[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Suriyanakhon]

So you agree that women have the right to not be molested by undesirable elements, unlike inanimate objects?

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are beneath human beings, animals?

No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So you agree that women have the right to not be molested by undesirable elements, unlike inanimate objects?

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are beneath human beings, animals?

You could've stopped after the first word. Then you wouldn't have to embarrass yourself in public like this.

[Sundiata]

To be clear, I've only ever said that intentions matter as much as the outcome. Unfortunately, good means can also be used towards evil ends.

To be clear, you were willing to sacrifice every single person on the planet rather than kill one.

That's not "equal weight." That's a clear preference. And you are now walking it back because it doesn't suit your argument anymore.

My answer doesn't change. I wouldn't kill one person to save a billion people. And furthermore, I wouldn't kill a billion people to save one.

This isn't a question of who I prefer, in this general case the mother or child.

[Suriyanakhon]

To be clear, you were willing to sacrifice every single person on the planet rather than kill one.

That's not "equal weight." That's a clear preference. And you are now walking it back because it doesn't suit your argument anymore.

My answer doesn't change. I wouldn't kill one person to save a billion people. And furthermore, I wouldn't kill a billion people to save one.

This isn't a question of who I prefer, in this general case the mother or child.

Then it is really good you are not in a position of power.

[Sundiata]

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are beneath human beings, animals?

No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.

I fundamentally disagree. An animal has less dignity than a fetus, and for that matter all human beings.

[Godular]

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are beneath human beings, animals?

No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.

I dislike this line, as it gives certain pro-lifers ammunition for their argument that the pro-choice side dehumanizes the fetus. I prefer to maintain that even if the fetus considered equivalent to a born human person, it still would not have the right to use another person's body without their consent. Any violation of a person's bodily sovereignty and self-ownership is to me a most fundamental crime, regardless of whether malicious intent is involved on the part of the person enacting that violation.

[Godular]

No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.

I fundamentally disagree. An animal has less dignity than a fetus, and for that matter all human beings.

On what basis do you say this?

[Suriyanakhon]

No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.

I fundamentally disagree. An animal has less dignity than a fetus, and for that matter all human beings.

An animal experiences emotions and sensations, a fetus does not. In the grand scheme of things, a single pig or cow is worth infinite fetuses through virtue of actually possessing a mind.

No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.

I dislike this line, as it gives certain pro-lifers ammunition for their argument that the pro-choice side dehumanizes the fetus. I prefer to maintain that even if the fetus considered equivalent to a born human person, it still would not have the right to use another person's body without their consent. Any violation of a person's bodily sovereignty and self-ownership is to me a most fundamental crime, regardless of whether malicious intent is involved on the part of the person enacting that violation.

It's not the optics I would use for a political campaign, but it's how I (personally) feel about the issue.

[Godular]

I dislike this line, as it gives certain pro-lifers ammunition for their argument that the pro-choice side dehumanizes the fetus. I prefer to maintain that even if the fetus considered equivalent to a born human person, it still would not have the right to use another person's body without their consent. Any violation of a person's bodily sovereignty and self-ownership is to me a most fundamental crime, regardless of whether malicious intent is involved on the part of the person enacting that violation.

It's not the optics I would use for a political campaign, but it's how I (personally) feel about the issue.

Fair.

[Neanderthaland]

To be clear, you were willing to sacrifice every single person on the planet rather than kill one.

That's not "equal weight." That's a clear preference. And you are now walking it back because it doesn't suit your argument anymore.

My answer doesn't change. I wouldn't kill one person to save a billion people. And furthermore, I wouldn't kill a billion people to save one.

This isn't a question of who I prefer, in this general case the mother or child.

No in the case of ectopic pregnancy you made your position clear: You favored an abortion procedure that is worse than any current abortion procedure, and damaged the fertility of the mother.

Because the "intentions" were better. Even though the consequences were far worse.

Pretending now that you give intention and consequence equal weight is just a direct lie. It's a breach of the 9th commandment. You are lying. Or else you are a total hypocrite. Your choice.

[Sundiata]

My answer doesn't change. I wouldn't kill one person to save a billion people. And furthermore, I wouldn't kill a billion people to save one.

This isn't a question of who I prefer, in this general case the mother or child.

Then it is really good you are not in a position of power.

I am in a position of power.

[Godular]

Then it is really good you are not in a position of power.

I am in a position of power.

I'm guessing this is meant metaphorically.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Then it is really good you are not in a position of power.

I am in a position of power.

I am concerned is what I fucking am lmao.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Then it is really good you are not in a position of power.

I am in a position of power.

What? What position are you in? School Captain?

[San Lumen]

Then it is really good you are not in a position of power.

I am in a position of power.

what position what would that be?

[Page]

No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.

I fundamentally disagree. An animal has less dignity than a fetus, and for that matter all human beings.

It's not a matter of dignity, it's a matter of capacity to suffer. There is a reason why you can kill as many flies as you want and no one will ever try to throw you in jail, but if you become a serial killer of dogs you'll get charged with animal cruelty. Because dogs have much more developed brains than flies. A fetus cannot suffer at all until the third trimester.

[Michel Meilleur]

To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

"Abortion is murder." Drink of choice y'all.

"Euthanasia is murder." Drink of choice y'all.

I mean to be fair, it actually wasn't murder when its most ardent supporters were in power in Europe because they made it legal and hence it was "just" homicide, but well. Kinda like the situation we have with abortion right now, come to think of it.

[Godular]

"Abortion is murder." Drink of choice y'all.

"Euthanasia is murder." Drink of choice y'all.

I mean to be fair, it actually wasn't murder when its most ardent supporters were in power in Europe because they made it legal and hence it was "just" homicide, but well. Kinda like the situation we have with abortion right now, come to think of it.

I'm having difficulty identifying what your point is here. Are you equating abortion to euthanasia? I mean, in regards to minimizing suffering I'm perfectly in favor of it so long as it's done in a controlled and painless manner.

[Katganistan]

It is, it's de facto giving the fetus the right to use the body of another against their will. That's a right that no other person has.


Given the pro-life crowd very frequently want the fetus to be considered a person, the question of it being a legal entity in this context is very pertinent, hence why we need to speak in terms like this.

'

It really isn't, the fetus has no capacity to act in any sense much less legal, so it cannot use anything or have any rights. Laws banning abortion don't create new rights for fetuses they limit the rights of the mother. Have you then conceded already that a fetus is capable of having rights?

Then what do you call the rights taken from a woman in the presence of a fetus? The fetus NOT having rights?

has the pro-life crowd considered the possibility of reducing the overall prevalence of abortion by mandating vasectomies for men? modern vasectomy surgery (and vasectomy reversal surgery) is a generally safe procedure with low chance of complications that almost entirely removes the possibility of a man causing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.

Number one, vasectomies are still difficult to reverse and surgery like that probably shouldn't be viewed as a normal birth control method.

Number two (for anyone who unfortunately focuses first on women's rights and views men's rights as subordinate to them), it sets a terrible precedent for bodily autonomy and would only encourage advocation of similar control being forced on female bodies like aforementioned abortion restrictions, unless a double standard is held between male and female bodily autonomy (which in itself is bad for what I hope is obvious reasons).

Number three (building on number two) it would be a heavy blow against efforts to get rid of infant circumcision, and that cannot be allowed. Male bodily autonomy has already trampled upon enough by normalizing baby cutting, making that worse in a self-defeating gotcha is not a good idea.

Terrible idea all around.

Except the double standard about controlling women's bodies already exists, and apparently, no one is interested in eliminating it in the least invasive way, which is to stop forcing women to have kids they don't want.

Which is plenty draconian.

So why can't we force men not to impregnate women willy-nilly?

I think you missed the historical reference.

I’m sorry. I just woke up lol. Can you explain to me what this historical reference is?

95 theses was what Martin Luther nailed to the door. It's a Lutheranism/Protestant reference.

In those cases my answer remains unchanged; a zygote is still an innocent human being and to intend and execute its death is immoral whatever the consequence.

Even in cases where there is no way the zygote will ever develop into a baby? Ectopic pregnancies routinely end with the zygote/fetus dead or aborted because there's no way they'll become viable and having them continue to "develop" greatly endangers the mother for no benefit to her or the zygote.

Just give her a hysterectomy since that removes the zygote without directly killing it. Too bad if she wants kids in the future.

Nope, not my view. The one espoused by Sundiata earlier.

[Neutraligon]

Why are you pro-life?

Because I believe that life begins at conception.

And this matters...why?

[Katganistan]

Then it is free to go live the remainder of its natural life elsewhere, outside the woman's uterus, once it is removed.

To remove it is actively choosing to kill it.

Unintended consequence of wish to be birth free.

No it isn't. It's simply ejecting it from the property. What it does after that is nobody's business but its own.

Women's bodies, human bodies, are not property.

Well, anti-freedom of choice people certainly act as if they are, and they have a say as to what happens within them.

So you agree that women have the right to not be molested by undesirable elements, unlike inanimate objects?

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are beneath human beings, animals?

A clump of cells does not have superior rights to the person they reside within. If they are unwanted, they need to be removed.

Yes. Do you agree that the unborn have the right not to be massacred en masse as if they are not human beings?

You are doing that thing again where you mimic the writing style of the person you are responding to.

It looks a great deal like mocking.

Yes they are. They are the most fundamental property that a person can possess.

The sense that human bodies are "property," is a figure of speech, a quirk of language. The human body is not really any person's property.

They belong to themselves.

That WAS the whole point of abolishing slavery -- that you cannot own another person, and that the person belongs to himself. That is what the right to self-determination is all about.

It isn't a quirk of language at all: that thing you are ignoring, "bodily sovereignty", implies ownership over one's own body as a form of possession, of property.

Any sense of ownership that one has over the human body is illusory, the human body cannot be owned by one human being or the other. It's not a possession; it's not property.

Since you don't own it, I'd like your heart please.

[Elwher]

If a hospital does that to a patient who can't pay, they are in a mess of legal trouble.

Are you just spitballing?

A woman who does not consent to a pregnancy is not the same as a fucking hospital refusing service. The hospital contains staff who have undergone significant amounts of training, licensing, and a wide variety of professional qualifications that specifically focus on aiding others in need. To equate such a thing with a single untrained and unwilling individual is not even remotely reasonable nor realistic.

No. The woman is more akin to some person that for 'reasons' is being tasked with giving of their own body in order to sustain the existence of another individual. If they do not consent to this, forcing them to do it anyway is one of the most fundamental violations of self-determination possible. Some people might take issue if they refuse to provide this assistance, saying that they should feel honored to assist in saving the life of another. But the person's reasons for the refusal are for that person and that person alone, and it is wrong to judge their refusal when one does not know the facts.

Actually, I was reacting to the idea that a woman's body is being considered property, either hers or anyone's. If it is nothing but a property dispute, then the analogy is reasonable. I think it is much more than that.

[Godular]

Are you just spitballing?

A woman who does not consent to a pregnancy is not the same as a fucking hospital refusing service. The hospital contains staff who have undergone significant amounts of training, licensing, and a wide variety of professional qualifications that specifically focus on aiding others in need. To equate such a thing with a single untrained and unwilling individual is not even remotely reasonable nor realistic.

No. The woman is more akin to some person that for 'reasons' is being tasked with giving of their own body in order to sustain the existence of another individual. If they do not consent to this, forcing them to do it anyway is one of the most fundamental violations of self-determination possible. Some people might take issue if they refuse to provide this assistance, saying that they should feel honored to assist in saving the life of another. But the person's reasons for the refusal are for that person and that person alone, and it is wrong to judge their refusal when one does not know the facts.

Actually, I was reacting to the idea that a woman's body is being considered property, either hers or anyone's. If it is nothing but a property dispute, then the analogy is reasonable. I think it is much more than that.

It is that simple, and it is not that simple. Different people feel differently about their belongings and their property than others. Some people believe them to be just 'things', and others feel that their belongings are a representation of their hard work. Both are right, in their own way. Some people would fight to the death to defend their property, others would prefer to let the cops handle it, and others still would just say 'I got homeowners' insurance so it ain't no thang' and go through whatever procedures enable them to just move on.

The point is that different people will feel differently about it, but nobody should be shamed because they feel one way or the other.

That's the point of choice, isn't it?

If the woman gets pregnant due to rape and decides to carry it to term, that's her choice. Some may disagree with her reasons, but it is not the business of others to judge.

If the woman gets pregnant due to failed or misused contraception and wishes to terminate the pregnancy, that's her choice. Some may disagree with her reasons, but it is not the business of others to judge.

Neither should be shamed or pressured into actions they do not wish to take.

If a pro-life person wishes to reduce the number of abortions because they have some moral problem with it, they need to understand that not everybody feels the same way, and that while it might be a regrettable thing it remains a necessary thing, and look for a solution that can satisfy both sides without disrupting the rights of anyone.

It is possible. We've only offered such options every four or five pages.

[New haven america]

No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.

I fundamentally disagree. An animal has less dignity than a fetus, and for that matter all human beings.

Animals have feelings and emotions.

Fetuses do not.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

Number one, vasectomies are still difficult to reverse and surgery like that probably shouldn't be viewed as a normal birth control method.

Number two (for anyone who unfortunately focuses first on women's rights and views men's rights as subordinate to them), it sets a terrible precedent for bodily autonomy and would only encourage advocation of similar control being forced on female bodies like aforementioned abortion restrictions, unless a double standard is held between male and female bodily autonomy (which in itself is bad for what I hope is obvious reasons).

Number three (building on number two) it would be a heavy blow against efforts to get rid of infant circumcision, and that cannot be allowed. Male bodily autonomy has already trampled upon enough by normalizing baby cutting, making that worse in a self-defeating gotcha is not a good idea.

Terrible idea all around.

Except the double standard about controlling women's bodies already exists, and apparently, no one is interested in eliminating it in the least invasive way, which is to stop forcing women to have kids they don't want.

Which is plenty draconian.

So why can't we force men not to impregnate women willy-nilly?

...

It's just a 'gotcha' that will backfire in terms of trying to protect the bodily autonomy of everyone and forces the creation of a gender war in this when it barely exists.

Better to try and maintain the status quo (federal legal abortion) while moving forwards on stopping violations like infant circumcision and attempts to restrict abortion instead of moving backwards by pulling a new violation out of thin air and inflaming the conflict even more.