[Abortion Thread] A Matter of Choice (NEW POLL!)

[Sordhau]

This is a terrible comparison. The death rate for abortions in the US is .7 per 100,000. Nor is abortion a good predictor for suicide. The death rate for live birth is 23.8 per 100,000.

An abortion is safer for the woman than giving birth. Which may be one reason why women get abortions.

No, women get abortions because they have sex without the intention to start a family and as a result produce a child that they do not want and have been gradually socialised to regard only as an expellable blob of matter.

I have had enough of this, we can all argue till we are blue in the face. But it is beyond grief that such ambivalence towards such small and innocent people is displayed by people who in so many other cases pride themselves as being champions of the oppressed and downtrodden. To me, it is sanctioned mass murder in its most charitable and face value state. And it is not completely beyond the overton window to interpret this as semi-ritualised human sacrifice by some portions of those who rule us. It makes my stomach churn. Good day.

Maybe you wouldn't be so revolted if you actually understood what a human being was.

[Spirit of Hope]

This is a terrible comparison. The death rate for abortions in the US is .7 per 100,000. Nor is abortion a good predictor for suicide. The death rate for live birth is 23.8 per 100,000.

An abortion is safer for the woman than giving birth. Which may be one reason why women get abortions.

No, women get abortions because they have sex without the intention to start a family and as a result produce a child that they do not want and have been gradually socialised to regard only as an expellable blob of matter.

I have had enough of this, we can all argue till we are blue in the face. But it is beyond grief that such ambivalence towards such small and innocent people is displayed by people who in so many other cases pride themselves as being champions of the oppressed and downtrodden. To me, it is sanctioned mass murder in its most charitable and face value state. And it is not completely beyond the overton window to interpret this as semi-ritualised human sacrifice by some portions of those who rule us. It makes my stomach churn. Good day.

Women get abortions for a variety of reasons, presuming that you know why they get abortions is a bit out of touch with reality. Thinking that is is ritualized human sacrifice is even more out there.

Its the woman's body that the fetus is using, so it is the woman's choice if the fetus gets to use it. Simple as that.

[Ifreann]

Consider reading the post you quoted where I elaborate further.

Right ok, well I simply disagree. These are children and they should not face execution for the mistakes and even crimes of their parent(s).

No one should ever be made to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. No appeals to innocence or vulnerability make it acceptable to force a person to tolerate the unwanted presence of another person inside their body. The only acceptable outcome is to remove that unwanted person, and medical technology does not afford us any means to do so which is not fatal to that unwanted person.

[Neu California]

https://external-preview.redd.it/vqJGHI ... 901374deb0

https://wearesonar.org/wp-content/uploa ... nFetus.jpg

In the second one, which is the dolphin, which is the human?

Anyone who thinks embryos before a certain, really far along point, are recognizably human should take a look at both pictures.

[Ifreann]

We're already seeing reports from some states of doctors saying they need to wait until patients' vitals start crashing before intervening in a life threatening pregnancy, for fear of getting arrested for performing an abortion if they act too soon. Inevitably there will be cases where it is left too late, and people will die who could have lived.

This is absurd. This ruling is about the intentional and premeditated murder of children, not lifesaving medical operations during which tragically the life of the child is lost.

It is an absurd situation, but that is simply the outcome when abortions are only permitted in cases of life threatening pregnancies. Doctors need to be sure that the pregnancy is definitely life threatening or they could get slapped with charges for performing an illegal abortion, which in some jurisdictions would be murder. So they'll wait until the patient's life is in danger, which is obviously very dangerous.

---

I, too, reject logic and reason. The sky is pink.

It looks like a human child. Does it not?

Most mammals look pretty indistinguishable in the womb until later in the pregnancy.

---

https://external-preview.redd.it/vqJGHIdB4mkdAGOGtT5k3o3AhAn8rU481gLQg91_nYE.jpg?auto=webp&s=d2dbcb3758cc880bcf4f29aa9d8490901374deb0

https://wearesonar.org/wp-content/uploa ... nFetus.jpg

In the second one, which is the dolphin, which is the human?

They're labelled.

[Neu California]

Eh, fair. Ignore the label and only.look when you have made your guess

[Pinevilla]

It is such a good thing that this case was overturned, abortion is such a horrible, murderous practice and should be banned. My home states of Louisiana has already banned abortion, and we all are so happy for it.

[HISPIDA]

Eh, fair. Ignore the label and only.look when you have made your guess

i guessed correctly mostly because of the fingers, honestly. you call tell a slight difference in how the human embryo's forming fingers have larger gaps whereas the dolphin embryo's pseudo-fingers are webbed together.

[The Alma Mater]

We're already seeing reports from some states of doctors saying they need to wait until patients' vitals start crashing before intervening in a life threatening pregnancy, for fear of getting arrested for performing an abortion if they act too soon. Inevitably there will be cases where it is left too late, and people will die who could have lived.

This is absurd. This ruling is about the intentional and premeditated murder of children, not lifesaving medical operations during which tragically the life of the child is lost.

No, that is what YOU want it to be about.
The republicans in power have a very different idea.

[San Lumen]

It is such a good thing that this case was overturned, abortion is such a horrible, murderous practice and should be banned. My home states of Louisiana has already banned abortion, and we all are so happy for it.

Are you going to adopt the unwanted children? What about women who will die from complications

[Fartsniffage]

It is such a good thing that this case was overturned, abortion is such a horrible, murderous practice and should be banned. My home states of Louisiana has already banned abortion, and we all are so happy for it.

Are you going to adopt the unwanted children? What about women who will die from complications

You can't adopt the women who die from complications.

[San Lumen]

Are you going to adopt the unwanted children? What about women who will die from complications

You can't adopt the women who die from complications.

I am aware. I was asking a separate question.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

I, too, reject logic and reason. The sky is pink.

It looks like a human child. Does it not?

I guess. but considering it doesn't have a functioning brain until well into the pregnancy, I wouldn't consider it a person. "does it look like a human?" is a nonsensical test for personhood.

[Islamic Essarn]

You are upset by people using words correctly?

No, but words have meaning and how we use them matters. Foetus is purely medical, it is not incorrect but it does not carry the warmth appropriate when discussing children. Let's not engage in sophistry, we all know what is meant by the chosen usage of these terms.

A fetus does not have any subjective experience whatsoever during the first trimester and much of the second. This is known.

From what I have heard they feel pain early on but it takes many weeks for all the nervous systems to develop like ours and so understand pain in the same way as a fully formed human being. Nonetheless the point remains about how we use language and dehumanisation.

The foetus (i will keep using that term) can not feel pain into about 24 week (give or take).

[Informed Consent]

It looks like a human child. Does it not?

It looks like a blob of meat.

To many organisms, that is all we ever are, and this particular blob is simply a stage of development.
If I am obligated to recognize you as homo sapiens at your current stage of development, then I must do so for all of them.
Even post mortem, as far as your remains are concerned.
Before all 46 of your chromosomes come together?
Perhaps not, but after that, your existence becomes a very quantifiable non-mystery.

Now what value you put on yourself, and those around you of your species is a wholly different, and far more subjective discussion with a lot of prejudicial compartments to navigate, like age groups.
Then there is also the question of whether people have an inherent right to a consequence free lifestyle, or not.
What I know of physics tells me no, but what I know of politics tells me we are still foolish enough to try.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It looks like a blob of meat.

To many organisms, that is all we ever are, and this particular blob is simply a stage of development.
If I am obligated to recognize you as homo sapiens at your current stage of development, then I must do so for all of them.
Even post mortem, as far as your remains are concerned.
Before all 46 of your chromosomes come together?
Perhaps not, but after that, your existence becomes a very quantifiable non-mystery.

Now what value you put on yourself, and those around you of your species is a wholly different, and far more subjective discussion with a lot of prejudicial compartments to navigate, like age groups.
Then there is also the question of whether people have an inherent right to a consequence free lifestyle, or not.
What I know of physics tells me no, but what I know of politics tells me we are still foolish enough to try.

If people can siphon the very lifeblood of other people without the latter's consent before birth then why is such a thing deeply immoral post-birth?
Like I cannot kidnap you and suck your blood even if you somehow caused an injury requiring these things, why then should other people be permitted to commit such a crime just because of their current position?

[Islamic Essarn]

It looks like a blob of meat.

To many organisms, that is all we ever are, and this particular blob is simply a stage of development.
If I am obligated to recognize you as homo sapiens at your current stage of development, then I must do so for all of them.
Even post mortem, as far as your remains are concerned.
Before all 46 of your chromosomes come together?
Perhaps not, but after that, your existence becomes a very quantifiable non-mystery.

Now what value you put on yourself, and those around you of your species is a wholly different, and far more subjective discussion with a lot of prejudicial compartments to navigate, like age groups.
Then there is also the question of whether people have an inherent right to a consequence free lifestyle, or not.
What I know of physics tells me no, but what I know of politics tells me we are still foolish enough to try.

One your first statement: so amputation should be illegal because you are killing the limbs. It can not think therefor it is’t human.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

To many organisms, that is all we ever are, and this particular blob is simply a stage of development.
If I am obligated to recognize you as homo sapiens at your current stage of development, then I must do so for all of them.
Even post mortem, as far as your remains are concerned.
Before all 46 of your chromosomes come together?
Perhaps not, but after that, your existence becomes a very quantifiable non-mystery.

Now what value you put on yourself, and those around you of your species is a wholly different, and far more subjective discussion with a lot of prejudicial compartments to navigate, like age groups.
Then there is also the question of whether people have an inherent right to a consequence free lifestyle, or not.
What I know of physics tells me no, but what I know of politics tells me we are still foolish enough to try.

So
Abortion bans are practically heinous, morally about as consistent as the bible and requires such a surveillance state into the very bedrooms of people that it is a crime against humanity.
Why then do people like you insist upon them? Do you want to go to your Hell?

[Take One For the Roe]

No, women get abortions because they have sex without the intention to start a family and as a result produce a child that they do not want and have been gradually socialised to regard only as an expellable blob of matter.

I have had enough of this, we can all argue till we are blue in the face. But it is beyond grief that such ambivalence towards such small and innocent people is displayed by people who in so many other cases pride themselves as being champions of the oppressed and downtrodden. To me, it is sanctioned mass murder in its most charitable and face value state. And it is not completely beyond the overton window to interpret this as semi-ritualised human sacrifice by some portions of those who rule us. It makes my stomach churn. Good day.

Maybe you wouldn't be so revolted if you actually understood what a human being was.

What's revolting is your deliberate exclusion of one category of humans personhood, based solely on selfishness. Your position is fundamentally the same as any other ideology that committed horrific atrocities while arguing their victims weren't "real" people: think slavery, or the Holocaust. If you're not revolted by that kind of position, something is seriously wrong.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Maybe you wouldn't be so revolted if you actually understood what a human being was.

What's revolting is your deliberate exclusion of one category of humans personhood, based solely on selfishness. Your position is fundamentally the same as any other ideology that committed horrific atrocities while arguing their victims weren't "real" people: think slavery, or the Holocaust. If you're not revolted by that kind of position, something is seriously wrong.

So where in common mores is it declared acceptable for me to kidnap you and suck your blood?

[Godular]

It looks like a blob of meat.

To many organisms, that is all we ever are, and this particular blob is simply a stage of development.
If I am obligated to recognize you as homo sapiens at your current stage of development, then I must do so for all of them.
Even post mortem, as far as your remains are concerned.
Before all 46 of your chromosomes come together?
Perhaps not, but after that, your existence becomes a very quantifiable non-mystery.

Now what value you put on yourself, and those around you of your species is a wholly different, and far more subjective discussion with a lot of prejudicial compartments to navigate, like age groups.
Then there is also the question of whether people have an inherent right to a consequence free lifestyle, or not.
What I know of physics tells me no, but what I know of politics tells me we are still foolish enough to try.

Their humanity isn't all that important of a concern in the grand scheme of things. A woman can defend herself with necessary force to prevent a born person using her body without her consent. In my view it is wrong to deny her this same right just because it has not yet emerged from the birth canal.

Also, it is wrong to presume that a woman seeking an abortion is 'avoiding consequences'. Getting an abortion is dealing with that consequence in the same way that someone injured in a car crash deals with the consequences of driving by getting treatment for their injuries.

[Godular]

Maybe you wouldn't be so revolted if you actually understood what a human being was.

What's revolting is your deliberate exclusion of one category of humans personhood, based solely on selfishness. Your position is fundamentally the same as any other ideology that committed horrific atrocities while arguing their victims weren't "real" people: think slavery, or the Holocaust. If you're not revolted by that kind of position, something is seriously wrong.

And the fact that you do the same thing the other way around is similarly revolting in our view. You may not use so many words, but in denying a woman the right to control her own body and how it is used is to us a violation of the woman's rights in the most fundamental of ways.

[Ifreann]

Maybe you wouldn't be so revolted if you actually understood what a human being was.

What's revolting is your deliberate exclusion of one category of humans personhood, based solely on selfishness. Your position is fundamentally the same as any other ideology that committed horrific atrocities while arguing their victims weren't "real" people: think slavery, or the Holocaust. If you're not revolted by that kind of position, something is seriously wrong.

The personhood of the unborn is irrelevant. No born person has the right to use another person's body against that person's wishes in the way that pregnancy entails. The proposition that the unborn has special rights which are lost of birth is obviously absurd.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Maybe you wouldn't be so revolted if you actually understood what a human being was.

What's revolting is your deliberate exclusion of one category of humans personhood, based solely on selfishness. Your position is fundamentally the same as any other ideology that committed horrific atrocities while arguing their victims weren't "real" people: think slavery, or the Holocaust. If you're not revolted by that kind of position, something is seriously wrong.

I don't exclude fetuses because I'm "racist" or "selfish" against them, I'm excluding them because (until a certain stage) they literally lack complex brain activity.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What's revolting is your deliberate exclusion of one category of humans personhood, based solely on selfishness. Your position is fundamentally the same as any other ideology that committed horrific atrocities while arguing their victims weren't "real" people: think slavery, or the Holocaust. If you're not revolted by that kind of position, something is seriously wrong.

So where in common mores is it declared acceptable for me to kidnap you and suck your blood?

Addendum: If I do this for 9 months while the law itself permits me to charge you with attempted murder should you attempt an escape, have not an injustice happened?