[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The Marlborough]

Yeah I think more financial aid should be given to families and especially those with disabilities. *shrug* Also not sure where you're getting the orphans thing from.

Maybe you're expecting me to be a run of the mill American style conservative who hates government intervention and wants the free market to reign over all, but I'll tell you now that you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Doesn't it follow rather obviously from "a woman does not want to give birth to a child" that "the same woman does not want to raise a child"? Unless you're imagining a male partner who pressured or paid her to take the incubation route instead of abortion, that's another orphan you put into the system.

Well I want the adoption system to be made more efficient so that it doesn't drive people away from adoption and so that there are few to no children left in long term state care (unless necessary). *shrug*

[San Lumen]

Doesn't it follow rather obviously from "a woman does not want to give birth to a child" that "the same woman does not want to raise a child"? Unless you're imagining a male partner who pressured or paid her to take the incubation route instead of abortion, that's another orphan you put into the system.

Well I want the adoption system to be made more efficient so that it doesn't drive people away from adoption and so that there are few to no children left in long term state care (unless necessary). *shrug*

Ok and why should any woman be forced to carry a child to term they don’t want? Do you find what happened to that girl in Paraguay acceptable because the fetus lived even though she died? Is the fetuses life more important?

[The Marlborough]

Well I want the adoption system to be made more efficient so that it doesn't drive people away from adoption and so that there are few to no children left in long term state care (unless necessary). *shrug*

Ok and why should any woman be forced to carry a child to term they don’t want? Do you find what happened to that girl in Paraguay acceptable because the fetus lived even though she died? Is the fetuses life more important?

I already answered this question for you.

[Punished UMN]

Also, the bodily autonomy argument presumes that it's some kind of universal value that bodily autonomy is absolute, which is a remarkably libertarian premise given that virtually every society that has ever existed believes society has some right to violate bodily autonomy, even without provocation such as the breaking of the law. And this is even without the even more dubious premise that the state is responsible for providing the public with bodily autonomy that is only derivative from medical procedure and which is not found in nature.

[Thepeopl]

Doesn't it follow rather obviously from "a woman does not want to give birth to a child" that "the same woman does not want to raise a child"? Unless you're imagining a male partner who pressured or paid her to take the incubation route instead of abortion, that's another orphan you put into the system.

Well I want the adoption system to be made more efficient so that it doesn't drive people away from adoption and so that there are few to no children left in long term state care (unless necessary). *shrug*

You and

According to the most recent federal data, there are currently more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States. They range in age from infants to 21 years old (in some states). The average age of a child in foster care is more than 8 years old, and there are slightly more boys than girls.

Would like to see that. Until that happens and no one is still awaiting adoption, let's abort unwanted pregnancies.

[San Lumen]

Ok and why should any woman be forced to carry a child to term they don’t want? Do you find what happened to that girl in Paraguay acceptable because the fetus lived even though she died? Is the fetuses life more important?

I already answered this question for you.

No you didn’t.

Her death was acceptable because the fetus lived? You didn’t answer that.

[The Marlborough]

Well I want the adoption system to be made more efficient so that it doesn't drive people away from adoption and so that there are few to no children left in long term state care (unless necessary). *shrug*

You and

According to the most recent federal data, there are currently more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States. They range in age from infants to 21 years old (in some states). The average age of a child in foster care is more than 8 years old, and there are slightly more boys than girls.

Would like to see that. Until that happens and no one is still awaiting adoption, let's abort unwanted pregnancies.

No, because that wouldn't be a justifiable reason to revoke life. It doesn't help that I don't trust the pro-choice side on this matter.

[Vassenor]

You and


Would like to see that. Until that happens and no one is still awaiting adoption, let's abort unwanted pregnancies.

No, because that wouldn't be a justifiable reason to revoke life. It doesn't help that I don't trust the pro-choice side on this matter.

Trust to do what?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Well I want the adoption system to be made more efficient so that it doesn't drive people away from adoption and so that there are few to no children left in long term state care (unless necessary). *shrug*

You and

According to the most recent federal data, there are currently more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States. They range in age from infants to 21 years old (in some states). The average age of a child in foster care is more than 8 years old, and there are slightly more boys than girls.

Would like to see that. Until that happens and no one is still awaiting adoption, let's abort unwanted pregnancies.

The number of children in foster care will never reach zero. Not even near zero. Only like 1/3 of children in foster care are in a situation that allows them to be adopted. The rest are not "adoptable."

[The Marlborough]

I already answered this question for you.

No you didn’t.

Her death was acceptable because the fetus lived? You didn’t answer that.

I'm not party to her health status during that whole ordeal but had her life been at serious risk then an argument could be made for allowing it. If not, then the right to life supersedes. That doesn't take away from the horrendousness of the crime committed against her but once again that isn't grounds to end the life of the fetus.

[Punished UMN]

I already answered this question for you.

No you didn’t.

Her death was acceptable because the fetus lived? You didn’t answer that.

Yes he did, you just ignored his answer:

Wow ok. So whenever a woman is pregnant they are a slave to pregnancy they might not have wanted or never asked for?

A young girl in Paraguay gave birth after being a victim of incest several years ago. Abortion is totally illegal in that country. She developed complications from it I believe but that’s ok because the fetus has more rights then her well being?

I'm not party to her health status during that whole ordeal but had her life been at serious risk then an argument could be made for allowing it. If not, then the right to life supersedes. That doesn't take away from the horrendousness of the crime committed against her but once again that isn't grounds to end the life of the fetus.

[The Marlborough]

No, because that wouldn't be a justifiable reason to revoke life. It doesn't help that I don't trust the pro-choice side on this matter.

Trust to do what?

Reform the system to allow the adoption to become more efficient and therefore a more viable option.

[Vassenor]

Trust to do what?

Reform the system to allow the adoption to become more efficient and therefore a more viable option.

And why don't you trust people to do that?

[The Marlborough]

Reform the system to allow the adoption to become more efficient and therefore a more viable option.

And why don't you trust people to do that?

Because they'd be afraid it would weaken the argument to allow abortions.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Tubal ligation is major surgery, whereas vasectomy can be done with a local anaesthetic. Chemical castration can be undone just by ceasing the drugs, which might not be an issue as long as the rapist is in jail, but still I'd make it the snip. For men OR women.

It's odd that I hadn't even considered the case of a female rapist who gets pregnant herself. The exact same issue of genetic theft applies, yet I'm not sympathetic to her and wouldn't include her in the "rape exception" (which I disagree with anyway). Still, it's interesting: say the rape victim AND herself both wanted the abortion, it would be hard to deny the victim wouldn't it?

In which case yes to both instances. It's just a lot of people are against the former procedures. Though I would say the former should be used less than the latter and only in cases in which it is beyond any reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt and especially in cases involving serial rape.

OK then. There's a former point I want to get to though:

An "artificial womb" has to be materially different, not just better, to be anything but an incubator.

Is it made of human flesh?



OK, the taxpayer at large then. I still think the costs of this (INCLUDING disability support, I'm not letting you get away with causing more disability without saying how it will be paid for) are absurd, considering the number of born children living in poverty which I want your word on before we create more children without parents financially able or willing to care for them.

It's a really bad equation. There is already a lack of financially able parents, and you want to spend public money on creating orphans. What the hell?

"We should kill children who don't have parents to reduce the burden on the state" is essentially the argument here.

It's not my preferred option. My preferred option was dismissed as undemocratic: the people who insist on this medicalized, disability-inducing "alternative" to abortion should be the ones who pay for it.

We already "kill children" actually in quite large numbers. It's your lot who suggest changing that, and the burden on the state is only required if you won't put your money where your mouth is.

Again, why in the hell should the State do any such thing, when it is already failing to lift born children out of poverty? The proposal is for a very expensive way to increase the number of disabled orphans in the country, and if you're not prepared to pay the costs you should be absolutely ashamed to mock my position as being about money.

Money doesn't matter ... to people who have money. Isn't that right? And if born children get a bad start in life, for lack of money, that's not your fault. Blech.

Personally i think that child rapists should choose between sterilisation and an extensive prison term, like 15 years, and life without parole.

Well that's surprisingly stupid. Sterilization is only a punishment at all, for people who want to have kids of their own in the future. Even castration doesn't seem like a bad thing to every man. You're basically letting people go on the understanding they don't have kids in the future (not even that, considering they could and likely WOULD hook up with someone who already has children). Even if you meant "castration" it's pretty dumb: child rape, like any rape, is mostly about power, and not so much about sexual gratification. Not to mention they could obtain hormones (testosterone for men) and you've basically let them loose with no punishment at all.

I had myself sterilized (by cut-and-tie of the vas defens) because I didn't want to accidentally father any children. It was a bit uncomfortable for a few days, but I'd choose it over even a day in prison. So yeah.

Relevant to an earlier point though: it's not a complicated operation, and affordable for most people, to reverse the male vasectomy. To be an effective 'genetic' punishment, sperm tests for the rest of the criminal's life would have to be a parole condition.

[San Lumen]

No you didn’t.

Her death was acceptable because the fetus lived? You didn’t answer that.

I'm not party to her health status during that whole ordeal but had her life been at serious risk then an argument could be made for allowing it. If not, then the right to life supersedes. That doesn't take away from the horrendousness of the crime committed against her but once again that isn't grounds to end the life of the fetus.

I just told you what happened. She died in childbirth. Therefore that is acceptable to you because the fetus lived?

From what your saying the fetus has more rights than a actual person and the right to take a life. A person does not have that right.

[Vassenor]

And why don't you trust people to do that?

Because they'd be afraid it would weaken the argument to allow abortions.

You know we generally prefer it here when people make arguments based on reality.

[The Marlborough]

I just told you what happened. She died in childbirth. Therefore that is acceptable to you because the fetus lived?

From what your saying the fetus has more rights than a actual person and the right to take a life. A person does not have that right.

You didn't reveal that she had died until your most recent post. Once again, I'm not party to her specific health conditions during the pregnancy. Had there been an unreasonable level of risk towards her life a case could have been made to allow it. If death was close to certain and abortion was the most or only viable option, then it should have been allowed.

[Punished UMN]

In which case yes to both instances. It's just a lot of people are against the former procedures. Though I would say the former should be used less than the latter and only in cases in which it is beyond any reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt and especially in cases involving serial rape.

OK then. There's a former point I want to get to though:

"We should kill children who don't have parents to reduce the burden on the state" is essentially the argument here.

It's not my preferred option. My preferred option was dismissed as undemocratic: the people who insist on this medicalized, disability-inducing "alternative" to abortion should be the ones who pay for it.

We already "kill children" actually in quite large numbers. It's your lot who suggest changing that, and the burden on the state is only required if you won't put your money where your mouth is.

Again, why in the hell should the State do any such thing, when it is already failing to lift born children out of poverty? The proposal is for a very expensive way to increase the number of disabled orphans in the country, and if you're not prepared to pay the costs you should be absolutely ashamed to mock my position as being about money.

Money doesn't matter ... to people who have money. Isn't that right? And if born children get a bad start in life, for lack of money, that's not your fault. Blech.

You're the one arguing that the state shouldn't support disabled orphans, not me. I don't know why you've become a fiscal conservative on this issue.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Because they'd be afraid it would weaken the argument to allow abortions.

You know we generally prefer it here when people make arguments based on reality.

Don't u know our only argument for abortion is "too many baby not enough parent"?

[Neutraligon]

And why don't you trust people to do that?

Because they'd be afraid it would weaken the argument to allow abortions.

Since adoption does not deal with the issue of unwanted pregnancy...no that has nothing to do with it.

[San Lumen]

I just told you what happened. She died in childbirth. Therefore that is acceptable to you because the fetus lived?

From what your saying the fetus has more rights than a actual person and the right to take a life. A person does not have that right.

You didn't reveal that she had died until your most recent post. Once again, I'm not party to her specific health conditions during the pregnancy. Had there been an unreasonable level of risk towards her life a case could have been made to allow it. If death was close to certain and abortion was the most or only viable option, then it should have been allowed.

The law in Paraguay is extremely strict. If I recall correctly doctors refused to perform an abortion for fear of being prosecuted and some wouldnt do it on moral grounds.

It doesn't matter what the conditions were. No child should have to go through something like that under any circumstance and due to viewpoints like yours she died as a result.

[Neutraligon]

I just told you what happened. She died in childbirth. Therefore that is acceptable to you because the fetus lived?

From what your saying the fetus has more rights than a actual person and the right to take a life. A person does not have that right.

You didn't reveal that she had died until your most recent post. Once again, I'm not party to her specific health conditions during the pregnancy. Had there been an unreasonable level of risk towards her life a case could have been made to allow it. If death was close to certain and abortion was the most or only viable option, then it should have been allowed.

Who determines what an unreasonable risk is?
Do I get to make the same determination for you when it comes to your medical issues?

[The Marlborough]

You know we generally prefer it here when people make arguments based on reality.

Don't u know our only argument for abortion is "too many baby not enough parent"?

A couple pages back you basically said that you believe that the pro-life side hold no legitimate basis for its beliefs and is just a cynical grab at controlling people. I don't think you're in a position to criticize my lack of trust of your side.

I will honestly not be surprised that as the pro-life movement becomes more open to the idea of state support and funding for families we see a bunch of pro-choice people take a hard turn towards fiscal conservatism even if nominally left-wing.

[Punished UMN]

You didn't reveal that she had died until your most recent post. Once again, I'm not party to her specific health conditions during the pregnancy. Had there been an unreasonable level of risk towards her life a case could have been made to allow it. If death was close to certain and abortion was the most or only viable option, then it should have been allowed.

Who determines what an unreasonable risk is?
Do I get to make the same determination for you when it comes to your medical issues?

Yes actually, this happens in a lot of cases.