Abortion Law Reform Passes in New Zealand

[Crockerland]

:kiss:
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.

I consented to drinking and driving but not to crashing into anybody. Not my fault.

[Godular]

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)

That would be ‘tradition’.

Precedent is somewhat similar to tradition in that it relies on prior instances to guide it, but also applies a degree of logic to it. In this case, a person having the right to defend themselves from assault is treated as a rather universal point of agreement. There are some limitations, such as rules about necessary force and whatnot, but for the most part it is pretty cut and dry.

Denying a woman the capacity to rectify an unwanted pregnancy is logically inconsistent with this premise, and utilizes a foundation that has itself been previously contradicted.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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

And entirely unnecessary evils, like throwing women in jail for having abortions.

Sorry, but you can't just shrug off the consequences of your philosophy. If abortion is murder you can't just let murderers go free when other murderers serve time.

[Godular]

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."

Strawman summarily immolated.

[Australian rePublic]

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.

It goes without saying that there should be an exception for situations when a mother's life is at risk, or if a baby will grow up with a genetic disorder that will ruin their life. I didn't think I needed to state the obvious

[Australian rePublic]

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

And entirely unnecessary evils, like throwing women in jail for having abortions.

Sorry, but you can't just shrug off the consequences of your philosophy. If abortion is murder you can't just let murderers go free when other murderers serve time.

Once again, moral argument, not a legal argument. Perhaps I misused the word "murderer" fine, but it doesn't change my argument.

[Godular]

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?

Because it’s a dumb argument with no bearing to the actual issue.

Also, as NCR said: Baby Formula exists

[The New California Republic]

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?

If you forced her to breastfeed then yes. But that is not what you are arguing here. And because formula exists. Hence it is a strawman.

[Australian rePublic]

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."

Strawman summarily immolated.

Now argue the difference morally

[Godular]

Strawman summarily immolated.

Now argue the difference morally

No.

[The New California Republic]

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

It goes without saying that there should be an exception for situations when a mother's life is at risk, or if a baby will grow up with a genetic disorder that will ruin their life. I didn't think I needed to state the obvious

Given the exceptions you are making to your legal argument that abortion is murder, you absolutely do need to say it actually.

[Australian rePublic]

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?

If you forced her to breastfeed then yes. But that is not what you are arguing here. And because formula exists. Hence it is a strawman.

Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands

[The New California Republic]

And entirely unnecessary evils, like throwing women in jail for having abortions.

Sorry, but you can't just shrug off the consequences of your philosophy. If abortion is murder you can't just let murderers go free when other murderers serve time.

Once again, moral argument, not a legal argument. Perhaps I misused the word "murderer" fine, but it doesn't change my argument.

You said abortion is murder. That is a legal argument. "Abortion is wrong" is a moral argument. But that's not what you said. You said abortion is murder. Hence it is a legal argument you are making.

[Ktismandrasi]

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)

That would be ‘tradition’.

Precedent is somewhat similar to tradition in that it relies on prior instances to guide it, but also applies a degree of logic to it. In this case, a person having the right to defend themselves from assault is treated as a rather universal point of agreement. There are some limitations, such as rules about necessary force and whatnot, but for the most part it is pretty cut and dry.

Denying a woman the capacity to rectify an unwanted pregnancy is logically inconsistent with this premise, and utilizes a foundation that has itself been previously contradicted.

Perhaps I am reading too much into what you say, but 'self-defense' is protection of the self from any threat (significant, if you prefer, but my goal is not to nitpick whether or not childbirth is a 'significant' threat to life) of death? Consent here seems now to be the same issue, and the idea is that you have a right to consent to the threat of death or not?

[Australian rePublic]

It goes without saying that there should be an exception for situations when a mother's life is at risk, or if a baby will grow up with a genetic disorder that will ruin their life. I didn't think I needed to state the obvious

Given the exceptions you are making to your legal argument that abortion is murder, you absolutely do need to say it actually.

It's not a fucking legalargument, if you can't understand that despite me parroting myself multiple times, then you're too stupid to argue with, and I'm done with you

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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?

Well sister you don't have to let the baby suckle.

If it was "your" baby, from your loins, we others of the tribe would think poorly of you, we might bear a grudge against you, but there would be some other woman producing milk for your child. In the modern age it would be much easier, you or someone else would provide a substitute for your breast milk, and we would bear no grudge at all.

If you don't want to give up the titty, it's your choice sister. Now how about you and I stop pretending we are women?

[The New California Republic]

If you forced her to breastfeed then yes. But that is not what you are arguing here. And because formula exists. Hence it is a strawman.

Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands

So you argument only stands if we change the nature of reality or time travel or the law? Alright...

[Godular]

If you forced her to breastfeed then yes. But that is not what you are arguing here. And because formula exists. Hence it is a strawman.

Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands

It’s still a strawman. I shall now roast some baked beans over it.

Also: wet nurses exist

[The New California Republic]

Given the exceptions you are making to your legal argument that abortion is murder, you absolutely do need to say it actually.

It's not a fucking legalargument, if you can't understand that despite me parroting myself multiple times, then you're too stupid to argue with, and I'm done with you

Saying abortion is murder is a legal argument, as murder is a legal concept, not a moral one. If you want to say that abortion is wrong then that's fine, as that'd be a moral argument. But being adamant that you are not making a legal argument when you are using terms like murder is nonsensical.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Given the exceptions you are making to your legal argument that abortion is murder, you absolutely do need to say it actually.

It's not a fucking legalargument, if you can't understand that despite me parroting myself multiple times, then you're too stupid to argue with, and I'm done with you

Problem is you're putting arguments so strong they conflict with existing law. I don't mean logically strong, I mean prescriptive

If you want to avoid this, you have to use terms like "in my opinion" or "in my book" to explicitly divorce other terms like "murder" from their commonly understood forms.

Or you could just avoid terms like "murder" this being one of the most universally recognized crimes.

EDIT: New California Republic said it better.

[Australian rePublic]

Once again, moral argument, not a legal argument. Perhaps I misused the word "murderer" fine, but it doesn't change my argument.

You said abortion is murder. That is a legal argument. "Abortion is wrong" is a moral argument. But that's not what you said. You said abortion is murder. Hence it is a legal argument you are making.

Okay, I used the wrong fucking word. I admitted I used the wrong fucking word. Grow up and move on. If you don't wanna grow up and move on like everyone else who disagrees with me has. then you're too immature to argue with, and not worth my time. Either case, whether it's because you're stupid or because you're immature, then you're not worth arguing with

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands

It’s still a strawman. I shall now roast some baked beans over it.

Also: wet nurses exist

Wet nurses are awesome, this would be my career if I had the equipment. But they're not even necessary, many people were successfully reared on formula.

[The New California Republic]

You said abortion is murder. That is a legal argument. "Abortion is wrong" is a moral argument. But that's not what you said. You said abortion is murder. Hence it is a legal argument you are making.

Okay, I used the wrong fucking word. I admitted I used the wrong fucking word. Grow up and move on. If you don't wanna grow up and move on like everyone else who disagrees with me has. then you're too immature to argue with, and not worth my time. Either case, you're not worth arguing at this

Yes you have only just admitted it in this post, you were content to drag your heels for several posts before this admission. You dragged this out, not me.

[Australian rePublic]

Okay, there's no baby formula on the shelves. The baby was born in 1800, 61 years before the invention of baby formula. Baby formula is outlawed, Whatever the case maybe, my point still stands

It’s still a strawman. I shall now roast some baked beans over it.

Also: wet nurses exist

Okay, let's call your bluff. If, tomorrow, I built a machine which could keep a foetus alive for the entire gestation period indipendant of the mother. I gave away my technology and every pregnant woman has access to it globally for free. Would it then be wrong to kill the foetus. Also, regarding wet nurcing, fine, I'll coincide that one.

Okay, I used the wrong fucking word. I admitted I used the wrong fucking word. Grow up and move on. If you don't wanna grow up and move on like everyone else who disagrees with me has. then you're too immature to argue with, and not worth my time. Either case, you're not worth arguing at this

Yes you have only just admitted it in this post, you were content to drag your heels for several posts before this admission. You dragged this out, not me.

At this point, this just a dick measuring context

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You said abortion is murder. That is a legal argument. "Abortion is wrong" is a moral argument. But that's not what you said. You said abortion is murder. Hence it is a legal argument you are making.

Okay, I used the wrong fucking word. I admitted I used the wrong fucking word. Grow up and move on. If you don't wanna grow up and move on like everyone else who disagrees with me has. then you're too immature to argue with, and not worth my time. Either case, whether it's because you're stupid or because you're immature, then you're not worth arguing with

It's getting late in Australia and I'm sure you have something to do tomorrow.

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."