Abortion Law Reform Passes in New Zealand

[The New California Republic]

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

You said abortion is murder. That is a legal argument, not a moral one, so don't say you are not using legal arguments, because you clearly are.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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.



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?



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

Uh, what?

It is customary on General to argue moral positions as though they should be made law.

But as long as you're putting your moral beliefs in a special, personal, way which don't really connect with law or society at large then I guess I can accept them that way. Just your opinion, something from the dinner table to amuse us all.

[Ktismandrasi]

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.

Perhaps you could elucidate the bold part for me please?

[Australian rePublic]

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.

No it doesn't. Not any more than "I don't wanna be homeless" justifies robbing a bank. You had sex, you got pregnant, deal with it. And that goes for the man too. You had sex, you have to pay child support, deal with it. Don't like it, keep your legs or be more careful. If tbe man's raped, he shouldn't have to pat child support, but if he willingly had sex, that's a gamble he took

[Godular]

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

Could you elucidate this please?

If the woman does not wish to have her body used without her consent, then it matters not one bit whether we treat the fetus as a person or not. It has no right to use the woman’s body against her will. She is fully justified in using potentially deadly force against a born person trying to do a very similar thing, thus there is no rationale to deny her this right because of fluffy kitten emotional appeals.

[The New California Republic]

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

It isn't irrelevant to say you are plainly wrong when you claim you are not arguing from a legal perspective, when you are on record in the past couple of pages as saying that abortion is murder.

Either admit you are arguing from a legal perspective, or retract your claim that abortion is murder; you can't have it both ways.

[Ktismandrasi]

Could you elucidate this please?

If the woman does not wish to have her body used without her consent, then it matters not one bit whether we treat the fetus as a person or not. It has no right to use the woman’s body against her will. She is fully justified in using potentially deadly force against a born person trying to do a very similar thing, thus there is no rationale to deny her this right because of fluffy kitten emotional appeals.

Fluffy emotional appeals do get in the way. It does seem that if what you call right does in fact exist, and self-defense is indeed a right, then your logic is excellent and superior. May I inquire why you are convinced such a thing as a right exists?

[Godular]

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

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

All the rest of your comment is irrelevant. While child support is a major double standard, that means only that it is a problem to be rectified. It should not be used as a reason to make the lives of others worse.

[Australian rePublic]

Could you elucidate this please?

If the woman does not wish to have her body used without her consent, then it matters not one bit whether we treat the fetus as a person or not. It has no right to use the woman’s body against her will. She is fully justified in using potentially deadly force against a born person trying to do a very similar thing, thus there is no rationale to deny her this right because of fluffy kitten emotional appeals.

So does that mean that a woman has no obligation to breast feed her baby? What if she doesn't want to use her body to feed the baby?

[Myrensis]

That was not at all clear from what you posted. However, the "clarification" itself is still a fucking mess.

Abortion after rape= acceptable
Abortion when not rape= murder

So murdering a baby because you don't want it is wrong, but murdering a baby because it's father did something bad is acceptable? Interesting philosophy.

[Australian rePublic]

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

It isn't irrelevant to say you are plainly wrong when you claim you are not arguing from a legal perspective, when you are on record in the past couple of pages as saying that abortion is murder.

Either admit you are arguing from a legal perspective, or retract your claim that abortion is murder; you can't have it both ways.

Define murder then

[The New California Republic]

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

No it doesn't. Not any more than "I don't wanna be homeless" justifies robbing a bank. You had sex, you got pregnant, deal with it. And that goes for the man too. You had sex, you have to pay child support, deal with it.

Having an abortion is dealing with it.

Don't like it, keep your legs or be more careful.

Protection can and does fail.

[Godular]

If the woman does not wish to have her body used without her consent, then it matters not one bit whether we treat the fetus as a person or not. It has no right to use the woman’s body against her will. She is fully justified in using potentially deadly force against a born person trying to do a very similar thing, thus there is no rationale to deny her this right because of fluffy kitten emotional appeals.

Fluffy emotional appeals do get in the way. It does seem that if what you call right does in fact exist, and self-defense is indeed a right, then your logic is excellent and superior. May I inquire why you are convinced such a thing as a right exists?

Precedent, primarily.

But look at it from the other direction: If rights don’t exist... well that purported right to life argument would be pretty silly too, don’t ya think?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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

Could you elucidate this please?

I see you are new. You'll get better response questioning the long posts, these are people who want to say more.

The shorter the post the more intent the poster is on their target. Or perhaps the less interested in giving of their wisdom. Or both.

[The New California Republic]

If the woman does not wish to have her body used without her consent, then it matters not one bit whether we treat the fetus as a person or not. It has no right to use the woman’s body against her will. She is fully justified in using potentially deadly force against a born person trying to do a very similar thing, thus there is no rationale to deny her this right because of fluffy kitten emotional appeals.

So does that mean that a woman has no obligation to breast feed her baby? What if she doesn't want to use her body to feed the baby?

Then she can use formula. Formula exists.

[Godular]

If the woman does not wish to have her body used without her consent, then it matters not one bit whether we treat the fetus as a person or not. It has no right to use the woman’s body against her will. She is fully justified in using potentially deadly force against a born person trying to do a very similar thing, thus there is no rationale to deny her this right because of fluffy kitten emotional appeals.

So does that mean that a woman has no obligation to breast feed her baby? What if she doesn't want to use her body to feed the baby?

I set fire to that strawman and use it to make s’mores.

[The New California Republic]

It isn't irrelevant to say you are plainly wrong when you claim you are not arguing from a legal perspective, when you are on record in the past couple of pages as saying that abortion is murder.

Either admit you are arguing from a legal perspective, or retract your claim that abortion is murder; you can't have it both ways.

Define murder then

It's a legal argument. Defining it is neither here nor there in terms of you using a legal argument.

[Agarntrop]

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.

True

[Godular]

Could you elucidate this please?

I see you are new. You'll get better response questioning the long posts, these are people who want to say more.

The shorter the post the more intent the poster is on their target. Or perhaps the less interested in giving of their wisdom. Or both.

My posts are just short atm because I’m using my phone.

[Ktismandrasi]

Fluffy emotional appeals do get in the way. It does seem that if what you call right does in fact exist, and self-defense is indeed a right, then your logic is excellent and superior. May I inquire why you are convinced such a thing as a right exists?

Precedent, primarily.

But look at it from the other direction: If rights don’t exist... well that purported right to life argument would be pretty silly too, don’t ya think?

Yes, I suppose this whole thing seems a bit silly. Precedent seems like a remarkably useful thing, but it also seems somewhat groundless and arbitrary, I imagine even contradictory as well? But I suppose we're lucky since we have precedent, and a lot of it, unlike those long before us. (I am taking precedent to simply mean things have been done before a certain way for a while, but this may be too simplistic, so correct me if I err)

[Australian rePublic]

Abortion after rape= acceptable
Abortion when not rape= murder

So murdering a baby because you don't want it is wrong, but murdering a baby because it's father did something bad is acceptable? Interesting philosophy.

No, it's acceptable. Nothing about rape is acceptable. A rape victim has enough problems without having to worry about unwanted pregnancies. The poor woman didn't choose to have sex, and doesn't need to have her life ruined because of it. Killing the baby is still wrong, but less wrong than forcing the woman to live with it. It's a necassery evil. It's still an evil, but a necassery. A more extreme example would be killing conscripts when fighting a war against an oppressor. Is it evil to kill the conscripts, of coarse, but a neccasery evil. I'm not comparing war to abortion, I am using it to illustrate that unfortunately we live in a world of neccasery evils

[The New California Republic]

So murdering a baby because you don't want it is wrong, but murdering a baby because it's father did something bad is acceptable? Interesting philosophy.

No, it's acceptable. Nothing about rape is acceptable. A rape victim has enough problems without having to worry about unwanted pregnancies. The poor woman didn't choose to have sex, and doesn't need to have her life ruined because of it. Killing the baby is still wrong, but less wrong than forcing the woman to live with it. It's a necassery evil. It's still an evil, but a necassery. A more extreme example would be killing conscripts when fighting a war against an oppressor. Is it evil to kill the conscripts, of coarse, but a neccasery evil. I'm not comparing war to abortion, I am using it to illustrate that unfortunately we live in a world of neccasery evils

I also note that you don't give exceptions if the pregnancy poses a credible risk to the woman's life.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I see you are new. You'll get better response questioning the long posts, these are people who want to say more.

The shorter the post the more intent the poster is on their target. Or perhaps the less interested in giving of their wisdom. Or both.

My posts are just short atm because I’m using my phone.

Godular, dear god, what were you thinking when you made a nation Ktismandrasi?

Euphonic, memorable, clever, profound. These are the qualities of a good forum name.

[Australian rePublic]

So does that mean that a woman has no obligation to breast feed her baby? What if she doesn't want to use her body to feed the baby?

I set fire to that strawman and use it to make s’mores.

Why? I'm a woman and I do not concent a baby sucking milk from my breast. This is a violation of bodily autonomy. How is that different to what you're arguing?

[Crockerland]

Yes it is. Killing an innocent person is murder. Personhood starts when the sperm meets the egg and the zygot starts to form as an independent entity

Except it isn’t. Even if the fetus had the rights a born person would, it still would not have the right to use the woman’s body without her consent. Innocence is an emotional appeal that has no relevance to the matter.

Judge: "Ma'am, is it true you starved your newborn son to death?"
Woman: "Your honor, that's true, but it was just a clump of cells. And even if it was a person, it didn't have a right to use my body. I didn't consent to breast feeding so that makes it okay."