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

[Great Nortend]

I admit I phrased that badly. Requiring women to have sex would not in theory require any violence or physical compulsion.

What the actual fuck?

You can't require anyone to do something they don't want to do without force, either mental or physical.

Requiring someone to have sex they do not want is rape. The Handmaid's Tale has already explored many of the issues with a nightmare world of forced copulation and forced impregnation.

Rape does not require violence. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp? People are capable to doing things against their desire but willingly without actual violence or physical force.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm actually saying the complete opposite. There would be no violence if people followed the law. And yes, banning abortion is likely to entail punitive measures to punish offenders. Ultimately it's impossible to prove a moral stance as being right. Decriminalising everything because the judicial system is not effective is not an appropriate response.

Regarding forcing women to have sex and so attempt to conceive: the very presence of a law compelling them to do so is violence --> "Have sex with me or I will report you" is a threat. Threatening someone so they have sex with you makes any subsequent sexual contact involuntary.

Regarding forcing women to maintain their pregnancies, forcing women to die is violence (because "the foetus could live", but they won't). Forcing women to get irreparably sick through dangerous pregnancies is violence. Sending women to back-alley abortion clinics -- which would happen; always did, (where abortion is illegal) always will -- to risk harm and death to get rid of a foetus they can't maintain is violence. Punitive punishment for people asserting bodily sovereignty is violence.

But, really, compelling anyone to sacrifice their bodily sovereignty in a way they wouldn't choose -- with threats of negative and punitive consequences -- is an assault on a person's dignity. It is coercing someone into following your will.

Coercion is also a crime.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm actually saying the complete opposite. There would be no violence if people followed the law. And yes, banning abortion is likely to entail punitive measures to punish offenders. Ultimately it's impossible to prove a moral stance as being right. Decriminalising everything because the judicial system is not effective is not an appropriate response.

But if people broke the law there would be violence, which is essentially following morals backed by the threat of violence.

Also, it's not that the judicial system should be reformed because otherwise criminalization would not be effective otherwise. But, generally speaking, the justice system is punitive, but also our standard of value of what is legal and what is not is not "what is the things we would like people to do", but rather "what is the least we will require people to follow to keep social order".

If you want to turn the statement on its head and, instead of making society agree on the bare minimum you want them to follow a specific moral code, also said moral code codified in law that is above the minimum needs to follow a fair, and rather benevolent justive system, which is far from what we have.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm actually saying the complete opposite. There would be no violence if people followed the law. And yes, banning abortion is likely to entail punitive measures to punish offenders. Ultimately it's impossible to prove a moral stance as being right. Decriminalising everything because the judicial system is not effective is not an appropriate response.

Regarding forcing women to have sex and so attempt to conceive: the very presence of a law compelling them to do so is violence --> "Have sex with me or I will report you" is a threat. Threatening someone so they have sex with you makes any subsequent sexual contact involuntary.

Regarding forcing women to maintain their pregnancies, forcing women to die is violence (because "the foetus could live", but they won't). Forcing women to get irreparably sick through dangerous pregnancies is violence. Sending women to back-alley abortion clinics -- which would happen; always did, (where abortion is illegal) always will -- to risk harm and death to get rid of a foetus they can't maintain is violence.

But, really, compelling anyone to do something they wouldn't choose -- with threats of negative and punitive consequences -- is an assault on a person's dignity and bodily sovereignty. It is coercing someone into following your will.

Coercion is also a crime.

It is, but I would have to say that, it makes a lot of sense to coerce people into following society's will thru the law. Compelling people to choose not to kill under the threat of punishment is an effective tool against murder. If anything, someone who has no other morals than those they have to legally follow is not gonna go postal, grab a gun and kill people if they are scared of the state using its force against him.

In the case of abortion tho, one can be morally against it, but if society doesn't really agree with it and is divided, I'd say it is the wrong time to make such a thing illegal, due to the fact that society does not know what to do with it yet, and I'd let society sort itself out before said society agrees on the best possible resolution to the issue.

I am not saying abortion should not be illegal, for the record, if a society chooses to ban it, that's their decision as a society, but I also don't think it should be illegal under a system that is solely punitive in nature and doesn't really have other recourse to deal with the problem other than doling out punishments.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What the actual fuck?

You can't require anyone to do something they don't want to do without force, either mental or physical.

Requiring someone to have sex they do not want is rape. The Handmaid's Tale has already explored many of the issues with a nightmare world of forced copulation and forced impregnation.

Rape does not require violence. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp? People are capable to doing things against their desire but willingly without actual violence or physical force.

Rape requires invading a person's personal space to have sex with them.

It is a violent act in nature. It not only is violent because it is an invasion of a person's personal space, but also rape is a power play.

If people are doing things against their desire, they cannot at the same time be doing so willingly.

[The Free Joy State]

Regarding forcing women to have sex and so attempt to conceive: the very presence of a law compelling them to do so is violence --> "Have sex with me or I will report you" is a threat. Threatening someone so they have sex with you makes any subsequent sexual contact involuntary.

Regarding forcing women to maintain their pregnancies, forcing women to die is violence (because "the foetus could live", but they won't). Forcing women to get irreparably sick through dangerous pregnancies is violence. Sending women to back-alley abortion clinics -- which would happen; always did, (where abortion is illegal) always will -- to risk harm and death to get rid of a foetus they can't maintain is violence.

But, really, compelling anyone to do something they wouldn't choose -- with threats of negative and punitive consequences -- is an assault on a person's dignity and bodily sovereignty. It is coercing someone into following your will.

Coercion is also a crime.

It is, but I would have to say that, it makes a lot of sense to coerce people into following society's will thru the law. Compelling people to choose not to kill under the threat of punishment is an effective tool against murder. If anything, someone who has no other morals than those they have to legally follow is not gonna go postal, grab a gun and kill people.

In the case of abortion tho, one can be morally against it, but if society doesn't really agree with it and is divided, I'd say it is the wrong time to make such a thing illegal, due to the fact that society does not know what to do with it yet, and I'd let society sort itself out before said society agrees on the best possible resolution to the issue.

I am not saying abortion should not be illegal, for the record, but I also don't think it should be illegal under a system that is solely punitive in nature and doesn't really have other recourse to deal with the problem other than doling out punishments.

I corrected my post. I worded that poorly.

I am not an anarchist. Laws are necessary to maintain the maximum amount of harmony between individual human beings, and for the benefit of the maximum number of individual human beings.

So, don't murder, don't rape, don't steal. All good laws, and examples of things that should be legally enforced. But the prohibition against those things does not harm bodily sovereignty.

The law doesn't say: "Don't kill someone, even if he's currently stabbing you repeatedly with a knife."

If your bodily sovereignty is threatened, you are allowed to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself. Unfortunately, there is no means to remove the foetus and reassert bodily sovereignty that doesn't lead to the foetus' death. I'm not happy about that, but it's the way things are.

I would rather economic and social abortions were reduced under better social, welfare, healthcare and education (including mandatory sex education). But, I am opposed to any attempts to make it illegal.

What the actual fuck?

You can't require anyone to do something they don't want to do without force, either mental or physical.

Requiring someone to have sex they do not want is rape. The Handmaid's Tale has already explored many of the issues with a nightmare world of forced copulation and forced impregnation.

Rape does not require violence. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp? People are capable to doing things against their desire but willingly without actual violence or physical force.

So... Now you're defending rape?

Holy crap! I never thought I'd see the day...

Rape does not require a knife at the throat and someone crying for help to be violent or forceful. Being threatened with bodily or mental harm, not feeling able to refuse (for any reason), being legally impaired by alcohol or other substances, being unable to consent (due to age or serious disability), or not freely giving consent for any reason makes it rape.

If someone is having sex "against their desire" that is called "rape".

I seriously want you to understand that.

I really, really, really do!

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What the actual fuck? :blink:

You can't require anyone to do something they don't want to do without force, either mental or physical.

Requiring someone to have sex they do not want is rape. The Handmaid's Tale has already explored many of the issues with a nightmare world of forced copulation and forced impregnation.

Rape does not require violence. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp? People are capable to doing things against their desire but willingly without actual violence or physical force.

All hands finish your drink. We are almost back at victim blaming victims of paedophiles levels.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It is, but I would have to say that, it makes a lot of sense to coerce people into following society's will thru the law. Compelling people to choose not to kill under the threat of punishment is an effective tool against murder. If anything, someone who has no other morals than those they have to legally follow is not gonna go postal, grab a gun and kill people.

In the case of abortion tho, one can be morally against it, but if society doesn't really agree with it and is divided, I'd say it is the wrong time to make such a thing illegal, due to the fact that society does not know what to do with it yet, and I'd let society sort itself out before said society agrees on the best possible resolution to the issue.

I am not saying abortion should not be illegal, for the record, but I also don't think it should be illegal under a system that is solely punitive in nature and doesn't really have other recourse to deal with the problem other than doling out punishments.

I corrected my post. I worded that poorly.

I am not an anarchist. Laws are necessary to maintain the maximum amount of harmony between individual human beings, and for the benefit of the maximum number of individual human beings.

So, don't murder, don't rape, don't steal. All good laws, and examples of things that should be legally enforced. But the prohibition against those things does not harm bodily sovereignty.

The law doesn't say: "Don't kill someone, even if he's currently stabbing you repeatedly with a knife."

If your bodily sovereignty is threatened, you are allowed to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself. Unfortunately, there is no means to remove the foetus and reassert bodily sovereignty that doesn't lead to the foetus' death. I'm not happy about that, but it's the way things are.

I would rather economic and social abortions were reduced under better social, welfare, healthcare and education (including mandatory sex education). But, I am opposed to any attempts to make it illegal.

I am more or less the same, for now.

I always defer legalism to "what do most people think is the least we can demand of someone" basis. If a society thinks something is better off being illegal then it is better off being illegal. I have no problems with that as long as a substantial enough majority of society thinks that's the way it should go.

However, where it is not clear where things should be headed, I'd rather let society figure its legality out and meanwhile help prevent more abortion through other measures like, you said, social support.

[Vallermoore]

Let women have their abortion rights, but give men the right not to pay child support in exchange for losing their parental rights. Then it'll be equal.

[The Grims]

Let women have their abortion rights, but give men the right not to pay child support in exchange for losing their parental rights. Then it'll be equal.

Not entirely; bodily integrity is not the same as wallet integrity.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I get the feeling it's mostly self-centred signalling of religious virtue by politicians wrapped up in their own ideas of ideological purity rather than an attempt to genuinely create better social policy that serves the common good.

Agreed.

I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to abortion, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-abortion bills came with a lot of funding and psychological support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unexpected/unwanted pregnancies or where the partner has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.

[American Pere Housh]

Damn I'm surprised this forum is still alive.

[Jebslund]

Bloody fucking hell, there's a lot of stupid to unpack here.

Unhealthy? Uh all right. You seem to founding your argument on the premise that women, if they do not wish to be parents, have the right to not be. In reality, biological processes are foisted upon everyone. If they are inherently bad, we try and cure it. Creating life is not something that needs to be cured. If people are irresponsible enough to accidentally fall pregnant, they should have to live with the direct and natural consequences of their action.

Well, first off, women, if they do not wish to be parents, do, in fact, have the right not to be. Biological processes are not just the ones *you* find convenient to your belief system. Desire for sexual intercourse is a biological process. A biological imperative, even. It's rare that people who go without their entire lives will be mentally healthy (look no further than the much-derided Catholic Priesthood, prisons, and Naval vessels before women were allowed in the Navy. Deprived of females to have sex with, they turned to other outlets, such as heterosexual men having homosexual intercourse out of desperation to fill that need and... The Catholic Priesthood. Going without sex for extended periods isn't healthy.), and rarer still that any humans won't have that desire at all. Abortion is nothing new. There have been abortificants(sp?) as long as there have been stable societies. Contraception is also much older than you think.

Second, there are processes that are ended because otherwise healthy (it's not a matter of "inherently good" and "inherently bad". It's usually a matter of "is this working properly or not?". Creating life is not always a good thing, and your appeal to emotion will not change that.

And, a-fucking-gain, the majority of elective abortions are performed when other methods of birth control have failed, so, no, it's not usually a matter of irresponsibility. That's like saying anyone who is injured in a car accident was just being irresponsible.

So... you've basically just negated your own argument. “[Giving] birth to an unwanted child and then immediately giving it to someone else is no different than not wanting to do a job, but taking it anyway and foisting the work on someone else. You have a chance to avoid taking on the job before your start day by turning it down.”

No, I haven't. The 24-week-point. That's the start date. After that, it's a likely sapient being that is no longer just a bundle of nonsapient cells. It has achieved awareness for the first time. That's the start date. Not conception.

It is incredibly disrespectful and demeaning to characterise the lives of those put up for adoption as being entirely without value so far as to claim or imply that people put up for adoption all want to commit suicide. My grandmother was put up for adoption and you know what? Despite living through war she had a relatively happy childhood. Homeless people and criminals surely DO NOT want to die.

I did not claim or imply that all people put up for adoption want to die. I am telling you that there are many who do. There are many children who suffer what I did and far worse at the hands of people who should not have ever been permitted to give birth to or adopt children, and/or who never wanted them in the first place. As Geranimo's tribe said of the invading white men, "Would you tolerate a nest of wasps in your home just because there were a handfull of bees among them?". That a relatively small percentage find happiness and love does not mean that the rest who live lives I would not wish on vermin should be ignored. This is the virtue signalling at the core of the pro-life movement that I cannot reconcile with a true desire to preserve and improve life.

As for homeless people, you've clearly never been homeless if you think homeless people all are as eager to live as you are. Having been homeless, and socialised with homeless people, the lack of hope many has has me wondering what, precisely, is keeping many of them from suicide, and I can tell you for a fact that it ain't feeling like life is wonderful.

So why do we criminalise anything? After all, people will always break the law anyway... We shouldn't punish them because they would do it anyway?

We should not punish them because punishing them will do exactly zero good. It won't make anyone's lives better. It will lead to more abuse, more neglect, more strain on an already overburdened system, more expenses for the government, more poverty, and will result in more dead women. As to the good it will do? Well, exactly fuck all, unless you think creating lives with little quality is "good".

https://www.thenation.com/article/romneys-so-called-moderate-stance-would-outlaw-90-percent-abortions/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/report- ... -7jz6.html

Stop talking complete lies. By far the most common reason people have an abortion is for social reasons.

Okay, I'll own up to this one as my bad: I should have been clearer in my meaning (not that that excuses your inability to suss out what I meant by context).

By "on people", I meant the fetus, not the mother. In other words, the vast majority of abortions performed after the 24-week-point are performed for medical reasons. Usually because, after 5.5 months, the mother has had time to find out she's pregnant and deal with it or decide to keep it. The elective ones performed after that part are usually stealth pregnancies (by which I mean the mother not knowing she was pregnant until then. It is rare, but it happens) or plans radically changing in such a way being a parent is unfeasible.

You, or another one of the pro-abortionists, brought up the fact that enforcement is violent. Imprisonment is not the only sentence available. Fines, CCOs, suspended sentences &c. are all options. And it's frankly disingenuous to claim that arrests are violent. Yes, there may be instances where arrests are violent, but requiring relatively minor and temporary physical force to arrest someone is in no way comparable to a serious injury, which the Crimes Act of Victoria defines as including an abortion, given your penchant for laws.

I am not a "pro-abortionist". I dislike elective abortion on a personal level, as I dislike the notion of taking a life (ANY life, not just sapient life) without practical cause. I am pro-CHOICE because I do not believe this belief is reason enough to relegate women to the status of incubators and slaves who should be forced to carry children to term because others wish to pat themselves on the back and then promptly forget about the "baby" they oh-so-heroically "saved". The rights to dignity, bodily autonomy, and independence of the person trump the right to life of the nonsapient, and, even if a fetus *was* a person, I agree wholeheartedly with the ruling made in McFall vs Shimp, which is to say that, no matter how morally indefensible refusal is, one cannot be forced to allow another to use his or her body without his or her consent.

As to the rest of that:
All of those options are enforced by, you guessed it, FORCE. Don't pay the fines? You will be arrested. Don't cooperate with the CCO fines and procedures? Arrested. Reoffend within a year (or however long the judge determines) after receiving a suspended sentence? Cotton candy and puppies. Nope. Just kidding. Arrested. And the sentence that was suspended is carried out in addition to the new one. And arrest is ALWAYS violent. I've been arrested before. The police are NOT fucking gentle about it, and they do not just ask you to cuff yourself and then get in the car. They cuff you and shove you in the car. They do this even if you are entirely peaceful and cooperative. And those fines? They can seize your bank accounts and even your tax refunds (in the US) to get that money from you. Try to prevent it? Arrested. Charged with obstruction.

You also have me confused with New California Republic. I don't usually argue laws unless the person I'm arguing with does first.

[Great Nortend]

Well, first off, women, if they do not wish to be parents, do, in fact, have the right not to be. ]

Says you. I would agree, but qualify it with that if you do happen to fall pregnant, they should have no choice but to reap what they have sown.

Biological processes are not just the ones *you* find convenient to your belief system. Desire for sexual intercourse is a biological process. A biological imperative, even. It's rare that people who go without their entire lives will be mentally healthy (look no further than the much-derided Catholic Priesthood, prisons, and Naval vessels before women were allowed in the Navy. Deprived of females to have sex with, they turned to other outlets, such as heterosexual men having homosexual intercourse out of desperation to fill that need and... The Catholic Priesthood. Going without sex for extended periods isn't healthy.), and rarer still that any humans won't have that desire at all. Abortion is nothing new. There have been abortificants(sp?) as long as there have been stable societies. Contraception is also much older than you think.

I really don't see how this is relevant at all. Abortifacients have existed for a long time. Probably so has contraception, of various kinds. So has murder in fact, and poisons and fraud and theft. If nature gives humans an urge to procreate, it is humanity which suppresses it. But there is no reason to suppress it. It's not an argument for allowing abortion just because people want to have sex but don't want the consequences of it. I'm saying have sex if you want, but you have to be prepared to take on the burden it carries, of a child being born.

Second, there are processes that are ended because otherwise healthy (it's not a matter of "inherently good" and "inherently bad". It's usually a matter of "is this working properly or not?". Creating life is not always a good thing, and your appeal to emotion will not change that.

Says you again. Arguments on either side are always opinions. I believe creating life is always good. You may not. Each to his own.

And, a-fucking-gain, the majority of elective abortions are performed when other methods of birth control have failed, so, no, it's not usually a matter of irresponsibility. That's like saying anyone who is injured in a car accident was just being irresponsible.

Do you think swearing is making you sound clever? I find it irresponsible to have sex if you are not prepared to look after the child at the end. Your analogy is also pretty far fetched. A more apt one would be someone driving alone (living life), and deciding to drink alcohol and getting into a car crash that way. Sure you can drink alcohol, but be prepared to suffer the consequences.

So... you've basically just negated your own argument. “[Giving] birth to an unwanted child and then immediately giving it to someone else is no different than not wanting to do a job, but taking it anyway and foisting the work on someone else. You have a chance to avoid taking on the job before your start day by turning it down.”

No, I haven't. The 24-week-point. That's the start date. After that, it's a likely sapient being that is no longer just a bundle of nonsapient cells. It has achieved awareness for the first time. That's the start date. Not conception.

Are we seriously trying to fit procreation perfectly into a contractual analogy? You can't arbitrarily define starting dates either. The cells may be nonsapient before 24-weeks but it still has its own unique DNA. Why shouldn't we draw the line there? It's artificial to demand sapience as being the determining factor.

It is incredibly disrespectful and demeaning to characterise the lives of those put up for adoption as being entirely without value so far as to claim or imply that people put up for adoption all want to commit suicide. My grandmother was put up for adoption and you know what? Despite living through war she had a relatively happy childhood. Homeless people and criminals surely DO NOT want to die.

I did not claim or imply that all people put up for adoption want to die. I am telling you that there are many who do. There are many children who suffer what I did and far worse at the hands of people who should not have ever been permitted to give birth to or adopt children, and/or who never wanted them in the first place. As Geranimo's tribe said of the invading white men, "Would you tolerate a nest of wasps in your home just because there were a handfull of bees among them?". That a relatively small percentage find happiness and love does not mean that the rest who live lives I would not wish on vermin should be ignored. This is the virtue signalling at the core of the pro-life movement that I cannot reconcile with a true desire to preserve and improve life.

As for homeless people, you've clearly never been homeless if you think homeless people all are as eager to live as you are. Having been homeless, and socialised with homeless people, the lack of hope many has has me wondering what, precisely, is keeping many of them from suicide, and I can tell you for a fact that it ain't feeling like life is wonderful.

Then why don't they jump off a bridge and die? The reason is that they have hopes, dreams and feelings. A person once born has a chance to make his life a good one. If you abort, you deny him any chance, essentially what we would consider the tort of a loss of a chance.

So why do we criminalise anything? After all, people will always break the law anyway... We shouldn't punish them because they would do it anyway?

We should not punish them because punishing them will do exactly zero good. It won't make anyone's lives better. It will lead to more abuse, more neglect, more strain on an already overburdened system, more expenses for the government, more poverty, and will result in more dead women. As to the good it will do? Well, exactly fuck all, unless you think creating lives with little quality is "good".

I do think creating lives are inherently good. You can climb down from your ivory tower and stop arbitrating on whether some person's life may be bad or not. You may not wish it on vermin but you know what? The vast majority of people value their own lives. A bit rich coming from someone who is not dead to say that an aborted foetus would have had a life so bad that he would have wanted to die.

https://www.thenation.com/article/romneys-so-called-moderate-stance-would-outlaw-90-percent-abortions/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/report- ... -7jz6.html

Stop talking complete lies. By far the most common reason people have an abortion is for social reasons.

Okay, I'll own up to this one as my bad: I should have been clearer in my meaning (not that that excuses your inability to suss out what I meant by context).

By "on people", I meant the fetus, not the mother. In other words, the vast majority of abortions performed after the 24-week-point are performed for medical reasons. Usually because, after 5.5 months, the mother has had time to find out she's pregnant and deal with it or decide to keep it. The elective ones performed after that part are usually stealth pregnancies (by which I mean the mother not knowing she was pregnant until then. It is rare, but it happens) or plans radically changing in such a way being a parent is unfeasible.

You expect me to extract that from a statement that “Abortions are also not generally performed on people unless there's a medical need. Elective abortions beyond the 24-week point are incredibly rare.”? The plain-english interpretation of that is that out of all the abortions performed, the majority are for a medical purposes, which is plainly wrong. Contorting the word 'people' to mean 'foetuses which I consider to be human enough to worry about' really does not follow in the context. The plain fact of the matter is, elective abortions are by far the most common reason.

You, or another one of the pro-abortionists, brought up the fact that enforcement is violent. Imprisonment is not the only sentence available. Fines, CCOs, suspended sentences &c. are all options. And it's frankly disingenuous to claim that arrests are violent. Yes, there may be instances where arrests are violent, but requiring relatively minor and temporary physical force to arrest someone is in no way comparable to a serious injury, which the Crimes Act of Victoria defines as including an abortion, given your penchant for laws.

I am not a "pro-abortionist". I dislike elective abortion on a personal level, as I dislike the notion of taking a life (ANY life, not just sapient life) without practical cause. I am pro-CHOICE because I do not believe this belief is reason enough to relegate women to the status of incubators and slaves who should be forced to carry children to term because others wish to pat themselves on the back and then promptly forget about the "baby" they oh-so-heroically "saved". The rights to dignity, bodily autonomy, and independence of the person trump the right to life of the nonsapient, and, even if a fetus *was* a person, I agree wholeheartedly with the ruling made in McFall vs Shimp, which is to say that, no matter how morally indefensible refusal is, one cannot be forced to allow another to use his or her body without his or her consent.

I would disagree with that; the law is empowered to force a person to use his or her body without consent.

As to the rest of that:
All of those options are enforced by, you guessed it, FORCE. Don't pay the fines? You will be arrested. Don't cooperate with the CCO fines and procedures? Arrested. Reoffend within a year (or however long the judge determines) after receiving a suspended sentence? Cotton candy and puppies. Nope. Just kidding. Arrested. And the sentence that was suspended is carried out in addition to the new one. And arrest is ALWAYS violent. I've been arrested before. The police are NOT fucking gentle about it, and they do not just ask you to cuff yourself and then get in the car. They cuff you and shove you in the car. They do this even if you are entirely peaceful and cooperative. And those fines? They can seize your bank accounts and even your tax refunds (in the US) to get that money from you. Try to prevent it? Arrested. Charged with obstruction.

What is your point?? I serious can't tell your chain of argument here at all. Abortion is violent, and enforcing anti-abortion laws is violent. So is enforcing any law, like jaywalking or public nudity. You can be arrested for refusing to give your name and address when asked. None of that is at all relevant in my argument that the law should not allow the intentional infliction of serious injury on a person. In fact, it is established that consent is no defence for someone who inflicts serious injury on another (R v Brown). Maybe I have a strong desire to get my leg chopped off. It is still assault occasioning GBH even if I consent.

You also have me confused with New California Republic. I don't usually argue laws unless the person I'm arguing with does first.

Sorry; it gets confusing.

[Jebslund]

Another slog through stupid arguments...

Says you. I would agree, but qualify it with that if you do happen to fall pregnant, they should have no choice but to reap what they have sown.

"Pregnancy is the punishment for sex!" Everybody drink.

No, they shouldn't. That's, again, like saying their car should stay totaled and their body broken after a wreck. If the means exist to remedy the situation, they should have the option to do so.

I really don't see how this is relevant at all. Abortifacients have existed for a long time. Probably so has contraception, of various kinds. So has murder in fact, and poisons and fraud and theft. If nature gives humans an urge to procreate, it is humanity which suppresses it. But there is no reason to suppress it. It's not an argument for allowing abortion just because people want to have sex but don't want the consequences of it. I'm saying have sex if you want, but you have to be prepared to take on the burden it carries, of a child being born.

The fact that abortifacients (thank you) exist means they do not *have* to stay pregnant. Pregnancy is not a punishment for having sex, nor should it be treated as one.

Says you again. Arguments on either side are always opinions. I believe creating life is always good. You may not. Each to his own.

So creating a life that will very likely live in a hell on Earth is good because "YAY! LIFE!". Something tells me you have no idea what it's like to grow up knowing the one person in the world who should have wanted you most hated you and the one who others claim loves you because she adopted you is an abusive c*** with the maturity of a two-year-old.

Do you think swearing is making you sound clever? I find it irresponsible to have sex if you are not prepared to look after the child at the end. Your analogy is also pretty far fetched. A more apt one would be someone driving alone (living life), and deciding to drink alcohol and getting into a car crash that way. Sure you can drink alcohol, but be prepared to suffer the consequences.

No, I think swearing is a fucking intensity modifier. I don't need to sound clever, as I know I'm highly intelligent and have no need to prove it to anyone.

Moving on from the cheap jabs, my analogy is quite fitting, actually. Getting in a wreck is just one potential consequence of driving, and is a largely, though not perfectly, preventable one that can usually be remedied after it happens with the marvels of modern medicine and repair techniques.

Are we seriously trying to fit procreation perfectly into a contractual analogy? You can't arbitrarily define starting dates either. The cells may be nonsapient before 24-weeks but it still has its own unique DNA. Why shouldn't we draw the line there? It's artificial to demand sapience as being the determining factor.

DNA is nothing. In the matter of whether or not something is a person, DNA is as useless an indicator as color of paint on or brand of a car is to its speed and handling capabilities. What do we often use to define humanity? A soul. What trait does every religion in the world attribute to that? Free will.

Now, in order to have free will, one must have a functioning brain. It is, in essence, the hardware in which the soul is stored. The brain is not developed enough to function until around the 24-week point. Before the brain reaches that point in development, the fetus feels nothing. Knows nothing. There is no difference between life and death at that point from the nonexistent perspective of the fetus. Therefore, it is not, in fact, artificial to demand sapience be the determining factor, as sapience, having a soul, or, in more scientific terms, achieving consciousness, is, if we had to pick just one, THE defining feature of being human. Before that point, the fetus is no different from literally any other fetus of any other species (see Katganistan's rabbit fetus earlier in the thread and compare to a human fetus at the same stage of development). Achieving free will is when the fetus becomes a person, if we want to step away from the legal definition of personhood.

Then why don't they jump off a bridge and die? The reason is that they have hopes, dreams and feelings. A person once born has a chance to make his life a good one. If you abort, you deny him any chance, essentially what we would consider the tort of a loss of a chance.

That's a cute little bumper sticker, but you clearly ain't spent any significant time with homeless people. *some* do, but most have pretty much given up and are just existing on a level just above autopilot.

I do think creating lives are inherently good. You can climb down from your ivory tower and stop arbitrating on whether some person's life may be bad or not. You may not wish it on vermin but you know what? The vast majority of people value their own lives. A bit rich coming from someone who is not dead to say that an aborted foetus would have had a life so bad that he would have wanted to die.

Then you are a fool who assumes that his lack of significant hardship is the same for everyone. Get some experience in the real world. You'll soon learn there are fates worse than death.

Though, to be fair, I'm glad you don't get it. There are things in this world you can only really understand by going through them.

You expect me to extract that from a statement that “Abortions are also not generally performed on people unless there's a medical need. Elective abortions beyond the 24-week point are incredibly rare.”? The plain-english interpretation of that is that out of all the abortions performed, the majority are for a medical purposes, which is plainly wrong. Contorting the word 'people' to mean 'foetuses which I consider to be human enough to worry about' really does not follow in the context. The plain fact of the matter is, elective abortions are by far the most common reason.

I expect you to look at the context and, yes, understand what I meant, given it was part of a paragraph in which I had mentioned the point of sapience. And elective abortions beyond that point are in the vast minority (something like 1-2%).

I would disagree with that; the law is empowered to force a person to use his or her body without consent.

Cute, but a fetus is not the law, and even the law has limits. Even if a fetus was a person, that would not entitle it to use its mother's body without her consent.

What is your point?? I serious can't tell your chain of argument here at all. Abortion is violent, and enforcing anti-abortion laws is violent. So is enforcing any law, like jaywalking or public nudity. You can be arrested for refusing to give your name and address when asked. None of that is at all relevant in my argument that the law should not allow the intentional infliction of serious injury on a person. In fact, it is established that consent is no defence for someone who inflicts serious injury on another (R v Brown). Maybe I have a strong desire to get my leg chopped off. It is still assault occasioning GBH even if I consent.

You claim bans are not violent. I demonstrated that they are (and no, you cannot be arrested for refusing to give your name and address when asked. If there is not reasonable cause, you have the right to refuse to answer any questions. Even if there is, you *still* have the right to refuse to answer without a lawyer present, and can *still* refuse to answer under the advice of your lawyer. At least in the US. There's not much cause not to answer, mind you, but it's not illegal to refuse to answer questions.). You somehow got, out of that, that consent was being argued as a justification for assault? WHAT?

Also, legally speaking, even sapient fetuses aren't people, as the legal definition of personhood requires said individual to have been born.

Sorry; it gets confusing.

Eh, it happens. I'd be lying if I said I'd never mixed posters up during an argument.

[The New California Republic]

Rape does not require violence. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp? People are capable to doing things against their desire but willingly without actual violence or physical force.

If your chain of reasoning leads you into defending rape of all things, then something has gone very wrong somewhere in the chain.

if you do happen to fall pregnant, they should have no choice but to reap what they have sown.

"Pregnancy is the punishment for sex!" Everybody drink.

No. I refuse. I am in danger of permanent liver damage at this point, because that "pregnancy as punishment for sex" shit has been used by pro-lifers so fucking much. The argument is quite frankly completely idiotic.

[Godular]

"Pregnancy is the punishment for sex!" Everybody drink.

No. I refuse. I am in danger of permanent liver damage at this point, because that "pregnancy as punishment for sex" shit has been used by pro-lifers so fucking much. The argument is quite frankly completely idiotic.

I long ago switched to fruit punch. My liver's already damaged enough.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I feel like I just woke up day and found out there’s a movement around the country to establish Gilead

[Vassenor]

So it would seem that the majority opinion is very much against overturning Roe.

[Cappuccina]

So it would seem that the majority opinion is very much against overturning Roe.

That's common knowledge. However, as history shows us, popular opinion isn't synonymous with ethics or morality. Appealing to popular sentiment is democractic, sure, but is nonetheless a lacking basis for an argument.

[Gormwood]

So it would seem that the majority opinion is very much against overturning Roe.

They're also in favor of gun regulation and most voted for Clinton but the beliefs of mere peasants don't matter in America.

[Katganistan]

And now let's see, of these 27 White men, and 8 white women, what portion of the population of Alabama they represent.

• Total 4,887,871 (2018)

Of that, 68.5% White (67.0% Non-Hispanic White and 1.5% Hispanic White), 26.2% Black or African American, 3.9% Hispanic or Latino of any race, 1.1% Asian, 0.6% American Indian and Alaska Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 2.0% from Some Other Race, and 1.5% from Two or More Races


Well, fuck a duck. Those folks are not representative of the people of Alabama. Not one black person there, and they make up more than a quarter of the population. And I was unaware that in Alabama, men make up 70% of the population.

No wonder they want to keep all the women pregnant if they only comprise 30% of the population!

Because it's the 1820s the twenty-first century and corrupt officials overseeing voting stack the odds in favor of themselves getting voted in over their opponents, remove people of color from the voting rolls, closed polls altogether to prevent people of color from voting, make it difficult to vote by closing polls early and/or make it ridiculously difficult to register to vote,counted ballots before the polls closed and used blank ballots to fraudulently get 'their' candidate in so white people can elect their legislators based on race:roll:

Fixed it for you.

[Katganistan]

So you would be angry because the person trespassed against your body? And not being he trespassed against the foetus?

Similarly, forcing women to have sex would in theory not require any violent act or compulsion.

I admit I phrased that badly. Requiring women to have sex would not in theory require any violence or physical compulsion

What the actual fuck?

You can't require anyone to do something they don't want to do without force, either mental or physical.

Requiring someone to have sex they do not want is rape. The Handmaid's Tale has already explored many of the issues with a nightmare world of forced copulation and forced impregnation.

Rape does not require violence. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp? People are capable to doing things against their desire but willingly without actual violence or physical force.

I'm actually saying the complete opposite. There would be no violence if people followed the law. And yes, banning abortion is likely to entail punitive measures to punish offenders. Ultimately it's impossible to prove a moral stance as being right. Decriminalising everything because the judicial system is not effective is not an appropriate response.

So you're pro-rape. And not only pro-rape, but pro-institutionalized rape.
Good to know.

[Saiwania]

I'm not talking about a universal basic income. I'm talking about a living wage. I'm talking about paying people fairly. If anyone who works for you (not "the fee you are paying a company to do work as a one-time thing", someone who is employed by you full time (40 hours a week)) is being paid poorly enough to be considered working poor or worse by income level, you have no excuse to be making six-, seven-, eight-, or nine-figure incomes. If you make more than middle-class average pay, no one who works for you should be eligible for food stamps or other income-based government aid. If you cannot afford that, you cannot afford to be in business.

There is no point in hiring someone for a full time business position if their labor cost is more than whatever income they manage to generate, some of it has to be taken as profit for a business. The harsh truth is that if someone is working poor, their business activity simply doesn't generate a lot of income relative to their cost. It doesn't take a lot of skill to flip a burger and it is easily automated. Something that is low skill but high turnover, of course isn't going to pay well. It is something to give unemployed people their first job but not something to actually raise a family off of. Its inherently something someone only does for a year or less ideally, or until they find something better.

The reason a lot of CEOs are exorbitantly rich is because they're not paid on a fixed salary basis like a typical lower level worker would be. They're paid in stock options instead, so if they own a ton of company shares by default; if the larger business is doing well- the net effect is that they earn millions over the course of just a year if not less time over someone who had to buy all of their shares with their own capital over quite a long period.

The theory goes that CEOs and executive types within corporations should be paid in stock because broadly speaking, if they make good high level decisions, and any positive results are reflected in a higher share price, that it provides people at that level the incentive to do their jobs well, as opposed to leaving for a rival business that'll pay them more or give them more fringe benefits than they can get staying put.

A rich person being rich, enables them to make large capital purchases and transactions for micromanaging a large firm and etc. If rich people aren't allowed to stay rich, they're aren't able to do all of this to as much of an extent. You'd need to accept that if your vision was the law of the land, that it'd be a worse situation for small business overall and would favor larger corporations to their expense.

Sometimes businesses that're only starting out, can't afford a ton of things and that includes paying everyone a "living wage" as you call it. A year or two out, either the business model is a bad idea or has bad execution and it'll fail and close up shop, or it will eventually become successful, but needs to be left the hell alone by government in order for this to happen. I'd be loathe to discourage entrepreneurship and risk taking to the extent that your proposal would do this.

[Bombadil]

Agreed.

I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to abortion, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-abortion bills came with a lot of funding and psychological support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unexpected/unwanted pregnancies or where the partner has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.

Alabama runs last on education tables so it's not like they really care about kids that much.