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

[San Lumen]

but the case of rape and incest no ?

How many times are you going to ask me to repeat my position?

You said only a toxic pregnancy. Rape and incest which is what the two Paraguay cases where an abortion should not be allowed according to your logic. The doctors had couldn't have know she'd die in childbirth.

[The Marlborough]

How many times are you going to ask me to repeat my position?

You said only a toxic pregnancy. Rape and incest which is what the two Paraguay cases where an abortion should not be allowed according to your logic. The doctors had couldn't have know she'd die in childbirth.

There are ways for physicians to determine the risk of a pregnancy. In terms of rape or incest in of themselves, I refer you to my more than once stated position on when abortion is acceptable.

[San Lumen]

You said only a toxic pregnancy. Rape and incest which is what the two Paraguay cases where an abortion should not be allowed according to your logic. The doctors had couldn't have know she'd die in childbirth.

There are ways for physicians to determine the risk of a pregnancy.

I am aware yet why didn't they do this? And what if they determine no risk why should a child have to go through such a traumatic and potentially harmful ordeal?

I fail to understand why a fetus has more rights than a person.

[The Spook Who Sat By The Door]

I find it interesting that my answer to mutual exclusivity is the least popular. I am pro-choice, yet I personally find abortion, especially at the rate and manner in which it is practiced in the US, to be one of the most disturbing human practices on Earth. That's just my personal belief though, and I have no desire to make laws to force that belief onto others.

The fact of the matter is that infanticide is a lot older than civilization. If modern medicine and technology can spare us the spectacle of newborns being tossed off of cliffs or some similar action like the ancients practiced, then all the better. Modern techniques allow us to place ourselves above not just cultures like the Spartans, but also some contemporary ones.

If someone wants to deny that we do indeed engage in mass infanticide in modern society by claiming that zygotes and fetuses are neither alive nor even human, I will not attempt to deny them that right. We are all unique individuals with unique perspectives and we all have to face the horrors we are willing to embrace in our own way, whether it's war, capital punishment, or even the tremendous cost of human life on the highways in exchange for convenience and economic benefits. People will fall all along the spectrum from shrugging their shoulders, to deep vehement denial.

Ultimately the pro-life movement, regardless of any Supreme Court decisions or any state or federal laws will never put a stop to abortion anymore than anyone or anything will ever bring an end to human trafficking and a myriad of other human behaviors. They can be made illegal, but they have been with us since before the rise of civilization and they will be with us after the fall.

This is an excellent take. It seems like we try to not think about the actual brutality of it all though - like it's out of sight, out of mind.

Yes, science and technology allow us to make the simple things we do seem much more complex than they really are in many areas. It oftentimes gives people the illusion we are more evolved than the earliest homo sapiens sapiens, when all we really have are better tools.

[Kexholm Karelia]

I find it interesting that my answer to mutual exclusivity is the least popular. I am pro-choice, yet I personally find abortion, especially at the rate and manner in which it is practiced in the US, to be one of the most disturbing human practices on Earth. That's just my personal belief though, and I have no desire to make laws to force that belief onto others.

The fact of the matter is that infanticide is a lot older than civilization. If modern medicine and technology can spare us the spectacle of newborns being tossed off of cliffs or some similar action like the ancients practiced, then all the better. Modern techniques allow us to place ourselves above not just cultures like the Spartans, but also some contemporary ones.

If someone wants to deny that we do indeed engage in mass infanticide in modern society by claiming that zygotes and fetuses are neither alive nor even human, I will not attempt to deny them that right. We are all unique individuals with unique perspectives and we all have to face the horrors we are willing to embrace in our own way, whether it's war, capital punishment, or even the tremendous cost of human life on the highways in exchange for convenience and economic benefits. People will fall all along the spectrum from shrugging their shoulders, to deep vehement denial.

Ultimately the pro-life movement, regardless of any Supreme Court decisions or any state or federal laws will never put a stop to abortion anymore than anyone or anything will ever bring an end to human trafficking and a myriad of other human behaviors. They can be made illegal, but they have been with us since before the rise of civilization and they will be with us after the fall.

I think the most disturbing part is the normalization of dehumanizing the fetus to the point where some pro abortion people refer to it as "parasite" and "pile of trash."

[The Marlborough]

I am aware yet why didn't they do this?

Maybe they did and nothing came up. Maybe they were incompetent. A number of reasons as to why.

And what if they determine no risk why should a child have to go through such a traumatic and potentially harmful ordeal?

Because ending a human life is a serious matter and should mainly be done when it's a necessity.

I fail to understand why a fetus has more rights than a person.

Because being a human being is sufficient for personhood in my opinion. I don't hold it to things such as sapience because that has been abused to hell and back to discriminate against numerous groups and why they deserve fewer, if any, rights. It's partially why they are human rights, not personhood rights because even when we were drumming up human rights and trying to implement them, those old beliefs regarding certain groups and their level of sapience were still widespread and prevalent. These rights were expanded in spite of the belief they didn't hold the same level of cognitive ability.

[San Lumen]

I am aware yet why didn't they do this?

Maybe they did and nothing came up. Maybe they were incompetent. A number of reasons as to why.

And what if they determine no risk why should a child have to go through such a traumatic and potentially harmful ordeal?

Because ending a human life is a serious matter and should mainly be done when it's a necessity.

I fail to understand why a fetus has more rights than a person.

Because being a human being is sufficient for personhood in my opinion. I don't hold it to things such as sapience because that has been abused to hell and back to discriminate against numerous groups and why they deserve fewer, if any, rights. It's partially why they are human rights, not personhood rights because even when we were drumming up human rights and trying to implement them, those old beliefs regarding certain groups and their level of sapience were still widespread and prevalent. These rights were expanded in spite of the belief they didn't hold the same level of cognitive ability.

a fetus therefore has more rights than person and the fact that a child died for a fetus is ok because the life of a unborn child matters more. if they survive and have complications afterwords oh well at least the child was carried to term.

Who cares about the mental and physical health? that's unimportant.

Its ok you can say it. the unborn have more rights than you.

[The Marlborough]

a fetus therefore has more rights than person and the fact that a child died for a fetus is ok because the life of a unborn child matters more. if they survive and have complications afterwords oh well at least the child was carried to term.

Who cares about the mental and physical health? that's unimportant.

Its ok you can say it. the unborn have more rights than you.

If they had more rights then I wouldn't think that abortion was acceptable to save the mother's life.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

A fetus is only defined as not a person by contemporary convention. Which is why I urge pro-life activists that our immediate aim should be to change the law on personhood, and therefore the rights of personhood, to expand its scope.

1. Good luck with that constitutional amendment

2. How does it being a person give it the right to use another person’s body without their consent? No born person has this right. It seems to me you want fetuses to be MORE than persons right until they pop out of the birth canal.

“Pre-Born, you’re fine. Pre-School, you’re fucked.”

[San Lumen]

a fetus therefore has more rights than person and the fact that a child died for a fetus is ok because the life of a unborn child matters more. if they survive and have complications afterwords oh well at least the child was carried to term.

Who cares about the mental and physical health? that's unimportant.

Its ok you can say it. the unborn have more rights than you.

If they had more rights then I wouldn't think that abortion was acceptable to save the mother's life.

But in the Paraguay case she died in childbirth. There was no way of knowing that what happen. Her death was therefore acceptable to you because the child was carried to term?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

a fetus therefore has more rights than person and the fact that a child died for a fetus is ok because the life of a unborn child matters more. if they survive and have complications afterwords oh well at least the child was carried to term.

Who cares about the mental and physical health? that's unimportant.

Its ok you can say it. the unborn have more rights than you.

If they had more rights then I wouldn't think that abortion was acceptable to save the mother's life.

That doesn’t change the fact that you’re affording it more rights than born persons.

[The Marlborough]

A fetus is only defined as not a person by contemporary convention. Which is why I urge pro-life activists that our immediate aim should be to change the law on personhood, and therefore the rights of personhood, to expand its scope.

1. Good luck with that constitutional amendment

2. How does it being a person give it the right to use another person’s body without their consent? No born person has this right. It seems to me you want fetuses to be MORE than persons right until they pop out of the birth canal.

“Pre-Born, you’re fine. Pre-School, you’re fucked.”

You're going to be really disappointed when you find out I'm not the caricature of run of the mill American conservatives.

[Kexholm Karelia]

I never understood the pro abortion argument of "you only care about them before they’re born,a after they’re born you leave them to die"

Is every pro life person a hypocritical anti welfare activist?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

1. Good luck with that constitutional amendment

2. How does it being a person give it the right to use another person’s body without their consent? No born person has this right. It seems to me you want fetuses to be MORE than persons right until they pop out of the birth canal.

“Pre-Born, you’re fine. Pre-School, you’re fucked.”

You're going to be really disappointed when you find out I'm not the caricature of run of the mill American conservatives.

Good thing I don’t care whether you are, as evidenced by the fact I didn’t say shit about it.

[The Marlborough]

If they had more rights then I wouldn't think that abortion was acceptable to save the mother's life.

That doesn’t change the fact that you’re affording it more rights than born persons.

No I'm not. The right of the life of the fetus supersedes in most cases. That's it. Much like my own life supersedes the life of someone attacking me since I'm not the aggressor, hence why I can justifiably end their life. Rights shift in the pecking order dependent upon circumstances.

[The Marlborough]

You're going to be really disappointed when you find out I'm not the caricature of run of the mill American conservatives.

Good thing I don’t care whether you are, as evidenced by the fact I didn’t say shit about it.

“Pre-Born, you’re fine. Pre-School, you’re fucked.”

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I never understood the pro abortion argument of "you only care about them before they’re born,a after they’re born you leave them to die"

Is every pro life person a hypocritical anti welfare activist?

If you’re talking about giving the fetus leave to remain in the woman’s body against her wishes, while claiming to treat both parties on equal footing, then yes there’s some hypocrisy. Not necessarily related to the welfare bit, but still very much extant.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Good thing I don’t care whether you are, as evidenced by the fact I didn’t say shit about it.

“Pre-Born, you’re fine. Pre-School, you’re fucked.”

Has nothing to do with you being a Conservative Caricature and more to do with the inherent double standard, at least in regards to my intended point.

What? I like George Carlin.

[Kexholm Karelia]

I never understood the pro abortion argument of "you only care about them before they’re born,a after they’re born you leave them to die"

Is every pro life person a hypocritical anti welfare activist?

If you’re talking about giving the fetus leave to remain in the woman’s body against her wishes, while claiming to treat both parties on equal footing, then yes there’s some hypocrisy. Not necessarily related to the welfare bit, but still very much extant.

The woman wanting to kill the fetus is not within her right, it is using her body but not in the sense of an aggressive attack

[The Marlborough]

Has nothing to do with you being a Conservative Caricature and more to do with the inherent double standard, at least in regards to my intended point.

What? I like George Carlin.

The George Carlin joke about the double standard was in response to American conservative pro-life activists not wanting to use the state to assist families or fund things like education.

[The New California Republic]

If you’re talking about giving the fetus leave to remain in the woman’s body against her wishes, while claiming to treat both parties on equal footing, then yes there’s some hypocrisy. Not necessarily related to the welfare bit, but still very much extant.

The woman wanting to kill the fetus is not within her right, it is using her body but not in the sense of an aggressive attack

The effect is the same, its presence is doing something to her body that she does not want it to.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

That doesn’t change the fact that you’re affording it more rights than born persons.

No I'm not. The right of the life of the fetus supersedes in most cases.

No it doesn’t. The rights of the fetus end the instant they come into conflict with the rights of the woman within which it resides. This holds true even with your example about self defense. It is the fetus imposing upon the woman’s bodily integrity, not the other way around.

[Kexholm Karelia]

The woman wanting to kill the fetus is not within her right, it is using her body but not in the sense of an aggressive attack

The effect is the same, its presence is doing something to her body that she does not want it to.

However in the legal system we take intent into account, which is why murder and manslaughter are separate charges

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Has nothing to do with you being a Conservative Caricature and more to do with the inherent double standard, at least in regards to my intended point.

What? I like George Carlin.

The George Carlin joke about the double standard was in response to American conservative pro-life activists not wanting to use the state to assist families or fund things like education.

Well, if it makes you fell any better, the quote was not directed at you personally, and I specifically meant it as a reference to the double standard, though there are many pro-lifers that DO fit the mold.

[The New California Republic]

The effect is the same, its presence is doing something to her body that she does not want it to.

However in the legal system we take intent into account, which is why murder and manslaughter are separate charges

Irrelevant. As I said earlier (in the argument you didn't respond to):

Killing a fetus isn’t self defense because a fetus isn’t attacking anyone, it’s the purest form of innocence there is

Innocence here is immaterial. A while ago the example was used where someone else may be innocent: someone who has certain severe mental health problems who was violating someone's bodily sovereignty. The person is "innocent", in that there is no mens rea, as they do not have the capacity to know what they are doing, and yet despite that innocence we don't say to the victim: "you are just gonna have to lie back and take it, because you can't take action against someone that is innocent."