NationStates

Galloism wrote:Mine has moved around on occasion as well. When I first came here, I was firmly against abortion. Muravyets set me straight, and I moved to birth, then a few threads later I got set straight again, and I settled on "age of viability."

Adding to your case:

As many of you know, I am pro-choice. Still am. But after a conversation I had with someone about the subject and after seeing the myriad opinions on it throughout the forum, I have come upon the realization that my views on wether to become a mother and wether I would go through with an abortion solely on the fact that I feel like I didn't come to this planet to be a mother, have changed. 180 degrees! I'm not looking to become a mother. I don't strive to be a parent, but if I become pregnant with my SO's child, I don't think I would think abortion is the first option. I don't think anymore that this is solely the woman's choice because it's her body. I think that I would carry this pregnancy to term and, depending on what we choose, either raise the child or give it up for adoption. I am surprised, and perhaps pleased too that I had this change of heart.

(although, given your opinions on the right to control one's own body, you might appreciate it).

Keep it classy, kid.

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

The right to autonomy is not the progenitor of all things. Something precedes it—we value people's autonomy because we value people.

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.

So life has nothing to do with it? That's ridiculous.

What exactly‚in your little world, do you believe should enforce the law? You don't support the Supreme Court—which is understandable—but I'm left to wonder who exactly should come to a consensus about laws and enforce them in your perfect world?

"it's none of my (or anyone else's) business what YOU do to YOUR body."

In your opinion, when people are left to their doings, others die. That's my opinion, actually.

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

While sanctioning the killing of other lives.

Concurria wrote:While sanctioning the killing of other lives.

This coming from someone who supports the side that kills doctors for performing abortions...

You certainly don't have the moral high ground.

Dyakovo wrote:

Concurria wrote:While sanctioning the killing of other lives.

This coming from someone who supports the side that kills doctors for performing abortions...

You certainly don't have the moral high ground.

You certainly don't have the evidence for that.

I referred to it as the "popular" idea of what "Pro-life" is, and I've also said in this thread that I don't follow the "popular" platform of "Pro-life." I don't support the killing of abortion doctors—no one should. If you are gonna argue about virtue, then be virtuous.

EDIT: I just thought of this. Could anyone get more presumptuous as to lamely point to your opponent and go: "Well, this is what YOUR side believes!!!!" How is that even a tactic? That's a shotty attempt to try to group me with an loosely unified group of believers that all vary in thought and deed. Who SAID I supported such murder as those of Dr. Tiller?

Concurria wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:

Concurria wrote:While sanctioning the killing of other lives.

This coming from someone who supports the side that kills doctors for performing abortions...

You certainly don't have the moral high ground.

You certainly don't have the evidence for that.

I referred to it as the "popular" idea of what "Pro-life" is, and I've also said in this thread that I don't follow the "popular" platform of "Pro-life." I don't support the killing of abortion doctors—no one should. If you are gonna argue about virtue, then be virtuous.

EDIT: I just thought of this. Could anyone get more presumptuous as to lamely point to your opponent and go: "Well, this is what YOUR side believes!!!!" How is that even a tactic? That's a shotty attempt to try to group me with an loosely unified group of believers that all vary in thought and deed. Who SAID I supported such murder as those of Dr. Tiller?

Do you consider yourself to be "Pro-life"?

Grays Harbor wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:

DMistan wrote:
English: Don't Feed The Trolls

Internet: DNFTT

lolcat: u no feeds tha trollies

German: Füttern Sie die Trolle nicht
Russian: Не кормите Напевание

Chinese: 不喂養山精
Norwegian(?): Ikke mat troll

Amusing and informing!

Concurria wrote:

(although, given your opinions on the right to control one's own body, you might appreciate it).

Keep it classy, kid.

I always do. I'm also fairly certain I'm older than you.

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

The right to autonomy is not the progenitor of all things. Something precedes it—we value people's autonomy because we value people.

Indeed. Which is why we give rights to people, not clumps of cells that might one day become people if all goes well for them.

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.

So life has nothing to do with it? That's ridiculous.

Why?

What exactly‚in your little world, do you believe should enforce the law? You don't support the Supreme Court—which is understandable—but I'm left to wonder who exactly should come to a consensus about laws and enforce them in your perfect world?

I'm pretty happy with the basic system we have set up in the US, where elected representatives make laws and appointed judges determine the constitutionality of those laws. That doesn't make the system infallible, because humans are inherently fallible, but it's pretty decent. The problem comes when lawmakers try to overstep the bounds of their authority and make laws which interfere with individuals' rights, such as, say, the right to privacy and the right to bodily autonomy.

"it's none of my (or anyone else's) business what YOU do to YOUR body."

In your opinion, when people are left to their doings, others die. That's my opinion, actually.

It's true. People will die. We are mortal. There is nothing I can do to stop death from occurring, but I can do my damnedest to stop it occurring unnecessarily. Dying because you couldn't get a needed medical procedure performed safely is stupid.

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

While sanctioning the killing of other lives.

Yup. I absolutely sanction the killing of even born human beings who are trying to use your body against your will. If someone is attempting to rape or murder you, you are well within your rights to kill them if that's what it takes to make them stop. If someone is attempting to cut out your kidney because they really really need a kidney to survive, you are well within your rights to kill them if that's what it takes to make them stop. Why on earth would I give something that isn't even a person rights that no born person possesses?

Hmmm?

Ok. If they want to adopt extreme birth defects. I say let them.

You can adopt the embryo but it's all yours. You get what you get. No screenings!

Hey it can even create jobs. Policing the people who adopt to make sure the they are treating their adoptions well!

Concurria wrote: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.

No, you're entirely missing the point.

Two-thirds of all fertilised eggs (which this law has granted legal status to, now) fail to implant.

Fully three-quarters of all concepta fail to reach term.

If you are going to say those eggs are people, and that the mother's body is somehow theirs by right, then any conceptus that fails to reach term is now a dead person, and - according to established legal precedent - MUST be investigated, and negligence or intent MUST be determined. That's what we do when 'people' die.

And that's what people are saying opens a door we do not want opened. If the mother miscarries after a hard day at work, even if she didn't yet know she was pregnant - she is arguably guilty of a crime - because she 'didn't take sufficient care' of the embryo.

Bagelalia wrote:I think that this is a good Idea.I think killing something before its born is worse than being murdered afterwords.

Ignoring your emotive language for a moment - how is terminating a foetus before it has any ability to feel... WORSE that killing a feeling child?

Galloism wrote: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.

That seems awful absolute. What if delivering the baby would kill the mother?

No Names Left Damn It wrote:

The Tofu Islands wrote:If it's outside her body, it no longer directly drains nutrients from her by existing.

Ever heard of breast milk?

Breast feeding does not 'directly drain nutrients by existing'. Breast feeding is (also) optional.

Concurria wrote:

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

The right to autonomy is not the progenitor of all things. Something precedes it—we value people's autonomy because we value people.

So close to the truth and yet so far!! We value PERSONS. Not human tissue, not "life," but persons. Thus we protect unborn humans when they have a claim to personhood and/or protecting them doesn't infringe on a woman's rights.

Concurria wrote:What exactly‚in your little world, do you believe should enforce the law? You don't support the Supreme Court—which is understandable—but I'm left to wonder who exactly should come to a consensus about laws and enforce them in your perfect world?

What you prattling on about? You are the one who disagrees with 36 years of SCOTUS precedent recognizing the right to choice is a fundamental liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Galloism wrote: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.

That seems awful absolute. What if delivering the baby would kill the mother?

C-section and induced labor both?

I bet that doesn't happen often. However, even if it does, then medically speaking I still agree with Roe v. Wade, that the medical needs of the mother trump the unborn child.

Chazicaria wrote::clap: GOOD JOB GEORGIA NOW ALL WE NEED TO DO IS BAN BABY KILLING ENTIRELY.

Baby killing is ilegal.

Fortunately, we're only debating abortion.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Galloism wrote: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.

That seems awful absolute. What if delivering the baby would kill the mother?

Thank you GnI, that's the argument I was searching for and couldn't find...
Damn cold medicine...

Galloism wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Galloism wrote: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.

That seems awful absolute. What if delivering the baby would kill the mother?

C-section and induced labor both?

I bet that doesn't happen often. However, even if it does, then medically speaking I still agree with Roe v. Wade, that the medical needs of the mother trump the unborn child.

Just pointing out that the absolute is, as absolutes often are, less absolute than it seems.

Hydrocephalic babies can be impossible to deliver safely, by either C-section or normal means, and will probably kill the baby, and have a risk of killing the mother.


I think the angle you were aiming for is that elective abortion can be reasonably limited to independant viability.

I'd still say, personally, that there has to be exception for special cases. The 13 year old who doesn't want to have her daddy's baby, for example.

Dyakovo wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Galloism wrote: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.

That seems awful absolute. What if delivering the baby would kill the mother?

Thank you GnI, that's the argument I was searching for and couldn't find...
Damn cold medicine...

Hey, slide some of that over here. I've been sick since Wednesday, and the damn thing just don't seem to be going anywhere.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:That seems awful absolute. What if delivering the baby would kill the mother?

Thank you GnI, that's the argument I was searching for and couldn't find...
Damn cold medicine...

Hey, slide some of that over here. I've been sick since Wednesday, and the damn thing just don't seem to be going anywhere.

So it's your fault I'm sick...
You are truly a bastard.

No Names Left Damn It wrote:

Deus Malum wrote:Ever heard of baby formula?

You're missing the point. My point was that nutrients are used in the creation of breast milk, which is produced because a baby has been born.

But not exclusively. Lactation is often caused by the birth of the baby, but that's not the only way it can start. Hell - it's not actually even limited to women.

Dyakovo wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Thank you GnI, that's the argument I was searching for and couldn't find...
Damn cold medicine...

Hey, slide some of that over here. I've been sick since Wednesday, and the damn thing just don't seem to be going anywhere.

So it's your fault I'm sick...
You are truly a bastard.

A sick bastard at that. You shouldn't have opened that virus attachment I sent.

Grave_n_idle wrote:Hell - it's not actually even limited to women.

That's astounding. I assume you have a source?

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

I'm a scientist. You hate me? You don't even know me!

Of course, you probably would hate me if you knew me, but that's not the point...

No Names Left Damn It wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:Hell - it's not actually even limited to women.

That's astounding. I assume you have a source?

Straight off the top of my head, wiki has an article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

Grave_n_idle wrote:Just pointing out that the absolute is, as absolutes often are, less absolute than it seems.

Naturally.

Grave_n_idle wrote:Hydrocephalic babies can be impossible to deliver safely, by either C-section or normal means, and will probably kill the baby, and have a risk of killing the mother.

Hmm, I'll have to research it. My medicinal knowledge is kind of limited to effects of oxygen deprivation and high altitude physiological problems.

Grave_n_idle wrote:I think the angle you were aiming for is that elective abortion can be reasonably limited to independant viability.

Well, I did neglect to put "elective" in every single post since I started. However, I was referring to elective abortions. My fault for not specifying. See though, I am not even sure how a late term abortion would be performed and how similar/dissimilar it is to birth. In essence, my position is in such situations, as soon as the mother is out of danger, they should see if the fetus can be saved, or have two teams standing by. Honestly though, my knowledge of late-term abortions and how they're done is nonexistent.

Grave_n_idle wrote:I'd still say, personally, that there has to be exception for special cases. The 13 year old who doesn't want to have her daddy's baby, for example.

And why did the 13 year old wait until she was 7-8 months pregnant to look into an abortion? I disagree on that particular exception, unless of course there is a significant medical risk to the 13 year old in having this child (as there likely would be).