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

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

In this instance, yes because the right for the fetus to live supersedes bodily autonomy. The only legitimate circumstance to have an abortion is when the mother's right to life is being threatened by the pregnancy and the most viable or only viable recourse is abortion.

Wow ok. So whenever a woman is pregnant they are a slave to pregnancy they might boy have wanted or never asked for?

A young girl in Paraguay gave birth after being a victim of incest several years ago. Abortion is totally illegal in that country. She developed complications from it I believe but that’s ok because the fetus has more rights then her well being?

Clearly the life of a fetus that hasn't even formed enough neurological function to have a single thought is more important than the development, life, education, or future of a little girl suffering a horrific, terrifying pregnancy and extremely dangerous forced birth. Fuck kids, we only care about zygotes.

[Garkland]

I don't think your truly understanding and comprehending what I am saying so let me break it down


When I was younger, I used to believe those tiny pamphlets and those websites saying Abortion is bad. I was against it completely. Take into account I was a young child

Then I did some research and sound that Planned parenthood doesn't just do abortions, but other things. I eventually gained a Pro life, although not totally extreme to the point where I thought abortion was moral. I would not get it for my future spouse, but if she really wanted to or if others wanted to, I would be fine with it. I am still on the fence about this issue to be honest, so some days I lean pro life and others pro choice.

lol, gotta admit Hilarious. But yeah that's basically me, guess I'm very centrist now, not really a democrat nor a Republican. More of a third party "reform party" type person.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

So, we should force people to donate kidneys, too?

I zig-zag between opt-out and mandatory organ donation if that's what you're trying to get at. I don't support opt-in systems for organ donation.

See, that only applies after a brain death. Where really, we should be focusing on forcing living people with two kidneys to donate one of them to save someone else, right? For example, if my kidneys were failing, and you were a match, I should be able to give me your kidneys, even if it was against your will or might cause excessive harm to you mentally or physically. Right?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Adoption is the key. Around 74% of abortions happen for no reason other than the mother is "not ready for the child," which is where adoption comes in to play, adoption is always the better option compared to murder

Now the rape issue is tricky, one could argue this problem could be solved by developing better incubator technologies

Yeah or artificial wombs in which case this whole debate would become redundant.

It absolutely would not. It will be decades before "incubators" are good enough to produce the same (or better) results, and even then there will be arguments about what natural hormones and external stimulus an incubated baby "should" get. Consider the pushback when someone suggests abortion for foetal "abnormality" then consider that every womb is unique: the gamut of "natural" is actually very wide and we may never agree on what is "optimal", nor grant parents the right to dose their incubaby (yay!) up on hormones they think will make an optimal baby.

And before then, when incubators are still unable to keep to fertilized egg alive, there will be pro-lifers claiming that abortion is "obsolete" and demanding it be banned now. "Look, incubators keep a baby alive for almost 9 months, all women wanting abortions should be required to hold it in until 10 weeks and then turn it over to an incubator! At their own expense of course!"

Yeah well fuck that. "Keeping a foetus alive until birth development" very rarely produces a healthy baby. Caring for premmies is incredibly expensive, because they're always on the brink of death, and almost none reach birth size without some lifelong disability. Already, pro-lifers have gotten laws criminalizing abortion after 20 weeks. Because ONE premmie survived from 20 weeks.

I suggest a national referendum (or state referendum for a state program) but with a difference: anyone voting Yes or No has their name recorded. If the country or state passes a law banning abortion in all cases that could be transferred to an incubator, then all the people who voted yes for that will carry the bill. Building incubators, medical staff for the "rescued" foetuses, and even disability support and disability pensions for people injured as foetuses, by incubation. I guarantee it won't seem like such a good idea, when those busybodies realize what it will cost them.

[The Marlborough]

In this instance, yes because the right for the fetus to live supersedes bodily autonomy. The only legitimate circumstance to have an abortion is when the mother's right to life is being threatened by the pregnancy and the most viable or only viable recourse is abortion.

Wow ok. So whenever a woman is pregnant they are a slave to pregnancy they might not have wanted or never asked for?

A young girl in Paraguay gave birth after being a victim of incest several years ago. Abortion is totally illegal in that country. She developed complications from it I believe but that’s ok because the fetus has more rights then her well being?

I'm not party to her health status during that whole ordeal but had her life been at serious risk then an argument could be made for allowing it. If not, then the right to life supersedes. That doesn't take away from the horrendousness of the crime committed against her but once again that isn't grounds to end the life of the fetus.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Wow ok. So whenever a woman is pregnant they are a slave to pregnancy they might not have wanted or never asked for?

A young girl in Paraguay gave birth after being a victim of incest several years ago. Abortion is totally illegal in that country. She developed complications from it I believe but that’s ok because the fetus has more rights then her well being?

I'm not party to her health status during that whole ordeal but had her life been at serious risk then an argument could be made for allowing it. If not, then the right to life supersedes. That doesn't take away from the horrendousness of the crime committed against her but once again that isn't grounds to end the life of the fetus.

Well at least you're consistent. Maybe you'd consider an additional "genetic" punishment for a rapist: forced sterilization?

[Echo Chamber Thought Police]

Personally i think that child rapists should choose between sterilisation and an extensive prison term, like 15 years, and life without parole.

[The Free Joy State]

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

Conscription exists as does opt out organ donation.

I'm opposed to conscription, too (which many nations do allow pacifists to opt-out of). And opt-out organ donation allows people to opt out without giving a reason.

Neither is a solid argument against what I said.

[The Marlborough]

Yeah or artificial wombs in which case this whole debate would become redundant.

It absolutely would not. It will be decades before "incubators" are good enough to produce the same (or better) results, and even then there will be arguments about what natural hormones and external stimulus an incubated baby "should" get. Consider the pushback when someone suggests abortion for foetal "abnormality" then consider that every womb is unique: the gamut of "natural" is actually very wide and we may never agree on what is "optimal", nor grant parents the right to dose their incubaby (yay!) up on hormones they think will make an optimal baby.

And before then, when incubators are still unable to keep to fertilized egg alive, there will be pro-lifers claiming that abortion is "obsolete" and demanding it be banned now. "Look, incubators keep a baby alive for almost 9 months, all women wanting abortions should be required to hold it in until 10 weeks and then turn it over to an incubator! At their own expense of course!"

Yeah well fuck that. "Keeping a foetus alive until birth development" very rarely produces a healthy baby. Caring for premmies is incredibly expensive, because they're always on the brink of death, and almost none reach birth size without some lifelong disability. Already, pro-lifers have gotten laws criminalizing abortion after 20 weeks. Because ONE premmie survived from 20 weeks.

I suggest a national referendum (or state referendum for a state program) but with a difference: anyone voting Yes or No has their name recorded. If the country or state passes a law banning abortion in all cases that could be transferred to an incubator, then all the people who voted yes for that will carry the bill. Building incubators, medical staff for the "rescued" foetuses, and even disability support and disability pensions for people injured as foetuses, by incubation. I guarantee it won't seem like such a good idea, when those busybodies realize what it will cost them.

Artificial wombs by definition are systems that recreate the ideal environment for a fetus to grow. They aren't just incubators. Progress has already been made on them. Even if one has to wait say 10 weeks before it's viable to move the fetus into an artificial womb, then one of the arguments for abortion (there is just no other alternative) goes out the window. 10 weeks isn't even the the entirety of the first trimester, if they can't wait that long they absolutely 100% should be prosecuted for it.

For starters, that would break numerous laws surrounding secret voting and as someone who supports universal healthcare that would also defeat the entire purpose of universal healthcare and set a bad precedent that could lead to it being eroded away. I still have to pay for those who do stupid stunts.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I zig-zag between opt-out and mandatory organ donation if that's what you're trying to get at. I don't support opt-in systems for organ donation.

See, that only applies after a brain death. Where really, we should be focusing on forcing living people with two kidneys to donate one of them to save someone else, right? For example, if my kidneys were failing, and you were a match, I should be able to give me your kidneys, even if it was against your will or might cause excessive harm to you mentally or physically. Right?

Show me the money. You're not getting a kidney out of the goodness of my heart!

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

See, that only applies after a brain death. Where really, we should be focusing on forcing living people with two kidneys to donate one of them to save someone else, right? For example, if my kidneys were failing, and you were a match, I should be able to give me your kidneys, even if it was against your will or might cause excessive harm to you mentally or physically. Right?

Show me the money. You're not getting a kidney out of the goodness of my heart!

Well clearly I don't need your good will. Because obviously bodily autonomy doesn't mean anything anymore.

[The Marlborough]

I'm not party to her health status during that whole ordeal but had her life been at serious risk then an argument could be made for allowing it. If not, then the right to life supersedes. That doesn't take away from the horrendousness of the crime committed against her but once again that isn't grounds to end the life of the fetus.

Well at least you're consistent. Maybe you'd consider an additional "genetic" punishment for a rapist: forced sterilization?

Do you mean actual sterilizations such as vasectomies and tubal ligation or just chemical castration (which doesn't actually result in full sterilization)?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

It absolutely would not. It will be decades before "incubators" are good enough to produce the same (or better) results, and even then there will be arguments about what natural hormones and external stimulus an incubated baby "should" get. Consider the pushback when someone suggests abortion for foetal "abnormality" then consider that every womb is unique: the gamut of "natural" is actually very wide and we may never agree on what is "optimal", nor grant parents the right to dose their incubaby (yay!) up on hormones they think will make an optimal baby.

And before then, when incubators are still unable to keep to fertilized egg alive, there will be pro-lifers claiming that abortion is "obsolete" and demanding it be banned now. "Look, incubators keep a baby alive for almost 9 months, all women wanting abortions should be required to hold it in until 10 weeks and then turn it over to an incubator! At their own expense of course!"

Yeah well fuck that. "Keeping a foetus alive until birth development" very rarely produces a healthy baby. Caring for premmies is incredibly expensive, because they're always on the brink of death, and almost none reach birth size without some lifelong disability. Already, pro-lifers have gotten laws criminalizing abortion after 20 weeks. Because ONE premmie survived from 20 weeks.

I suggest a national referendum (or state referendum for a state program) but with a difference: anyone voting Yes or No has their name recorded. If the country or state passes a law banning abortion in all cases that could be transferred to an incubator, then all the people who voted yes for that will carry the bill. Building incubators, medical staff for the "rescued" foetuses, and even disability support and disability pensions for people injured as foetuses, by incubation. I guarantee it won't seem like such a good idea, when those busybodies realize what it will cost them.

Artificial wombs by definition are systems that recreate the ideal environment for a fetus to grow. They aren't just incubators. Progress has already been made on them. Even if one has to wait say 10 weeks before it's viable to move the fetus into an artificial womb, then one of the arguments for abortion (there is just no other alternative) goes out the window. 10 weeks isn't even the the entirety of the first trimester, if they can't wait that long they absolutely 100% should be prosecuted for it.

An "artificial womb" has to be materially different, not just better, to be anything but an incubator.

Is it made of human flesh?

For starters, that would break numerous laws surrounding secret voting and as someone who supports universal healthcare that would also defeat the entire purpose of universal healthcare and set a bad precedent that could lead to it being eroded away. I still have to pay for those who do stupid stunts.

OK, the taxpayer at large then. I still think the costs of this (INCLUDING disability support, I'm not letting you get away with causing more disability without saying how it will be paid for) are absurd, considering the number of born children living in poverty which I want your word on before we create more children without parents financially able or willing to care for them.

It's a really bad equation. There is already a lack of financially able parents, and you want to spend public money on creating orphans. What the hell?

[The Free Joy State]

In this instance, yes because the right for the fetus to live supersedes bodily autonomy. The only legitimate circumstance to have an abortion is when the mother's right to life is being threatened by the pregnancy and the most viable or only viable recourse is abortion.

Wow ok. So whenever a woman is pregnant they are a slave to pregnancy they might not have wanted or never asked for?

A young girl in Paraguay gave birth after being a victim of incest several years ago. Abortion is totally illegal in that country. She developed complications from it I believe but that’s ok because the fetus has more rights then her well being?

Are you talking about the fourteen year old girl who died giving birth to her rapist's offspring?

No-one should be put through that because someone else's concept of morality says it must be so, and that to let the girl have her childhood back would be an act of cruelty against the insentient foetus who knows nothing -- rather than considering the born person who is suffering.

Personally i think that child rapists should choose between sterilisation and an extensive prison term, like 15 years, and life without parole.

Only fifteen years? I consider that lenient.

Not quite the right thread to discuss it, though.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Well at least you're consistent. Maybe you'd consider an additional "genetic" punishment for a rapist: forced sterilization?

Do you mean actual sterilizations such as vasectomies and tubal ligation or just chemical castration (which doesn't actually result in full sterilization)?

Tubal ligation is major surgery, whereas vasectomy can be done with a local anaesthetic. Chemical castration can be undone just by ceasing the drugs, which might not be an issue as long as the rapist is in jail, but still I'd make it the snip. For men OR women.

It's odd that I hadn't even considered the case of a female rapist who gets pregnant herself. The exact same issue of genetic theft applies, yet I'm not sympathetic to her and wouldn't include her in the "rape exception" (which I disagree with anyway). Still, it's interesting: say the rape victim AND herself both wanted the abortion, it would be hard to deny the victim wouldn't it?

[San Lumen]

Wow ok. So whenever a woman is pregnant they are a slave to pregnancy they might not have wanted or never asked for?

A young girl in Paraguay gave birth after being a victim of incest several years ago. Abortion is totally illegal in that country. She developed complications from it I believe but that’s ok because the fetus has more rights then her well being?

Are you talking about the fourteen year old child who died giving birth to her rapist's offspring?

No-one should be put through that because someone else's concept of morality says it must be so, and that to let the girl have her childhood back would be an act of cruelty against the insentient foetus who knows nothing -- rather than considering the born person who is suffering.

Personally i think that child rapists should choose between sterilisation and an extensive prison term, like 15 years, and life without parole.

Only fifteen years? I consider that lenient.

Not quite the right thread to discuss it, though.

Yes that is the story I was thinking of. I couldn’t find a link to it. It’s reprehensible to me that anyone could attempt to justify what happened there as if the fetus has more rights than the person. It’s disgusting.

[Punished UMN]

I zig-zag between opt-out and mandatory organ donation if that's what you're trying to get at. I don't support opt-in systems for organ donation.

See, that only applies after a brain death. Where really, we should be focusing on forcing living people with two kidneys to donate one of them to save someone else, right? For example, if my kidneys were failing, and you were a match, I should be able to give me your kidneys, even if it was against your will or might cause excessive harm to you mentally or physically. Right?

This comparison doesn't make sense because 1) a pregnant person already has the fetus inside them. Pregnancy is not a medical procedure, it is a naturally occurring phenomenon. 2) A pregnant person is not attached to a non-relation, but to their own son or daughter, to whom there would be some form of moral duty.

[The Marlborough]

I zig-zag between opt-out and mandatory organ donation if that's what you're trying to get at. I don't support opt-in systems for organ donation.

See, that only applies after a brain death. Where really, we should be focusing on forcing living people with two kidneys to donate one of them to save someone else, right? For example, if my kidneys were failing, and you were a match, I should be able to give me your kidneys, even if it was against your will or might cause excessive harm to you mentally or physically. Right?

Ideally an opt-out or mandatory organ donation system would allow for the shortage of organ donations to be eliminated. Your proposed scenario would also require that everyone be put into a match system already, which as part of a mandatory donation system could be done. In the incredibly rare even of a mandatory donation system still resulting in only one match existing and existing in a still living person, then one could make an argument that unless the kidney donation would put them at undue risk/harm they have a duty to donate one kidney under the duty to rescue premise. Same could be applied for living liver donations.

[Punished UMN]

Artificial wombs by definition are systems that recreate the ideal environment for a fetus to grow. They aren't just incubators. Progress has already been made on them. Even if one has to wait say 10 weeks before it's viable to move the fetus into an artificial womb, then one of the arguments for abortion (there is just no other alternative) goes out the window. 10 weeks isn't even the the entirety of the first trimester, if they can't wait that long they absolutely 100% should be prosecuted for it.

An "artificial womb" has to be materially different, not just better, to be anything but an incubator.

Is it made of human flesh?

For starters, that would break numerous laws surrounding secret voting and as someone who supports universal healthcare that would also defeat the entire purpose of universal healthcare and set a bad precedent that could lead to it being eroded away. I still have to pay for those who do stupid stunts.

OK, the taxpayer at large then. I still think the costs of this (INCLUDING disability support, I'm not letting you get away with causing more disability without saying how it will be paid for) are absurd, considering the number of born children living in poverty which I want your word on before we create more children without parents financially able or willing to care for them.

It's a really bad equation. There is already a lack of financially able parents, and you want to spend public money on creating orphans. What the hell?

"We should kill children who don't have parents to reduce the burden on the state" is essentially the argument here.

[The Marlborough]

OK, the taxpayer at large then. I still think the costs of this (INCLUDING disability support, I'm not letting you get away with causing more disability without saying how it will be paid for) are absurd, considering the number of born children living in poverty which I want your word on before we create more children without parents financially able or willing to care for them.

It's a really bad equation. There is already a lack of financially able parents, and you want to spend public money on creating orphans. What the hell?

Yeah I think more financial aid should be given to families and especially those with disabilities. *shrug* Also not sure where you're getting the orphans thing from.

Maybe you're expecting me to be a run of the mill American style conservative who hates government intervention and wants the free market to reign over all, but I'll tell you now that you're going to be sorely disappointed.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Show me the money. You're not getting a kidney out of the goodness of my heart!

Well clearly I don't need your good will. Because obviously bodily autonomy doesn't mean anything anymore.

We've known each other for years. I guess with my change of nation (sniff) you're mistaking me for a pro-lifer. But currently I'm at "third trimester, there should be a reason; before that it's entirely the woman's choice; standard early abortions should be free"

Sometimes I grant the premise of an opponent, for a while. Just now it's "IF abortion is generally banned AND IF there is a rape exception, isn't that inconsistent ..."

[The Marlborough]

Do you mean actual sterilizations such as vasectomies and tubal ligation or just chemical castration (which doesn't actually result in full sterilization)?

Tubal ligation is major surgery, whereas vasectomy can be done with a local anaesthetic. Chemical castration can be undone just by ceasing the drugs, which might not be an issue as long as the rapist is in jail, but still I'd make it the snip. For men OR women.

It's odd that I hadn't even considered the case of a female rapist who gets pregnant herself. The exact same issue of genetic theft applies, yet I'm not sympathetic to her and wouldn't include her in the "rape exception" (which I disagree with anyway). Still, it's interesting: say the rape victim AND herself both wanted the abortion, it would be hard to deny the victim wouldn't it?

In which case yes to both instances. It's just a lot of people are against the former procedures. Though I would say the former should be used less than the latter and only in cases in which it is beyond any reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt and especially in cases involving serial rape.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

OK, the taxpayer at large then. I still think the costs of this (INCLUDING disability support, I'm not letting you get away with causing more disability without saying how it will be paid for) are absurd, considering the number of born children living in poverty which I want your word on before we create more children without parents financially able or willing to care for them.

It's a really bad equation. There is already a lack of financially able parents, and you want to spend public money on creating orphans. What the hell?

Yeah I think more financial aid should be given to families and especially those with disabilities. *shrug* Also not sure where you're getting the orphans thing from.

Maybe you're expecting me to be a run of the mill American style conservative who hates government intervention and wants the free market to reign over all, but I'll tell you now that you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Doesn't it follow rather obviously from "a woman does not want to give birth to a child" that "the same woman does not want to raise a child"? Unless you're imagining a male partner who pressured or paid her to take the incubation route instead of abortion, that's another orphan you put into the system.

[Thepeopl]

Source?

(Warning: May be upsetting to some

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/66- ... 90810.html

66 infants were born alive after NHS terminations in one year. The majority of those 66 babies took over an hour to die.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307

Virginia late-term abortion bill labelled 'infanticide'

“If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother - Virginia's Governor

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/former- ... rn-ireland

The cases you call "botched abortions " aren't.
Abortion= termination or interruption of pregnancy.
That they all did.
Being born is being aborted. Luckily for you, you were aborted when you were viable and wanted. Cared for.

There is a reason why miscarriages are called abortus and abortion actually is called abortus provocatus. (Induced, provoked)
And yes if an abortion is taking place when you are viable it's called partum. (=to separate/ to part)

WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?
In 2018, 78% of all U.S. abortions occurred prior to the 10th week of gestation; 92% occurred prior to 14 weeks’ gestation (CDC).

Here the link to all stats in America.
https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_a ... tatistics/

Studies show that abortion rates may be much higher in nations where abortion is illegal. Because abortion is prohibited, these abortions are illegal abortions, which are more dangerous than legal abortions. There are also higher risks and complications, including the death of the mother, as a result of these illegal abortions

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

And that is why I am pro legal, safe abortion which can be chosen by expecting people. Not mandatory, not illegal.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Well clearly I don't need your good will. Because obviously bodily autonomy doesn't mean anything anymore.

We've known each other for years. I guess with my change of nation (sniff) you're mistaking me for a pro-lifer. But currently I'm at "third trimester, there should be a reason; before that it's entirely the woman's choice; standard early abortions should be free"

Sometimes I grant the premise of an opponent, for a while. Just now it's "IF abortion is generally banned AND IF there is a rape exception, isn't that inconsistent ..."

*Squint* whoooooo are yoooooou