[Abortion Megathread] Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? REVISED POLL

[Godular]

NEW POLL. PREVIOUS POLL RESULTS AS FOLLOWS:

Which of the following do you agree with most?

Abortion is necessary to control the population. 2%

It is her body, it should be her choice. 53%

Personally against abortions, but respect the rights of others. 12%

I dislike abortion, and wish to reduce the number of abortions via certain reforms, but a ban would be going too far. 5%

Ban certain procedures like D&E, but keep it legal for all as a whole. 2%

Abortion should be banned, but enact several reforms to give women other options. 9%

Abortion is immoral, but necessary in certain cases. 13%

Abortion is immoral, and never justified. 4%

This is a continuation of the ongoing Abortion discussion, as the OP of the previous thread is inactive and I would like to establish a more precise poll to see where people stand on the issue. I would recommend that posters please read the entirety of this post before posting.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=375127 - This is a link to the previous iteration of the thread.

As it has been pointed out that I should put forward some roughly neutral definitions and points, here are a few major definitions and documents to keep in mind:
'Fetus' definition
'Murder' definition
'Self-Defense' Definition
'Homicide' Definition
Merriam-webster definition of 'parasite'
Biology definition of 'parasite'
Biology definition of 'parasitism'
Merriam-webster definition of 'innocent'
Wiki Article on Parasitism, has source links that might be of use.

And on another note: Useful post in this very thread giving a decent examination of the word Parasite and parasitism. Credit to Esternial for going to the trouble.

Important Documents for a rather U.S. centered discussion.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Interactive map of abortion access around the world, who allows it, who doesn't, etc. etc.
14th amendment to the US constitution
4th amendment to the US constitution
The Bill of Rights for the US constitution

And a basic site that gives summarized arguments for both sides of the argument.
Pro and Con Arguments

Before I begin, though:

One thing I would wish to do in this thread is present for the consideration of pro-lifers a 'compromise' of sorts. I think in most cases that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can agree that abortion in itself is a sad thing, sad that a human life is ended, but sad also that such must exist for our society to treat everyone equally.

Often it has been mentioned that pro-lifers simply wish to reduce abortions. This is all well and good. This can be done without disrupting the rights of anyone. It can be done by advocating for free and widely available contraception, including long term and short term options, as well as ensuring comprehensive sex education that provides training to utilize contraception effectively. It would also be useful to rework the welfare system to prevent women from being overburdened, financially or otherwise by the prospects that an unwanted pregnancy would bring.

If these things were set in place, the number of abortions would be rather tremendously reduced, and in a way that imposes upon the rights of no-one. It will rectify the root cause of abortions without causing anyone to drastically alter their lifestyle and eliminate any sense of stigma that might come from experiencing an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy.

It would be at this point neither necessary nor feasible to enact any form of abortion ban as the need for enforcement of such a ban would be all but nonexistent. Why ban what for all practical intents and purposes does not happen save in medical emergencies?

Food for thought.

That being said, my previous OP is presented below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion, mayhap one of the greatest hot-button issues of modern society, generates more debate and name-calling than even the evolution/creationism argument (I refuse to call it a debate as such implies that creationism is worthy of equivalent respect compared to the Theory of Evolution, but that’s all for another thread).

No person has the right to control another person’s body against their will.

Long version of my Position

It is my position that a woman has the right to control her own body. She has the right to determine how it is used and whether anyone else can interact with that body by any means. This right includes the ability to determine when and how she becomes a parent. This position is typically summarized as ‘Nobody has the right to control another person’s body against their will’, as stated above. It is a major point in my position on the right of one human to kill another in self-defense, and also in my position that a woman should not be restricted from access to abortion.

If a woman becomes subject to an undesired pregnancy, despite any safeguards that might have been taken (though I do not consider this a crucial factor), she should have the capacity to terminate that pregnancy. It is not my business to ask why she might not desire to carry the pregnancy to term, nor is it my business to ask how the pregnancy came about. The only thing that matters to me is that the woman has the option available if she should have need of it.

The desires of the fetus are irrelevant to this consideration for two reasons:

One, it is not a conscious entity. By the time it reaches the capacity to feel pain, it will have attained a property known as ‘viability’ (at approximately 24 weeks into the pregnancy) at which point other restrictions come into play. Typically (and by typically I mean ‘damn near always’) a woman that has gone this long without terminating the pregnancy has done so because she fully wishes to carry the pregnancy to term. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy past this point is because of medical emergency.

Two, it has no rights as long as it is physically connected to another human being and is reliant upon that other human being for its continued existence. If the woman is forced to carry a pregnancy against her will, that is preventing the woman from being able to control her own body and to allow another entity to use that body for its own purposes. Some might say that the fetus is innocent. This is irrelevant, as the intent to do harm is not required for harm to be done.

A person is allowed to defend themselves from something that means them harm whether it has any direct malice or not. We can defend ourselves from a person meaning us harm, or a mountain lion thinking us a hearty meal. What if it were a caveman, genetically human but for all intents and purposes acting on instinct itself? Would we still be able to defend ourselves from this noble savage should it attack us?

Now, it is important for me to state at this juncture that though I feel it is critical for abortion to be available on demand in order to be a truly equal society, I do not ‘like’ abortion. I consider it a billion tiny tragedies that abortion HAS to be available (an abhorrent necessity, if you will). I feel that the best way to proceed is to make contraception free and freely available and to provide comprehensive sexual education and training in how to properly employ contraceptives of various forms and potential risks of sexual intercourse.

This will serve to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Attacking a problem by dealing with its root cause, without denying a woman the right to control her own body. Simple enough, no?

Now, throughout my own presence on these boards, I’ve noted a wide variety of arguments against the concept of abortion (which as Abortion is presently legal in the United States, is the side that I will focus on here), though in the end they all end up summarizing into a handful of fundamental positions. I shall present them here, along with the points arguing against each, as well as arguments against specific sub-arguments.

Please keep in mind, these are utilizing my own positions on the matter as a pro-choice individual. Other pro-choicers may differ from my own position, though I have found that the position I have reached is the most consistent and sustainable of those available. I ascribe to a philosophical version of Occam’s Razor in this situation: The less you have to present exceptions or justifications to your argument, the higher the probability that your position is the logically correct one. This is the logical aspect, not necessarily the moral aspect.

It is also important that this position is focused on the United States and the rights granted to citizens by the US Constitution. Those from other countries might have different legal situations.

Without further ado, the basic pro-life arguments:

”1. ABORTION IS MURDER!”

--Disregarding the appeal to emotion this argument exemplifies, this is legally incorrect.

murder [mur-der]
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)

In summary, in order for an act to be murder, the following two properties must be present:
--It must be illegal
--There must be malice.
--Some would say a third property must be present, that a person must be killed, but part of my own position notes that personhood is fundamentally irrelevant to the argument.

Claiming that a woman is killing the fetus out of malice does a grave injustice to the reasons that a woman would have for electing to terminate a pregnancy. You do not know the woman’s situation, so what right do you have to pass judgement? Also, abortion is legal and supported by the US constitution.

Thus, on both properties, abortion does not fall under the criteria for murder. Attempts to place it as such are effectively spouting hyperbole and do neither side any favors.

”2. If the woman did not want to get pregnant, she shouldn’t have had sex!”

--This claim does a grave disservice to women in general and also passes an inherently subjective judgement upon the woman. This claim essentially states that pregnancy is a punishment for the woman not being sufficiently careful, which is inherently misogynistic in nature because it assumes that the woman was not already trying to be careful or is a ‘slut getting her just rewards’. Some cultures feel that sex is only for procreation, but humanity is one of the few species on Earth that derive physical and emotional pleasure from the act of copulation. Sex feels good and is also a superb aid to emotional bonding.

In short: Sex is NOT just for procreation. In modern society, the concept of casual and recreational sex has become more and more accepted in society, especially as women become more and more capable of controlling the probability of unanticipated pregnancies. Men enjoy sex, women enjoy sex, and though it has serious ramifications this should not be cause for any restriction on having sex unless the woman chooses such of her own volition (I.E. saving oneself for marriage. Totally fine to choose that path, but don’t judge others for not choosing the same).

This is best summarized as: Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent can also be revoked. To say that a woman must keep a pregnancy whether she wanted it or not implies that once she has given consent she cannot later remove it. Using this logic, should a woman who wishes to stop having sex be obligated to ‘let him finish’? My answer, and the answer of many people, would be a resounding no. The instant consent is revoked, sex becomes rape. Should she be obligated to carry the fetus to term then?

Even many pro-lifers insert exceptions to their restrictions in regards to rape. Curious, that.

”3. Every human has a right to life!”

--The right to life only extends as far as it does not abridge the rights of another. There is a reason that we do not have government squads roaming the streets swiping people off the sidewalk and removing kidneys and lungs to transplant into others who might die if they do not receive such organs. The right to control one’s own body supersedes the right of someone else to use it, even if their life depends on the support provided by that body.

A fetus’ existence is automatically abridging the rights of the woman within which it resides. If the woman wishes to be pregnant and is intent on becoming a parent, she is consenting to this state and all the ramifications presented thereto. If she does not wish to be pregnant, she should not be prevented from severing support if she so chooses. That this severing of support will result in the death of the fetus is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

An extension to this position is the claim that all children have an inherent right to the resources of their parents. Were this true, we would not have options such as adoption available. Claims regarding adoption will be discussed further in regards to argument 5. The point as it stands here however is that a woman is not required to provide a fetus with anything.
Another extension to this is that some pro-life individuals add a caveat in their abortion restrictions to consider when the mother’s life is threatened. It is important to note that pregnancy is in itself a life-threatening condition. There are a wide variety of complications that can take place during a pregnancy that can have dire ramifications for the mother-to-be. If a woman does not wish to assume the risks of such a life-threatening condition, the ‘life-threatening’ caveat makes any actual restriction meaningless.

”4. The man helped create the life, he should have a say in whether it ends!”

--This one is somewhat indirect. In some cases it is a veiled accusation that a woman is unable to make her own decisions. In others it is a claim that the man has equal stock in the pregnancy even though he’s not the one saddled with the fetus.

The primary counter to this position is that nobody should be able to tell a woman what she does with her body. “Her body, her choice” is the paraphrased statement in this regard. To require the man’s input in order for an abortion to go through abridges the right of the woman to control her own body. The man may have helped cause the pregnancy, but he should only have a say in the matter of whether the woman proceeds with the pregnancy only if she chooses to allow it.

Now, this does indeed seem a one-sided decision. The woman is the only one who can decide whether to carry the fetus to term? What if the woman chooses to carry it to term and raise the resultant child, but the MAN does not wish to become a parent? Should he not also have some recourse? The current situation is that if the woman carries the pregnancy to term, the man is financially responsible for helping take care of that child, whether he wishes it or not.

It is my position that equality goes both ways. As Osteoeuropa has asked me no less than three times (once in TG), I support a concept known as ‘Legal Paternal Surrender’ or ‘Legal Parental Surrender’ (seems both are used with equal frequency), which is the process by which one parent severs all obligation to care for a child, financial or otherwise. This would allow a father that is not ready for parenthood the capacity to terminate his own connection to the impending child, irrespective of the wishes of the mother. Presently, this concept in its current form (when present at all) requires the mother to sign off on the surrender. I do not support this restriction. If the right to terminate a pregnancy can be done unilaterally by the mother, the right to legal parental surrender should be available to the father on a similar basis.

”5. She should just put it up for adoption!”

--This argument presents a severe mischaracterization of the ramifications of pregnancy as a whole, claiming in some situations that pregnancy is ‘just a little discomfort’ or ‘a temporary condition’, and that the woman should just carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and allow the child to be remitted into the foster system. Adoption is not the solution to an unwanted pregnancy. The woman does not wish to be pregnant, forcing her to carry it to term ignores the primary objection to the situation and again removes from the woman the right to control her own body.

This argument also crosses a very rarely considered line: that the woman should not be permitted to control her body for a certain period of time simply because it is ‘only an inconvenience’. By this logic, a woman should not be able to defend herself from a rapist because it is only a ‘temporary inconvenience’. Some will respond to this statement in a very knee-jerk manner, but I would ask in turn how it is that one is different from the other. Both cases are life-threatening, and if the woman does not consent to either case she is having her body used against her will. Why does one situation have a different response than the other?

My claim: they do not, nor should they.

When one boils all of the debate down to its most fundamental basis, the argument is rendered into the following question: Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede the right of another person to live? This to me is a matter of opinion. Does one defend themselves from attackers with deadly force or not? It is a personal choice, one that has no right or wrong answer.

So NS, hopefully you have read the long version and can understand the context of the following questions. What say you?

1. Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede that of another individual’s right to live? Why or why not?

2. Even though you might personally disagree with abortion, do you accept that others should have a right to it? Why or why not?

MODS: Let me know if you wish me to make further adjustments.

CHANGELOG
9/5/2016- Minor change to one option on poll, does not change actual option.
9/7/2016- Added links to definitions and documents that might be useful source material.

[The Romulan Republic]

You left out the biggest (yet arguably least relevant) "pro-life" argument.

"Because the Bible/other religious doctrine said so".

This underpins a lot of the other arguments, even if not admitted.

There's also a fair amount of pure misogyny in that camp.

But of the arguments that you listed, only 1 and 3 (which seems to be basically a variant/off-shoot of 1) are of much significance/weight. Two is completely unapplicable in cases of rape, and also carries the implication that sex (at least for women) is wrong and should be punished.

4 is largely irrelevant, because while I would hope that two people in a relationship would be able to discuss such a profound choice that would affect both of them, and take each other's feelings into consideration, ultimately for the "pro-life" side, the child's right to life should certainly outweigh the father's feelings, whatever they may be, while for the "pro-choice" side, it is the mother who's liberty and ability to control her body are directly affected, and this must outweigh the father's feelings as well, whatever they may be. Whatever rights the father may have pale to near-irrelevancy next to those concerns. Disputing this would seem to imply that the mother or child is effectively the property of the father, a position so barbaric it is scarcely worth refuting. I will also note that using "the father should have a say" as an anti-abortion argument seems to presuppose that the father will always oppose abortion, which is not the case.

5, meanwhile, is not always a practical solution, and still imposes the same burden on the mother for the term of her pregnancy.

Also, in all fairness, you should probably list the arguments for the "pro-choice" side, and what you feel their strengths and weaknesses to be.

Finally, once again, I reject the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" because they are over-simplistic straw man labels which serve only to brand the other side, implicitly, as anti-life or anti-liberty, respectively. They're basically more refined ways of shouting "baby killer!" or "misogynist!" at your opponents, and I therefore find them worse than useless.

To summarize: I am inclined to think that this debate, properly, comes down to only three real issues:

1. Does a fetus/embryo qualify as a person? At what point does it become a person?

2. If it is a person, does its right to life outweigh the mother's right to liberty?

3. If yes, what is the most effective way to prevent more abortions, keeping in mind that simple bans have a history of leading to unsafe illegal abortions.

I will note that as far as the issue of banning vs. legalizing abortion is concerned, this does favour the "pro-choice" side in a way, as "pro-life" must win all three points to justify a ban, while "pro-choice" need only prevail on a single point to win its case.

[Godular]

You left out the biggest (yet arguably least relevant) "pro-life" argument.

"Because the Bible/other religious doctrine said so".

This underpins a lot of the other arguments, even if not admitted.

There's also a fair amount of pure misogyny in that camp.

But of the arguments that you listed, only 1 and 3 (which seems to be basically a variant/off-shoot of 1) are of much significance/weight. Two is completely unapplicable in cases of rape, and also carries the implication that sex (at least for women) is wrong and should be punished.

4 is largely irrelevant, because while I would hope that two people in a relationship would be able to discuss such a profound choice that would affect both of them, and take each other's feelings into consideration, ultimately for the "pro-life" side, the child's right to life should certainly outweigh the father's feelings, whatever they may be, while for the "pro-choice" side, it is the mother who's liberty and ability to control her body are directly affected, and this must outweigh the father's feelings as well, whatever they may be. Whatever rights the father may have pale to near-irrelevancy next to those concerns. Disputing this would seem to imply that the mother or child is effectively the property of the father, a position so barbaric it is scarcely worth refuting. I will also note that using "the father should have a say" as an anti-abortion argument seems to presuppose that the father will always oppose abortion, which is not the case.

5, meanwhile, is not always a practical solution, and still imposes the same burden on the mother for the term of her pregnancy.

Also, in all fairness, you should probably list the arguments for the "pro-choice" side, and what you feel their strengths and weaknesses to be.

Finally, once again, I reject the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" because they are over-simplistic straw man labels which serve only to brand the other side, implicitly, as anti-life or anti-liberty, respectively. They're basically more refined ways of shouting "baby killer!" or "misogynist!" at your opponents, and I therefore find them worse than useless.

The thing is, the pro-choice arguments are largely responses to pro-life arguments, as it involves defending a challenge to what is already legal. That being said, if you can present a listing of 'pro-choice' positions, I'd be happy to incorporate them. I feel it'd be difficult for me to establish strengths/weaknesses for such arguments as certain among them I do not ascribe to, and others have been refined past the point of razor sharpness.

As for the pro-life/pro-choice distinction, such was why I decided to make the rather specific poll.

[The Felnian Colonies]

Still pretty pro-freedom of your own life.
"Pro-abortion/murder" like someone who thinks legal drinking is "pro-alcoholism/wifebeating/cirrhosis" or some nonsensical bullshit.
Still wishing we could take the aborted pregnancies and make the ejected fetuses wards of the state and a new caste of warriors for it too, but you can't have everything.

[Wallenburg]

Godular, what in God's grace have you done? You aborted the megathread! You murderer! It had so much potential, it could have been the next jewel of NationStates! Do you have any idea how disgusting it is that you would kill an innocent megathread in its infancy, before it even reached 200 pages? Life begins at conception, and you murdered a living, breathing thread!

And you know what? This is just the tip of the iceburg. Dozens of threads are killed in moderator-sanctioned locks before they can even have the opportunity to live free. That's right, the NationStates staff sanctions systematic abortion. And then the moderators cut up the murdered threads and stuff parts of them in their evidence locker before throwing the rest into the dumpster. It's disgraceful, ungodly, and a flagrant violation of every thread's right to life.

I can't look at you anymore, Godular. That you would do such a heartless thing makes me want to vomit.

[The Felnian Colonies]

Godular, what in God's grace have you done? You aborted the megathread! You murderer! It had so much potential, it could have been the next jewel of NationStates! Do you have any idea how disgusting it is that you would kill an innocent megathread in its infancy, before it even reached 200 pages? Life begins at conception, and you murdered a living, breathing thread!

And you know what? This is just the tip of the iceburg. Dozens of threads are killed in moderator-sanctioned locks before they can even have the opportunity to live free. That's right, the NationStates staff sanctions systematic abortion. And then the moderators cut up the murdered threads and stuff parts of them in their evidence locker before throwing the rest into the dumpster. It's disgraceful, ungodly, and a flagrant violation of every thread's right to life.

I can't look at you anymore, Godular. That you would do such a heartless thing makes me want to vomit.

But at least the aborted threads will become soldiers for the mods. They have a new duty- to warn us of the presence of asswipery on NSG and the whole of the website.

[The Alma Mater]

Your "personally pro-life but respect eights of others" option makes no sense. If you mean "against abortions, but believe people have to make that choice themselves" one is pro choice. Pro-life by definition is about NOT believing people should have that right.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

A simple question, just curious as to what your thoughts on the matter, although I'm not sure if this question finds a place in this megathread.

The question is: Do you think the father should have the right of retracting his involvement with the child if the mother chooses to keep said child, ( preferably having a time zone from conception until 24 weeks of development ) without risk of having to pay child support or forced to take care of the child? If not why? If yes why?

[Big Brain City]

A simple question, just curious as to what your thoughts on the matter, although I'm not sure if this question finds a place in this megathread.

The question is: Do you think the father should have the right of retracting his involvement with the child if the mother chooses to keep said child, ( preferably having a time zone from conception until 24 weeks of development ) without risk of having to pay child support or forced to take care of the child? If not why? If yes why?

Why shouldn't he, people want to enforce oxytocin-induced emotional bonding on society Or Else the great and glorious community will come after them for the greater good?

[Godular]

A simple question, just curious as to what your thoughts on the matter, although I'm not sure if this question finds a place in this megathread.

The question is: Do you think the father should have the right of retracting his involvement with the child if the mother chooses to keep said child, ( preferably having a time zone from conception until 24 weeks of development ) without risk of having to pay child support or forced to take care of the child? If not why? If yes why?

I covered that one in the OP.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

A simple question, just curious as to what your thoughts on the matter, although I'm not sure if this question finds a place in this megathread.

The question is: Do you think the father should have the right of retracting his involvement with the child if the mother chooses to keep said child, ( preferably having a time zone from conception until 24 weeks of development ) without risk of having to pay child support or forced to take care of the child? If not why? If yes why?

I covered that one in the OP.

I must of missed it.

[Godular]

Godular, what in God's grace have you done? You aborted the megathread! You murderer! It had so much potential, it could have been the next jewel of NationStates! Do you have any idea how disgusting it is that you would kill an innocent megathread in its infancy, before it even reached 200 pages? Life begins at conception, and you murdered a living, breathing thread!

And you know what? This is just the tip of the iceburg. Dozens of threads are killed in moderator-sanctioned locks before they can even have the opportunity to live free. That's right, the NationStates staff sanctions systematic abortion. And then the moderators cut up the murdered threads and stuff parts of them in their evidence locker before throwing the rest into the dumpster. It's disgraceful, ungodly, and a flagrant violation of every thread's right to life.

I can't look at you anymore, Godular. That you would do such a heartless thing makes me want to vomit.

Thousands of threads are aborted naturally. What's one more?

[Godular]

I covered that one in the OP.

I must of missed it.

Point 4.

[New confederate ramenia]

Abortion is self defense

[Costa Fierro]

Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede that of another individual’s right to live?

Yes. For that reason although that being may be "sentient", they are not legally a person and therefore the right to life doesn't apply to them.

Even though you might personally disagree with abortion, do you accept that others should have a right to it?

Of course. Bodily sovereignty should apply to everyone regardless of genitalia or any other defining characteristic.

Do you think the father should have the right of retracting his involvement with the child if the mother chooses to keep said child, ( preferably having a time zone from conception until 24 weeks of development ) without risk of having to pay child support or forced to take care of the child?

Yes. If a woman has a right to an abortion and bodily autonomy even against her partner's will then any man who does not want to raise children should not have to financially care or be forced to care for the child. It's his right to chose whether or not he wants to take care of it and he should not be punished by the government or by society if he choses not to.

Let's put it this way, there would be a massive outcry if women were forced to care for children against their will.

[Godular]

Your "personally pro-life but respect eights of others" option makes no sense. If you mean "against abortions, but believe people have to make that choice themselves" one is pro choice. Pro-life by definition is about NOT believing people should have that right.

Hmm... I'll look into revising the option in the morning.

Can you think of any other options to include?

[Wallenburg]

Thousands of threads are aborted naturally. What's one more?

There is a genocide of innocent threads, and you have lent your support to it. Nauseating.

[Godular]

Thousands of threads are aborted naturally. What's one more?

There is a genocide of innocent threads, and you have lent your support to it. Nauseating.

I'll sell the arguments for stem-post research.

[Wallenburg]

There is a genocide of innocent threads, and you have lent your support to it. Nauseating.

I'll sell the arguments for stem-post research.

Don't even get me started. Get your posts from mature, consenting threads. Don't harvest them from the corpses of baby threads. And don't you dare sell those posts for profit.

[Arceus125]

I can't select two points in the poll, can I?

[Ashmoria]

A simple question, just curious as to what your thoughts on the matter, although I'm not sure if this question finds a place in this megathread.

The question is: Do you think the father should have the right of retracting his involvement with the child if the mother chooses to keep said child, ( preferably having a time zone from conception until 24 weeks of development ) without risk of having to pay child support or forced to take care of the child? If not why? If yes why?

isn't that better put in a different thread since it doesn't involve abortion?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Ahhh the scent of a fresh abortion




Thread.

I'm prochoice til death.

[Stellonia]

I'd like to request that the OP of this thread be less biased towards the pro-choice side. Having an OP here that favors pro-choice opinions is akin to an American election megathread's OP supporting Trump or Clinton, or an EU referendum megathread's OP taking a stance in favor of either Leave or Remain.

[Godular]

I'd like to request that the OP of this thread be less biased towards the pro-choice side. Having an OP here that favors pro-choice opinions is akin to an American election megathread's OP supporting Trump or Clinton, or an EU referendum megathread's OP taking a stance in favor of either Leave or Remain.

You're fully welcome to debate the points contained herein, and I made some effort at keeping the poll itself as unbiased as possible.

[Stellonia]

1. Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede that of another individual’s right to live? Why or why not?
No, because right to life trumps bodily sovereignty. Even if one's bodily sovereignty is violated, one is still very well alive, but if a corpse is accorded bodily sovereignty, that changes very little for it.

2. Even though you might personally disagree with abortion, do you accept that others should have a right to it? Why or why not?
As I said, the right to life supersedes the right to control one's body. If that is the case, then the law should regard it as such.