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

[The Marlborough]

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?

Her physicians, presumably. I thought that would be obvious.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

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.

With 7.8 billion people on earth, one more human life matters more to you, than a dozen lives blighted by childhood poverty.

Yes I know, you said you'd like government to also do something about child poverty. But we all know that won't happen any time soon, so let's make the problem worse in the name of saving "children" that people don't want and will be a further burden on the state.

Hey, let's cure old age too! Our attempts to overpopulate the planet are always being foiled by the wrinklies dying, we should put a stop to that too. More humans always good, right?

[San Lumen]

Who determines what an unreasonable risk is?

Her physicians, presumably. I thought that would be obvious.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... d-abortion

in 2015 a ten year old was denied an abortion after being a victim of incest. I don't know what happened ultimately but her physical and mental well being should take second fiddle to an unborn child?

Why does a fetus have more rights than a person?

[Punished UMN]

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.

With 7.8 billion people on earth, one more human life matters more to you, than a dozen lives blighted by childhood poverty.

Yes I know, you said you'd like government to also do something about child poverty. But we all know that won't happen any time soon, so let's make the problem worse in the name of saving "children" that people don't want and will be a further burden on the state.

Hey, let's cure old age too! Our attempts to overpopulate the planet are always being foiled by the wrinklies dying, we should put a stop to that too. More humans always good, right?

You could make this exact argument for people who are already poor. Again, this is just a fiscally conservative argument.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

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.

What a dud take.

You were good before though. I'll try and remember you that way.

[Suriyanakhon]

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.

I've honestly never met someone who was pro-choice who has been in favor of abortion for the sake of abortion*. It seems an almost cartoonish inverse (since pro-life never wants abortions to happen, those of us who are pro-choice must always want them to happen) when it's always been about reproductive rights.

And also, you're kind of confirming why we wouldn't support rolling back abortion rights. Because you're arguing that abortion shouldn't be done in the event of rape, even if the victim is a child. This is essentially what would happen if we gave an inch to the pro-life camp.

Except maybe for people who believe human extinction is a good thing (?)

[Neutraligon]

Who determines what an unreasonable risk is?

Her physicians, presumably. I thought that would be obvious.

Why do her physicians get to decide what risk she should take? If I am unwilling to take the risk of a medical procedure that is solely my decisions, my physicians cannot force me to take a risk against my will.

[Punished UMN]

Her physicians, presumably. I thought that would be obvious.

Why do her physicians get to decide what risk she should take? If I am unwilling to take the risk of a medical procedure that is solely my decisions, my physicians cannot force me to take a risk against my will.

Because they're the ones performing the medical procedure.

[Neutraligon]

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.

I've honestly never met someone who was pro-choice who has been in favor of abortion for the sake of abortion*. It seems an almost cartoonish inverse (since pro-life never wants abortions to happen, those of us who are pro-choice must always want them to happen) when it's always been about reproductive rights.

Except maybe for people who believe human extinction is a good thing (?)

There are those for forced abortion and sterilization, typically for specific groups.

[San Lumen]

Why do her physicians get to decide what risk she should take? If I am unwilling to take the risk of a medical procedure that is solely my decisions, my physicians cannot force me to take a risk against my will.

Because they're the ones performing the medical procedure.

Where is it written when you enter a hospital you no longer have free will?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

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.

What a dud take.

You were good before though. I'll try and remember you that way.

I still don't know who you are

[Suriyanakhon]

I've honestly never met someone who was pro-choice who has been in favor of abortion for the sake of abortion*. It seems an almost cartoonish inverse (since pro-life never wants abortions to happen, those of us who are pro-choice must always want them to happen) when it's always been about reproductive rights.

Except maybe for people who believe human extinction is a good thing (?)

There are those for forced abortion and sterilization, typically for specific groups.

But in that case, it's not pro-choice.

[Neutraligon]

Why do her physicians get to decide what risk she should take? If I am unwilling to take the risk of a medical procedure that is solely my decisions, my physicians cannot force me to take a risk against my will.

Because they're the ones performing the medical procedure.

They can refuse to do a medical procedure sure, but they cannot force the woman to take the risk of the medical procedure. In this case you are supporting forcing women to take the risk of the medical procedure, namely pregnancy

[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.

With 7.8 billion people on earth, one more human life matters more to you, than a dozen lives blighted by childhood poverty.

Yes I know, you said you'd like government to also do something about child poverty. But we all know that won't happen any time soon, so let's make the problem worse in the name of saving "children" that people don't want and will be a further burden on the state.

Hey, let's cure old age too! Our attempts to overpopulate the planet are always being foiled by the wrinklies dying, we should put a stop to that too. More humans always good, right?

I mean the push to radically transform economic systems is growing so I'm not sure about it not happening any time soon. Further, a more just and healthy economic system would reduce the state's burden as families would be in a better position to provide for themselves. Those who cannot or are unable to should then receive support from the state. Regarding the elderly, I mean we should develop therapies and systems of support to make their lives more comfortable and less strenuous as well as increasing their livelihood in turn with it. Which thankfully we've made progress on and hopefully will continue to make progress on.

[Neutraligon]

There are those for forced abortion and sterilization, typically for specific groups.

But in that case, it's not pro-choice.

True, they would be pro-abortion though.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

With 7.8 billion people on earth, one more human life matters more to you, than a dozen lives blighted by childhood poverty.

Yes I know, you said you'd like government to also do something about child poverty. But we all know that won't happen any time soon, so let's make the problem worse in the name of saving "children" that people don't want and will be a further burden on the state.

Hey, let's cure old age too! Our attempts to overpopulate the planet are always being foiled by the wrinklies dying, we should put a stop to that too. More humans always good, right?

You could make this exact argument for people who are already poor. Again, this is just a fiscally conservative argument.

It is not. It's priorities: until the State provides properly for the living children who are in poverty, it should not indulge some sci-fi fantasy based on obsoleting women.

It literally is that. Pro-lifers know in their hearts they can't force women to carry pregnancies to term, so they speculate about removing that power from women using technology.

In case you've forgotten, we were discussing "artificial wombs" as an enforced alternative to unwanted pregnancies. You obviously don't want to pay for that, and nor do I, but our reasons are different. Mine is simply that it is unnecessary and would make the problem of too many orphans worse. But you don't want to pay for it (or perhaps you haven't done any research about premmies in incubators) because ... when you think about it ... it's a very poor choice of how to spend money.

Well even if you dodge that one again, by characterizing my position as some variety of "mean", there are serious ethical issues with using incubators for no good reason.

[Punished UMN]

Because they're the ones performing the medical procedure.

They can refuse to do a medical procedure sure, but they cannot force the woman to take the risk of the medical procedure. In this case you are supporting forcing women to take the risk of the medical procedure, namely pregnancy

Pregnancy is not a medical procedure.

[Neutraligon]

They can refuse to do a medical procedure sure, but they cannot force the woman to take the risk of the medical procedure. In this case you are supporting forcing women to take the risk of the medical procedure, namely pregnancy

Pregnancy is not a medical procedure.

Yes it is.

[Punished UMN]

Because they're the ones performing the medical procedure.

Where is it written when you enter a hospital you no longer have free will?

The doctors do, they cannot be compelled to perform a medical procedure which they believe is unethical.

[Punished UMN]

Pregnancy is not a medical procedure.

Yes it is.

A natural phenomenon is not a medical procedure.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

There are those for forced abortion and sterilization, typically for specific groups.

But in that case, it's not pro-choice.

The label doesn't fit, who'd have thought.

[Neutraligon]

Yes it is.

A natural phenomenon is not a medical procedure.

Ture my wording is bad, does not change the fact you are forcing women to take a risk they are unwilling to take when there is a safe effective option to prevent it.

[The Marlborough]

IIRC artificial wombs were originally something considered by the pro-choice side in the past as an alternative, not the pro-life side.

[Punished UMN]

A natural phenomenon is not a medical procedure.

Ture my wording is bad, does not change the fact you are forcing women to take a risk they are unwilling to take when there is a safe effective option to prevent it.

They're not forcing anything. The risk is naturally occurring. Medical providers do not have a medical duty to do anything demanded of them by patients to reduce risk, even if they believe such a procedure to be unethical.

[The Marlborough]

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.

Yeah and I think Paraguay's laws are too strict. I've already stated more than once that if it's medically necessary it should be allowed. I don't agree with the total prohibition supported by the RCC and some Protestant churches. My own church doesn't even support that extreme level.