Abortion Law Reform Passes in New Zealand

[Godular]

And republican folk who have little issue with reducing restrictions on what it takes to employ lethal force on others in self-defense go utterly bugshit over a woman exercising rights with a similar basis against a fetus. I acknowledge that there is a degree of cognitive dissonance on both sides of the aisle.

Yea because it is self-defense.

A basis that also applies to an unwanted pregnancy, if we're using consistent logic.

[The American Free States]

They still willingly drank.

You didn't get the joke. And no, we don't willingly drink in this case.

If you mean they are unwillingly breaking abstinence, then fine, abortion is acceptable.

[Godular]

You didn't get the joke. And no, we don't willingly drink in this case.

If you mean they are unwillingly breaking abstinence, then fine, abortion is acceptable.

No, NCR was calling you out for implying pregnancy as a punishment.

[Vassenor]

Everybody drink again.

They still willingly drank.

So therefore it's OK to rape drunk girls because they willingly drank and therefore willingly consented to what happened next.

-vomits-

[The American Free States]

Yea because it is self-defense.

A basis that also applies to an unwanted pregnancy, if we're using consistent logic.

How is it self-defense if they willingly broke abstinence, essentially forcing the risk onto themselves.

[Godular]

They still willingly drank.

So therefore it's OK to rape drunk girls because they willingly drank and therefore willingly consented to what happened next.

-vomits-

Surgeon General's Warning: Consumption of this product can cause pregnancy!

[The American Free States]

They still willingly drank.

So therefore it's OK to rape drunk girls because they willingly drank and therefore willingly consented to what happened next.

-vomits-

No, I’m saying an abortion because of rape is acceptable.

[Godular]

A basis that also applies to an unwanted pregnancy, if we're using consistent logic.

How is it self-defense if they willingly broke abstinence, essentially forcing the risk onto themselves.

The circumstances leading to the conflict are not relevant. All that matters is that a harm is presented, and addressed. It need not even matter that the assailant is not in full control of their faculties.

[The American Free States]

If you mean they are unwillingly breaking abstinence, then fine, abortion is acceptable.

No, NCR was calling you out for implying pregnancy as a punishment.

It should be, because they willingly decided to break abstinence unprotected. That was their choice, and they should live with it or put the child up for adoption.

[Godular]

No, NCR was calling you out for implying pregnancy as a punishment.

It should be, because they willingly decided to break abstinence unprotected. That was their choice, and they should live with it or put the child up for adoption.

Or get an abortion, if they do not wish to remain pregnant. The circumstances leading up to the conflict are not particularly relevant, as previously stated.

[The American Free States]

How is it self-defense if they willingly broke abstinence, essentially forcing the risk onto themselves.

The circumstances leading to the conflict are not relevant. All that matters is that a harm is presented, and addressed. It need not even matter that the assailant is not in full control of their faculties.

In what scenario, because I’ve said that abortion is ok if the mother is threatened, it’s not ok if the mother just doesn’t want to care for the child.

[Godular]

The circumstances leading to the conflict are not relevant. All that matters is that a harm is presented, and addressed. It need not even matter that the assailant is not in full control of their faculties.

In what scenario, because I’ve said that abortion is ok if the mother is threatened, it’s not ok if the mother just doesn’t want to care for the child.

In all scenarios. The instance that pregnancy is not wanted, a harm is presented. The instance a harm is presented, self-defense is justified. Minimum necessary force to rectify the problem with immediacy and effect is inherently lethal to the fetus. This is sad, but not cause for restriction.

[The American Free States]

It should be, because they willingly decided to break abstinence unprotected. That was their choice, and they should live with it or put the child up for adoption.

Or get an abortion, if they do not wish to remain pregnant. The circumstances leading up to the conflict are not particularly relevant, as previously stated.

They willingly decided to break abstinence unprotected, it is their fault resulting out of their choice.

[The American Free States]

In what scenario, because I’ve said that abortion is ok if the mother is threatened, it’s not ok if the mother just doesn’t want to care for the child.

In all scenarios. The instance that pregnancy is not wanted, a harm is presented. The instance a harm is presented, self-defense is justified. Minimum necessary force to rectify the problem with immediacy and effect is inherently lethal to the fetus. This is sad, but not cause for restriction.

How is it harmful simply because they do not want a child?

[Godular]

In all scenarios. The instance that pregnancy is not wanted, a harm is presented. The instance a harm is presented, self-defense is justified. Minimum necessary force to rectify the problem with immediacy and effect is inherently lethal to the fetus. This is sad, but not cause for restriction.

How is it harmful simply because they do not want a child?

The fetus is residing within and using the woman's body without her consent. Such is a very fundamental harm, whether there is malice present or not.

[Godular]

Or get an abortion, if they do not wish to remain pregnant. The circumstances leading up to the conflict are not particularly relevant, as previously stated.

They willingly decided to break abstinence unprotected, it is their fault resulting out of their choice.

And getting an abortion is taking responsibility for that action. Such a thing is neither pleasant nor cheap.

[The American Free States]

They willingly decided to break abstinence unprotected, it is their fault resulting out of their choice.

And getting an abortion is taking responsibility for that action. Such a thing is neither pleasant nor cheap.

What is wrong with adoption?

[Crockerland]

Seems sort of odd to go by the states, shouldn't you go by the people? Democrats, the pro-choice party, are more favorable to anti-Nuclear troglodytery and more likely to deny the scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

And republican folk who have little issue with reducing restrictions on what it takes to employ lethal force on others in self-defense go utterly bugshit over a woman exercising rights with a similar basis against a fetus. I acknowledge that there is a degree of cognitive dissonance on both sides of the aisle.

Radical centrist moment.

In our country, you can go to prison for defending yourself against rapes, homophobic hate crimes, rape again, transphobic hate crimes, etc. - fighting against this anti-human system that punishes people for surviving physical violence is an example of modern-day heroism.

Defending yourself from a rape or a hate crime, however, is not remotely comparable to killing an unarmed, defenseless child for convenience. It could be self-defense in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or something like that, but the vast majority of abortions are convenience abortions.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And getting an abortion is taking responsibility for that action. Such a thing is neither pleasant nor cheap.

What is wrong with adoption?

Already too many children in foster care. At best, they'd be living in an orphanage instead of with a loving family.

[The American Free States]

What is wrong with adoption?

Already too many children in foster care. At best, they'd be living in an orphanage instead of with a loving family.

Well we can’t just terminate them.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

West coast and new England. They're the ones who, as far as the USA goes, are less prone to climate change denial.

[...]

Or denial of evolution.

Seems sort of odd to go by the states, shouldn't you go by the people? Democrats, the pro-choice party, are more favorable to anti-Nuclear troglodytery and more likely to deny the scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

The nuclear industry has a history of screwups in supposedly safe power plants. Chernobyl could be dismissed as a product of a dictatorship, but Fukushima was touted as a good power plant by a first world country, and we all saw how that worked out. When the most supposedly high-tech country on the face of the Earth can't handle this technology, it establishes a reasonable doubt about humanity's ability to on the whole.

GMOs are what happens when the food industry has for years been evasive about everything from vague phrases like "natural and artificial ingredients" to the nature of factory farming. Trust has not been established. For it to be earned back, the food industry has to be more transparent. Starting with GMOs.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Already too many children in foster care. At best, they'd be living in an orphanage instead of with a loving family.

Well we can’t just terminate them.

Sure as hell can, if they are for all intents and purposes logically equivalent to a pre-fertilization egg cell.

[Theokratiss]

What is wrong with adoption?

Already too many children in foster care. At best, they'd be living in an orphanage instead of with a loving family.

Which is better than getting dismembered.

[Godular]

And republican folk who have little issue with reducing restrictions on what it takes to employ lethal force on others in self-defense go utterly bugshit over a woman exercising rights with a similar basis against a fetus. I acknowledge that there is a degree of cognitive dissonance on both sides of the aisle.

Defending yourself from a rape or a hate crime, however, is not remotely comparable to killing an unarmed, defenseless child for convenience.

It is not your business to determine the validity of a person's reasons for seeking out abortion services. If she does not wish to be pregnant, sufficient justification is present. A harm is presented.

(I do agree however that those cases you cited are some rather impressive examples of judicial douchebaggery)

[Godular]

And getting an abortion is taking responsibility for that action. Such a thing is neither pleasant nor cheap.

What is wrong with adoption?

It does not resolve an unwanted pregnancy.