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

[New haven america]

Welp, guess she should just let the rapist finish then! Better she become a mother against her will than kill another person in self-defense!

#fuckthatnoise

What do you mean? Why would you approve of rape? Neither rape or anyone's killing is ideal.

It's calling out your appalling views on "Life."

[Sundiata]

What do you mean? Why would you approve of rape? Neither rape or anyone's killing is ideal.

It's calling out your appalling views on "Life."

I already read it all; it's fine.

[The New California Republic]

It's calling out your appalling views on "Life."

I already read it all; it's fine.

It really ain't friendo.

[Genivaria]

It's calling out your appalling views on "Life."

I already read it all; it's fine.

No rape is not 'fine'.

[Sundiata]

I already read it all; it's fine.

No rape is not 'fine'.

That's what I've been saying this whole time.

[Genivaria]

No rape is not 'fine'.

That's what I've been saying this whole time.

You? Unlikely, you don't seem to care about consent at all.

[Sundiata]

That's what I've been saying this whole time.

You? Unlikely, you don't seem to care about consent at all.

I don't consent to the killing of the most vulnerable human beings.

[Alcala-Cordel]

You? Unlikely, you don't seem to care about consent at all.

I don't consent to the killing of the most vulnerable human beings.

Consent applies to people involved, you have no right to force yourself into the situation and deny people the right to an abortion.

And again, fetuses aren't people.

[Genivaria]

You? Unlikely, you don't seem to care about consent at all.

I don't consent to the killing of the most vulnerable human beings.

You think its your place to consent for other people? Not helping your case.

[Genivaria]

I don't consent to the killing of the most vulnerable human beings.

Consent applies to people involved, you have no right to force yourself into the situation and deny people the right to an abortion.

And again, fetuses aren't people.

He honestly makes me thing of the horribly cringy "Myth of Consensual Sex" Christian meme.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 94/dc8.jpg

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Consent applies to people involved, you have no right to force yourself into the situation and deny people the right to an abortion.

And again, fetuses aren't people.

He honestly makes me thing of the horribly cringy "Myth of Consensual Sex" Christian meme.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 94/dc8.jpg

>Wildly assuming Jesus would give a fuck about two people making love to eachother
Is this hubris?

[Sundiata]

I don't consent to the killing of the most vulnerable human beings.

You think its your place to consent for other people? Not helping your case.

It's the place of everyone of good will to stop homicide.

[Thepeopl]

You think its your place to consent for other people? Not helping your case.

It's my place of everyone of good will to stop homicide.

It's my place of everyone of good will to stop unnecessary suffering.

[The New California Republic]

You? Unlikely, you don't seem to care about consent at all.

I don't consent to the killing of the most vulnerable human beings.

Trying to say you have the capacity of consent for others isn't a good look.

[Page]

You? Unlikely, you don't seem to care about consent at all.

I don't consent to the killing of the most vulnerable human beings.

And these "most vulnerable" fetuses don't consent to you rescuing them. Because they can't consent. To anything. Because they literally have no thoughts and no awareness.

[Spirit of Hope]

You think its your place to consent for other people? Not helping your case.

It's my place of everyone of good will to stop homicide.

Do you appose physician assisted suicide?
What about removing life support for the brain dead?

Both of those could be termed homicide with the involved parties consenting or unable to consent.

[Elwher]

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?

Unless you define "Don't hurt other people unless they agree to it" as morality, I do not believe morality should be the basis of law.

[Spirit of Hope]

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?

Unless you define "Don't hurt other people unless they agree to it" as morality, I do not believe morality should be the basis of law.

Then what is your basis for apposing abortion? The fetus is hurting the woman and the woman would like to take steps to end it. The fetus is not a person, as before the third trimester it does not have the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive.

[Grave_n_idle]

You think its your place to consent for other people? Not helping your case.

It's the place of everyone of good will to stop homicide.

Irrelevant, an appeal to emotion, AND an unsupported 'morality'-adjacent claim.

[Galloism]

Firearms Policy Coalition files brief urging Supreme Court to take and strike down the Texas anti-abortion law.

[Neutraligon]

Firearms Policy Coalition files brief urging Supreme Court to take and strike down the Texas anti-abortion law.

Good, someone realized that this law could be used against them.

[Galloism]

Firearms Policy Coalition files brief urging Supreme Court to take and strike down the Texas anti-abortion law.

Good, someone realized that this law could be used against them.

Yeah.

I believe I mentioned some time ago how this attempted end-run around judicial review was a disaster, even beyond the implications for human rights. It was a legalistic nightmare thing.

[The New California Republic]

Firearms Policy Coalition files brief urging Supreme Court to take and strike down the Texas anti-abortion law.

Good, someone realized that this law could be used against them.

It's unfortunate it took folk this long to realise how Stasi-esque it is.

[Godular]

Good, someone realized that this law could be used against them.

Yeah.

I believe I mentioned some time ago how this attempted end-run around judicial review was a disaster, even beyond the implications for human rights. It was a legalistic nightmare thing.

The fact that the Supreme Court is letting it stand while they 'consider' it is perhaps the most annoying part.

[Elwher]

Unless you define "Don't hurt other people unless they agree to it" as morality, I do not believe morality should be the basis of law.

Then what is your basis for apposing abortion? The fetus is hurting the woman and the woman would like to take steps to end it. The fetus is not a person, as before the third trimester it does not have the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive.

I am ambivalent on the question of abortion itself as I am unsure about ensoulment. What I am opposed to is allowing the Federal government to regulate any medical procedures including abortion.

However, using "the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive" is somewhat dangerous, as it could define someone in a deep coma or a vegetative state on a ventilator as not being alive either.