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

[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.

[The Free Joy State]

And Arizona lawmakers have introduced a bill that would count abortion as a homicide, meaning both doctors and women could get the death penalty.

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/ ... B2650P.pdf

So pro-life.

This is not gonna pass and will die like the Texas bill

The death of bills like this can't come soon enough.

The poor women of Arizona.

And Arizona lawmakers have introduced a bill that would count abortion as a homicide, meaning both doctors and women could get the death penalty.

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/ ... B2650P.pdf

So pro-life.

Are these a bunch of new and upcoming Republican representatives who think they're finally going to be the ones who overturn Roe v. Wade?

...From a quick look, miscarriage would count as homicide as would abortion due to life of the mother.

The prisons would be filled to the brim.

“What are you in here for?”
“My body didn't implant the fertilized egg in the uterine wall properly.”

These lawmakers seem to want their state to become the new El Salvador, where women are jailed for miscarriages frequently.

swaggie so what's the problem lol

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

An invasion of bodily sovereignty, especially (but not only) one that could result in death or serious injury, is an attack.

We view rape as an attack, whether or not it will result in death, purely because of the invasion of bodily sovereignty involved. Even if the attacker was sleepwalking and unaware, the victim would still be able to terminate the attack by force.

I am not calling the foetus a rapist, but pointing out that loss of bodily sovereignty is sufficient to be called an attack. That the foetus is unconscious is irrelevant. Only the result matters, not the intent.

If you were knocked unconscious and hooked up to another person -- one who had done nothing wrong but who would die without the use of your organs until a more permanent donor can be found (to the loss of your mobility and bodily sovereignty and at potential cost to your health) -- it is not murder to unhook yourself and walk away, knowing the person will die (McFall v. Shimp already established that you do not owe another person -- which you wish to argue a foetus is -- the use of your body).

Did you know about half of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus for unknown reasons? If life begins at conception wouldn’t that make every woman whose had more than period a serial killer?

I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborate

Between 40 and 60% of fertilised embryos (in total) may be lost between fertilisation and birth (this includes the fertilised eggs that never implant and leave the body, seemingly as part of a menstrual period, without the woman realising she's pregnant (estimated at around 50%), and also via miscarriage later in the pregnancy).

[The New California Republic]

snip

It was just a point of order, I don't care for the "not alive" argument either as it's wrong, as I indicated earlier.

---

I HATE that track... mostly because it's a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things.

You and me both. It went on for far too long and is utterly spurious anyway.

[The Free Joy State]

snip

It was just a point of order, I don't care for the "not alive" argument either as it's wrong, as I indicated earlier.

---

I HATE that track... mostly because it's a trivial concern in the grand scheme of things.

You and me both. It went on for far too long and is utterly spurious anyway.

Far better to agree that foetuses are alive and be done with it. It's a silly, pointless sidetrack.

But even though foetuses are alive (but insentient) and should you agree that foetuses are people -- which some pro-choicers do -- there's still no legal reason to deny abortion.

There is no person in the world who is entitled to the use of our bodies without consent.

[Molither]

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.

[The New California Republic]

It was just a point of order, I don't care for the "not alive" argument either as it's wrong, as I indicated earlier.

---

You and me both. It went on for far too long and is utterly spurious anyway.

Far better to agree that foetuses are alive and be done with it. It's a silly, pointless sidetrack.

But even though foetuses are alive (but insentient) and should you agree that foetuses are people -- which some pro-choicers do -- there's still no legal reason to deny abortion.

There is no person in the world who is entitled to the use of our bodies without consent.

I did try to sway the discussion away from it and onto other points, such as a riposte to that "innocence" argument put forward by KK, but it got ignored and so here we are.

[The Free Joy State]

Far better to agree that foetuses are alive and be done with it. It's a silly, pointless sidetrack.

But even though foetuses are alive (but insentient) and should you agree that foetuses are people -- which some pro-choicers do -- there's still no legal reason to deny abortion.

There is no person in the world who is entitled to the use of our bodies without consent.

I did try to sway the discussion away from it and onto other points, such as a riposte to that "innocence" argument put forward by KK, but it got ignored and so here we are.

You know, I don't think I've seen "foetuses aren't alive" as a pro-choice argument. I have seen it touted on pro-life websites as a pro-choice argument (I was on the fence for a period as a teen, then I spoke to people from both sides and my mind was made up). I sometimes wish people would respond to our arguments, rather than what every-sperm-is-sacred.com ( ) assures people our arguments are.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I am against abortion, as preventing the life of a baby to be, a kid to be, a person to be, this is how I describe it. Except when it hurts the life of the mother and the baby will be born with an incurable defect. I don't know how my other fellow Conservative Republicans describe it. I strongly support The Right to Life with Dignity Euthanasia Law, in the least painless way possible, according to the health experts, with few if any restrictions. GMS.

[Vassenor]

every-sperm-is-sacred.com ( )

...GDI.

[The New California Republic]

I did try to sway the discussion away from it and onto other points, such as a riposte to that "innocence" argument put forward by KK, but it got ignored and so here we are.

You know, I don't think I've seen "foetuses aren't alive" as a pro-choice argument. I have seen it touted on pro-life websites as a pro-choice argument (I was on the fence for a period as a teen, then I spoke to people from both sides and my mind was made up). I sometimes wish people would respond to our arguments, rather than what every-sperm-is-sacred.com ( ) assures people our arguments are.

Yes it is only a tiny minority of pro-choice people that go down the "not alive" route, I have seen a few doing it previously on these abortion threads, but again it's a tiny minority. By far the main issue is with pro-life folk trying to spin it as a key pro-choice argument, when it patently isn't. The problem is that you still do get those very few pro-choice people going down that route, so it gives the aforementioned pro-life claim some semblance of legitimacy. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice people know that it's alive and don't contest it at all. I spelled it out as soon as the "not alive" argument was mentioned earlier, in the hope that it'd act as a firebreak, but it did not:

Just to say that it's not really a common argument here for folk to say that fetuses are not alive. There is near universal acceptance amongst pro-choice people here that fetuses are alive, but it's immaterial to the arguments they use.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

So, logically, if you use the argument that a fetus has no legal right to use a woman's body so must be killed - even if it is alive and sentient - then wouldn't this apply to conjoined twins?

Should a conjoined twin be able to shoot the other to stop them from using their body?

[The Alma Mater]

I did try to sway the discussion away from it and onto other points, such as a riposte to that "innocence" argument put forward by KK, but it got ignored and so here we are.

You know, I don't think I've seen "foetuses aren't alive" as a pro-choice argument. I have seen it touted on pro-life websites as a pro-choice argument (I was on the fence for a period as a teen, then I spoke to people from both sides and my mind was made up). I sometimes wish people would respond to our arguments, rather than what every-sperm-is-sacred.com ( ) assures people our arguments are.

It indeed barely is used. The most common arguments are the bodily integrity (no human can use the body of another human to survive without permission) and the "a fetus is not harmed by abortion" philosophical line; which usually refers to its inability to have experiences.

Of course, that last one tends to forbid late term abortions.

[The Free Joy State]

So, logically, if you use the argument that a fetus has no legal right to use a woman's body so must be killed - even if it is alive and sentient - then wouldn't this apply to conjoined twins?

Should a conjoined twin be able to shoot the other to stop them from using their body?

Parents do make the decision to separate conjoined twins where one is supporting the life of the other, knowing the second and weaker twin will die (so the first can have a better quality of life), Agarntrop (assuming that is Agarntrop).

It's a poor argument.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

So, logically, if you use the argument that a fetus has no legal right to use a woman's body so must be killed - even if it is alive and sentient - then wouldn't this apply to conjoined twins?

Should a conjoined twin be able to shoot the other to stop them from using their body?

Parents do make the decision to separate conjoined twins where one is supporting the life of the other, knowing the second and weaker twin will die (so the first can have a better quality of life), Agarntrop (assuming that is Agarntrop).

It's a poor argument.

Yes, I am Agarn. ECTP is my forumside nation these days.

But the same logic applies, fundamentally, dosen't it?

I am pro-choice on the basis of the possible consequences of criminalising abortion, which would lead to backstreet abortions and ultimately the death of hundreds (if not thousands) of women, along with their fetuses, which could have been prevented through access to legal and safe abortion. It is on this basis - not the vague and contradictory 'my body my choice' - that I am pro-choice and I think this is the basis that other pro choicers should base their arguments on too.

[The New California Republic]

But the same logic applies, fundamentally, dosen't it?

It doesn't when taking stock of the context, in that in the example you have used there are alternate recourses to remedy it, such as separation surgery. In the case of abortion there are not, i.e. the only "alternative" isn't an alternative at all: it's for the situation to continue. As many pro-choice people here previously have said: if there was an alternate recourse in the situation then great, but there is not.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

But the same logic applies, fundamentally, dosen't it?

It doesn't when taking stock of the context, in that in the example you have used there are alternate recourses to remedy it, such as separation surgery. In the case of abortion there are not, i.e. the only "alternative" isn't an alternative at all: it's for the situation to continue. As many pro-choice people here previously have said: if there was an alternate recourse in the situation then great, but there is not.

What if they share organs?

[The New California Republic]

It doesn't when taking stock of the context, in that in the example you have used there are alternate recourses to remedy it, such as separation surgery. In the case of abortion there are not, i.e. the only "alternative" isn't an alternative at all: it's for the situation to continue. As many pro-choice people here previously have said: if there was an alternate recourse in the situation then great, but there is not.

What if they share organs?

Then usually in that instance the death of one would mean the death of the other, so the point is moot.

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

What if they share organs?

Then usually in that instance the death of one would mean the death of the other, so the point is moot.

This does not have to be the case.

The fact is the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, so this logic is moot. Like I said in my prior posts, there are far better ways to justify abortion.

[The New California Republic]

Then usually in that instance the death of one would mean the death of the other, so the point is moot.

This does not have to be the case.

The fact is the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, so this logic is moot. Like I said in my prior posts, there are far better ways to justify abortion.

But it doesn't say that at all, considering that it's an example that is quite removed from abortion by different circumstances aforementioned.

[The Alma Mater]

Then usually in that instance the death of one would mean the death of the other, so the point is moot.

This does not have to be the case.

The fact is the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, so this logic is moot.

So we can now harvest your blood and organs to save lives ?
Do note that I am genuinely *in favour* of forced donorship.

[The New California Republic]

And the example of shooting one's conjoined twin just makes me think of this too much, so I can't take the example seriously at all. I'm trying, but it's very difficult.

[Punished UMN]

And the example of shooting one's conjoined twin just makes me think of this too much, so I can't take the example seriously at all. I'm trying, but it's very difficult.

It's something that has happened before, several times. A recent presidential candidate actually made his career on this exact situation.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

So, logically, if you use the argument that a fetus has no legal right to use a woman's body so must be killed - even if it is alive and sentient - then wouldn't this apply to conjoined twins?

Should a conjoined twin be able to shoot the other to stop them from using their body?

They both should. Russian Roulette is the fairest way ...

A person without a heart can live at least for a few hours. None of the organs is indispensable except for a functioning brain. A person "is" their body, in the sense that the body is an ideal life-support for a brain.

So your example has different answers, depending on whether we hold conjoined twins as two people dependent on some organs in common, or two people straight.

Two people but with organs in common: if they can be separated with sufficient organs for both, then do so. If not, it's the parents' choice even if that is technically infanticide.

Two people: they cannot ethically be separated, as both have an equal claim to the organs.


Is it even that common that twins have to be born before anyone knows they are conjoined?

[The New California Republic]

And the example of shooting one's conjoined twin just makes me think of this too much, so I can't take the example seriously at all. I'm trying, but it's very difficult.

It's something that has happened before, several times. A recent presidential candidate actually made his career on this exact situation.

Cases of one conjoined twin shooting the other? Really?

[Punished UMN]

It's something that has happened before, several times. A recent presidential candidate actually made his career on this exact situation.

Cases of one conjoined twin shooting the other? Really?

Oh I thought we were just talking about separating conjoined twins lmao