[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

That's sad. However, this doesn't undermine that I am still pro-life. That was just one instance where strict religous folks did not realize the consequences, not my promblem.

Actually you are part of the problem. Tacit support is still support.

The news just had a woman in Texas where the pregnancy went wrong. Lost too much amniotic fluid for the pregnancy to be successful. Normally an abortion would be advised as the fetus would die in the womb.

She could not get an abortion due to the new “pro life” laws and nearly died from the incident. What followed? She can no longer have a child.

Texas hospitals actually debated letting an ectopic pregnancy burst so they can’t be punished for doing an abortion.

There are other stories like this.

"Listen, life is a beaitful thing. It is one of those great things, you know? You know, the overturning of Roe v Wade. was a great step towards a consertrative America, you know?" -Yes

[The Black Forrest]

Actually you are part of the problem. Tacit support is still support.

The news just had a woman in Texas where the pregnancy went wrong. Lost too much amniotic fluid for the pregnancy to be successful. Normally an abortion would be advised as the fetus would die in the womb.

She could not get an abortion due to the new “pro life” laws and nearly died from the incident. What followed? She can no longer have a child.

Texas hospitals actually debated letting an ectopic pregnancy burst so they can’t be punished for doing an abortion.

There are other stories like this.

"Listen, life is a beaitful thing. It is one of those great things, you know? You know, the overturning of Roe v Wade. was a great step towards a consertrative America, you know?" -Yes

*shrugs* Is that a response?

[Laasmistan]

Please comment on this case of severe medical malpractice.

That's sad. However, this doesn't undermine that I am still pro-life. That was just one instance where strict religous folks did not realize the consequences, not my promblem.

Do you oppose abortion on religious grounds, though?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

"Listen, life is a beaitful thing. It is one of those great things, you know? You know, the overturning of Roe v Wade. was a great step towards a consertrative America, you know?" -Yes

According to Brendan Hodgers: "I went to see Sheila one night and she was in absolute agony. She was literally screaming at this stage. I could hear her from the front door of the hospital and she was in a ward on the fourth floor. I saw the sister and she produced a doctor who said nothing that made any sense."[2][3]

>"life is a beautiful thing"

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

"Listen, life is a beaitful thing. It is one of those great things, you know? You know, the overturning of Roe v Wade. was a great step towards a consertrative America, you know?" -Yes

According to Brendan Hodgers: "I went to see Sheila one night and she was in absolute agony. She was literally screaming at this stage. I could hear her from the front door of the hospital and she was in a ward on the fourth floor. I saw the sister and she produced a doctor who said nothing that made any sense."[2][3]

>"life is a beautiful thing"

"Cough cough, i am glad you brought that up reporter. Um, you see, that she was just, um, feeling pain at childbirth. Yes, nothing to do with her um, little cancer thing."-average consertative politicans

"Listen, life is a beaitful thing. It is one of those great things, you know? You know, the overturning of Roe v Wade. was a great step towards a consertrative America, you know?" -Yes

*shrugs* Is that a response?

"Yes."-average consertative politican

[Spirit of Hope]

Even if we give a fetus the same rights as a born person that doesn't justify banning abortion. A born person doesn't have the right to use another persons body without permission.

At what level of assault is it permissible to kill a child in self-defense? Again, you seem to be waving any argument that a fetus is not a person so it makes sense, at that point, to treat them as a dependent child for ethical purposes. Mind you, I don’t think that’s the correct approach for much of gestation, but it does logically follow from the position you’ve assumed. Can you kill a toddler for kicking you? What if they kick you repeatedly and refuse to stop? What if you have no other means to stop such assaults except by killing them?

And I want to be clear. This isn’t a gotcha question or even a particularly difficult one. It’s just people will likely give wildly different answers. Some folks likely perceive a toddler stepping on their lawn as a violation of the NAP and will reserve the right to launch McNukes at the toddler just to be safe. Others will support an argument that it’s never acceptable to kill a child even if that child is stabbing you repeatedly. And most people will fall somewhere between those two extremes.

1) Are the actions of the toddler harming the person?
2) Is there no other means of removing the toddler?

It would be very hard to justify deadly force against a toddler because you can remove a toddler from a situation without needing to resort to deadly force.

A toddler coming at you with a knife isn't a scenario where you can use deadly force because there are serious questions about if the toddler can/will actually harm you with the knife and you can use less than deadly force to remove the knife.

A toddler stepping on your lawn doesn't cause you real harm and again there are options besides deadly force.

We've been down this rabbit hole before, it ends with absurd and unrealistic scenarios and accusations that I am willing to accept infanticide.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

At what level of assault is it permissible to kill a child in self-defense? Again, you seem to be waving any argument that a fetus is not a person so it makes sense, at that point, to treat them as a dependent child for ethical purposes. Mind you, I don’t think that’s the correct approach for much of gestation, but it does logically follow from the position you’ve assumed. Can you kill a toddler for kicking you? What if they kick you repeatedly and refuse to stop? What if you have no other means to stop such assaults except by killing them?

And I want to be clear. This isn’t a gotcha question or even a particularly difficult one. It’s just people will likely give wildly different answers. Some folks likely perceive a toddler stepping on their lawn as a violation of the NAP and will reserve the right to launch McNukes at the toddler just to be safe. Others will support an argument that it’s never acceptable to kill a child even if that child is stabbing you repeatedly. And most people will fall somewhere between those two extremes.

1) Are the actions of the toddler harming the person?
2) Is there no other means of removing the toddler?

It would be very hard to justify deadly force against a toddler because you can remove a toddler from a situation without needing to resort to deadly force.

A toddler coming at you with a knife isn't a scenario where you can use deadly force because there are serious questions about if the toddler can/will actually harm you with the knife and you can use less than deadly force to remove the knife.

A toddler stepping on your lawn doesn't cause you real harm and again there are options besides deadly force.

We've been down this rabbit hole before, it ends with absurd and unrealistic scenarios and accusations that I am willing to accept infanticide.

^^^ Very much this.

I often boggle about how folks who are often very much in favor of defending themselves with deadly force go into full on mental gymnastic routines when the same logic is applied to the subject of abortion.

[Des-Bal]

freedom is non-negotiable. this ruling violates the 14th amendment; "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and all that

A "ruling" doesn't violate anything it just interprets it. The fourteenth amendment says nothing about abortion Roe V. Wade was hung on the right to privacy "implicit" in the amendment. If you want an amendment that includes the right to an abortion write an amendment that includes the right to an abortion.

[Des-Bal]

^^^ Very much this.

I often boggle about how folks who are often very much in favor of defending themselves with deadly force go into full on mental gymnastic routines when the same logic is applied to the subject of abortion.

Is it because you're not paying attention? Self defense is about using force against someone to prevent them from using unlawful force against you. Prove fetuses have a desire to kill the mother before you bring up self defense and consider the implications of having just proved they're independent sentient beings.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

the next guy to go "just pass an amendment lmfao" is welcome to host a conclave with pelosi on one end and donald trump on the other

[Des-Bal]

the next guy to go "just pass an amendment lmfao" is welcome to host a conclave with pelosi on one end and donald trump on the other

Do you know what happens in a democracy when you can't get what you want democratically? You suck eggs.

I know it would be so much easier to pretend that we've already agreed on this thing we don't agree on through the existing processes and anyone who disagrees is just ignorant but not how anything fucking works. Live in a dictatorship where the only law is the fiat of your supreme leader who you will surely universally agree with- in the alternative accept that the system failing to produce the result you were hoping for isn't a failure of the system. If you want to complain about yell rigged and go sit with Trump.

[New haven america]

the next guy to go "just pass an amendment lmfao" is welcome to host a conclave with pelosi on one end and donald trump on the other

Do you know what happens in a democracy when you can't get what you want democratically? You suck eggs.

I know it would be so much easier to pretend that we've already agreed on this thing we don't agree on through the existing processes and anyone who disagrees is just ignorant but not how anything fucking works. Live in a dictatorship where the only law is the fiat of your supreme leader who you will surely universally agree with- in the alternative accept that the system failing to produce the result you were hoping for isn't a failure of the system. If you want to complain about yell rigged and go sit with Trump.

Does it ever get boring having to always be contrarian?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

the next guy to go "just pass an amendment lmfao" is welcome to host a conclave with pelosi on one end and donald trump on the other

Do you know what happens in a democracy when you can't get what you want democratically? You suck eggs.

yes we already concluded that what you were saying was "get fucked lmfao" but in a more verbose and disingenuous manner

[Spirit of Hope]

^^^ Very much this.

I often boggle about how folks who are often very much in favor of defending themselves with deadly force go into full on mental gymnastic routines when the same logic is applied to the subject of abortion.

Is it because you're not paying attention? Self defense is about using force against someone to prevent them from using unlawful force against you. Prove fetuses have a desire to kill the mother before you bring up self defense and consider the implications of having just proved they're independent sentient beings.

You don't need to prove the attackers intent to justify self defense. Just that they were doing harm/their was a reasonable belief they would cause harm and that deadly force was reasonably used in self defense.

In the case of abortion, the fetus is using the parents bod while also places the parents life and limb at risk. Absent the parents consent the fetus has no right to do that. Abortion is the only option to remove the fetus.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

^^^ Very much this.

I often boggle about how folks who are often very much in favor of defending themselves with deadly force go into full on mental gymnastic routines when the same logic is applied to the subject of abortion.

Is it because you're not paying attention? Self defense is about using force against someone to prevent them from using unlawful force against you. Prove fetuses have a desire to kill the mother before you bring up self defense and consider the implications of having just proved they're independent sentient beings.

I am very much paying attention, thankyaveramuch. I notice quite well that innocence or guilt isn’t a factor in defending oneself from harm. All that matters is that a harm is present, and one can take measures to remedy the situation. Intent doesn’t factor in because you aren’t fucking psychic and neither am I.

If the woman is allowed to use all necessary force to prevent a born person from using her body without consent, the same should be true for unborn entities. It is simply unfortunate that ‘necessary force’ is inherently lethal in this case, but if that is the only way, c’est la vie.

[Fahran]

1) Are the actions of the toddler harming the person?

Yes. Suppose different level of harms. Mild discomfort. Severe pain. Debilitating injury. High risk of death. Near certainty of death. Does the level of harm affect your judgement?

2) Is there no other means of removing the toddler?

No. Again, this creates a more appropriate analogy because we have to ask how you would behave where no alternative to killing the assailants exists for any comparison to exist with abortion on an ethical level.

It would be very hard to justify deadly force against a toddler because you can remove a toddler from a situation without needing to resort to deadly force.

A toddler coming at you with a knife isn't a scenario where you can use deadly force because there are serious questions about if the toddler can/will actually harm you with the knife and you can use less than deadly force to remove the knife.

A toddler stepping on your lawn doesn't cause you real harm and again there are options besides deadly force.

We've been down this rabbit hole before, it ends with absurd and unrealistic scenarios and accusations that I am willing to accept infanticide.

Yes. Because, if you suppose a fetus possesses personhood and rights on some level, there's not really a reason to oppose infanticide in instances where a child is causing you physical harm. If a toddler stabs or attempts to stab you, even if it wouldn't kill you, the argument you've set up would allow you to kill them in self-defense because they don't have the right to physically harm you or use your body without your consent. Your bodily autonomy trumps their right to life - which is the main crux of your argument.

And it's not actually an awful argument. Some people just find the implications unpalatable. It's logical, rational, and consistent.

[Necroghastia]

Some dude that's totally out of his gourd on hallucinogenic drugs with no idea what they're doing may have a desire to harm you, but if he is, one is justified in using force. Same principle.

[The Black Forrest]

^^^ Very much this.

I often boggle about how folks who are often very much in favor of defending themselves with deadly force go into full on mental gymnastic routines when the same logic is applied to the subject of abortion.

Is it because you're not paying attention? Self defense is about using force against someone to prevent them from using unlawful force against you. Prove fetuses have a desire to kill the mother before you bring up self defense and consider the implications of having just proved they're independent sentient beings.

That’s a bit of mental gymnastics.

A fetus can kill the mother. Be it through death; be it through conditions like Rhesus disease.

As mentioned in a previous post, there was a case where the mother lost too much amniotic fluid; normal procedure was an abortion as the loss will kill the fetus. She had the misfortune of living in Texas. Denied an abortion. Nearly died and is now unable to have another child.

Anyways…..

[Des-Bal]

Does it ever get boring having to always be contrarian?

"Agree with me senpai!"

yes we already concluded that what you were saying was "get fucked lmfao" but in a more verbose and disingenuous manner

It's not disingenuous. If you want Trump to be president treating the fact he has to win an election as an impossible barrier to be circumvented means you're being terrible.

You don't need to prove the attackers intent to justify self defense. Just that they were doing harm/their was a reasonable belief they would cause harm and that deadly force was reasonably used in self defense.

In the case of abortion, the fetus is using the parents bod while also places the parents life and limb at risk. Absent the parents consent the fetus has no right to do that. Abortion is the only option to remove the fetus.

Your reasonable belief necessitates intentional action on their part to cause you harm. If you're stuck in a burning building and a disabled person trying to get their wheelchair through a door is almost certainly going to obstruct your pathkilling them to save yourself isn't self-defense it's necessity which isn't defense to homicide.

Regardless it's also about IMMINENT harm and proportional force. If a guy grabs you can try to fight him off but what if you can't, he just sits there squeezing you slowly causing harm. At what point can you call somebody, schedule an appointment, drive over to see them, and have this person place a gun to the attackers skull and shoot them in order to stop them?

Abortion is not like self defense.

[Necroghastia]

1) Are the actions of the toddler harming the person?

Yes. Suppose different level of harms. Mild discomfort. Severe pain. Debilitating injury. High risk of death. Near certainty of death. Does the level of harm affect your judgement?

2) Is there no other means of removing the toddler?

No. Again, this creates a more appropriate analogy because we have to ask how you would behave where no alternative to killing the assailants exists for any comparison to exist with abortion on an ethical level.

It would be very hard to justify deadly force against a toddler because you can remove a toddler from a situation without needing to resort to deadly force.

A toddler coming at you with a knife isn't a scenario where you can use deadly force because there are serious questions about if the toddler can/will actually harm you with the knife and you can use less than deadly force to remove the knife.

A toddler stepping on your lawn doesn't cause you real harm and again there are options besides deadly force.

We've been down this rabbit hole before, it ends with absurd and unrealistic scenarios and accusations that I am willing to accept infanticide.

Yes. Because, if you suppose a fetus possesses personhood and rights on some level, there's not really a reason to oppose infanticide in instances where a child is causing you physical harm. If a toddler stabs or attempts to stab you, even if it wouldn't kill you, the argument you've set up would allow you to kill them in self-defense because they don't have the right to physically harm you or use your body without your consent. Your bodily autonomy trumps their right to life - which is the main crux of your argument.

And it's not actually an awful argument. Some people just find the implications unpalatable. It's logical, rational, and consistent.

No, it's awful, because you can overpower a fucking toddler without killing it.

[Fahran]

the next guy to go "just pass an amendment lmfao" is welcome to host a conclave with pelosi on one end and donald trump on the other

An abortion amendment wouldn't even come close to passing. Mind you, it'd come a lot closer to passing now than if it had been proposed in 1970, but most people, at least when we dig a little deeper, have fairly moderate opinions on abortion. They want it to stop being legal on demand at some point between Week 14 and Week 24. This'll definitely be a lot more lenient than laws like those of Texas or Louisiana, but it's also going to potentially cut out some portion of the 5% of abortions that don't take place in the first trimester - at least if they don't have medical justification. So maybe a couple thousand?

Plus the threshold is freakin' high.

[Fahran]

No, it's awful, because you can overpower a fucking toddler without killing it.

And, at some point, you can remove a fetus without killing it. You would not legally obligate a person to endure serious injuries to save the life of another person. If a toddler is running at you with a knife, why wouldn't shooting them be justified by the same logic? Additionally, if for some other reason you could not overpower the toddler without killing it, would killing the toddler be justified?

[New haven america]

Does it ever get boring having to always be contrarian?

"Agree with me senpai!"

yes we already concluded that what you were saying was "get fucked lmfao" but in a more verbose and disingenuous manner

It's not disingenuous. If you want Trump to be president treating the fact he has to win an election as an impossible barrier to be circumvented means you're being terrible.

You don't need to prove the attackers intent to justify self defense. Just that they were doing harm/their was a reasonable belief they would cause harm and that deadly force was reasonably used in self defense.

In the case of abortion, the fetus is using the parents bod while also places the parents life and limb at risk. Absent the parents consent the fetus has no right to do that. Abortion is the only option to remove the fetus.

Your reasonable belief necessitates intentional action on their part to cause you harm. If you're stuck in a burning building and a disabled person trying to get their wheelchair through a door is almost certainly going to obstruct your pathkilling them to save yourself isn't self-defense it's necessity which isn't defense to homicide.

Regardless it's also about IMMINENT harm and proportional force. If a guy grabs you can try to fight him off but what if you can't, he just sits there squeezing you slowly causing harm. At what point can you call somebody, schedule an appointment, drive over to see them, and have this person place a gun to the attackers skull and shoot them in order to stop them?

Abortion is not like self defense.

You're not cool enough to be a senpai.

[Fahran]

You're not cool enough to be a senpai.

You don't actually have to be cool to be a senpai though?

Like... I just call all of 'em grandpa or granny.

[Necroghastia]

No, it's awful, because you can overpower a fucking toddler without killing it.

And, at some point, you can remove a fetus without killing it. You would not legally obligate a person to endure serious injuries to save the life of another person.

I feel like these two sentences are at odds.

If a toddler is running at you with a knife, why wouldn't shooting them be justified by the same logic?

Because you can overpower a toddler without killing it.

Additionally, if for some other reason you could not overpower the toddler without killing it, would killing the toddler be justified?

Some other reason like...?