[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[The Free Joy State]

Or kill themselves. But I guess they'd deserve to die for not being pregnant.

Well, yeah, I guess they could kill themselves.

There's empathy for you.

All for the foetus with nervous systems that haven't developed properly yet. Thinking, feeling, desperate woman gets pregnant and considers suicide (especially for lack of options), and your answer is: "I guess they could kill themselves".

Nice...

[Telconi]

Well, yeah, I guess they could kill themselves.

There's empathy for you.

All for the foetus with nervous systems that haven't developed properly yet. Thinking, feeling, desperate woman gets pregnant and considers suicide, and your answer is: "I guess they could kill themselves".

Nice...

Well... they can... I'd rather they not, and would like to see actions taken to prevent it, but that doesn't mean they can't.

[The Free Joy State]

There's empathy for you.

All for the foetus with nervous systems that haven't developed properly yet. Thinking, feeling, desperate woman gets pregnant and considers suicide, and your answer is: "I guess they could kill themselves".

Nice...

Well... they can... I'd rather they not, and would like to see actions taken to prevent it, but that doesn't mean they can't.

But women will.

Deny abortion, and women will kill themselves. There is no action you can take - not one - to prevent people doing something when they're desperate.

So, you make it illegal, prosecute. It won't go away.

It'll be back to backstreet abortion: to crude implements and unnecessary deaths. Doctors in hospitals will (as they used to) deny every possible abortion when women come in with complications, to prevent arrests. People will deny that their neighbours are backstreet abortionists (the identity of the backstreet abortionist was, according to my grandmother, an open secret - but no-one would tell the police; they knew they might need them someday).

So, you create a huge conspiracy of silence, only with more fatalities (you used to almost have to kill the mother to abort the foetus).

And the women who don't know where to go - or the girls too young to be let-in to the secret, or those too far gone - there is always suicide. And what action would you take to prevent that?

Assign a minder to every woman, to make sure that - when she gets pregnant - she stays alive long enough to deliver the baby nine months later?

There's no human way to prevent abortion: legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. Women will do it. The best thing to do is to keep it legal and make society more supportive of people with children: financially, educationally, and socially.

[Durzan]

So, before we begin, lets assume that the right to live is the most fundamental inalienable right; All other rights stem from the right to live. If you do not have an inherent right to live, then all other rights (wether they be natural or artificial), are inherently moot points. Thus the right to live should be the right protected and enforced the most in the US; life cannot be deprived of a person without either the consent of the subject or without due process of the legal law. This line of reasoning will serve as the basis for my assertions to come.

First off, we need to determine if the Fetus is indeed living. This is easily established, as a fetus is merely the first stage of development of a human. Fetuses do successfully meet the requirements of life: they are made of cells, they reacts to external stimuli (They respond and adapt to their environment), they can obtain and use energy (through their mother), they can reproduce (when they are fully developed into grown human beings), and obviously they grow and develop into fully fledged homo-sapians. So, since we have established that they are indeed living beings, and that they also are humans, then that means that they have an inherent right to life as well.

Second, we need to address the question of whether a fetus can give reasonably give consent. A fetus is little more than a developing pack of unique cells at the beginning of gestation, and at the end of gestation it is a fully formed human baby, which has neither the experience nor capability to give consent to anything. Thus, I think that answer is rather obvious... a resounding no. Thus, it is our inherent responsibility as both a society and as individuals to protect the Fetus' right to life on their behalf.

Third, we need to confirm that the primary purpose of sex is to produce offspring (AKA Fetuses... which become babies). Assuming that no contraceptions or condoms are involved, that both parties are fertile, and that conventional sex is taking place, pregnancy is almost always guaranteed to happen eventually. Thus, it is safe to to assume that the primary purpose of sex is to produce babies.

Fourth, humans (like all animals), have an instinctual need to reproduce. It goes without saying, but if all humans were to stop having sex, then eventually the human race would die out. Thus, I submit that we have the responsibility to at least attempt to reproduce, both as individuals, and as a society... both to propagate the human race and to satisfy our natural instincts to reproduce.

Fifth, Humans have an instinctual desire to protect and care for their young. This is a survival mechanism, as babies are inherently defenseless and thus rely on their mothers (and to a lesser extent, their fathers) for their survival. Since humans naturally have the instinct to care for their young, and since all humans have the natural right to live (which, as established previously serves as the foundation for all other rights), it is our responsibility as both individuals and as a society to care for, protect, teach, and raise our young.

With all of this established, it seems clear to me that Abortion is at a base level inherently immoral in concept, even if it would prove necessary or even desirable under certain circumstances. Killing a fetus, a living being with the potential to develop into a fully fledged human, with no ability to reasonably consent to its own death, is infringing upon the natural rights of the fetus. Furthermore, allowing the mother to do so goes against the natural instincts of mankind as a whole, and only serves as a way to shirk her responsibilities to raise that child and help propagate the species, as well as deny her the opportunity to experience the joys of parenthood. Furthermore, doing so also denies the father the ability to raise a child of his own flesh and blood as well, on top of denying that opportunity to a family who would potentially adopt the child if the parents thought themselves unsuitable of raising their child.

Thus, the baseline law regarding Abortion should be that it is illegal.

The specifics of determining exceptions, promotion of child welfare, free contraceptions, etc. are related points that should be considered as both separate issues in and of themselves as well as being addendums to the core issue of Abortion, and are inherently irrelevant when considering the core of the matter.

These branch issues can be addressed in and of themselves at a later date.

[Telconi]

Well... they can... I'd rather they not, and would like to see actions taken to prevent it, but that doesn't mean they can't.

But women will.

Deny abortion, and women will kill themselves. There is no action you can take - not one - to prevent people doing something when they're desperate.

So, you make it illegal, prosecute. It won't go away.

It'll be back to backstreet abortion: to crude implements and unnecessary deaths. Doctors in hospitals will (as they used to) deny every possible abortion when women come in with complications, to prevent arrests. People will deny that their neighbours are backstreet abortionists (the identity of the backstreet abortionist was, according to my grandmother, an open secret - but no-one would tell the police; they knew they might need them someday).

So, you create a huge conspiracy of silence, only with more fatalities (you used to almost have to kill the mother to abort the foetus).

And the women who don't know where to go - or the girls too young to be let-in to the secret, or those too far gone - there is always suicide. And what action would you take to prevent that?

Assign a minder to every woman, to make sure that - when she gets pregnant - she stays alive long enough to deliver the baby nine months later?

There's no human way to prevent abortion: legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. Women will do it. The best thing to do is to keep it legal and make society more supportive of people with children: financially, educationally, and socially.

"People will still do it" is not an inherent argument in opposition of a law.

People still rob banks, should we just make bank robbery legal? Shoot, less people will die robbing the banks they were going to rob anyway if it were legal, because there wouldn't be cops and bank security opposing them.

As for how to prevent the suicide, you prevent the desperation that it stems from. You find out what reasonable concerns drive people to abortion, and actively alleviate those.

[The V O I D]

Durzan, I like your arguments - there's just one tiny issue. They are entirely based off of the idea that the right to life supersedes bodily sovereignty.

If we take what you say to be true, that means I or other women cannot deprive a man of his right to life just because he is raping us, because our bodily sovereignty is under his right to life. It means that because a person is dying of kidney failure and I happen to be a perfect match, I am forced to have one of my kidneys harvested since that person needs it more than I do because my bodily sovereignty is lesser than his right to life.

Neither of those is true. Bodily sovereignty is the ultimate right. A woman gets to decide what happens to her body and its resources, and no one else. And so does a man for his bodily resources and body.

It's not a matter of if the fetus is living, not a matter of innocence or consent for the fetus. It is a matter of the woman's bodily sovereignty and right to execute it. The literal microsecond that a woman decides she does not wish to be pregnant, the fetus is now a parasite that is using the woman's resources without her consent while also dumping toxins and waste into her body (again, without consent). Thus, the woman has the right to remove this fetus from her body so as to remove the parasitic organism.

[Datlofff]

So, first of all, lets establish that the right to live is the most fundamental inalienable right; All other rights stem from the right to live. If you do not have an inherent right to live, then all other rights (wether they be natural or artificial), are inherently moot points. Thus the right to live should be the right protected and enforced the most in the US; life cannot be deprived of a person without either the consent of the subject or without due process of the legal law. This line of reasoning will serve as the basis for my assertions to come.

First off, we need to determine if the Fetus is indeed living. This is easily established, as a fetus is merely the first stage of development of a human. Fetuses do successfully meet the requirements of life: they are made of cells, they reacts to external stimuli (They respond and adapt to their environment), they can obtain and use energy (through their mother), they can reproduce (when they are fully developed into grown human beings), and obviously they grow and develop into fully fledged homo-sapians. So, since we have established that they are indeed living beings, and that they also are humans, then that means that they have an inherent right to life as well.

Second, we need to address the question of whether a fetus can give reasonably give consent. A fetus is little more than a developing pack of unique cells at the beginning of gestation, and at the end of gestation it is a fully formed human baby, which has neither the experience nor capability to give consent to anything. Thus, I think that answer is rather obvious... a resounding no. Thus, it is our inherent responsibility as both a society and as individuals to protect the Fetus' right to life on their behalf.

Third, we need to confirm that the primary purpose of sex is to produce offspring (AKA Fetuses... which become babies). Assuming that no contraceptions or condoms are involved, that both parties are fertile, and that conventional sex is taking place, pregnancy is almost always guaranteed to happen eventually. Thus, it is safe to to assume that the primary purpose of sex is to produce babies.

Fourth, humans (like all animals), have an instinctual need to reproduce. It goes without saying, but if all humans were to stop having sex, then eventually the human race would die out. Thus, I submit that we have the responsibility to at least attempt to reproduce, both as individuals, and as a society... both to propagate the human race and to satisfy our natural instincts to reproduce.

Fifth, Humans have an instinctual desire to protect and care for their young. This is a survival mechanism, as babies are inherently defenseless and thus rely on their mothers (and to a lesser extent, their fathers) for their survival. Since humans naturally have the instinct to care for their young, and since all humans have the natural right to live (which, as established previously serves as the foundation for all other rights), it is our responsibility as both individuals and as a society to care for, protect, teach, and raise our young.

With all of this established, it seems clear to me that Abortion is at a base level inherently immoral in concept, even if it would prove necessary or even desirable under certain circumstances. Killing a fetus, a living being with the potential to develop into a fully fledged human, with no ability to reasonably consent to its own death, is infringing upon the natural rights of the fetus. Furthermore, allowing the mother to do so goes against the natural instincts of mankind as a whole, and only serves as a way to shirk her responsibilities to raise that child and help propagate the species, as well as deny her the opportunity to experience the joys of parenthood. Furthermore, doing so also denies the father the ability to raise a child of his own flesh and blood as well, on top of denying that opportunity to a family who would potentially adopt the child if the parents thought themselves unsuitable of raising their child.

Thus, the baseline law regarding Abortion should be that it is illegal.

The specifics of determining exceptions, promotion of child welfare, free contraceptions, etc. are related points that should be considered as both separate issues in and of themselves as well as being addendums to the core issue of Abortion, and are inherently irrelevant when considering the core of the matter.

These branch issues can be addressed in and of themselves at a later date.

My entire arguement, just better explained

[Kernen]

It doesn't matter how immoral enforcing your bodily sovereignty rights are, they are still yours to enforce.

[Katganistan]

Why?

Otherwise jacking off is murder, because it kills potential human lives

Billions of them.
Every time you do it.

[The V O I D]

It doesn't matter how immoral enforcing your bodily sovereignty rights are, they are still yours to enforce.

>Implying it is immoral to enforce the fact that you have absolute control over what happens to your body and anything inside it.

[Katganistan]

Then we should assist the mother, unless it's deliberately caused.

WHAT?
WELFARE QUEEN WELFARE QUEEN WELFARE CHEATS DRAINING THE ECONOMY!!!!!! LEECHES ON SOCIETY!!!!!!

So, no abortion for you, and fuck you, no support either. Whore. Take responsibility, you slut. And men shouldn't have to pay child support if they don't want to, but they should prevent her from getting an abortion too!!!

Face it, most of the people arguing against are just anti-woman, anti-poor, and anti-child.

[The Free Joy State]

Well, it was becoming a bit of a pro-choice thread here.

That considered.

So, first of all, lets establish that the right to live is the most fundamental inalienable right; All other rights stem from the right to live. If you do not have an inherent right to live, then all other rights (wether they be natural or artificial), are inherently moot points. Thus the right to live should be the right protected and enforced the most in the US; life cannot be deprived of a person without either the consent of the subject or without due process of the legal law. This line of reasoning will serve as the basis for my assertions to come.

You have a foetus, and you have a person. A foetus is not a fully developed person, it is a group of cells, a potential person.

The U.N. is actually taking steps (or was, as of 2017) to clarify that a foetus is not a separate person in law, and does not have the right of bodily sovereignty. I pasted the link earlier. I'll track it down and paste it in.

EDIT: Found it: It's a consultation about codifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies ... le6_EN.pdf

First off, we need to determine if the Fetus is indeed living. This is easily established, as a fetus is merely the first stage of development of a human. Fetuses do successfully meet the requirements of life: they are made of cells, they reacts to external stimuli (They respond and adapt to their environment), they can obtain and use energy (through their mother), they can reproduce (when they are fully developed into grown human beings), and obviously they grow and develop into fully fledged homo-sapians. So, since we have established that they are indeed living beings, and that they also are humans, then that means that they have an inherent right to life as well.

They grow, but are not aware. Growth and sentience are not the same thing.

It's thought sentience does not form until the 24th to 28th week of gestation (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ess-arise/). Many abortions are performed well before then.

Second, we need to address the question of whether a fetus can give reasonably give consent. A fetus is little more than a developing pack of unique cells at the beginning of gestation, and at the end of gestation it is a fully formed human baby, which has neither the experience nor capability to give consent to anything. Thus, I think that answer is rather obvious... a resounding no. Thus, it is our inherent responsibility as both a society and as individuals to protect the Fetus' right to life on their behalf.

When someone is in a persistent vegetative state, their relatives are empowered to make decisions on their behalf. No-one complains about that, even though the person in the vegetative state once had hopes, dreams, and ambitions: things the nine week foetus has never experienced.

Additionally, in rape, the mother did not give consent to her pregnancy.

Or is she suddenly to be deprived of her rights to consent and expected to become a mindless carrier?

Third, we need to confirm that the primary purpose of sex is to produce offspring (AKA Fetuses... which become babies). Assuming that no contraceptions or condoms are involved, that both parties are fertile, and that conventional sex is taking place, pregnancy is almost always guaranteed to happen eventually. Thus, it is safe to to assume that the primary purpose of sex is to produce babies.

It's very possible to have sex without having a baby. It's also possible to have sex without wanting a baby, and sex that could never produce a baby. Your premise is flawed.

Fourth, humans (like all animals), have an instinctual need to reproduce.

Not all of them.

Fifth, Humans have an instinctual desire to protect and care for their young.

If that was true, abusive parents would not exist, there'd be no need for an adoption and foster care system and everything would be dandy. This premise is flawed.

Furthermore, allowing the mother to do so goes against the natural instincts of mankind as a whole, and only serves as a way to shirk her responsibilities to raise that child and help propagate the species, as well as deny her the opportunity to experience the joys of parenthood.

A woman is not a broodmare, and not every woman - not even every mother - finds parenthood joyful.

Thus, the baseline law regarding Abortion should be that it is illegal.

Disagree.

Strongly.

The specifics of determining exceptions, promotion of child welfare, free contraceptions, etc. are related points that should be considered as both separate issues in and of themselves as well as being addendums to the core issue of Abortion, and are inherently irrelevant when considering the core of the matter.

These branch issues can be addressed in and of themselves at a later date.

These issues are not "branch issues". With free contraception, fewer women would find themselves pregnant without wanting to be. With a greater emphasis on child welfare, fewer poor women would feel abortion is their only option.

[Katganistan]

So you want the birth rate to rise, no matter the cost? No matter if it means that the children are likely to live in abject poverty, and be a massive burden on the adoption and fostering system? You can improve the adoption system all you like, but banning abortions will still produce far more unwanted children than will ever be adopted.

Congrats, you improved the birth rate (which was a questionable issue anyway, given the current problem of overpopulation globally), but royally screwed over society while doing it.

In my home country, which is Finland, there is no abject poverty. The adoption and fostering system might not be perfect, but it works as it is, and with a little more funding it could pay off well in the future. And overpopulation is not a domestic issue, since I don't care about overpopulation elsewhere, only in Europe and possibly other developed regions.

[edit] Oops. Did I ever misread that!

The difference is that in Finland, your rents are lower, salaries higher, and I believe you have universal healthcare.

We don't, because the dogs in the manger think that if we actually provide food, clothes and shelter for everyone, we're stealing from them. Taxation is theft, they say, so they find ways to make sure billionaires pay less in taxes that a single mom working three jobs.

[The Black Forrest]

If someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be pregnant then there isn't really any option for them except abortion.

They could, y'know, remain pregnant for the next nine-ish months.

You ready to assist her on taking care of the kid?

[Telconi]

Durzan, I like your arguments - there's just one tiny issue. They are entirely based off of the idea that the right to life supersedes bodily sovereignty.

If we take what you say to be true, that means I or other women cannot deprive a man of his right to life just because he is raping us, because our bodily sovereignty is under his right to life. It means that because a person is dying of kidney failure and I happen to be a perfect match, I am forced to have one of my kidneys harvested since that person needs it more than I do because my bodily sovereignty is lesser than his right to life.

Neither of those is true. Bodily sovereignty is the ultimate right. A woman gets to decide what happens to her body and its resources, and no one else. And so does a man for his bodily resources and body.

It's not a matter of if the fetus is living, not a matter of innocence or consent for the fetus. It is a matter of the woman's bodily sovereignty and right to execute it. The literal microsecond that a woman decides she does not wish to be pregnant, the fetus is now a parasite that is using the woman's resources without her consent while also dumping toxins and waste into her body (again, without consent). Thus, the woman has the right to remove this fetus from her body so as to remove the parasitic organism.

Or we could accept that bodily sovereignty is not absolute and can be abridged when prudent.

[The Free Joy State]

But women will.

Deny abortion, and women will kill themselves. There is no action you can take - not one - to prevent people doing something when they're desperate.

So, you make it illegal, prosecute. It won't go away.

It'll be back to backstreet abortion: to crude implements and unnecessary deaths. Doctors in hospitals will (as they used to) deny every possible abortion when women come in with complications, to prevent arrests. People will deny that their neighbours are backstreet abortionists (the identity of the backstreet abortionist was, according to my grandmother, an open secret - but no-one would tell the police; they knew they might need them someday).

So, you create a huge conspiracy of silence, only with more fatalities (you used to almost have to kill the mother to abort the foetus).

And the women who don't know where to go - or the girls too young to be let-in to the secret, or those too far gone - there is always suicide. And what action would you take to prevent that?

Assign a minder to every woman, to make sure that - when she gets pregnant - she stays alive long enough to deliver the baby nine months later?

There's no human way to prevent abortion: legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. Women will do it. The best thing to do is to keep it legal and make society more supportive of people with children: financially, educationally, and socially.

"People will still do it" is not an inherent argument in opposition of a law.

People still rob banks, should we just make bank robbery legal? Shoot, less people will die robbing the banks they were going to rob anyway if it were legal, because there wouldn't be cops and bank security opposing them.

As for how to prevent the suicide, you prevent the desperation that it stems from. You find out what reasonable concerns drive people to abortion, and actively alleviate those.

The difference is that, when you ban armed robbery, people don't find themselves accidentally walking into a bank with a gun in their hand, or forced to walk into a corner shop and scream "hand over your money". Ban abortion and condoms still break, women still get raped, girls are still incest victims.

Ban abortion, and there are still unwanted pregnancies. Ban abortion, and there are backstreet abortions, which lead to death, and permanent disability, and unnecessary complications.

You want to prevent desperation? No amount of social support, or half-hearted comforting words, will soothe the rape victim you've (meaning all pro-lifers) just told to give birth to her rapist's child. No amount of half-assed misbegotten wisdom will prevent her despair.

[The V O I D]

Durzan, I like your arguments - there's just one tiny issue. They are entirely based off of the idea that the right to life supersedes bodily sovereignty.

If we take what you say to be true, that means I or other women cannot deprive a man of his right to life just because he is raping us, because our bodily sovereignty is under his right to life. It means that because a person is dying of kidney failure and I happen to be a perfect match, I am forced to have one of my kidneys harvested since that person needs it more than I do because my bodily sovereignty is lesser than his right to life.

Neither of those is true. Bodily sovereignty is the ultimate right. A woman gets to decide what happens to her body and its resources, and no one else. And so does a man for his bodily resources and body.

It's not a matter of if the fetus is living, not a matter of innocence or consent for the fetus. It is a matter of the woman's bodily sovereignty and right to execute it. The literal microsecond that a woman decides she does not wish to be pregnant, the fetus is now a parasite that is using the woman's resources without her consent while also dumping toxins and waste into her body (again, without consent). Thus, the woman has the right to remove this fetus from her body so as to remove the parasitic organism.

Or we could accept that bodily sovereignty is not absolute and can be abridged when prudent.

No, we can't. Bodily sovereignty can't be picked and chosen - it's either one or the other. Or else there exists discrimination and rendering half our species second-class citizens whenever they happen to be pregnant, and that is unacceptable.

I, for one, would like to keep my bodily sovereignty - and so I think would every man and woman who doesn't want to be forced into anything.

[The Black Forrest]

Durzan, I like your arguments - there's just one tiny issue. They are entirely based off of the idea that the right to life supersedes bodily sovereignty.

If we take what you say to be true, that means I or other women cannot deprive a man of his right to life just because he is raping us, because our bodily sovereignty is under his right to life. It means that because a person is dying of kidney failure and I happen to be a perfect match, I am forced to have one of my kidneys harvested since that person needs it more than I do because my bodily sovereignty is lesser than his right to life.

Neither of those is true. Bodily sovereignty is the ultimate right. A woman gets to decide what happens to her body and its resources, and no one else. And so does a man for his bodily resources and body.

It's not a matter of if the fetus is living, not a matter of innocence or consent for the fetus. It is a matter of the woman's bodily sovereignty and right to execute it. The literal microsecond that a woman decides she does not wish to be pregnant, the fetus is now a parasite that is using the woman's resources without her consent while also dumping toxins and waste into her body (again, without consent). Thus, the woman has the right to remove this fetus from her body so as to remove the parasitic organism.

Or we could accept that bodily sovereignty is not absolute and can be abridged when prudent.

So we could accept that gun ownership is not absolute and can be abridged when prudent?

[Telconi]

Or we could accept that bodily sovereignty is not absolute and can be abridged when prudent.

No, we can't. Bodily sovereignty can't be picked and chosen - it's either one or the other. Or else there exists discrimination and rendering half our species second-class citizens whenever they happen to be pregnant, and that is unacceptable.

I, for one, would like to keep my bodily sovereignty - and so I think would every man and woman who doesn't want to be forced into anything.

So I can murder you?

[Telconi]

"People will still do it" is not an inherent argument in opposition of a law.

People still rob banks, should we just make bank robbery legal? Shoot, less people will die robbing the banks they were going to rob anyway if it were legal, because there wouldn't be cops and bank security opposing them.

As for how to prevent the suicide, you prevent the desperation that it stems from. You find out what reasonable concerns drive people to abortion, and actively alleviate those.

The difference is that, when you ban armed robbery, people don't find themselves accidentally walking into a bank with a gun in their hand, or forced to walk into a corner shop and scream "hand over your money". Ban abortion and condoms still break, women still get raped, girls are still incest victims.

Ban abortion, and there are still unwanted pregnancies. Ban abortion, and there are backstreet abortions, which lead to death, and permanent disability, and unnecessary complications.

You want to prevent desperation? No amount of social support, or half-hearted comforting words, will soothe the rape victim you've (meaning all pro-lifers) just told to give birth to her rapist's child. No amount of half-assed misbegotten wisdom will prevent her despair.

False equivalency is false.

[The Free Joy State]

The difference is that, when you ban armed robbery, people don't find themselves accidentally walking into a bank with a gun in their hand, or forced to walk into a corner shop and scream "hand over your money". Ban abortion and condoms still break, women still get raped, girls are still incest victims.

Ban abortion, and there are still unwanted pregnancies. Ban abortion, and there are backstreet abortions, which lead to death, and permanent disability, and unnecessary complications.

You want to prevent desperation? No amount of social support, or half-hearted comforting words, will soothe the rape victim you've (meaning all pro-lifers) just told to give birth to her rapist's child. No amount of half-assed misbegotten wisdom will prevent her despair.

False equivalency is false.

I know. You were the one that made it.

[The V O I D]

No, we can't. Bodily sovereignty can't be picked and chosen - it's either one or the other. Or else there exists discrimination and rendering half our species second-class citizens whenever they happen to be pregnant, and that is unacceptable.

I, for one, would like to keep my bodily sovereignty - and so I think would every man and woman who doesn't want to be forced into anything.

So I can murder you?

No, because attacking me when I do not wish to be attacked is against my bodily sovereignty. Causing my body harm is violating my bodily sovereignty. Killing me when I do not wish to die is against my bodily sovereignty because of the fact that it is I who decides when I want to check out unless natural causes get to me first - not anyone else.

The fetus has bodily sovereignty, as well - it just so happens that it exists in a state where it is violating another person's bodily sovereignty and thus is a valid target for removal. Just like rapists, who impose their bodily "needs" upon women or men.

[Telconi]

So I can murder you?

No, because attacking me when I do not wish to be attacked is against my bodily sovereignty. Causing my body harm is violating my bodily sovereignty. Killing me when I do not wish to die is against my bodily sovereignty because of the fact that it is I who decides when I want to check out unless natural causes get to me first - not anyone else.

The fetus has bodily sovereignty, as well - it just so happens that it exists in a state where it is violating another person's bodily sovereignty and thus is a valid target for removal. Just like rapists, who impose their bodily "needs" upon women or men.

Telling me what I can do with my hands is against my bodily sovereingty, telling me I cannot move my foot into the space occupied by your head with a lot of force is against my bodily sovereignty, by your notion of absolute bodily sovereignty, abortion is wrong even, as the fetus did not consent to being aborted.

Absolute bodily sovereignty is nonsense.

[Telconi]

False equivalency is false.

I know. You were the one that made it.

Uh huh...

[The Free Joy State]

No, because attacking me when I do not wish to be attacked is against my bodily sovereignty. Causing my body harm is violating my bodily sovereignty. Killing me when I do not wish to die is against my bodily sovereignty because of the fact that it is I who decides when I want to check out unless natural causes get to me first - not anyone else.

The fetus has bodily sovereignty, as well - it just so happens that it exists in a state where it is violating another person's bodily sovereignty and thus is a valid target for removal. Just like rapists, who impose their bodily "needs" upon women or men.

Telling me what I can do with my hands is against my bodily sovereingty, telling me I cannot move my foot into the space occupied by your head with a lot of force is against my bodily sovereignty, by your notion of absolute bodily sovereignty, abortion is wrong even, as the fetus did not consent to being aborted.

Absolute bodily sovereignty is nonsense.

Bodily sovereignty is not nonsense and it does not cover a right to kill a living, thinking independent human being. No-one thinks that (or I didn't think they did). Bodily sovereingty means that we have the right to be in control of our own lives and body: that no-one can enslave you, torture you, abuse you, imprison you (without a crime being committed and a trial), and that everyone should have full control of their reproductive rights.

They are a vital underpinning for human rights.

I know. You were the one that made it.

Uh huh...

I kind of wonder why you compared a bank robbery to abortion, knowing the equivelancy to be false...