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

[Sundiata]

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.

They may not be viable but they're still alive and we shouldn't kill them. This isn't punishment for the mother. It's just an unfortunate situation.

[Ifreann]

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?



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.

My dude, let me tell you about the presumption of innocence.

[Vassenor]

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?



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.

And so the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is denied them.

[The New California Republic]

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.

Nope, not all self defence cases lead to homicide charges, so what you are proposing isn't remotely equivalent.

[San Lumen]

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.

They may not be viable but they're still alive and we shouldn't kill them. This isn't punishment for the mother. It's just an unfortunate situation.

No it is punishment. There is no reason for such a procedure. Just do the abortion.

[American Legionaries]

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.

And so the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is denied them.

Indictment on charges violates presumption of innocence? That's a hot take if I've ever heard one.

[American Legionaries]

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.

Nope, not all self defence cases lead to homicide charges, so what you are proposing isn't remotely equivalent.

Well given the circumstances, the police and state attorney may not file charges at all.

[The New California Republic]

And so the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is denied them.

Indictment on charges violates presumption of innocence? That's a hot take if I've ever heard one.

[...] not all self defence cases lead to homicide charges, so what you are proposing isn't remotely equivalent.

[American Legionaries]

Indictment on charges violates presumption of innocence? That's a hot take if I've ever heard one.

[...] not all self defence cases lead to homicide charges, so what you are proposing isn't remotely equivalent.

Yes you posted that before.

[The New California Republic]

Nope, not all self defence cases lead to homicide charges, so what you are proposing isn't remotely equivalent.

Well given the circumstances, the police and state attorney may not file charges at all.

Well that's a backtrack from the blanket approach you proposed a few minutes ago. But then again what you are proposing isn't going to happen, so...

Yes you posted that before.

Thought it needed posting again as it seemed to not register.

[Ifreann]

And so the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is denied them.

Indictment on charges violates presumption of innocence? That's a hot take if I've ever heard one.

Having to prove an imminent, otherwise unavoidable risk of death or great bodily harm to be absolved of one's actions does.

[American Legionaries]

Indictment on charges violates presumption of innocence? That's a hot take if I've ever heard one.

Having to prove an imminent, otherwise unavoidable risk of death or great bodily harm to be absolved of one's actions does.

That's how self defense works.

[Spirit of Hope]

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?



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.

Did you know that prosecutors don't have to charge someone with a crime and routinely don't in the case of self defense? In the case of abortion the argument is easy, 1/3 of pregnancies in the US end in surgery and 20 in 100,000 end in death. This is an unavoidable part of pregnancy. So abortion is getting you out of that.

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.

They may not be viable but they're still alive and we shouldn't kill them. This isn't punishment for the mother. It's just an unfortunate situation.

I mean your making everything worse just so that you can try and dodge "intent" to "kill" the fetus. Even though the procedure you are proposing would still result when people "intend" to "kill" the fetus.

Its a rather silly attempt to avoid an arbitrary moral rule without any questioning of why.

[The New California Republic]

Having to prove an imminent, otherwise unavoidable risk of death or great bodily harm to be absolved of one's actions does.

That's how self defense works.

Well in that case the fact that the woman's bodily sovereignty is being violated and taking actions to stop that would be enough to prove self defence, so there would be precisely zero instances of what you are proposing ever being prosecuted successfully.

[Ifreann]

Having to prove an imminent, otherwise unavoidable risk of death or great bodily harm to be absolved of one's actions does.

That's how self defense works.

My dude, let me tell you about the presumption of innocence.

[American Legionaries]

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.

Did you know that prosecutors don't have to charge someone with a crime and routinely don't in the case of self defense? In the case of abortion the argument is easy, 1/3 of pregnancies in the US end in surgery and 20 in 100,000 end in death. This is an unavoidable part of pregnancy. So abortion is getting you out of that.

They may not be viable but they're still alive and we shouldn't kill them. This isn't punishment for the mother. It's just an unfortunate situation.

I mean your making everything worse just so that you can try and dodge "intent" to "kill" the fetus. Even though the procedure you are proposing would still result when people "intend" to "kill" the fetus.

Its a rather silly attempt to avoid an arbitrary moral rule without any questioning of why.

A 1/5,000 chance of death is hardly an imminent, and unavoidable risk. If that threshold justified lethal self defense I could shoot every other motorist on the highway because the chance exists they'll crash into me.

[Sundiata]

I mean your making everything worse just so that you can try and dodge "intent" to "kill" the fetus. Even though the procedure you are proposing would still result when people "intend" to "kill" the fetus.

Its a rather silly attempt to avoid an arbitrary moral rule without any questioning of why.

For me, it's the difference between evil and morally neutral. Intent matters. It's bad that the unborn child dies but we shouldn't intend to kill them, that intention would be evil regardless of if the mother fortunately lives and the unborn child unfortunately dies.

[Spirit of Hope]

Did you know that prosecutors don't have to charge someone with a crime and routinely don't in the case of self defense? In the case of abortion the argument is easy, 1/3 of pregnancies in the US end in surgery and 20 in 100,000 end in death. This is an unavoidable part of pregnancy. So abortion is getting you out of that.



I mean your making everything worse just so that you can try and dodge "intent" to "kill" the fetus. Even though the procedure you are proposing would still result when people "intend" to "kill" the fetus.

Its a rather silly attempt to avoid an arbitrary moral rule without any questioning of why.

A 1/5,000 chance of death is hardly an imminent, and unavoidable risk. If that threshold justified lethal self defense I could shoot every other motorist on the highway because the chance exists they'll crash into me.

You got proof that other motorists have a 1 in 5,000 chance of killing you? Please provide evidence to back up your comparison. And that chance is unavoidable.

You also ignored the 1 in 3 chance of major abdominal surgery.

[San Lumen]

I mean your making everything worse just so that you can try and dodge "intent" to "kill" the fetus. Even though the procedure you are proposing would still result when people "intend" to "kill" the fetus.

Its a rather silly attempt to avoid an arbitrary moral rule without any questioning of why.

For me, it's the difference between evil and morally neutral. Intent matters. It's bad that the unborn child dies but we shouldn't intend to kill them, that intention would be evil regardless of if the mother fortunately lives and the unborn child unfortunately dies.

Its not a child. its a fetus. Why should a fetus have more rights than you or I? Why should a women accept as tradeoff for not dying as becoming infertile?

[Spirit of Hope]

I mean your making everything worse just so that you can try and dodge "intent" to "kill" the fetus. Even though the procedure you are proposing would still result when people "intend" to "kill" the fetus.

Its a rather silly attempt to avoid an arbitrary moral rule without any questioning of why.

For me, it's the difference between evil and morally neutral. Intent matters. It's bad that the unborn child dies but we shouldn't intend to kill them, that intention would be evil regardless of if the mother fortunately lives and the unborn child unfortunately dies.

But if I go through this procedure with the intent to remove the procedure doesn't that invalidate the whole intent dodge?

And again you are legislating your morality onto others. You don't get to do that. You can live by your religiously based morality, but the second you try and force it on me we have an issue.

[Sundiata]

For me, it's the difference between evil and morally neutral. Intent matters. It's bad that the unborn child dies but we shouldn't intend to kill them, that intention would be evil regardless of if the mother fortunately lives and the unborn child unfortunately dies.

But if I go through this procedure with the intent to remove the procedure doesn't that invalidate the whole intent dodge?

And again you are legislating your morality onto others. You don't get to do that. You can live by your religiously based morality, but the second you try and force it on me we have an issue.

From the perspective of the patient that intention is evil in your example, sure. However, the physician performing the procedure doesn't have to do evil because the patient intends to.

[American Legionaries]

A 1/5,000 chance of death is hardly an imminent, and unavoidable risk. If that threshold justified lethal self defense I could shoot every other motorist on the highway because the chance exists they'll crash into me.

You got proof that other motorists have a 1 in 5,000 chance of killing you? Please provide evidence to back up your comparison. And that chance is unavoidable.

You also ignored the 1 in 3 chance of major abdominal surgery.

Individually, no. But goven the rate of fatal car accidents I have a greater risk of death driving to work than a woman has carrying a pregnancy.

It isn't relevant.

[American Legionaries]

For me, it's the difference between evil and morally neutral. Intent matters. It's bad that the unborn child dies but we shouldn't intend to kill them, that intention would be evil regardless of if the mother fortunately lives and the unborn child unfortunately dies.

But if I go through this procedure with the intent to remove the procedure doesn't that invalidate the whole intent dodge?

And again you are legislating your morality onto others. You don't get to do that. You can live by your religiously based morality, but the second you try and force it on me we have an issue.

All laws legislate morality onto others. It's unavoidable.

[Spirit of Hope]

You got proof that other motorists have a 1 in 5,000 chance of killing you? Please provide evidence to back up your comparison. And that chance is unavoidable.

You also ignored the 1 in 3 chance of major abdominal surgery.

Individually, no. But goven the rate of fatal car accidents I have a greater risk of death driving to work than a woman has carrying a pregnancy.

No you don't. The rate of traffic fatalities is far lower than the rate of deaths in pregnancy. Especially for drivers who are not breaking the law in other ways.

It isn't relevant.

Yes it is, if I am doing something that threatens death or serious bodily harm you have the right to self defense. Major surgery is serious bodily harm.

[Neutraligon]

Individually, no. But goven the rate of fatal car accidents I have a greater risk of death driving to work than a woman has carrying a pregnancy.

No you don't. The rate of traffic fatalities is far lower than the rate of deaths in pregnancy. Especially for drivers who are not breaking the law in other ways.

It isn't relevant.

Yes it is, if I am doing something that threatens death or serious bodily harm you have the right to self defense. Major surgery is serious bodily harm.

Well that and...if the pregnancy is unwanted then it is always self-defense since the fetus is violating bodily autonomy.