Abortion Law Reform Passes in New Zealand

[Crockerland]

Everyone gets the right to life

And who else gets the right to make use of another person's body without their consent?

IVF clinics, hospitals, prisons, insane asylums, coroner's offices (in the great state of Tennessee), police departments, sheriffs, game wardens, conjoined twins, born children, and apparently Planned Parenthood and the fetal tissue researchers who tear unborn babies apart and then use their body parts for genetic research (without their consent).

[The New California Republic]

It’s still a strawman. I shall now roast some baked beans over it.

Also: wet nurses exist

Okay, let's call your bluff. If, tomorrow, I built a machine which could keep a foetus alive for the entire gestation period indipendant of the mother. I gave away my technology and every pregnant woman has access to it globally for free. Would it then be wrong to kill the foetus. Also, regarding wet nurcing, fine, I'll coincide that one.

If the foetus could be beamed out safely then abortion would become a non-issue, but that kind of thing is many decades away at the very least. It also wouldn't solve the issue of what to do with all those unwanted babies though.

I'm not going to dignify this with a response

You could, as it is pretty straightforward.

[Nakena]

And who else gets the right to make use of another person's body without their consent?

IVF clinics, hospitals, prisons, insane asylums, coroner's offices (in the great state of Tennessee), police departments, sheriffs, game wardens, conjoined twins, born children, and apparently Planned Parenthood and the fetal tissue researchers who tear unborn babies apart and then use their body parts for genetic research (without their consent).

Trump ban on research using foetal tissue from abortions blocking potential coronavirus treatments

[Strahcoin]

Not necessarily.

• Every good, hardworking individual was once a child.
• Children are the future of our nation/species.
• There are many young conservatives/pro-lifers in this generation.
• We don't oppose voluntary charity.
• Not all parents will put that welfare money to good use.
• A public welfare system will discourage the poorer population from working hard and rising themselves upward (because why work for money when you can get it for free), thus perpetuating poverty (as well as income inequality).
• There's the national debt (at least in the U.S.).
• A notable number of us recognize rights in terms of negative liberties (right to life, right to pursuit of private property, right to speak your opinion, right to believe or disbelieve, etc.) rather than positive liberties (right to quality healthcare, right to quality education, etc.). Of course, quality healthcare/education is good for all to have, but forcing others to be responsible for people they don't even know does kind of interfere with negative liberties (and there's the argument that privatization -> competition -> innovation, but I won't delve into that).

1. Yes they were. But that's besides the point.
2. The world currently has 7 billion people and still growing, a few abortions in comparison globally won't curb that
3. Fair enough
4. Fair enough.
5. Incorrect. A public welfare system helps those who may need it at the most vulnerable. Plus, many poor people do work hard, but don't reap any of the benefits. CEOs and Corporate barons that exploit workers reap the benefits, not those who work the hardest. Take Social Democracies such as the Nordic Countries are a fantastic example of a highly efficient welfare system alongside capitalistic principles.
Also, a welfare system is actually far cheaper, and depending how it is implemented, can help every citizen in times of need.
6. Okay.
7. Please don't otherwise I will be forced to show you a universal healthcare system is cheaper and far better for the people than private healthcare. In fact, the US is the only major power without any form of Universal Healthcare.

1-2. Mostly were for refuting the claim that the vast majority of pro-lifers don't care about children after birth.
5. We already have a big welfare program. Also, it's true that there are companies that provide low pay and minimal benefits, but in our current capitalist society, with many more jobs being created, those companies will risk losing workers to competitors and going out of business. Plus, it depends on what we mean by "poor" (the American lower-class is wealthier than a good chunk of the world population, to say the least). The Nordic social democracies do have lots of public welfare, but they have conditions the United States doesn't have (a very homogeneous culture (meaning lots of immigration restrictions), high income taxation for the lower- and middle-classes, government buying shares of the corporations (I have heard), a notably smaller population, less military spending and more dependence on the U.S. to defend it), and it's curbing on its welfare policies, anyways.
7. And the greatest power in the world. But I digress; the Canadian and British public healthcare systems are worse than the American one (which is already pretty strictly regulated), demonstrated by the people flocking from Canada to the U.S. for faster (and more expensive) care, while a number of others have conditions/market-based elements attached to them that aren't exactly "single payer". Healthcare in America is quite expensive, but I believe that greater price transparency, innovation, and reducing the bureaucracies could help with that without causing a shortage or infringing upon the rights of the individual.

Babies? I think you mean "a clump of cells."

Nope. Pro-choice folk only use that term to rightly refer to the foetus in its very early stages in the first weeks, i.e. the time when the vast majority of abortions are carried out.

Babies? I think you mean "a clump of cells."

We are refering to children, born and of different ages.

Which is different to a clump of cells, and why the NZ abortion law is doesn't harm anyone.

Prove that we aren't just a "clump of cells", then. Because materialistically speaking, we all are.

No.

My friend, an accidental fall is not an abortion.

Yep, you did in black and white.

Gaslighting isn't a good look.

He said it's a shame that the child is killed, not that it's necessarily the mother's fault.

Fetuses are human, the distinction that humans must be born to be human is entirely arbitrary (how does birth confer ‘human-ness’?). Ergo, Kat. believes that it is perfectly fine to murder humans in their infancy, which are called ‘babies’ and ‘children’ because most people aren’t anal-retentive and fetuses are so near children that they will be children if they weren’t aborted.

Not arbitrary at all. It's a rather important part of the legal definition.

So let's change the legal definition to improve logical/scientific consistency. Wouldn't that bring social progress? The Dred Scott Case wasn't overturned simply by accepting it as final. Nix v. Hedden legally defined the tomato as a vegetable, even though it is - scientifically speaking - a fruit. (Basically, the law isn't perfect, and laws can be amended.)

Actually, any cell in the human body can.

So yes they are and by your own logic you are henceforth a murderer.

Well, any nucleic cell. But yes, scratching your nose is genocide.

What are we but a collection of trillions of nucleic cells?

Fetuses are human, the distinction that humans must be born to be human is entirely arbitrary (how does birth confer ‘human-ness’?). Ergo, Kat. believes that it is perfectly fine to murder humans in their infancy, which are called ‘babies’ and ‘children’ because most people aren’t anal-retentive and fetuses are so near children that they will be children if they weren’t aborted.

Infancy is not fetus stage though.

Because to be human is to be an independent life form, meaning outside of the womb.

I've always thought that to be human is to be a member of the Homo sapiens species.

That is exactly what is being argued when people believe humans can be legitimately killed before they are born. A human being is only ‘human’ after it is born, therefore birth confers ‘Human-ness’; therefore, the unborn baby isn’t human but a parasitic entity. But seeds will flourish into flowers, thus they are called flower seeds.

Even if we were to give fetuses the same rights as born persons, they'd still have no right to remain within the woman's body without her consent.

But more importantly, the woman would have no right to pay an abortionist to murder him/her. (And technically one could also argue that the woman is holding the child inside the womb against his/her will but that would be irrelevant.)

Are there any females in here who are against abortions?

Norma McCorvey? Abby Johnson? The two pro-life females in this "Middle Ground" video? (Probably not in NationStates, but nevertheless women who are against abortions.)

Anyways, are there any unborn children in here who are for abortion legalization?

"But they are unable to speak-"Exactly! They cannot speak for themselves. They have neither ability to consent nor ability to defend themselves. Thus, we need to defend them and speak for them.

Murder. Everything in life has consequences. Whether it's right or wrong, whether pleseant or unpleseant. If you invest your entire lifesavings in the world's biggest company on the stock market, and it goes broke, the you have to live the consequneces of losing your savings. If you play $10,000 at the casino, you run the risk of losing 100% of the money. Similarly, if you have sex, you run the risk of both of your cintroceptives failing and getting pregnant. Things in life have consequences. That's one of them. You knew that controseptives weren't 100% effective, and you still agreed to use it. You took a gamble, you lost, you live with the consequences

Pregnancy as punishment for sex. Everybody drink.

So now you're playing that card for moderates/centrists, too? Doesn't sound like the best method for winning a debate.

Pregnancy as punishment for sex. Everybody drink.

I never said it was a punishment for sex. You intentionally strawmanned me. Using the same logic that you applied to this post, then you would also accuse me of saying bankruptcy is a punishment for investing in the stock market, and I definately didn't say. If you're gonna intentionally misinterprete what I say, then you can draw a whole bunch of false conclusions about what I said. What I said was if you have sex, you gamble with pregnancy. Losing at gambling is very different to being punishment

This strawmanning has happened to me, too. Multiple times. Don't worry about it.

I do not like your tack. Murder is 10 to 15 years in prison, at taxpayer expense.

Under your idea of law, thousands of women go to prison, wasting their potential for society. And doctors I expect too, will go to prison, wasting their training and skills. For nothing, no wait, for less than nothing. We all have to pay for their imprisonment.



Yes things in life have consequences. Kid. What you're saying is that there should be more negative consequences for certain things, which it pleases you to call murder.

You're here on an adult forum making serious arguments, so let me put this to you. A law criminalizing abortion can exist, or it can not exist. Whether it exists or not, fetuses will be terminated, but the only effect of more or less fetuses being terminated is that more or less abstract human lives will commence or not commence.

Are you really so confident in your judgement as one of the grown adult human beings who make the laws, that you want to throw thousands of people into prison (at your expense and mine) to protect potential people?



For instance they got pregnant then accused the partner of rape. Because that was the only way they could get a legal abortion.

Changes everything, right?

Big ass dualism just falls apart when one person lies.

Oh dear me. I'm so sorry for your dualism. It was better than that. It didn't deserve to be shot in the back like that ...

Women shouldn't be thrown into prison for abortions. That's common sense. I was arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal standpoint. A moral argument and a legal argument are different things. Abortions should be dicriminalised. That way, you can't technically have one, but there are no consequences if you do. Now, as for a woman accusing a man for rape, yes, that's when the whole pro-life argument falls apart

Here, I respectfully disagree with you. The woman willfully and premeditatedly paid the abortionist to kill the innocent baby; hence, the woman is responsible for willfully and premeditatedly killing the innocent baby. Plus, the government has the duty to protect the lives of innocent human beings and punish those who willfully and premeditatedly violate it, and I don't think willfully and premeditatedly killing an innocent human being should be decriminalized, so abortion should be illegal and considered a criminal offense.
And, in cases of rape, the baby's inherent value and rights are not diminished simply because his/her father is a terrible human being. Abortion is still morally wrong (I think).

IVF clinics, hospitals, prisons, insane asylums, coroner's offices (in the great state of Tennessee), police departments, sheriffs, game wardens, conjoined twins, born children, and apparently Planned Parenthood and the fetal tissue researchers who tear unborn babies apart and then use their body parts for genetic research (without their consent).

Trump ban on research using foetal tissue from abortions blocking potential coronavirus treatments

Good. It's not a complete shutdown on all abortion clinics, but it's a start.
Also, I would like to suggest getting the human tissue from volunteers or anybody who consents. (And what happened to hydroxychloroquine?)

[Crockerland]

IVF clinics, hospitals, prisons, insane asylums, coroner's offices (in the great state of Tennessee), police departments, sheriffs, game wardens, conjoined twins, born children, and apparently Planned Parenthood and the fetal tissue researchers who tear unborn babies apart and then use their body parts for genetic research (without their consent).

Trump ban on research using foetal tissue from abortions blocking potential coronavirus treatments

"Longstanding ban on kidnapping homeless people and harvesting their organs lengthening organ donor waiting lists"

[Nakena]

Good. It's not a complete shutdown on all abortion clinics, but it's a start.
Also, I would like to suggest getting the human tissue from volunteers or anybody who consents. (And what happened to hydroxychloroquine?)

Nah they should be able to experiment with that. Altough I dont think its the most promising road.

[Agarntrop]

1. Yes they were. But that's besides the point.
2. The world currently has 7 billion people and still growing, a few abortions in comparison globally won't curb that
3. Fair enough
4. Fair enough.
5. Incorrect. A public welfare system helps those who may need it at the most vulnerable. Plus, many poor people do work hard, but don't reap any of the benefits. CEOs and Corporate barons that exploit workers reap the benefits, not those who work the hardest. Take Social Democracies such as the Nordic Countries are a fantastic example of a highly efficient welfare system alongside capitalistic principles.
Also, a welfare system is actually far cheaper, and depending how it is implemented, can help every citizen in times of need.
6. Okay.
7. Please don't otherwise I will be forced to show you a universal healthcare system is cheaper and far better for the people than private healthcare. In fact, the US is the only major power without any form of Universal Healthcare.

1-2. Mostly were for refuting the claim that the vast majority of pro-lifers don't care about children after birth.
5. We already have a big welfare program. Also, it's true that there are companies that provide low pay and minimal benefits, but in our current capitalist society, with many more jobs being created, those companies will risk losing workers to competitors and going out of business. Plus, it depends on what we mean by "poor" (the American lower-class is wealthier than a good chunk of the world population, to say the least). The Nordic social democracies do have lots of public welfare, but they have conditions the United States doesn't have (a very homogeneous culture (meaning lots of immigration restrictions), high income taxation for the lower- and middle-classes, government buying shares of the corporations (I have heard), a notably smaller population, less military spending and more dependence on the U.S. to defend it), and it's curbing on its welfare policies, anyways.
7. And the greatest power in the world. But I digress; the Canadian and British public healthcare systems are worse than the American one (which is already pretty strictly regulated), demonstrated by the people flocking from Canada to the U.S. for faster (and more expensive) care, while a number of others have conditions/market-based elements attached to them that aren't exactly "single payer". Healthcare in America is quite expensive, but I believe that greater price transparency, innovation, and reducing the bureaucracies could help with that without causing a shortage or infringing upon the rights of the individual.

Nope. Pro-choice folk only use that term to rightly refer to the foetus in its very early stages in the first weeks, i.e. the time when the vast majority of abortions are carried out.

We are refering to children, born and of different ages.

Which is different to a clump of cells, and why the NZ abortion law is doesn't harm anyone.

Prove that we aren't just a "clump of cells", then. Because materialistically speaking, we all are.

Yep, you did in black and white.

Gaslighting isn't a good look.

He said it's a shame that the child is killed, not that it's necessarily the mother's fault.

Not arbitrary at all. It's a rather important part of the legal definition.

So let's change the legal definition to improve logical/scientific consistency. Wouldn't that bring social progress? The Dred Scott Case wasn't overturned simply by accepting it as final. Nix v. Hedden legally defined the tomato as a vegetable, even though it is - scientifically speaking - a fruit. (Basically, the law isn't perfect, and laws can be amended.)

Well, any nucleic cell. But yes, scratching your nose is genocide.

What are we but a collection of trillions of nucleic cells?

Infancy is not fetus stage though.

Because to be human is to be an independent life form, meaning outside of the womb.

I've always thought that to be human is to be a member of the Homo sapiens species.

Even if we were to give fetuses the same rights as born persons, they'd still have no right to remain within the woman's body without her consent.

But more importantly, the woman would have no right to pay an abortionist to murder him/her. (And technically one could also argue that the woman is holding the child inside the womb against his/her will but that would be irrelevant.)

Are there any females in here who are against abortions?

Norma McCorvey? Abby Johnson? The two pro-life females in this "Middle Ground" video? (Probably not in NationStates, but nevertheless women who are against abortions.)

Anyways, are there any unborn children in here who are for abortion legalization?

"But they are unable to speak-"Exactly! They cannot speak for themselves. They have neither ability to consent nor ability to defend themselves. Thus, we need to defend them and speak for them.

Pregnancy as punishment for sex. Everybody drink.

So now you're playing that card for moderates/centrists, too? Doesn't sound like the best method for winning a debate.

I never said it was a punishment for sex. You intentionally strawmanned me. Using the same logic that you applied to this post, then you would also accuse me of saying bankruptcy is a punishment for investing in the stock market, and I definately didn't say. If you're gonna intentionally misinterprete what I say, then you can draw a whole bunch of false conclusions about what I said. What I said was if you have sex, you gamble with pregnancy. Losing at gambling is very different to being punishment

This strawmanning has happened to me, too. Multiple times. Don't worry about it.

Women shouldn't be thrown into prison for abortions. That's common sense. I was arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal standpoint. A moral argument and a legal argument are different things. Abortions should be dicriminalised. That way, you can't technically have one, but there are no consequences if you do. Now, as for a woman accusing a man for rape, yes, that's when the whole pro-life argument falls apart

Here, I respectfully disagree with you. The woman willfully and premeditatedly paid the abortionist to kill the innocent baby; hence, the woman is responsible for willfully and premeditatedly killing the innocent baby. Plus, the government has the duty to protect the lives of innocent human beings and punish those who willfully and premeditatedly violate it, and I don't think willfully and premeditatedly killing an innocent human being should be decriminalized, so abortion should be illegal and considered a criminal offense.
And, in cases of rape, the baby's inherent value and rights are not diminished simply because his/her father is a terrible human being. Abortion is still morally wrong (I think).

Trump ban on research using foetal tissue from abortions blocking potential coronavirus treatments

Good. It's not a complete shutdown on all abortion clinics, but it's a start.
Also, I would like to suggest getting the human tissue from volunteers or anybody who consents. (And what happened to hydroxychloroquine?)

How can a non-sentient being be considered the same as a baby?

[Cisairse]

Not aborting in instances of rape is murder.

[Agarntrop]

Not aborting in instances of rape is murder.

You think women shouldn't be allowed to choose?

[Celritannia]

Not aborting in instances of rape is murder.

Nope, it isn't

[The New California Republic]

Trump ban on research using foetal tissue from abortions blocking potential coronavirus treatments

"Longstanding ban on kidnapping homeless people and harvesting their organs lengthening organ donor waiting lists"

Except that isn't equivalent at all.

[Godular]

That would be ‘tradition’.

Precedent is somewhat similar to tradition in that it relies on prior instances to guide it, but also applies a degree of logic to it. In this case, a person having the right to defend themselves from assault is treated as a rather universal point of agreement. There are some limitations, such as rules about necessary force and whatnot, but for the most part it is pretty cut and dry.

Denying a woman the capacity to rectify an unwanted pregnancy is logically inconsistent with this premise, and utilizes a foundation that has itself been previously contradicted.

Perhaps I am reading too much into what you say, but 'self-defense' is protection of the self from any threat (significant, if you prefer, but my goal is not to nitpick whether or not childbirth is a 'significant' threat to life) of death? Consent here seems now to be the same issue, and the idea is that you have a right to consent to the threat of death or not?

That delves into the concept of Euthanasia, which is not the subject of this thread.

[Celritannia]

1. Yes they were. But that's besides the point.
2. The world currently has 7 billion people and still growing, a few abortions in comparison globally won't curb that
3. Fair enough
4. Fair enough.
5. Incorrect. A public welfare system helps those who may need it at the most vulnerable. Plus, many poor people do work hard, but don't reap any of the benefits. CEOs and Corporate barons that exploit workers reap the benefits, not those who work the hardest. Take Social Democracies such as the Nordic Countries are a fantastic example of a highly efficient welfare system alongside capitalistic principles.
Also, a welfare system is actually far cheaper, and depending how it is implemented, can help every citizen in times of need.
6. Okay.
7. Please don't otherwise I will be forced to show you a universal healthcare system is cheaper and far better for the people than private healthcare. In fact, the US is the only major power without any form of Universal Healthcare.

1-2. Mostly were for refuting the claim that the vast majority of pro-lifers don't care about children after birth.
5. We already have a big welfare program. Also, it's true that there are companies that provide low pay and minimal benefits, but in our current capitalist society, with many more jobs being created, those companies will risk losing workers to competitors and going out of business. Plus, it depends on what we mean by "poor" (the American lower-class is wealthier than a good chunk of the world population, to say the least). The Nordic social democracies do have lots of public welfare, but they have conditions the United States doesn't have (a very homogeneous culture (meaning lots of immigration restrictions), high income taxation for the lower- and middle-classes, government buying shares of the corporations (I have heard), a notably smaller population, less military spending and more dependence on the U.S. to defend it), and it's curbing on its welfare policies, anyways.
7. And the greatest power in the world. But I digress; the Canadian and British public healthcare systems are worse than the American one (which is already pretty strictly regulated), demonstrated by the people flocking from Canada to the U.S. for faster (and more expensive) care, while a number of others have conditions/market-based elements attached to them that aren't exactly "single payer". Healthcare in America is quite expensive, but I believe that greater price transparency, innovation, and reducing the bureaucracies could help with that without causing a shortage or infringing upon the rights of the individual.

Well, they don't, you are already proving that by saying "we already have a large welfare system" The US has next to no welfare system. That's why millions of Americans are medically uninsured.
Oh the "the US military protects everyone else" argument is a myth, and non existent. The US military budget should not be this expensive compared to the rest of the world. By cutting it, there would be more money to invest in the citizens, including better welfare programmes.
These countries only need a defence force to defend their country, not invade others for oil.

Please provide evidence to say the US healthcare system is better than the UK and Canadian healthcare systems.
Please provide evidence which prove people are flocking from the Canada to the US for Healthcare.

Incorrect, the amount of money Americans pay is far more than any nation in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... ountry.svg

Also, see this? The US is the only developed nation without some form of Universal Healthcare (which includes nationalised insurance, compulsory insurance like Japan and Germany, nationalised healthcare, and a mixed system).

[Katganistan]

Untrue. There are babies born in prison, and then they go live with another relative.
I had a friend who was born in just such circumstances.

Great guy. Went on to become a famous French policeman.

Well yes, I am a fan of Hugo, but actually I am thinking of a young lady who grew up to join the Army and go to Afghanistan whom I know.

[Katganistan]

If a fetus even has such a right, we might as well legalize rape, because unwanted pregnancy is the equivalent of being raped and tortured slowly for nine months with an extremely agonizing and traumatic climax at the end. Imagine inflicting this horrific shit on an 11-year-old girl who was raped by her uncle or stepfather. We're talking actual, functional, biological differences warranting special consideration by the government and not some vague, discriminatory affirmative action nonsense such as enforcing a 50% gender quota within the membership of a left-leaning political party that benefits only one gender because wHiTe mAn bAd.

Abortion should be free, safe, legal, accessible and confidential for all women and girls (and trans men and boys with uteri) with no risk of judgment or ridicule. It's interesting that it's mostly Christians and Catholics who have a problem with this. Even Muslims tend to be more relaxed when it comes to abortion.

Abortion due to rape is due to abortion to irresponsibility

Explain.

[Katganistan]

That was not at all clear from what you posted. However, the "clarification" itself is still a fucking mess.

Abortion after rape= acceptable
Abortion when not rape= murder

Ridiculous. Either they are both murder, or neither, since the procedure is the same.

Survey says: neither.

[The Alma Mater]

That was not at all clear from what you posted. However, the "clarification" itself is still a fucking mess.

Abortion after rape= acceptable
Abortion when not rape= murder

That only works if having a kid is punishment.
Which is not a line of reasoning that suggests one cares for the child

[Reploid Productions]

Either case, whether it's because you're stupid or because you're immature, then you're not worth arguing with

*** Australian rePublic, 1-day ban for flaming. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Alt-Right Death Squads]

The final vote on the bill passed 68 to 51, it will now head to the Governor-General for the royal assent before becoming law.,

Sauce.

Unfortunately due to some eel-like slipperiness from one of the MP's, protesters can now gather outside clinics and other facilities offering abortions unimpeded,

Personally it's a bit meh from me, but it's something different to the doom and gloom of the coronavirus and economic collapse.

Contested change is always good to see.

Anyway, it's called "freedom of assembly" you anti-freedom [insert insult here]. Though why would you care about the human rights of others, as it seems you aren't even phased by the potential of people using this crisis to enact social and political change.

[Reploid Productions]

you anti-freedom [insert insult here]

Changing "degenerate scum" to "insert insult here" really doesn't help things, especially given your extensive history across puppets. *** Alt-Right Death Squads, 1-day ban for flaming. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Ktismandrasi]

Perhaps I am reading too much into what you say, but 'self-defense' is protection of the self from any threat (significant, if you prefer, but my goal is not to nitpick whether or not childbirth is a 'significant' threat to life) of death? Consent here seems now to be the same issue, and the idea is that you have a right to consent to the threat of death or not?

That delves into the concept of Euthanasia, which is not the subject of this thread.

Ah forgive me, I betrayed myself by being vague. Abortion is self-defense in the sense that it staves off the chance of a death during child birth, and as the woman is threatened with potential death (I say death, but if it's only the pain of labour that would seem reasonable too), she has the right to choose an abortion, in order to to save herself, in an admittedly colloquial manner of speaking. Make sure I am accurate in my description though.

And the precedent of what we call self-defense, which is generally accepted as justified, that people are excused or less wrong (I think I need clarification here, since the idea has become foreign to me) for killing when their life is in danger, that is, death is threatened. But now, imagining a relevant case, a victim killing a rapist, that would also be self defense, and in fact the abortion might even be said to be part of the same act of self-defense, would it not? Well not quite, but it seems like part of the crime is the threat of the future ordeal of childbirth for the victim, or am I seeing wrong?

I think have left this in a more confusing state, but my question is: is the possibility of death in childbirth the reason that abortion is self-defense, or is it something else, or a multiplicity of reasons?

[Godular]

That delves into the concept of Euthanasia, which is not the subject of this thread.

Ah forgive me, I betrayed myself by being vague. Abortion is self-defense in the sense that it staves off the chance of a death during child birth, and as the woman is threatened with potential death (I say death, but if it's only the pain of labour that would seem reasonable too), she has the right to choose an abortion, in order to to save herself, in an admittedly colloquial manner of speaking. Make sure I am accurate in my description though.

Not even that. Even a simple violation of personal space is sufficient to trigger self-defense. Keep in mind that in most such interactions with born people, a simple step back and a verbal rebuke would be sufficient to rectify any violations. Unfortunately, the only means to rectify an unwanted pregnancy is inherently lethal. This is unfortunate, but no rationale to deny a woman the means to rectify the problem.

And the precedent of what we call self-defense, which is generally accepted as justified, that people are excused or less wrong (I think I need clarification here, since the idea has become foreign to me) for killing when their life is in danger, that is, death is threatened. But now, imagining a relevant case, a victim killing a rapist, that would also be self defense, and in fact the abortion might even be said to be part of the same act of self-defense, would it not? Well not quite, but it seems like part of the crime is the threat of the future ordeal of childbirth for the victim, or am I seeing wrong?

A lot of pro-life folks take umbrage at the idea of treating an unwanted pregnancy and rape in the same manner, but for practical intents and purposes they are very similar.

[Ktismandrasi]

Not even that. Even a simple violation of personal space is sufficient to trigger self-defense. Keep in mind that in most such interactions with born people, a simple step back and a verbal rebuke would be sufficient to rectify any violations. Unfortunately, the only means to rectify an unwanted pregnancy is inherently lethal. This is unfortunate, but no rationale to deny a woman the means to rectify the problem.

A lot of pro-life folks take umbrage at the idea of treating an unwanted pregnancy and rape in the same manner, but for practical intents and purposes they are very similar.

Now I see, thank you. So the question is primarily of space, and of right to one's own space. I suppose the only thing left to wonder is where the existed of right or precedent is derived, but that is, as you said, a wider question than this thread covers.

Thank you for the straightforward account!

[Katganistan]

Except it isn’t. Even if the fetus had the rights a born person would, it still would not have the right to use the woman’s body without her consent. Innocence is an emotional appeal that has no relevance to the matter.

Except, if we ignore baby formula (as it is an extremely recent invention) the baby still relies on the woman's body. It has to breast feed. Does that we mean we kill babies until they stop breast feeding because they rely on their mothers for breast feed. What if the woman doesn't wanna breast feed?

They have these things, millions of years old, called cows, sheep and goats.
And wet nurses, too.

[Katganistan]

Life begins at birth, ha? So the act of pushing a baby of a vagina is what creates personhood? So what about cesarean?

Are they, after caesarian, out of the woman and breathing?
Then they are born, and people.

Seriously, give it a rest.