Abortion Law Reform Passes in New Zealand

[Celritannia]

Until they leave the woman's womb, they don't have any rights.

They are a living human, they have human rights.

I don;t think you understand what I am saying. A human has to be born in order to gain human rights.

[Godular]

Which a pregnancy in general is, inherently.

That's... really not true.

Yes actually it is. The sixth leading cause of death for women of childbearing age, per the CDC.

[The New California Republic]

A fetus is not a person. We can keep doing this all day man, or you can just accept it, up to you.

I’m not accepting it, they are humans.

You are clearly not listening to me. A. Fetus. Is. Not. A. Person.

[Celritannia]

A born child is an independent living creature.

An unborn child is a dependent living creature.

Exactly, which does not make it a human in its own right.

[Crockerland]

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, you provided no statistical basis for your claim, in reality, there are 36 waiting couples for every 1 baby eligible for adoption. So many, in fact, that some infertile people are getting mad at fertile people who adopt when they could just conceive naturally, because they are competing with them for the very limited number of available babies. The problem in the real world is the opposite of the fictional problem you've come up with.

And even if there were too many orphaned babies to be adopted, that wouldn't justify killing anybody. Being an orphan is better than being dead, hence why we do not kill orphans.

[Godular]

A fetus is not a person. We can keep doing this all day man, or you can just accept it, up to you.

I’m not accepting it, they are humans.

Even if it had rights, it would not have more rights than born persons. Claiming that it is helpless or dependent does not give it rights that no born person can claim.

[Theokratiss]

Right, but you said a woman could kill the unborn child because the child is dependent on them. But so is a born child.

A born child is an independent living creature.

Find me an infant that will find his own food. They die without assistance.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I like how all the usual religious hypocrites are here now.

[The American Free States]

Like what circumstances?

Rape, medical concerns, financial concerns, defect birth control, change in circumstances.

1. I said abortion for that reason was acceptable.
2. Such as?
3. Anyone who gets pregnant under these circumstances made a choice, and as such need to live with that choice.
4. That is the fault of the company, the abortion should not be allowed, but the mother should be able to sue the company and get the money needed to raise a child.
5. Once again, such as what?

[Ostroeuropa]

This brings the law in line with current practice AFAIK. Actually being declined was a rarity as "Well technically all childbirth carries a risk, so...". However, that rarity is now abolished as well as the legal right explicitly afforded, which is good.

[Celritannia]

A born child is an independent living creature.

Find me an infant that will find his own food. They die without assistance.

That's not what I am saying Pay attention.
A born child is an independent human in its own right.
Don't strawman.

[Godular]

I like how all the usual religious hypocrites are here now.

It isn't one of my threads. RIP fifth iteration.

[The American Free States]

I’m not accepting it, they are humans.

Even if it had rights, it would not have more rights than born persons. Claiming that it is helpless or dependent does not give it rights that no born person can claim.

A born person can gain food stamps and become dependent on it after, for example, an injury at work, therefore giving them an extra right, the right to food stamps.

[Celritannia]

Rape, medical concerns, financial concerns, defect birth control, change in circumstances.

1. I said abortion for that reason was acceptable.
2. Such as?
3. Anyone who gets pregnant under these circumstances made a choice, and as such need to live with that choice.
4. That is the fault of the company, the abortion should not be allowed, but the mother should be able to sue the company and get the money needed to raise a child.
5. Once again, such as what?

I don't need to list all the examples. It's a private matter for a woman only, not you, or any other man. You don't get pregnant, you don't have to put up with something growing inside you.

[Theokratiss]

I like how all the usual religious hypocrites are here now.

I haven’t seen a single religious argument.

Find me an infant that will find his own food. They die without assistance.

That's not what I am saying Pay attention.
A born child is an independent human in its own right.
Don't strawman.

That’s not what the word means. A child is dependent on its parents. It will die if they withdraw consent. There is no difference between that and abortion, besides a few inches.

[Godular]

Even if it had rights, it would not have more rights than born persons. Claiming that it is helpless or dependent does not give it rights that no born person can claim.

A born person can gain food stamps and become dependent on it after, for example, an injury at work, therefore giving them an extra right, the right to food stamps.

That is a right that any born person can claim. That right does not infringe upon the bodily integrity of another born person.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

That's... really not true.

Yes actually it is. The sixth leading cause of death for women of childbearing age, per the CDC.

Is that globally or in the US?

Either way, in the US, the CDC currently gives odds for dying from pregnancy (as of 2016) at 16.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.

Or more simply, the odds of dying from pregnancy in the US are 0.000169%

That's negligible.

[Celritannia]

I like how all the usual religious hypocrites are here now.

I haven’t seen a single religious argument.

That's not what I am saying Pay attention.
A born child is an independent human in its own right.
Don't strawman.

That’s not what the word means. A child is dependent on its parents. It will die if they withdraw consent. There is no difference between that and abortion, besides a few inches.

There is a big difference.
One is an independent human in its own right.

[Crockerland]

I like how all the usual religious hypocrites are here now.

When you say "religious people bad" with no further opinion or explanation

[The American Free States]

Yes actually it is. The sixth leading cause of death for women of childbearing age, per the CDC.

Is that globally or in the US?

Either way, in the US, the CDC currently gives odds for dying from pregnancy (as of 2016) at 16.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.

Or more simply, the odds of dying from pregnancy in the US are 0.000169%

That's negligible.

If a mothers life is threatened, then an abortion is acceptable.

[The New California Republic]

I like how all the usual religious hypocrites are here now.

I haven’t seen a single religious argument.

Then you need to read through the thread, as they are there, waiting for you to find. Now, go forth and search.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Is that globally or in the US?

Either way, in the US, the CDC currently gives odds for dying from pregnancy (as of 2016) at 16.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.

Or more simply, the odds of dying from pregnancy in the US are 0.000169%

That's negligible.

If a mothers life is threatened, then an abortion is acceptable.

One has to be pragmatic in such matters.

A 0.000169% chance of dying from pregnancy is an acceptable risk to take.

[Godular]

Yes actually it is. The sixth leading cause of death for women of childbearing age, per the CDC.

Is that globally or in the US?

US, primarily. Amusingly, it is higher in the US than in a goodly number of other countries.

Either way, in the US, the CDC currently gives odds for dying from pregnancy (as of 2016) at 16.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.

Or more simply, the odds of dying from pregnancy in the US are 0.000169%

That's negligible.

'Negligible' is not 'zero'. That a risk is small is no excuse to force it upon another person.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is that globally or in the US?

US, primarily. Amusingly, it is higher in the US than in a goodly number of other countries.

Either way, in the US, the CDC currently gives odds for dying from pregnancy (as of 2016) at 16.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.

Or more simply, the odds of dying from pregnancy in the US are 0.000169%

That's negligible.

'Negligible' is not 'zero'. That a risk is small is no excuse to force it upon another person.

Daily reminder that it's only negligible because of medical intervention.

[The American Free States]

Is that globally or in the US?

US, primarily. Amusingly, it is higher in the US than in a goodly number of other countries.

Either way, in the US, the CDC currently gives odds for dying from pregnancy (as of 2016) at 16.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.

Or more simply, the odds of dying from pregnancy in the US are 0.000169%

That's negligible.

'Negligible' is not 'zero'. That a risk is small is no excuse to force it upon another person.

It’s still much lower than what you were saying.