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

[Necroghastia]

If a drunk *does* assault you, though, you are justified in using the necessary force to get them to stop.

Sure. A fetus isn't assaulting you though.

What precisely do you define as assault?

[The New California Republic]

If a drunk *does* assault you, though, you are justified in using the necessary force to get them to stop.

Sure. A fetus isn't assaulting you though.

Its presence in the woman's body without her consent constitutes a violation of her bodily sovereignty, violations of that bodily sovereignty are enough to warrant actions that are the minimum necessary to stop it.

[CoraSpia]

Sure. A fetus isn't assaulting you though.

What precisely do you define as assault?

The CPS does it pretty well, I think.
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What precisely do you define as assault?

The CPS does it pretty well, I think.
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

So if i unintentionally discharged a 9 mm bullet into somebody's fallopian tubes it's assault but when a fetus unintentionally collapses them it's not?

[CoraSpia]

The CPS does it pretty well, I think.
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

So if i unintentionally discharged a 9 mm bullet into somebody's fallopian tubes it's assault but when a fetus unintentionally collapses them it's not?

Correct. We're not banning babies, so I fail to see how they can cause unlawful violence.

[Sundiata]

Again, I was referring to rape but not as an example of something that is morally neutral.

Again, I really don't know how you can argue that's what you were saying, look at the sentence:

In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances.

I'm not describing rape as a neutral instance.

I'm saying that the force used to stop rape would be just as deadly in a neutral instance, which rape is evidently not in the full context of my post.

However, I did make that clearer to help understanding.

[Necroghastia]

What precisely do you define as assault?

The CPS does it pretty well, I think.
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

Recklessly causes another to suffer, huh?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So if i unintentionally discharged a 9 mm bullet into somebody's fallopian tubes it's assault but when a fetus unintentionally collapses them it's not?

Correct. We're not banning babies, so I fail to see how they can cause unlawful violence.

This is sophistry is it not?

[CoraSpia]

The CPS does it pretty well, I think.
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

Recklessly causes another to suffer, huh?

Unlawful violence.

[Necroghastia]

Recklessly causes another to suffer, huh?

Unlawful violence.

Or

[CoraSpia]

Correct. We're not banning babies, so I fail to see how they can cause unlawful violence.

This is sophistry is it not?

Not really, foetuses are unable to commit unlawful violence, it's just something that can happen if you're pregnant. The definition says it's not assault so it must be...something else I guess.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Recklessly causes another to suffer, huh?

Unlawful violence.

More sophistry since if it was anybody post-birth doing the same damage some pregnancies cause we would be charging them.

[Spirit of Hope]

Any pregnancy puts the life of the mother in danger. That some circumstances are more dangerous doesn't negate the fact that pregnancy and child birth are dangerous and can result in death even with the best medical attention available and no known dangerous conditions.

You might as well argue that the presence of drunk people on a street puts your life in danger. Having more unpredictable people walking around definitely leads to a higher likelihood you could get hurt, it doesn't mean we should ban alcohol or allow people to assault drunk people though.

Last I checked drunk people aren't a specific medical condition inside a person's body. It is a completely apples to oranges comparison.

[CoraSpia]

Unlawful violence.

More sophistry since if it was anybody post-birth doing the same damage some pregnancies cause we would be charging them.

Then you need to work out a new word for it. Using words that people tend to have an emotive response to despite the fact that they're not at all descriptive of what you're trying to say is not very persuasive.

[Genivaria]

More sophistry since if it was anybody post-birth doing the same damage some pregnancies cause we would be charging them.

Then you need to work out a new word for it. Using words that people tend to have an emotive response to despite the fact that they're not at all descriptive of what you're trying to say is not very persuasive.

So it's an invalid comparison because it makes you uncomfortable? Great argument.

[CoraSpia]

Then you need to work out a new word for it. Using words that people tend to have an emotive response to despite the fact that they're not at all descriptive of what you're trying to say is not very persuasive.

So it's an invalid comparison because it makes you uncomfortable? Great argument.

It's invalid because it's attaching something to a word that doesn't meet the definition of that word.

[Necroghastia]

So it's an invalid comparison because it makes you uncomfortable? Great argument.

It's invalid because it's attaching something to a word that doesn't meet the definition of that word.

Except it does by the very definition you provided.

[The New California Republic]

Again, I really don't know how you can argue that's what you were saying, look at the sentence:

In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances.

I'm not describing rape as a neutral instance.

I'm saying that the force used to stop rape would be just as deadly in a neutral instance, which rape is evidently not in the full context of my post.

However, I did make that clearer to help understanding.

If, if, that's what you actually meant, then it's completely not what you actually said originally.

[Elwher]

Actually, I was reacting to the idea that a woman's body is being considered property, either hers or anyone's. If it is nothing but a property dispute, then the analogy is reasonable. I think it is much more than that.

It is that simple, and it is not that simple. Different people feel differently about their belongings and their property than others. Some people believe them to be just 'things', and others feel that their belongings are a representation of their hard work. Both are right, in their own way. Some people would fight to the death to defend their property, others would prefer to let the cops handle it, and others still would just say 'I got homeowners' insurance so it ain't no thang' and go through whatever procedures enable them to just move on.

The point is that different people will feel differently about it, but nobody should be shamed because they feel one way or the other.

That's the point of choice, isn't it?

If the woman gets pregnant due to rape and decides to carry it to term, that's her choice. Some may disagree with her reasons, but it is not the business of others to judge.

If the woman gets pregnant due to failed or misused contraception and wishes to terminate the pregnancy, that's her choice. Some may disagree with her reasons, but it is not the business of others to judge.

Neither should be shamed or pressured into actions they do not wish to take.

If a pro-life person wishes to reduce the number of abortions because they have some moral problem with it, they need to understand that not everybody feels the same way, and that while it might be a regrettable thing it remains a necessary thing, and look for a solution that can satisfy both sides without disrupting the rights of anyone.

It is possible. We've only offered such options every four or five pages.

Personally, I agree with that. My main objection is that this should be a matter to be settled in the individual states and not on a Federal level at all. Therefore, I support the Texas law and being representative of what Texas believes and the New York laws as being representative of what New York believes.

I do have to ask if that same belief in personal choice extends to other areas of the intersection of morality and legality? For example, where do you stand on drug laws, prostitution, and multiple marriages? Are these areas where you believe people should have an unfettered choice?

[Spirit of Hope]

It is that simple, and it is not that simple. Different people feel differently about their belongings and their property than others. Some people believe them to be just 'things', and others feel that their belongings are a representation of their hard work. Both are right, in their own way. Some people would fight to the death to defend their property, others would prefer to let the cops handle it, and others still would just say 'I got homeowners' insurance so it ain't no thang' and go through whatever procedures enable them to just move on.

The point is that different people will feel differently about it, but nobody should be shamed because they feel one way or the other.

That's the point of choice, isn't it?

If the woman gets pregnant due to rape and decides to carry it to term, that's her choice. Some may disagree with her reasons, but it is not the business of others to judge.

If the woman gets pregnant due to failed or misused contraception and wishes to terminate the pregnancy, that's her choice. Some may disagree with her reasons, but it is not the business of others to judge.

Neither should be shamed or pressured into actions they do not wish to take.

If a pro-life person wishes to reduce the number of abortions because they have some moral problem with it, they need to understand that not everybody feels the same way, and that while it might be a regrettable thing it remains a necessary thing, and look for a solution that can satisfy both sides without disrupting the rights of anyone.

It is possible. We've only offered such options every four or five pages.

Personally, I agree with that. My main objection is that this should be a matter to be settled in the individual states and not on a Federal level at all. Therefore, I support the Texas law and being representative of what Texas believes and the New York laws as being representative of what New York believes.

I do have to ask if that same belief in personal choice extends to other areas of the intersection of morality and legality? For example, where do you stand on drug laws, prostitution, and multiple marriages? Are these areas where you believe people should have an unfettered choice?

No, states don't get to take away people's rights, even if a majority of the people in that state want to. The Texas law is an absurd law designed to undermine the rule of law by first avoiding judicial review and second by offloading the enforcement powers of the state onto individual citizens.

As to your other questions:

I think individual drug possession should be decriminalized, though illegal distribution should remain a crime. A drug addict is a health crisis not a law crisis.

I support the decriminalization of prostitution, so long as adequate safe guards exist to protect against human trafficking and forced prostitution.

Marriages shouldn't be a state care, if someone wants to be religiously married to multiple people it isn't the states concern. From the state perspective I wish we got ride of marriages and went to strictly civil unions for all and if someone wants to be in multiple civil unions, as long as all parties are aware and consenting why should the state care?

EDIT: I'd also ask if morality is the bassis of law for you, what is your stance on adultery, gambling, sex out of wedlock, or the worship of other religions?

[Thepeopl]

Patently untrue, as shown by the fact that there are instances when that right is overridden.

When is it overridden in ways that are positive though?

Death Penalty, euthanasia, war for freedom and democracy, robbery. Loads of instances where some will say ppl have forfeited the right to life for the betterment of society. Or themselves.

And fetuses make most pregnant women suffer. Not always life threatening but suffer they do.
Think how awful it is to not drink alcohol for 9 months. Just a whiff of alcohol was enough for me to puke during pregnancy. I didn't even have to ingest it.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Animals rape, that is an indisputable fact by all laws of natural science.

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape at least involves a human being.

Sounds like you need to learn more about dolphins

[Thepeopl]

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape at least involves a human being.

Sounds like you need to learn more about dolphins

And ducks.

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecom ... copulation.

And the rest of mammalian species.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Lis ... l1_5459441

[Stellar Colonies]

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape at least involves a human being.

Sounds like you need to learn more about dolphins

Koalas are also ridden with chlamydia for reasons.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Personally, I agree with that. My main objection is that this should be a matter to be settled in the individual states and not on a Federal level at all. Therefore, I support the Texas law and being representative of what Texas believes and the New York laws as being representative of what New York believes.

I do have to ask if that same belief in personal choice extends to other areas of the intersection of morality and legality? For example, where do you stand on drug laws, prostitution, and multiple marriages? Are these areas where you believe people should have an unfettered choice?

No, states don't get to take away people's rights, even if a majority of the people in that state want to. The Texas law is an absurd law designed to undermine the rule of law by first avoiding judicial review and second by offloading the enforcement powers of the state onto individual citizens.

As to your other questions:

I think individual drug possession should be decriminalized, though illegal distribution should remain a crime. A drug addict is a health crisis not a law crisis.

I support the decriminalization of prostitution, so long as adequate safe guards exist to protect against human trafficking and forced prostitution.

Marriages shouldn't be a state care, if someone wants to be religiously married to multiple people it isn't the states concern. From the state perspective I wish we got ride of marriages and went to strictly civil unions for all and if someone wants to be in multiple civil unions, as long as all parties are aware and consenting why should the state care?

EDIT: I'd also ask if morality is the bassis of law for you, what is your stance on adultery, gambling, sex out of wedlock, or the worship of other religions?

In answer to Elwher, pretty much this ^