifespan.

> Reading the cliff notes version of a book.

Also uhhhhhhhh having kids late in life isn’t a crime, my man. There’s a higher risk of breast cancer having kids after 35, but still doesn’t make it a crime. Having kids is having kids.

[Cappuccina]

The basic premise of the book is that women are forced to bear children for an elite group in society. It's a shallow criticism of the pro-life position that is mostly propaganda, tbh, but the actual world that it takes place in is pretty dystopian and the idea that women should be forced to bear children is pretty disgusting.

Precisely.

No one is forcing anyone to get knocked up, that's done themselves.

[Luminesa]

Yes, even then, for however bad one's life is, we can at least say that one lived. Even at our worst, there are few of us who would say that we want it taken away from us.

Of course, not everyone feels that way. Some people wish they'd been aborted. As this woman's story can testify.

This headline made me really sad for its writer. I can’t imagine bearing that emotional magnitude of feeling like a burden for so long.

[Luminesa]

Yes, even then, for however bad one's life is, we can at least say that one lived. Even at our worst, there are few of us who would say that we want it taken away from us.

Except the people who commit suicide, or ask for euthanasia.

While the euthanasia part opens an entirely new debate, suicide prevention should always be a priority in our country. That should go without saying. People who commit suicide are not emotionally or mentally usually in a sound place, and they need to be helped from that place.

[The Free Joy State]

[/color]
Precisely.

No one is forcing anyone to get knocked up, that's done themselves.

Wait! We can reproduce parthogenetically now?

[Cappuccina]

No one is forcing anyone to get knocked up, that's done themselves.

Wait! We can reproduce parthogenetically now?

You know what I meant!

[Luminesa]

The weighting of rights interactions are always in debate, and this comes up whenever a person's physical body is involved. People's bodily sovereignty is under constant restriction. This is why someone cannot pee in your Cheerios, why someone can't rape people, why someone can't just up and leave a prison they're being held in. The list goes on ad astra

To act like termination of pregnancy is the only place anyone wishes to restrict anyone's bodily sovereignty is absurd.

The prison example is actually a workable comparison.

But raping another person is an offence against their bodily sovereignty, not an expression of the rapist's bodily sovereignty. And pissing in someone's cereal isn't a bodily sovereignty thing so much as... disgusting.

But a moral society only justifies imprisoning those who have committed a wrong. What wrong has a pregnant woman committed that justifies impinging her bodily sovereignty?

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's better to not exist than to have a bad existence.

Even those born doomed to short, pain-filled existences? Even those that will be born without a brain and doomed to death?

Even those who will go to bed crying with pain for a lack of food, shivering beneath an old coat because they don't have a blanket and there's no money for heat? Who go to school malnourished, wearing sandals long outgrown in winter because there's no money for new shoes -- feet blue with cold and shivering? And mother pregnant again... because 'abortion is wrong'?

If so, we disagree. I favour quality of life over quantity.

Because in late term abortions, there's a greater chance that the fetus has achieved personhood.

Personhood has nothing to do with it for me. The foetus has no personhood until birth.

Late term abortions are more risky for the mother. The foetus is also viable (actually viable). I personally feel they should only be done for profound foetal abnormality or to save the mother's life -- which, is mostly, the only time they are done anyway (certainly in the UK).

I mean as gross as the example is, if Tyrone Biggums has been on a Greyhound bus for 10 hours, gets off the bus, has to pee really bad, and does it in your cereal, he could claim his body could not hold anymore pee.

[Saiwania]

Of course, not everyone feels that way. Some people wish they'd been aborted. As this woman's story can testify.

She insists that it isn't a "I wish I'd never been born" howl of angst, but looking over the article for myself, that is exactly what it is from my perspective. I suspect that it is jealousy of the effectiveness of the anti-choice movement on Abortion in comparison to the pro-choice side.

[The Free Joy State]

Wait! We can reproduce parthogenetically now?

You know what I meant!

Couldn't resist.

The prison example is actually a workable comparison.

But raping another person is an offence against their bodily sovereignty, not an expression of the rapist's bodily sovereignty. And pissing in someone's cereal isn't a bodily sovereignty thing so much as... disgusting.

But a moral society only justifies imprisoning those who have committed a wrong. What wrong has a pregnant woman committed that justifies impinging her bodily sovereignty?

Even those born doomed to short, pain-filled existences? Even those that will be born without a brain and doomed to death?

Even those who will go to bed crying with pain for a lack of food, shivering beneath an old coat because they don't have a blanket and there's no money for heat? Who go to school malnourished, wearing sandals long outgrown in winter because there's no money for new shoes -- feet blue with cold and shivering? And mother pregnant again... because 'abortion is wrong'?

If so, we disagree. I favour quality of life over quantity.

Personhood has nothing to do with it for me. The foetus has no personhood until birth.

Late term abortions are more risky for the mother. The foetus is also viable (actually viable). I personally feel they should only be done for profound foetal abnormality or to save the mother's life -- which, is mostly, the only time they are done anyway (certainly in the UK).

I mean as gross as the example is, if Tyrone Biggums has been on a Greyhound bus for 10 hours, gets off the bus, has to pee really bad, and does it in your cereal, he could claim his body could not hold anymore pee.

OK, for precedent Tyrone Biggums would be violating your property -- your cereal. We don't let people piss against other people's property (buildings for example). Although that's hard to prosecute, if you saw Biggums urinating, there'd be solid evidence.

He could argue mitigation ("I had to go, your Honour. I was on a bus for ten hours and they were playing The Rain it Raineth Ev'ry Day for the whole trip") and that might be taken into account. But it's not bodily sovereignty; someone who's hungry isn't allowed to steal (although that they were hungry would be taken into account).

Bodily sovereignty covers fundamental rights. Not sensations.

[Luminesa]

Of course, not everyone feels that way. Some people wish they'd been aborted. As this woman's story can testify.

She insists that it isn't a "I wish I'd never been born" howl of angst, but looking over the article for myself, that is exactly what it is from my perspective. I suspect that it is jealousy of the effectiveness of the anti-choice movement on Abortion in comparison to the pro-choice side.

Here is why it is so effective: people freak out when you tell an opposing story. I make even my most ardent pro-choice friends and colleagues very uncomfortable when I explain why my mother should have aborted me. Somehow they confuse the well-considered and rational: "The best choice for both my mother and me would have been abortion" with the infamous expression of depression and angst: "I wish I had never been born."

I mean, most people want to live to some capacity, even if it is a desire blurred by a lot of pain and agony. The fact that most of her pro-choice friends were uncomfortable with this has nothing to do with ‘jealousy’, and neither, I think, do her opinions. I think this is anger and sadness that she has ingrained in her head toward the world. Most pro-choice people, at heart, want to live, and I think they want to be able to have families and to live normal lives as well. We’re all people, after all. What makes this so appalling is it sounds almost suicidal. It’s a very visceral misery at other peoples’ joy that they find in living. It goes beyond the simple debate and it becomes a matter of how much pain does she have inside. I wonder what her mom would think seeing this article.

[Luminesa]

You know what I meant!

Couldn't resist.

I mean as gross as the example is, if Tyrone Biggums has been on a Greyhound bus for 10 hours, gets off the bus, has to pee really bad, and does it in your cereal, he could claim his body could not hold anymore pee.

OK, for precedent Tyrone Biggums would be violating your property -- your cereal. We don't let people piss against other people's property (buildings for example). Although that's hard to prosecute, if you saw Biggums urinating, there'd be solid evidence.

He could argue mitigation ("I had to go, your Honour. I was on a bus for ten hours and they were playing The Rain it Raineth Ev'ry Day for the whole trip") and that might be taken into account. But it's not bodily sovereignty; someone who's hungry isn't allowed to steal (although that they were hungry would be taken into account).

Bodily sovereignty covers fundamental rights. Not sensations.

Just check your wallet for stolen money, and find Martinez down the block. Bang! You got the whole story.

[The Free Joy State]

Couldn't resist.


OK, for precedent Tyrone Biggums would be violating your property -- your cereal. We don't let people piss against other people's property (buildings for example). Although that's hard to prosecute, if you saw Biggums urinating, there'd be solid evidence.

He could argue mitigation ("I had to go, your Honour. I was on a bus for ten hours and they were playing The Rain it Raineth Ev'ry Day for the whole trip") and that might be taken into account. But it's not bodily sovereignty; someone who's hungry isn't allowed to steal (although that they were hungry would be taken into account).

Bodily sovereignty covers fundamental rights. Not sensations.

Just check your wallet for stolen money, and find Martinez down the block. Bang! You got the whole story.

And the relevance of this is...?

[Luminesa]

Just check your wallet for stolen money, and find Martinez down the block. Bang! You got the whole story.

And the relevance of this is...?

Mostly I’ve binged Dave Chappelle the last, like, month, and it’s become unhealthy.

[Ayytaly]

The weighting of rights interactions are always in debate, and this comes up whenever a person's physical body is involved. People's bodily sovereignty is under constant restriction. This is why someone cannot pee in your Cheerios, why someone can't rape people, why someone can't just up and leave a prison they're being held in. The list goes on ad astra

To act like termination of pregnancy is the only place anyone wishes to restrict anyone's bodily sovereignty is absurd.

The prison example is actually a workable comparison.

But raping another person is an offence against their bodily sovereignty, not an expression of the rapist's bodily sovereignty. And pissing in someone's cereal isn't a bodily sovereignty thing so much as... disgusting.

But a moral society only justifies imprisoning those who have committed a wrong. What wrong has a pregnant woman committed that justifies impinging her bodily sovereignty?

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's better to not exist than to have a bad existence.

Even those born doomed to short, pain-filled existences? Even those that will be born without a brain and doomed to death?

Even those who will go to bed crying with pain for a lack of food, shivering beneath an old coat because they don't have a blanket and there's no money for heat? Who go to school malnourished, wearing sandals long outgrown in winter because there's no money for new shoes -- feet blue with cold and shivering? And mother pregnant again... because 'abortion is wrong'?

If so, we disagree. I favour quality of life over quantity.

Because in late term abortions, there's a greater chance that the fetus has achieved personhood.

Personhood has nothing to do with it for me. The foetus has no personhood until birth.

Late term abortions are more risky for the mother. The foetus is also viable (actually viable). I personally feel they should only be done for profound foetal abnormality or to save the mother's life -- which, is mostly, the only time they are done anyway (certainly in the UK).

That's by scientific opinion. Legally it's not recognized as subject until the birth certificate is signed.

[The Free Joy State]

The prison example is actually a workable comparison.

But raping another person is an offence against their bodily sovereignty, not an expression of the rapist's bodily sovereignty. And pissing in someone's cereal isn't a bodily sovereignty thing so much as... disgusting.

But a moral society only justifies imprisoning those who have committed a wrong. What wrong has a pregnant woman committed that justifies impinging her bodily sovereignty?

Even those born doomed to short, pain-filled existences? Even those that will be born without a brain and doomed to death?

Even those who will go to bed crying with pain for a lack of food, shivering beneath an old coat because they don't have a blanket and there's no money for heat? Who go to school malnourished, wearing sandals long outgrown in winter because there's no money for new shoes -- feet blue with cold and shivering? And mother pregnant again... because 'abortion is wrong'?

If so, we disagree. I favour quality of life over quantity.

Personhood has nothing to do with it for me. The foetus has no personhood until birth.

Late term abortions are more risky for the mother. The foetus is also viable (actually viable). I personally feel they should only be done for profound foetal abnormality or to save the mother's life -- which, is mostly, the only time they are done anyway (certainly in the UK).

That's by scientific opinion. Legally it's not recognized as subject until the birth certificate is signed.

It is not a citizen, but it is legally a person as soon as it is born alive.

But it's nice to see -- what appears to be -- a concession that, scientifically and legally, a foetus does not have personhood.

[Ayytaly]

That's by scientific opinion. Legally it's not recognized as subject until the birth certificate is signed.

It is not a citizen, but it is legally a person as soon as it is born alive.

But it's nice to see -- what appears to be -- a concession that, scientifically and legally, a foetus does not have personhood.

Personhood is too arbitrary. If a fully-grown stateless bum is murdered in terra nullius, does it make a sound?

[The Free Joy State]

It is not a citizen, but it is legally a person as soon as it is born alive.

But it's nice to see -- what appears to be -- a concession that, scientifically and legally, a foetus does not have personhood.

Personhood is too arbitrary. If a fully-grown stateless bum is murdered in terra nullius, does it make a sound?

The full-grown itinerant was a person, and has been since they emerged from the womb.

It's not arbitrary at all.

Not born yet -- not a person.
Born -- Congratulations! You're a person
In a coma -- Sorry about that; but you're still a person
Asleep -- Nighty-night; and still a person
Homeless -- Feel really bad for them; and still a person
Dead -- They are much-missed and their memory shall be treasured. Sadly, they are no longer a person

A person is a living human of the species homo sapiens who has emerged living from the womb and is not yet dead.

[Ayytaly]

Personhood is too arbitrary. If a fully-grown stateless bum is murdered in terra nullius, does it make a sound?

The full-grown itinerant was a person, and has been since they emerged from the womb.

It's not arbitrary at all.

Not born yet -- not a person.
Born -- Congratulations! You're a person
In a coma -- Sorry about that; but you're still a person
Asleep -- Nighty-night; and still a person
Homeless -- Feel really bad for them; and still a person
Dead -- They are much-missed and their memory shall be treasured. Sadly, they are no longer a person

A person is a living human of the species homo sapiens who has emerged living from the womb and is not yet dead.

The unborn can't be "murdered", yet the dead can somehow vote.

[Neutraligon]

The full-grown itinerant was a person, and has been since they emerged from the womb.

It's not arbitrary at all.

Not born yet -- not a person.
Born -- Congratulations! You're a person
In a coma -- Sorry about that; but you're still a person
Asleep -- Nighty-night; and still a person
Homeless -- Feel really bad for them; and still a person
Dead -- They are much-missed and their memory shall be treasured. Sadly, they are no longer a person

A person is a living human of the species homo sapiens who has emerged living from the womb and is not yet dead.

The unborn can't be "murdered", yet the dead can somehow vote.

What?