Abortion Law Reform Passes in New Zealand

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This is a drastic reduction of what you said earlier.

What about if a woman uses contraception, and her partner does too, and she still gets pregnant?

Is it "acceptable" or is it "murder" to then get a termination?

Murder. Everything in life has consequences. Whether it's right or wrong, whether pleseant or unpleseant.

I do not like your tack. Murder is 10 to 15 years in prison, at taxpayer expense.

Under your idea of law, thousands of women go to prison, wasting their potential for society. And doctors I expect too, will go to prison, wasting their training and skills. For nothing, no wait, for less than nothing. We all have to pay for their imprisonment.

If you invest your entire lifesavings in the world's biggest company on the stock market, and it goes broke, the you have to live the consequneces of losing your savings. If you play $10,000 at the casino, you run the risk of losing 100% of the money. Similarly, if you have sex, you run the risk of both of your cintroceptives failing and getting pregnant. Things in life have consequences.

Yes things in life have consequences. Kid. What you're saying is that there should be more negative consequences for certain things, which it pleases you to call murder.

You're here on an adult forum making serious arguments, so let me put this to you. A law criminalizing abortion can exist, or it can not exist. Whether it exists or not, fetuses will be terminated, but the only effect of more or less fetuses being terminated is that more or less abstract human lives will commence or not commence.

Are you really so confident in your judgement as one of the grown adult human beings who make the laws, that you want to throw thousands of people into prison (at your expense and mine) to protect potential people?

That's one of them. You knew that controseptives weren't 100% effective, and you still agreed to use it. You took a gamble, you lost, you live with the consequences. As long no one cheats. If someone cheats, it changes everything

For instance they got pregnant then accused the partner of rape. Because that was the only way they could get a legal abortion.

Changes everything, right?

Big ass dualism just falls apart when one person lies.

Oh dear me. I'm so sorry for your dualism. It was better than that. It didn't deserve to be shot in the back like that ...

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

So why does that fetus have rights that no-one else gets?

Everyone gets the right to life

Except when such a thing comes into conflict with the rights of others.

[Australian rePublic]

Everyone gets the right to life

And who else gets the right to make use of another person's body without their consent?

No one, but if you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy. You willingly took that risk and you live with the consequences of that risk, which is having a baby

[Agarntrop]

Life begins at birth, ha? So the act of pushing a baby of a vagina is what creates personhood? So what about cesarean?

I didn't say that like at all.

[The New California Republic]

Except that's exactly what you are treating it as. You are treating pregnancy as punishment for sex.

No I am not. Once again, are you also going to accuse me of treating investing on the stock market as a punishment for bankruptcy? Or do you equate losing a wager to punishment?

Yes you are. The way you phrased it as well as your previous statements on abstinence show that you are treating it as punishment. However abortion is taking action to remedy it, but since you want to enforce continued pregnancy on the woman with no recourse also shows that you consider it a form of punishment for sex.

[Nakena]

I am getting kinda sick of this thread going back and forth between "life begins at conception" and "life begins at birth!" followed by a literal pantomime of "oh yes it is!" and "oh no it isnt!" without any evidence or additional or useful material being used in the process.

If you asked me, I'd say life dosen't start at any particular moment but rather develops during pregnancy, kinda like a loading bar that lasts 9 months, and during that period in between the fetus is neither fully dead or alive, but becomes more alive as the pregnancy goes on. At least that's what most of the science says.

Personally, I think that abortion should be legal on demand until the fetus develops a neural net, usually around 20 weeks, then it should be allowed under extreme circumstances. I think that's a fair position to hold, and would probably be classed as pro-choice in most countries excluding the US and Canada.

Thats a position too reasonable for this thread.

[Vassenor]

:kiss:

And who else gets the right to make use of another person's body without their consent?

No one, but if you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy. You willingly took that risk and you live with the consequences of that risk, which is having a baby

Treating consent to sex as consent to pregnancy. Everybody drink.

[The New California Republic]

So why does that fetus have rights that no-one else gets?

Everyone gets the right to life

You want the foetus to get a right nobody else has, to usurp and control the body of another against their will in order to maintain their own life.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Incorrect on all fronts.

Why? You deal with the consequences. Your baby does not deal with the consequences. Why is that incorrect?

Because getting an abortion is dealing with the consequences whether you like it or not. It is wrong to treat abortion as punishing the fetus for something, in much the same way that killing an assailant is not punishing that assailant, so much as defending oneself from them.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

:kiss:

And who else gets the right to make use of another person's body without their consent?

No one

Exactly.

[Alvecia]

So why does that fetus have rights that no-one else gets?

Everyone gets the right to life

The right to life doesn't supersede all others. See self defense.

[The New California Republic]

:kiss:

And who else gets the right to make use of another person's body without their consent?

No one, but if you have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy. You willingly took that risk and you live with the consequences of that risk, which is having a baby

You are giving that right to a foetus by denying women abortions.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Life begins at birth, ha? So the act of pushing a baby of a vagina is what creates personhood? So what about cesarean?

That's just rude.

US law and much law around the world gives special protection for fetuses in late term. Including the thread subject new law in New Zealand.

[Australian rePublic]

Murder. Everything in life has consequences. Whether it's right or wrong, whether pleseant or unpleseant.

I do not like your tack. Murder is 10 to 15 years in prison, at taxpayer expense.

Under your idea of law, thousands of women go to prison, wasting their potential for society. And doctors I expect too, will go to prison, wasting their training and skills. For nothing, no wait, for less than nothing. We all have to pay for their imprisonment.

If you invest your entire lifesavings in the world's biggest company on the stock market, and it goes broke, the you have to live the consequneces of losing your savings. If you play $10,000 at the casino, you run the risk of losing 100% of the money. Similarly, if you have sex, you run the risk of both of your cintroceptives failing and getting pregnant. Things in life have consequences.

Yes things in life have consequences. Kid. What you're saying is that there should be more negative consequences for certain things, which it pleases you to call murder.

You're here on an adult forum making serious arguments, so let me put this to you. A law criminalizing abortion can exist, or it can not exist. Whether it exists or not, fetuses will be terminated, but the only effect of more or less fetuses being terminated is that more or less abstract human lives will commence or not commence.

Are you really so confident in your judgement as one of the grown adult human beings who make the laws, that you want to throw thousands of people into prison (at your expense and mine) to protect potential people?

That's one of them. You knew that controseptives weren't 100% effective, and you still agreed to use it. You took a gamble, you lost, you live with the consequences. As long no one cheats. If someone cheats, it changes everything

For instance they got pregnant then accused the partner of rape. Because that was the only way they could get a legal abortion.

Changes everything, right?

Big ass dualism just falls apart when one person lies.

Oh dear me. I'm so sorry for your dualism. It was better than that. It didn't deserve to be shot in the back like that ...

Women shouldn't be thrown into prison for abortions. That's common sense. I was arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal standpoint. A moral argument and a legal argument are different things. Abortions should be dicriminalised. That way, you can't technically have one, but there are no consequences if you do. Now, as for a woman accusing a man for rape, yes, that's when the whole pro-life argument falls apart

[Alvecia]

I am getting kinda sick of this thread going back and forth between "life begins at conception" and "life begins at birth!" followed by a literal pantomime of "oh yes it is!" and "oh no it isnt!" without any evidence or additional or useful material being used in the process.

If you asked me, I'd say life dosen't start at any particular moment but rather develops during pregnancy, kinda like a loading bar that lasts 9 months, and during that period in between the fetus is neither fully dead or alive, but becomes more alive as the pregnancy goes on. At least that's what most of the science says.

Personally, I think that abortion should be legal on demand until the fetus develops a neural net, usually around 20 weeks, then it should be allowed under extreme circumstances. I think that's a fair position to hold, and would probably be classed as pro-choice in most countries excluding the US and Canada.

I mean, the problem is, it's hard to evidence. It's pretty wooly, and mostly depends on how you personally are defining "life".

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I am getting kinda sick of this thread going back and forth between "life begins at conception" and "life begins at birth!" followed by a literal pantomime of "oh yes it is!" and "oh no it isnt!" without any evidence or additional or useful material being used in the process.

If you asked me, I'd say life dosen't start at any particular moment but rather develops during pregnancy, kinda like a loading bar that lasts 9 months, and during that period in between the fetus is neither fully dead or alive, but becomes more alive as the pregnancy goes on. At least that's what most of the science says.

Personally, I think that abortion should be legal on demand until the fetus develops a neural net, usually around 20 weeks, then it should be allowed under extreme circumstances. I think that's a fair position to hold, and would probably be classed as pro-choice in most countries excluding the US and Canada.

That’s pretty much our position in general.

I just wish folks would cut it with the alive/not alive crud, as the distinction is truthfully irrelevant.

[Australian rePublic]

Everyone gets the right to life

The right to life doesn't supersede all others. See self defense.

Yes, fine. Self-defense, war, etc. Are exempt. I want to kill my baby should not be

[Samudera Darussalam]

Christians tend be more relaxed than muslims over LGBT issues, wheras muslims tend to be more relaxed over abortions, it's strange.

Unlike Christianity (though this is more of a Roman Catholic teaching, I guess), Islam dictates that life begins around 120 days of gestation (around 4 months), so abortion before that stage is permissible. After that, it's a bit tricky, depending on what kind of takes, like Nak said.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

The right to life doesn't supersede all others. See self defense.

Yes, fine. Self-defense, war, etc. Are exempt. I want to kill my baby should not be

‘I do not want to be pregnant’ essentially makes it self-defense.

[The New California Republic]

Women shouldn't be thrown into prison for abortions. That's common sense. I was arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal standpoint. A moral argument and a legal argument are different things. Abortions should be dicriminalised. That way, you can't technically have one, but there are no consequences if you do. Now, as for a woman accusing a man for rape, yes, that's when the whole pro-life argument falls apart

Wrong. Saying that abortion is murder, as you just did, is a legal argument, not a moral one.

[Australian rePublic]

Life begins at birth, ha? So the act of pushing a baby of a vagina is what creates personhood? So what about cesarean?

That's just rude.

US law and much law around the world gives special protection for fetuses in late term. Including the thread subject new law in New Zealand.

I'm having a moral argument, not a legal argument. Once again, what the law should be is very different to what is and isn't moral. In my opinion, abortions shouldn't be a criminal offense, but it shouldn't be legal either. Some kind of decriminalisation legalisation would be best. Morally, abortion is wrong

[Ktismandrasi]

Yes, fine. Self-defense, war, etc. Are exempt. I want to kill my baby should not be

‘I do not want to be pregnant’ essentially makes it self-defense.

Could you elucidate this please?

[The New California Republic]

The right to life doesn't supersede all others. See self defense.

Yes, fine. Self-defense, war, etc. Are exempt. I want to kill my baby should not be

Foetus. Foetus.

And stopping something inhabiting one's body against one's will can fall under the purview of self defence.

[Australian rePublic]

Women shouldn't be thrown into prison for abortions. That's common sense. I was arguing from a moral standpoint, not a legal standpoint. A moral argument and a legal argument are different things. Abortions should be dicriminalised. That way, you can't technically have one, but there are no consequences if you do. Now, as for a woman accusing a man for rape, yes, that's when the whole pro-life argument falls apart

Wrong. Saying that abortion is murder, as you just did, is a legal argument, not a moral one.

Whatever, I'm not here to argue the defintion of the word "murder". Different story for a different for a different day. Irrelevant nitpick is irrelevant

[Alvecia]

The right to life doesn't supersede all others. See self defense.

Yes, fine. Self-defense, war, etc. Are exempt. I want to kill my baby should not be

I'm sure someone somewhere would disagree that war and self-defense should be exempt.