[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The guy has put something into that unborn baby she's killing.

Who fucking cares?
It's the woman's body. She's the only Person who's sovereignty over her own body is being questioned. The only condition where the man has a say is if he's the one giving birth. Other than that, his opinion matter as much as any third party's: that is to say, none at all.

Bodily sovereignty is a dumb argument and whichever philosopher developed it was dumb.

It's all a question of proportionality; the right not to be tortured is just that; the right not to be tortured. Likewise the right to not have scientific experiments performed on you is the right not to have scientific experiments performed on you, not some catch-all right to 'bodily sovereignty.' Do I have a right to not breathe air that is polluted if I insist on living in the middle of a big ccity? Of course not; put up with the air or move somewhere else; the same argument exists for if someone insists on standing outside of a pub and insisting that they have a right not to breathe cigarette smoke. We all accept intrusions into our body at some point or other, bodily sovereignty is nonsensical.

[Attempted Socialism]

I just think that abortion should include an opinion from the father, except in cases of incest, rape or abusive relationships. There should be a discussion on whether the baby should be aborted or not by couples. One might convince the other and it might not go wrong

I would hope all healthy couples already have such a discussion, but I don't see why a discussion ought to be required. There's a difference between having a discussion between adults, and asking a woman to give up her body pending approval from someone unaffected, after all. And of course, if the man wants a baby, he can get the uterus to carry it to terms himself.
In all seriousness, I do think a talk happens in practise.

I just think that abortion should include an opinion from the father, except in cases of incest, rape or abusive relationships. There should be a discussion on whether the baby should be aborted or not by couples. One might convince the other and it might not go wrong

I don't agree with abortion unless the mothers life is in danger, that's my perspective, but even when it is legal I think doing it without the consent of the father is a disgusting breech of his rights.

The fathers' right to what? Own a woman as incubator? I don't see why a man has a "right" to having a woman serve as his item for 9 months, but maybe you can explain that?

Next you'll be saying stuff like how women should be able to go outside without the permission of their father or husband.

Next you'll make another strawman argument.

It's pretty remarkable how you'll call this a strawman, and follow it up by the even worse posts I've quoted above. You think that an analogy to patriarchy societies of the past is a strawman too far, but literally making women into owned items is reasonable policy because the man contributed some sperm? How on Earth to you justify such doublethink?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I just think that abortion should include an opinion from the father, except in cases of incest, rape or abusive relationships. There should be a discussion on whether the baby should be aborted or not by couples. One might convince the other and it might not go wrong

I would hope all healthy couples already have such a discussion, but I don't see why a discussion ought to be required. There's a difference between having a discussion between adults, and asking a woman to give up her body pending approval from someone unaffected, after all. And of course, if the man wants a baby, he can get the uterus to carry it to terms himself.
In all seriousness, I do think a talk happens in practise.

I don't agree with abortion unless the mothers life is in danger, that's my perspective, but even when it is legal I think doing it without the consent of the father is a disgusting breech of his rights.

The fathers' right to what? Own a woman as incubator? I don't see why a man has a "right" to having a woman serve as his item for 9 months, but maybe you can explain that?

Next you'll make another strawman argument.

It's pretty remarkable how you'll call this a strawman, and follow it up by the even worse posts I've quoted above. You think that an analogy to patriarchy societies of the past is a strawman too far, but literally making women into owned items is reasonable policy because the man contributed some sperm? How on Earth to you justify such doublethink?

I don't think it is making a woman into an owned item, honestly. I think it's both people being adults and realising that they're a couple rather than one insisting that the other has no rights when it comes to something he's likely got an extremely high level of emotional interest in.

[Attempted Socialism]

I would hope all healthy couples already have such a discussion, but I don't see why a discussion ought to be required. There's a difference between having a discussion between adults, and asking a woman to give up her body pending approval from someone unaffected, after all. And of course, if the man wants a baby, he can get the uterus to carry it to terms himself.
In all seriousness, I do think a talk happens in practise.

The fathers' right to what? Own a woman as incubator? I don't see why a man has a "right" to having a woman serve as his item for 9 months, but maybe you can explain that?

It's pretty remarkable how you'll call this a strawman, and follow it up by the even worse posts I've quoted above. You think that an analogy to patriarchy societies of the past is a strawman too far, but literally making women into owned items is reasonable policy because the man contributed some sperm? How on Earth to you justify such doublethink?

I don't think it is making a woman into an owned item, honestly. I think it's both people being adults and realising that they're a couple rather than one insisting that the other has no rights when it comes to something he's likely got an extremely high level of emotional interest in.

You just want men to own womens bodies for 9 months because you think men are emotionally (Rather than emotionally and physically) invested in what happens in the womens bodies? You don't think there's a difference in how invested a man and a woman is, with regard to the womans body?
Making women a thing that men can own for 9 months sounds bad. I get why you don't want to think that's what you do. But requiring consent from the man, when it concerns the womans body, is just that: Making women incubators, for men, for 9 months.
Oh, and not all sex is between couples. I've had relationships where we saw each other some times across a few months, then decided to not pursue a lasting relationship. I would still hope any of them would talk with me if they'd become pregnant, but I can't demand that.

[The South Falls]

Who fucking cares?
It's the woman's body. She's the only Person who's sovereignty over her own body is being questioned. The only condition where the man has a say is if he's the one giving birth. Other than that, his opinion matter as much as any third party's: that is to say, none at all.

Bodily sovereignty is a dumb argument and whichever philosopher developed it was dumb.

It's all a question of proportionality; the right not to be tortured is just that; the right not to be tortured. Likewise the right to not have scientific experiments performed on you is the right not to have scientific experiments performed on you, not some catch-all right to 'bodily sovereignty.' Do I have a right to not breathe air that is polluted if I insist on living in the middle of a big ccity? Of course not; put up with the air or move somewhere else; the same argument exists for if someone insists on standing outside of a pub and insisting that they have a right not to breathe cigarette smoke. We all accept intrusions into our body at some point or other, bodily sovereignty is nonsensical.

It's a fetus, and it is not born. As such, it does not have the rights that women have. Also, until late-term, fetuses cannot feel pain, so your weird example with science experiments and the rest doesn't make sense. In all of these cases, you can leave. By leave, we can substitute abortion with such a leaving in the case of the mother.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Bodily sovereignty is a dumb argument and whichever philosopher developed it was dumb.

It's all a question of proportionality; the right not to be tortured is just that; the right not to be tortured. Likewise the right to not have scientific experiments performed on you is the right not to have scientific experiments performed on you, not some catch-all right to 'bodily sovereignty.' Do I have a right to not breathe air that is polluted if I insist on living in the middle of a big ccity? Of course not; put up with the air or move somewhere else; the same argument exists for if someone insists on standing outside of a pub and insisting that they have a right not to breathe cigarette smoke. We all accept intrusions into our body at some point or other, bodily sovereignty is nonsensical.

It's a fetus, and it is not born. As such, it does not have the rights that women have. Also, until late-term, fetuses cannot feel pain, so your weird example with science experiments and the rest doesn't make sense. In all of these cases, you can leave. By leave, we can substitute abortion with such a leaving in the case of the mother.

And if a man leaves he's expected to give away a lot of his income in child support.

[Attempted Socialism]

It's a fetus, and it is not born. As such, it does not have the rights that women have. Also, until late-term, fetuses cannot feel pain, so your weird example with science experiments and the rest doesn't make sense. In all of these cases, you can leave. By leave, we can substitute abortion with such a leaving in the case of the mother.

And if a man leaves he's expected to give away a lot of his income in child support.

While the woman will be certain to foot most of the bill, yes. Child support is a non-starter as a counterargument, simply because having children is so expensive in both time and money.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

So still robbing women of the right to control their bodies.

Controlling your body does not extend to the right to kill another living thing.

Yes it does. Again, see self-defense.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

It's a fetus, and it is not born. As such, it does not have the rights that women have. Also, until late-term, fetuses cannot feel pain, so your weird example with science experiments and the rest doesn't make sense. In all of these cases, you can leave. By leave, we can substitute abortion with such a leaving in the case of the mother.

And if a man leaves he's expected to give away a lot of his income in child support.

Most of the pro-choicers here have no problem with men having a similarly unilateral means of relinquishing responsibility for any unexpected pregnancies if they feel they are not ready for it. This thing you speak of is an unfortunate double standard that needs to be addressed, yes, but that does not mean you should take it out on women.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Controlling your body does not extend to the right to kill another living thing.

Yes it does. Again, see self-defense.

And if the fetus is actively harming the woman, i.e. 'life in danger,' then abortion becomes the only option. A fetus not doing that is quite benine, no?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Yes it does. Again, see self-defense.

And if the fetus is actively harming the woman, i.e. 'life in danger,' then abortion becomes the only option. A fetus not doing that is quite benine, no?

No.

If she does not wish it to be within her body, it is inherently violating her personal space and taking resources from her without her consent. It may not intend to do so, or be there as a result of its own agency, but that does not preclude it from being acted upon, nor should it.

[Frievolk]

Yes it does. Again, see self-defense.

And if the fetus is actively harming the woman, i.e. 'life in danger,' then abortion becomes the only option. A fetus not doing that is quite benine, no?

If she doesn't want the fetus there and you force her to keep the fetus in, she's essentially demoted to a slave.
There is no room for compromise. Nobody's life is important enough for a person to be a slave against their will. If the woman (and the woman alone) doesn't want the fetus, it should leave. Obviously, after a certain age, that "should leave" doesn't mean terminal abortion, but it is still abortion.

[The South Falls]

It's a fetus, and it is not born. As such, it does not have the rights that women have. Also, until late-term, fetuses cannot feel pain, so your weird example with science experiments and the rest doesn't make sense. In all of these cases, you can leave. By leave, we can substitute abortion with such a leaving in the case of the mother.

And if a man leaves he's expected to give away a lot of his income in child support.

Not if there's no child to pay child support for.

[The South Falls]

And if a man leaves he's expected to give away a lot of his income in child support.

Most of the pro-choicers here have no problem with men having a similarly unilateral means of relinquishing responsibility for any unexpected pregnancies if they feel they are not ready for it. This thing you speak of is an unfortunate double standard that needs to be addressed, yes, but that does not mean you should take it out on women.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Attempted Socialism]

Yes it does. Again, see self-defense.

And if the fetus is actively harming the woman, i.e. 'life in danger,' then abortion becomes the only option. A fetus not doing that is quite benine, no?

All pregnancies inherently, actively harm the woman. While today most harm is temporary and non-lethal, no pregnancy is risk-free or harm-free. Furthermore, we aren't able to predict exactly which pregnancies turn out to be regular and which turn out to be "life of the mother" harm, so under common rules for self-defence, all women have just cause to terminate their pregnancy if they so desire.
Now personally I don't think self-defence is the best argument for it but, as soon as anti-choice advocates acknowledge self-defence in principle, we're actually at the point of legalising all abortions.

All commas should know their place.

[The New California Republic]

I just think that abortion should include an opinion from the father, except in cases of incest, rape or abusive relationships.

This is pretty vague. Are you saying that it is as simple as having a discussion, or are you meaning that the father should have some kind of power of veto over the decision? If it is the latter that you mean, then fuck no. He shouldn't get to decide for her.

There should be a discussion on whether the baby should be aborted or not by couples. One might convince the other and it might not go wrong

I'm sure that many do. I'm not sure what you mean by the "one might convince the other and it might not go wrong" bit. What exactly are you referring to? What might not go wrong?

[Napkiraly]

It's a woman deciding to terminate life unnecessarily and is therefore evil.

And why do you get to make medical decisions for someone else?

It is an ethical and moral one. By this measure who are we to have laws in general?

Are you going to adopt the unwanted children?

I am not in a position to take care of more than one child at the moment.

To force someone who is a rape or incest victim to carry the child to term is evil in itself

Even if it were to be evil, it would be a lesser evil.

[Napkiraly]

It's a woman deciding to terminate life unnecessarily and is therefore evil.

I mean, only in the context that killing anything unnecessarily is evil

This is true.

[Greater Cesnica]

Since I last posted here, my views have changed significantly. I now only believe in abortion if the mother's life is endangered or in especially grievous cases of incestuous or gang rape.

[Napkiraly]

Since I last posted here, my views have changed significantly. I now only believe in abortion if the mother's life is endangered or in especially grievous cases of incestuous or gang rape.

Why specifically a gang rape?

[Dogmeat]

Since I last posted here, my views have changed significantly. I now only believe in abortion if the mother's life is endangered or in especially grievous cases of incestuous or gang rape.

How do you measure "especially grievous?"

Because this seems an awful lot like you trying to dictate how traumatized another person should be about their rape.

[The Free Joy State]

Since I last posted here, my views have changed significantly. I now only believe in abortion if the mother's life is endangered or in especially grievous cases of incestuous or gang rape.

Why a gang rape? Why must a woman or girl endure that to be considered traumatised enough for an abortion to be considered justified? Isn't all rape bad enough?

And what about foetal health? Would you make a woman give birth to a foetus that has been given a terminal prenatal diagnosis, and who is destined to suffer severe problems from a condition that will most likely kill them within a few days of birth?

[San Lumen]

And why do you get to make medical decisions for someone else?

It is an ethical and moral one. By this measure who are we to have laws in general?

Are you going to adopt the unwanted children?

I am not in a position to take care of more than one child at the moment.

To force someone who is a rape or incest victim to carry the child to term is evil in itself

Even if it were to be evil, it would be a lesser evil.

You do not have a right to make medical decisions for someone else unless you are their parent or spouse.

It is not a lesser evil to force someone you have never met to carry an unwanted child to term.

[Telconi]

It is an ethical and moral one. By this measure who are we to have laws in general? I am not in a position to take care of more than one child at the moment.


Even if it were to be evil, it would be a lesser evil.

You do not have a right to make medical decisions for someone else unless you are their parent or spouse.

It is not a lesser evil to force someone you have never met to carry an unwanted child to term.

Barack Obama isn't my dad or husband...

Sure it is.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

You do not have a right to make medical decisions for someone else unless you are their parent or spouse.

It is not a lesser evil to force someone you have never met to carry an unwanted child to term.

Barack Obama isn't my dad or husband...

Sure it is.

Irrelevant, for both.

Barack Obama isn’t in office anymore and he never told anybody what they could or could not do with their bodies.

Evil is a subjective term that has as much place here as trying to claim ‘objective’ truth. Your morals are not universal. That you seek to force yours on others though is rather telling.