Georgia's Move to Ban Abortion.

[Chazicaria]

no i just hate murderers

[UNIverseVERSE]

Only caveat of mine to this is that if, as you said, a woman woke up one morning 8 1/2 months pregnant and said "I don't want this in my body anymore", she shouldn't be able to get an abortion. However, she should be able to get induced labor or a c-section (or whatever she desires) to remove the baby from her. Once the baby can survive on its own without its mother, I consider it worth saving.

Her right to bodily integrity extends to doing things with her body that I disapprove of, like having extremely late term elective abortions.

Edit: I always try to defend something in its most absolute terms. Yes, this means I end up defending things I don't like. However, it also means I don't end up quibbling with people about exactly where the line should be drawn. By saying "I will defend your right to an abortion at any stage, for any reason", I avoid constant arguing over "well, move the line a few months earlier" or "this isn't a good enough reason to abort". Any reason, any time. Saves a lot of hassle (and, as I said, people simply don't have late term abortions for frivolous reasons. So I needn't even worry about them doing something I might consider distasteful).

Here's a challenge -- anyone who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, will you put your money where your mouth is and pay for the upbringing of the child?

[Elaborate Design]

OH GUESS WHAT IVE GOT AN IDEA DONT HAVE SEX OR USE BIRTH CONTROL, IF YOU DONT WANT KIDS THEN DONT TRY TO HAVE THEM, I hate it when a slut has sex, gets pregnant, can't support the baby and decides oh what the heck im going to kill my baby so i can go on being a slutty slut

Oh dear.

This might nuke up beyond rational discussion.

Now we'll have the cause-effect discussion involving rape, incest, and birth control having a 98% functionality at best...

Also, you might want to cut on the caps lock, it gives people the idea you're screaming at them.

[Geule]

OH GUESS WHAT IVE GOT AN IDEA DONT HAVE SEX OR USE BIRTH CONTROL, IF YOU DONT WANT KIDS THEN DONT TRY TO HAVE THEM, I hate it when a slut has sex, gets pregnant, can't support the baby and decides oh what the heck im going to kill my baby so i can go on being a slutty slut

You're a rather angry person, aren't you?

Or a troll.

[UNIverseVERSE]

no i just hate murderers

Murder is one thing. Demanding that anyone uses their body as a life support machine for another is very different, and totally unreasonable.

Are you male or female?

[Elaborate Design]

no i just hate murderers

Murder is one thing. Demanding that anyone uses their body as a life support machine for another is very different, and totally unreasonable.

Are you male or female?

And do you tend to see everything in black and white, without any form of nuance?

If so, I won't bother arguing with you.

[Chazicaria]

no im not angry or a troll its just my opinion and thats not illegal or against the rules and by the way im a male but know plenty of women who are even more against this than me

[UNIverseVERSE]

no im not angry or a troll its just my opinion and thats not illegal or against the rules and by the way im a male but know plenty of women who are even more against this than me

Have any of these women ever had to face this as a decision?

[Chazicaria]

yes actually my mom faced it 5 times my aunt 3 times my grandmother 9 times and my other aunts several times

[Hamilay]

I hate it when a slut has sex, gets pregnant, can't support the baby and decides oh what the heck im going to kill my baby so i can go on being a slutty slut

yes actually my mom faced it 5 times my aunt 3 times my grandmother 9 times and my other aunts several times

Your family gatherings must be unpleasant affairs...

[Elaborate Design]

I hate it when a slut has sex, gets pregnant, can't support the baby and decides oh what the heck im going to kill my baby so i can go on being a slutty slut

yes actually my mom faced it 5 times my aunt 3 times my grandmother 9 times and my other aunts several times

Your family gatherings must be unpleasant affairs...

I was just thinking about how to formulate that.

Thank you; so eloquently

[Hamilay]

I was just thinking about how to formulate that.

Thank you; so eloquently

Glad to be of service.

[Galloism]

Only caveat of mine to this is that if, as you said, a woman woke up one morning 8 1/2 months pregnant and said "I don't want this in my body anymore", she shouldn't be able to get an abortion. However, she should be able to get induced labor or a c-section (or whatever she desires) to remove the baby from her. Once the baby can survive on its own without its mother, I consider it worth saving.

Her right to bodily integrity extends to doing things with her body that I disapprove of, like having extremely late term elective abortions.

Except there are two bodies at stake. You have the body of the mother, and then the body of the fetus. They are two separate entities. What happens, due to biology, is that the body of the fetus is dependent on the body of the mother for a significant period of time. The mother has every right to do whatever she wishes with her body - but not whatever she wishes with the fetus' body.

Ergo, as you said, most abortions are carried out very early, when the fetus (or zygote, or whatever) has absolutely zero chance of surviving outside the woman's body. The fact that it's removed from her body is what kills it - the idea isn't to kill it. The idea is to get it out.

If you can get it out and still save the fetus' life, that should be required. It satisfies all parties.

Edit: I always try to defend something in its most absolute terms. Yes, this means I end up defending things I don't like. However, it also means I don't end up quibbling with people about exactly where the line should be drawn. By saying "I will defend your right to an abortion at any stage, for any reason", I avoid constant arguing over "well, move the line a few months earlier" or "this isn't a good enough reason to abort". Any reason, any time. Saves a lot of hassle (and, as I said, people simply don't have late term abortions for frivolous reasons. So I needn't even worry about them doing something I might consider distasteful).

I kind of figured. However, if you're going to argue that the right to kill someone dependent upon you is absolute, then you might as well extend it to children up to 18yrs - 1 day.

Here's a challenge -- anyone who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, will you put your money where your mouth is and pay for the upbringing of the child?

I never said anything of the sort, so you'll have to ask somebody else.

[Poliwanacraca]

I'm saying that the second I come into being as a fertilized egg you can already know my class, color of skin, gender, orientation, capability, and the fact that I will age.

Hilariously, you can't know even ONE of those about a fertilized egg, but I'd particularly love to see you explain how you magically determine a fertilized egg's "capability" or "orientation."

[Poliwanacraca]

OH GUESS WHAT IVE GOT AN IDEA DONT HAVE SEX OR USE BIRTH CONTROL, IF YOU DONT WANT KIDS THEN DONT TRY TO HAVE THEM, I hate it when a slut has sex, gets pregnant, can't support the baby and decides oh what the heck im going to kill my baby so i can go on being a slutty slut

yes actually my mom faced it 5 times my aunt 3 times my grandmother 9 times and my other aunts several times

It's not very nice to call your grandmother a "slutty slut."

[Enadail]

My position is that an underdeveloped fetus is a person, but that the fetus does not have the right to use someone's body against her will. When you take that out of the equation, then I think killing them is wrong.

Maybe its the biologist in me... I don't.

True enough. I'm just saying, if you're going to start killing things on the possibility that their life might be miserable, why not kill the ones who already are?

Because humans believe in morality and ethics, for the most part. Its against my morality to kill a person when it can be helped. We can help, we simply choose not to, because we'd have to take away something from ourselves.

Giving it up for adoption is always an option, and I never said forcing a mother to carry. You'll note that my position is that the fetus does not have the right to force the mother to use her body to support it, but that once the fetus can survive on its own outside the body, then it has the right to try - with medical help, if necessary.

We have enough kids in the adoption system who never get a home, we don't need more. The adoption system is already stressed well beyond its limits and IS NOT an option, other then to again place the child into a most often torturous position.

There is a population issue, I'll grant you that. Mass-murder solves that too.

Again, ethics. But why commit mass murder when its easier to control new children? Again, through education and controlled sex first, through abortion as a last line thing.

[Galloism]

My position is that an underdeveloped fetus is a person, but that the fetus does not have the right to use someone's body against her will. When you take that out of the equation, then I think killing them is wrong.

Maybe its the biologist in me... I don't.

Which of course, brings us back to the definition of "personhood", on which we will never agree, as I said at the outset.

So, let me ask you, when do you think personhood starts, and the even more relevant question - why there?

True enough. I'm just saying, if you're going to start killing things on the possibility that their life might be miserable, why not kill the ones who already are?

Because humans believe in morality and ethics, for the most part. Its against my morality to kill a person when it can be helped. We can help, we simply choose not to, because we'd have to take away something from ourselves.

And I see the fetus as a person, so it's against my morality to kill a person when it can be helped - ethically.

Giving it up for adoption is always an option, and I never said forcing a mother to carry. You'll note that my position is that the fetus does not have the right to force the mother to use her body to support it, but that once the fetus can survive on its own outside the body, then it has the right to try - with medical help, if necessary.

We have enough kids in the adoption system who never get a home, we don't need more. The adoption system is already stressed well beyond its limits and IS NOT an option, other then to again place the child into a most often torturous position.

True, but it's hard to argue that a baby that was just born and being put into adoption is a person while a fetus that's 8 months and 29 days pregnant is not. I still want to see where you draw this line and why.

There is a population issue, I'll grant you that. Mass-murder solves that too.

Again, ethics. But why commit mass murder when its easier to control new children? Again, through education and controlled sex first, through abortion as a last line thing.

And my ethics are the reason for my position. I agree that education and safe sex should be a very large priority with us. This "abstinence only" crap that people keep spewing is driving us under.

[Poliwanacraca]

It is just about what I think. It's about the many other people that think it as well. You've completely neglected my point however and have failed to address it. Tell me why you rally to a right decided by a court of individuals when you decry the mere thought that individual thoughts should dictate the majority.

I don't agree with the Supreme Court simply because it's the Supreme Court. I do not, for example, support the ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford in the least (although, given your opinions on the right to control one's own body, you might appreciate it). I also don't think Roe got things completely right, although it put us on the right track. I DO believe that the right to bodily autonomy is about as fundamental a right as you can get, because if one does not support such a right, one effectively condones slavery, rape, torture, and murder. You have asserted that "society" believes that "life is sacred;" if "society" can believe anything at all, I think there is a much greater consensus on the idea that someone else demanding control of your body is wrong.

As to your second paragraph: Thank you for admitting that what you think is what is best for the majority: Believing that people are best left to their own decisions is still a believe unto yourself.

I freely admit to believing that all people should have the right to bodily autonomy. That is absolutely my opinion. The rather key difference is, my opinion intrinsically does not override anyone else's opinion, seeing as my opinion is, explicitly, "it's none of my (or anyone else's) business what YOU do to YOUR body."

And allowing abortion to continue is a good way of protecting life, because?

Because it saves lives. As has already been explained to you repeatedly.

[Enadail]

Which of course, brings us back to the definition of "personhood", on which we will never agree, as I said at the outset.

So, let me ask you, when do you think personhood starts, and the even more relevant question - why there?

A fetus becomes a person once its born. That simple for me.

And I see the fetus as a person, so it's against my morality to kill a person when it can be helped - ethically.

Even if its into a position where they'll wish they were dead?

True, but it's hard to argue that a baby that was just born and being put into adoption is a person while a fetus that's 8 months and 29 days pregnant is not. I still want to see where you draw this line and why.

A fetus is a person once its born. When its 8 months and 29 days, its still a fetus, but if its selfviable, it has more rights then a zygote, even if not legally, it does ethically. Why? Because I see both personal lives and humanity as a whole. I think its important to remember individual people, but then it becomes similar to those stupid hypothetical: if you have to choose to save 5 healthy, young people vs 10 people who are a drain on society due to stuff out of their control, such as age, illness, etc, which group do you pick? Its not simple by any means.

And my ethics are the reason for my position. I agree that education and safe sex should be a very large priority with us. This "abstinence only" crap that people keep spewing is driving us under.

[Poliwanacraca]

Women who say that they should have control over their bodies are...well....dumb its not just their body

The hell it's not. The fact that you are willing to give away ownership of women's bodies so cavalierly does not exactly reflect well on you.

[Galloism]

Which of course, brings us back to the definition of "personhood", on which we will never agree, as I said at the outset.

So, let me ask you, when do you think personhood starts, and the even more relevant question - why there?

A fetus becomes a person once its born. That simple for me.

Now, lets do the second part of the question. Why?

And I see the fetus as a person, so it's against my morality to kill a person when it can be helped - ethically.

Even if its into a position where they'll wish they were dead?

That may be an unfortunate consequence, but if that's your position, we should have mandatory abortions for all people below a certain income bracket or people who suffer from disadvantage or mental illness. After all, it's likely the children might be born and wind up wishing to be dead.

True, but it's hard to argue that a baby that was just born and being put into adoption is a person while a fetus that's 8 months and 29 days pregnant is not. I still want to see where you draw this line and why.

A fetus is a person once its born. When its 8 months and 29 days, its still a fetus, but if its selfviable, it has more rights then a zygote, even if not legally, it does ethically. Why? Because I see both personal lives and humanity as a whole. I think its important to remember individual people, but then it becomes similar to those stupid hypothetical: if you have to choose to save 5 healthy, young people vs 10 people who are a drain on society due to stuff out of their control, such as age, illness, etc, which group do you pick? Its not simple by any means.

Except it's not an either/or. You're talking about killing a fetus in order to save it from a life of hardship. I don't buy that argument for a second. If that's the case, we should be able to kill a 2 month old child if its mother is a crackwhore, after all, he's probably going to live a life of hardship.

[Dyakovo]

you see thats why i hate scientists and those who side with them all they do is invent new resons for murder.

If you are going to take part in the discussion, you should at least learn the proper terminology. Killing a fetus is not murder.

[The Romulan Republic]

Her right to bodily integrity extends to doing things with her body that I disapprove of, like having extremely late term elective abortions.

Except the fetus is not part of the woman's body. Certainly not at the point where it is able to survive on its own. Frankly, saying that life spontaneously begins at the moment the baby leaves the vagina is about as scientific as saying that it magically begins at the moment of conception.

Of course, the woman still have to carry it to a point, and even then still has to go through with delivering it, which is a painful and dangerous proposition. I can certainly understand the moral qualms with doing so. However, unless you believe that a baby suddenly comes to life at the instant it leaves the woman's body (and can provided scientific evidence of this), then you are faced with an apparent dilemma: does preserving one person's bodily integrity outweigh preserving another person's life?

Note, since I fully expect to be strawmanned for this position, let me state up front that I do not believe that life begins at conception, my motives are not religious in nature, and I do not believe that women should not, when at all possible, have control over their bodies. I simply have yet to see anyone explain in a satisfactory way how a baby suddenly becomes a person the moment it is born. It seems to me that it is a person before hand, albeit one dependent on another individual. The point at which it becomes a person is not conception, nor very shortly thereafter, but somewhere in between. The difficulty is in determining when that point has been reached, and then excepting that you must infringe on one person's rights to preserve another's.

Edit: I always try to defend something in its most absolute terms. Yes, this means I end up defending things I don't like. However, it also means I don't end up quibbling with people about exactly where the line should be drawn. By saying "I will defend your right to an abortion at any stage, for any reason", I avoid constant arguing over "well, move the line a few months earlier" or "this isn't a good enough reason to abort". Any reason, any time. Saves a lot of hassle (and, as I said, people simply don't have late term abortions for frivolous reasons. So I needn't even worry about them doing something I might consider distasteful).

So you don't care about what's right, what makes sense, or what's based in facts, you just treat everything as black and white to avoid any complex decisions or using your judgement?

I am sorry, but that is an opinion and a justification that I cannot possibly respect, especially in an issue involving fundamental rights.

Here's a challenge -- anyone who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, will you put your money where your mouth is and pay for the upbringing of the child?

Gladly, if I was able to do so.

[Dyakovo]

OH GUESS WHAT IVE GOT AN IDEA DONT HAVE SEX OR USE BIRTH CONTROL, IF YOU DONT WANT KIDS THEN DONT TRY TO HAVE THEM, I hate it when a slut has sex, gets pregnant, can't support the baby and decides oh what the heck im going to kill my baby so i can go on being a slutty slut

No form of birth control is 100% effective.

[The Tofu Islands]

GOOD JOB GEORGIA NOW ALL WE NEED TO DO IS BAN BABY KILLING ENTIRELY.

You'll be happy to know that baby-killing is illegal in the entire US. Awesome, isn't it.

Women who say that they should have control over their bodies are...well....dumb

No they aren't. They are right. A fetus doesn't have a right to use a woman's body to survive.

its not just their body they (rather they like it or not they) are sharing

You give me a bunch of your stuff and I'll give you nothing in return. There. We're sharing. According to you...

they need to realize that it doesn't matter if you don't want a kid or not adoption is always an option

However even taking a pregnancy to completion and giving birth is sometimes not a reasonable option for the woman. And adoption doesn't necessarily give the kid a good life.

baby killing is wrong

Except that it isn't baby killing. Pretty-much all elective abortions are performed well before the fetus has even developed a working nervous system.

everyone from hookers to obama need to realize that the "fetus" is a real living thing and anyone who doesn't believe it is wrong plain and simple.

Lots of things are "real living thing"s. A Yersina Pestis* bacterium is both real and living.

*Bubonic plague.