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

[Spirit of Hope]

So the state should force women to be slaves to a fetus? Do you support slavery in other contexts or just this one?

Killing the human beings, especially the most defenseless, is just as reprehensible as slavery.

So you choose slavery and murder of adult women over the termination of a fetus that has no brain structure.

[New Albion and Alba]

So the state should force women to be slaves to a fetus? Do you support slavery in other contexts or just this one?

Killing the human beings, especially the most defenseless, is just as reprehensible as slavery.

Please convince us first that these are fully conscious and sapient human beings rather than merely the embryonic form of Homo sapiens.

[Sundiata]

Killing the human beings, especially the most defenseless, is just as reprehensible as slavery.

a fetus is not defenseless as its not sentient. Its has zero rights or feelings.

It should have rights as a human being regardless of capacity.

[The New California Republic]

So the state should force women to be slaves to a fetus? Do you support slavery in other contexts or just this one?

Killing the human beings, especially the most defenseless, is just as reprehensible as slavery.

Enslaving the body of an actual human being to a proto-human being is truly reprehensible.

[San Lumen]

a fetus is not defenseless as its not sentient. Its has zero rights or feelings.

It should have rights as a human being regardless of capacity.

its not a human being as its not a person. Lets not forget you want women to die to attempt save unviable fetuses from instances like ectopic pregnancies.

[Spirit of Hope]

a fetus is not defenseless as its not sentient. Its has zero rights or feelings.

It should have rights as a human being regardless of capacity.

If it has the same rights as a human then abortion is self defense and not murder. After all the fetus is endangering the life and limb of the mother. You are arguing that the fetus should get more rights than a human being.

[The New California Republic]

a fetus is not defenseless as its not sentient. Its has zero rights or feelings.

It should have rights as a human being regardless of capacity.

No human being has the right to usurp the body of another against their will, so how can you possibly claim that the fetus should have rights as a human being, when no other human being has a right that you want the fetus to have?

[Sundiata]

It should have rights as a human being regardless of capacity.

its not a human being as its not a person. Lets not forget you want women to die to attempt save unviable fetuses from instances like ectopic pregnancies.

I don't want anyone to die but we actually shouldn't kill a human being for anyone's convenience.

[San Lumen]

its not a human being as its not a person. Lets not forget you want women to die to attempt save unviable fetuses from instances like ectopic pregnancies.

I don't want anyone to die but we actually shouldn't kill a human being for anyone's convenience.

In the case of toxic pregnancies the fetus ill not be viable. Why should a woman die to save a fetus that will never be able to be carried to term?

[Sundiata]

It should have rights as a human being regardless of capacity.

If it has the same rights as a human then abortion is self defense and not murder. After all the fetus is endangering the life and limb of the mother. You are arguing that the fetus should get more rights than a human being.

Not at all, the situation can be addressed without violating the rights of the mother or her unborn child.

[Sundiata]

I don't want anyone to die but we actually shouldn't kill a human being for anyone's convenience.

In the case of toxic pregnancies the fetus ill not be viable. Why should a woman die to save a fetus that will never be able to be carried to term?

She doesn't have to die in an attempt to save the fetus.

[The New California Republic]

If it has the same rights as a human then abortion is self defense and not murder. After all the fetus is endangering the life and limb of the mother. You are arguing that the fetus should get more rights than a human being.

Not at all, the situation can be addressed without violating the rights of the mother or her unborn child.

Her bodily sovereignty is being violated, so yes there is a rights violation taking place here.

[Spirit of Hope]

If it has the same rights as a human then abortion is self defense and not murder. After all the fetus is endangering the life and limb of the mother. You are arguing that the fetus should get more rights than a human being.

Not at all, the situation can be addressed without violating the rights of the mother or her unborn child.

Ok, how do you have the mother not get an abortion and not have to give birth?

[Neutraligon]

Not at all, the situation can be addressed without violating the rights of the mother or her unborn child.

Ok, how do you have the mother not get an abortion and not have to give birth?

Sundiata has said she should have her uterus removed...as if removing the uterus is not an abortion.

[San Lumen]

In the case of toxic pregnancies the fetus ill not be viable. Why should a woman die to save a fetus that will never be able to be carried to term?

She doesn't have to die in an attempt to save the fetus.

What do you suggest be done?

[Sundiata]

Not at all, the situation can be addressed without violating the rights of the mother or her unborn child.

Ok, how do you have the mother not get an abortion and not have to give birth?

She doesn't have to die in an attempt to save the fetus.

What do you suggest be done?

Without intending to kill the fetus, cut the portion of the organ where implantation occurs. Commonly the fallopian tubes. Unfortunately the unborn child will die but we didn't directly intend to kill them.

[San Lumen]

Ok, how do you have the mother not get an abortion and not have to give birth?

Without intending to kill the fetus, cut the portion of the organ where implantation occurs. Commonly the fallopian tubes. Unfortunately the unborn child will die but we cannot directly intend to kill it.

So mutilation of women's bodies to save a fetus that will never be viable? And that women will never have children again.

[Sundiata]

Without intending to kill the fetus, cut the portion of the organ where implantation occurs. Commonly the fallopian tubes. Unfortunately the unborn child will die but we cannot directly intend to kill it.

So mutilation of women's bodies to save a fetus that will never be viable? And that women will never have children again.

Two unfortunate effects of trying not to kill.

[The New California Republic]

Without intending to kill the fetus, cut the portion of the organ where implantation occurs. Commonly the fallopian tubes. Unfortunately the unborn child will die but we didn't directly intend to kill them.

It's just really abhorrently bad that you'd make the woman go through a far more risky procedure to avoid an abortion at all costs, when the fetus will die in any event.

Two unfortunate effects of trying not to kill.

And entirely unnecessary, hence why most sensible doctors would not do what you are proposing, and rightly so because the action you are proposing is inherently stupid.

[Sundiata]

Without intending to kill the fetus, cut the portion of the organ where implantation occurs. Commonly the fallopian tubes. Unfortunately the unborn child will die but we didn't directly intend to kill them.

It's just really abhorrently bad that you'd make the woman go through a far more risky procedure to avoid an abortion at all costs, when the fetus will die in any event.

Ideally we would have an alternative location to implant the fetus in times like that but technology is not there yet.

[San Lumen]

So mutilation of women's bodies to save a fetus that will never be viable? And that women will never have children again.

Two unfortunate effects of trying not to kill.

Your not killing anything. By the time an ectopic pregnancy is detected that fetus is not viable has no feeling or sentience and doesn't even resemble a baby.

A woman should therefore be punished for something should could not control. That is abhorrent.

[American Legionaries]

It should have rights as a human being regardless of capacity.

If it has the same rights as a human then abortion is self defense and not murder. After all the fetus is endangering the life and limb of the mother. You are arguing that the fetus should get more rights than a human being.

If it's self defense why don't we treat it as such?

[Spirit of Hope]

Ok, how do you have the mother not get an abortion and not have to give birth?

What do you suggest be done?

Without intending to kill the fetus, cut the portion of the organ where implantation occurs. Commonly the fallopian tubes. Unfortunately the unborn child will die but we didn't directly intend to kill them.

So you don't have a problem with removing the fetus, you just have a problem with the "intent to kill" the fetus. So instead of doing a safe abortion you want to do a completely unnecessary medical procedure that permanently takes part of the women's body away.

I'm sorry but no. You are just adding extra steps to dodge your own morality of "intent." I mean if someone has this procedure done when their intent is to get rid of the pregnancy then doesn't that invalidate the whole process?

If it has the same rights as a human then abortion is self defense and not murder. After all the fetus is endangering the life and limb of the mother. You are arguing that the fetus should get more rights than a human being.

If it's self defense why don't we treat it as such?

Meaning what?

[The New California Republic]

It's just really abhorrently bad that you'd make the woman go through a far more risky procedure to avoid an abortion at all costs, when the fetus will die in any event.

Ideally we would have an alternative location to implant the fetus in times like that but technology is not there yet.

Nope, space age tech won't get you out of this quandary, so you have to try to own the abhorrent thing you are proposing. And I mean really own it, i.e. fully accept the mutilation of the woman that'd be caused without futuristic platitudes.

[American Legionaries]

Without intending to kill the fetus, cut the portion of the organ where implantation occurs. Commonly the fallopian tubes. Unfortunately the unborn child will die but we didn't directly intend to kill them.

So you don't have a problem with removing the fetus, you just have a problem with the "intent to kill" the fetus. So instead of doing a safe abortion you want to do a completely unnecessary medical procedure that permanently takes part of the women's body away.

I'm sorry but no. You are just adding extra steps to dodge your own morality of "intent." I mean if someone has this procedure done when their intent is to get rid of the pregnancy then doesn't that invalidate the whole process?

If it's self defense why don't we treat it as such?

Meaning what?

Women are permitted to have an abortion, in which instance they're indicted on homicide charges, and must prove an imminent, otherwise unavoidable risk of death or great bodily harm to absolve them of their actions.