Georgia's Move to Ban Abortion.

[Dyakovo]

No, I'm saying that because it's wrong it should be illegal in the majority of instances.

If it's not "wrong" why should it be illegal?

[Concurria]

As to your second point: How do you think these characteristics are determined? God-in-Heaven?

No. I think they are determined through genetic makeup, cell replication, womb conditions, and socialization. Gender is not predetermined in a single cell. Even sex is not predetermined, since conditions during gestation--an influx of certain hormones, for example--can alter development of sexual characteristics. As for capabilities--absolutely not. A single cell is capable of nothing. A mistake in cell replication, a problem during gestation, and what should have been a healthy, 'normal' infant months down the line will now be born with CP. Or will be miscarried. Or may not even become a person at all!

A year or so before I was born, my mother became pregnant, but did not have a child. She didn't miscarry; the fertilized egg--what you consider to be a human being--divided and multiplied many times, but it never became a person. It was just tissue. This is called a molar pregnancy. Now tell me--was it a boy or a girl growing in there? What color skin did that "baby" have?

Oof, that was a careless mistake, thank you.

What you said—about what occurs in the womb during the full period of gestation—still doesn't negate that, at the moment of conception, a lot has already happened. You haven't disproved that idea.

What color skin did that "baby" have

My mother, father, sister, and I consider the miscarried twin of my youngest sister to have been "human". If you continue to resort to these childish tactics, I'm going to stop. I realize we get snippy here but I demand to be taken seriously when it really gets down to it.

[Concurria]

Pray tell, how is cell-removal "killing [...] a pre-born human"?

Are you referring to the procedure? That's what it does. Unless you'd like to highlight a multitude of cases where that didn't happen—where the cell was preserved and grown to consciousness.

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, spontaneous abortions are performed by the human body. Would that, too, count as "killing

A fetus dies in a spontaneous abortion but no single person killed it. A women is responsible for her choices where her conscience will allows her to be. Does she "choose" to activate her kidneys? Does she "choose" to beat her heart? Does she "choose" to sweat at the second mile mark? These aren't things she chooses and no one can blame a women whose lost a child.

It is cruel for you to suggest, too. I've been called the cruel one here but you are arguing, because you believe, that a woman is somehow responsible for her miscarriage. There are many mothers who have tried repeatedly to reproduce and cannot succeed—they aren't "killing" the thing just for the hell of it.

Abortion is a necessity. Accept it.

No it isn't.

[Concurria]

So what do you propose should be the sentence for these new "crimes" like getting sick from chemotherapy, catching a cold, losing one's job, overeating, smoking, saying mean things to people, having PMS, forgetting your partner's birthday, and so forth?

Your argument is weak. I didn't call any of these things bad. In fact, a lot of people didn't.

Catching a cold is good?
Losing your job is good?
Overeating is good?

To boost the immunity? Yes.
For your company as a whole? Most likely—assuming fair-play.
Is overeating bad? Well it certainly isn't good. That doesn't explain though all the people who do it. I suppose it isn't that simple is it?

Just playing devil's advocate.

[The Alma Mater]

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, spontaneous abortions are performed by the human body. Would that, too, count as "killing

A fetus dies in a spontaneous abortion but no single person killed it. A women is responsible for her choices where her conscience will allows her to be. Does she "choose" to activate her kidneys? Does she "choose" to beat her heart? Does she "choose" to sweat at the second mile mark? These aren't things she chooses and no one can blame a women whose lost a child.

As has been pointed out before, a woman in western nations is fully capable of ensuring she is inside a hospital that can take care of a fertilised egg if the body decides to reject it. It can then e.g. be frozen.

So "letting it die" is a choice.

[Barringtonia]

Rabbits can eat their young on birth, plenty of animals partake in infanticide, there seems no objective absolute that 'choosing' to end the life of a baby, let alone a foetus exists.

So we're left with the fact that it's an arbitrary decision as to when we might allow this to occur. Given the balance between natural distaste for abortions and the utterly negative effects of banning it, one would think that a reasonable mind could accept the simple fact that it's deemed necessary, and is carried out regardless of legality, by a large amount of the population given gender, and not force by law to curtail the freedom of a woman to choose abortion, given it's generally a decision faced by her alone.

Her body can choose it, why can't she.

The only reason against provided so far is that 'it's wrong', in the opinion of some, fueled by emotion rather than actual results, negative emotions against positive results.

Any side discussion over the status of a foetus, the suitability of a parent, the event by which pregnancy occurred, is irrelevant.

[Dyakovo]

To boost the immunity? Yes.
For your company as a whole? Most likely—assuming fair-play.
Is overeating bad? Well it certainly isn't good. That doesn't explain though all the people who do it. I suppose it isn't that simple is it?

Just playing devil's advocate.

Since you skipped over it before...

Are you in favor of legalizing slavery, yes or no?

[Bagelalia]

I think that this is a good Idea.I think killing something before its born is worse than being murdered afterwords.Abortion doesn't even give it a chance to see the world,smile for the first time,or even know their mother. now doesnt this sound terrible? If you dont want it,this would give you a chance to let someone else have it without them needing to spend time in a foster home.

[Dyakovo]

I think that this is a good Idea.I think killing something before its born is worse than being murdered afterwords.Abortion doesn't even give it a chance to see the world,smile for the first time,or even know their mother. now doesnt this sound terrible? If you dont want it,this would give you a chance to let someone else have it without them needing to spend time in a foster home.

Right because there is a shortage of children waiting for adoption...

[The Tofu Islands]

I think that this is a good Idea.I think killing something before its born is worse than being murdered afterwords.Abortion doesn't even give it a chance to see the world,smile for the first time,or even know their mother. now doesnt this sound terrible? If you dont want it,this would give you a chance to let someone else have it without them needing to spend time in a foster home.

A fetus doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of it's mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

[Barringtonia]

Right because there is a shortage of children waiting for adoption...

Come now, give Madonna and Angelina some time, honestly, some people have no patience.

[The Alma Mater]

I think that this is a good Idea.I think killing something before its born is worse than being murdered afterwords.Abortion doesn't even give it a chance to see the world,smile for the first time,or even know their mother. now doesnt this sound terrible? If you dont want it,this would give you a chance to let someone else have it without them needing to spend time in a foster home.

So can I fuck your sister ? After all, if I do not, there will be no chance of her conceiving my child. That child will then never get a chance to see the world, smile for the first time, or know its mother.

[Elaborate Design]

I think it's important to reiterate here that the law in question does not declare an embryo to be a full human person with all the rights therein, nor does it deal in any way with abortion. The fact that it is an attempt to take the law in that direction is pretty clear and disturbing, but it would be incorrect to say that these various issues are going to come up under current GA law.

No, it is being SAID it doesn't declare an embryo a full human person, etc - but it does grant them personhood, and rights and responsibilities to suit. Whether those rights are identical to yours or mine is kind of irrelevant - it grants a fertilised egg personhood and legal rights, which changes the status.

Does this mean they have to file taxes and get an insurance?

In the Netherlands, at least the second thing would be pretty much obligatory...

[Elaborate Design]

I think that this is a good Idea.I think killing something before its born is worse than being murdered afterwords.Abortion doesn't even give it a chance to see the world,smile for the first time,or even know their mother. now doesnt this sound terrible? If you dont want it,this would give you a chance to let someone else have it without them needing to spend time in a foster home.

A fetus doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of it's mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

I think the word is "parasite". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite)

Pointed out by Bottle in a thread about a similar subject.

[No Names Left Damn It]

A fetus doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of it's mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

An 8 and a half month old baby doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of its mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

[Galloism]

A fetus doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of it's mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

An 8 and a half month old baby doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of its mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

She shouldn't.

She can have labor induced.

[No Names Left Damn It]

A fetus doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of it's mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

Why should a disabled person with serious brain injuries be allowed to drain resources from the state?

[Elaborate Design]

A fetus doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of it's mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

An 8 and a half month old baby doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of its mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

But ah!

Lo and behold: with legal abortion it would have been the mother's choice to let it do so!
Therefore, she would not be forced, and the slavery argument would be off the table.

[Concurria]

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, spontaneous abortions are performed by the human body. Would that, too, count as "killing

A fetus dies in a spontaneous abortion but no single person killed it. A women is responsible for her choices where her conscience will allows her to be. Does she "choose" to activate her kidneys? Does she "choose" to beat her heart? Does she "choose" to sweat at the second mile mark? These aren't things she chooses and no one can blame a women whose lost a child.

As has been pointed out before, a woman in western nations is fully capable of ensuring she is inside a hospital that can take care of a fertilised egg if the body decides to reject it. It can then e.g. be frozen.

So "letting it die" is a choice.

That is a moot point. That technology has not been advanced. It'd also be the most expensive option of anything she could consider and the returns are simply not present to have a fertilized egg sit in cryostasis until your deathbed, with no hope of ever seeing it nourished back.

Are you in favor of legalizing slavery, yes or no?

I am not in favor of having slavery legalized.

[The Tofu Islands]

A fetus doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of it's mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

An 8 and a half month old baby doesn't have an absolute right to use the body of its mother. It doesn't have the right to drain nutrients from her. Why should she be forced to let it use her body?

If it's outside her body, it no longer directly drains nutrients from her by existing. If you're referring to a fetus 8 and a half months into pregnancy, then it doesn't and I still think abortion should be allowed at that stage (seeing as it pretty-much never happens at that point without good medical reasons).

[Enadail]

Lo and behold: with legal abortion it would have been the mother's choice to let it do so!
Therefore, she would not be forced, and the slavery argument would be off the table.

...? Thats... right? That was the point?

If abortion is illegal, the mother is essentially a slave, a very uncomfortable, possibly soon dead slave, to something that isn't even a person yet. So if abortion was legal... the mother would no longer be a slave to the parasite.

[Enadail]

If it's outside her body, it no longer directly drains nutrients from her by existing. If you're referring to a fetus 8 and a half months into pregnancy, then it doesn't and I still think abortion should be allowed at that stage (seeing as it pretty-much never happens at that point without good medical reasons).

It can't happen at that point. An abortion at that stage is called force labor. The child is viable. That's where I currently draw my line: when is the child self-viable. I'm sure I'll change my mind when I have a kid, but until then...

[Galloism]

If it's outside her body, it no longer directly drains nutrients from her by existing. If you're referring to a fetus 8 and a half months into pregnancy, then it doesn't and I still think abortion should be allowed at that stage (seeing as it pretty-much never happens at that point without good medical reasons).

It can't happen at that point. An abortion at that stage is called force labor. The child is viable. That's where I currently draw my line: when is the child self-viable. I'm sure I'll change my mind when I have a kid, but until then...

I agree with this. Once the child can live outside the mother and have a chance at growing into a adult (even with extensive medical help), an abortion should not be available. At that point, it's forced labor.

Interestingly, this point of view also has the abortion line moving further back as medical technology advances.

[The Tofu Islands]

It can't happen at that point. An abortion at that stage is called force labor. The child is viable. That's where I currently draw my line: when is the child self-viable. I'm sure I'll change my mind when I have a kid, but until then...

*Looks up*
Sure, that's a reasonable way of solving it. Thank you. I was a bit hazy on when the point of viability came up, so I should've looked it up...

[No Names Left Damn It]

If it's outside her body, it no longer directly drains nutrients from her by existing.

Ever heard of breast milk?

If you're referring to a fetus 8 and a half months into pregnancy, then it doesn't and I still think abortion should be allowed at that stage (seeing as it pretty-much never happens at that point without good medical reasons).

But without good medical reasons, should it be allowed?