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

[Godular]

A fetus therefore has more rights than any person. Why should a rape victim have to carry a fetus to term they do not want?

their fault they got pregnant they knew there were risks by having sex it's kinda like the social contract you give up certain rights and the government will protect you by you having sex and knowing there is a risk which there always is your giving up that right I do belive their is an exception with rape. But the earlier you abort a fetus from rape the better

First, consent can be revoked. The issue with 'social contracts' is that people have to actually agree to it, which is not inherently the case.

If I walk into a bar, there's a chance I might get caught in a bar brawl. That does not mean that I consented to it.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

My understanding is that abortion rests on 2 pillars.
Is the fetus alive or not ?
And should the government take some of your liberty to save a life ? (Dependent on the first question being yes, otherwise it’s contraception).

https://www.healthline.com/health/when- ... op-a-brain

There is evidence that around 5 - 7 weeks brain activity begins, and that around 16 - 21 weeks the brain controls bodily functions and has delta waves. Which can be described as the lowest level of consciousness, sleep.
Thus, in a completely objective manner, you can conclude that the fetus might be alive around 16 - 20 weeks. (I emphasize, might)

But of course, that takes us to our second question.
If we assume the fetus is alive. Then, should the state take some of your liberty, or otherwise burden you, to save a life ? (And if so, to what extent?).

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

My understanding is that abortion rests on 2 pillars.
Is the fetus alive or not ?
And should the government take some of your liberty to save a life ? (Dependent on the first question being yes, otherwise it’s contraception).

https://www.healthline.com/health/when- ... op-a-brain

There is evidence that around 5 - 7 weeks brain activity begins, and that around 16 - 21 weeks the brain controls bodily functions and has delta waves. Which can be described as the lowest level of consciousness, sleep.
Thus, in a completely objective manner, you can conclude that the fetus might be alive around 16 - 20 weeks. (I emphasize, might)

But of course, that takes us to our second question.
If we assume the fetus is alive. Then, should the state take some of your liberty, or otherwise burden you, to save a life ? (And if so, to what extent?).

I’ve only got one pillar: A born person can’t use another person’s body without their consent, giving the unborn such a right is hypocritical.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

My understanding is that abortion rests on 2 pillars.
Is the fetus alive or not ?
And should the government take some of your liberty to save a life ? (Dependent on the first question being yes, otherwise it’s contraception).

https://www.healthline.com/health/when- ... op-a-brain

There is evidence that around 5 - 7 weeks brain activity begins, and that around 16 - 21 weeks the brain controls bodily functions and has delta waves. Which can be described as the lowest level of consciousness, sleep.
Thus, in a completely objective manner, you can conclude that the fetus might be alive around 16 - 20 weeks. (I emphasize, might)

But of course, that takes us to our second question.
If we assume the fetus is alive. Then, should the state take some of your liberty, or otherwise burden you, to save a life ? (And if so, to what extent?).

I’ve only got one pillar: A born person can’t use another person’s body without their consent, giving the unborn such a right is hypocritical.

Well let me ask you then.
Imagine someone is dying, and only you can stop it.
To save them, you must pay the government 1$, would you do it ?
How about 10, or 100. How far until you would stop.

Or, in a way not directly tied to money,
Say you must endure a small annoyance, to save a life, only you can do it.
Say for 3 days at midnight some one will knock on your door.

These may not be the best analogies, but basically, I’m trying to ask to what degree you’ll you be willing to sacrifice liberty, or accept some burden to save a life. (In general, not only abortion)

[The New California Republic]

Well let me ask you then.
Imagine someone is dying, and only you can stop it.
To save them, you must pay the government 1$, would you do it ?
How about 10, or 100. How far until you would stop.

That comparison really doesn't hold. For one, what we are talking about here is actually someone being coerced or forced into giving up their bodily sovereignty. What you are talking about is a voluntary financial transaction.

Or, in a way not directly tied to money,
Say you must endure a small annoyance, to save a life, only you can do it.

Enforced pregnancy and birthing is not a "small annoyance", so again your comparison does not hold.

Say for 3 days at midnight some one will knock on your door.

I'd get a lawyer to serve them with a cease and desist if that was happening.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I’ve only got one pillar: A born person can’t use another person’s body without their consent, giving the unborn such a right is hypocritical.

Well let me ask you then.
Imagine someone is dying, and only you can stop it.
To save them, you must pay the government 1$, would you do it ?
How about 10, or 100. How far until you would stop.

Or, in a way not directly tied to money,
Say you must endure a small annoyance, to save a life, only you can do it.
Say for 3 days at midnight some one will knock on your door.

These may not be the best analogies, but basically, I’m trying to ask to what degree you’ll you be willing to sacrifice liberty, or accept some burden to save a life. (In general, not only abortion)

Both of those comparisons are enormously unrealistic.

And the answer is: The fact that you’re asking ME to what degree I’d accept any such burden fundamentally misses the point. What *I* think matters less than the fact that I can’t speak for everyone. Just because one person might think an imposition is ‘reasonable’ does not mean everyone will agree, SPECIFICALLY because they are neither you nor I.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Well let me ask you then.
Imagine someone is dying, and only you can stop it.
To save them, you must pay the government 1$, would you do it ?
How about 10, or 100. How far until you would stop.

That comparison really doesn't hold. For one, what we are talking about here is actually someone being coerced or forced into giving up their bodily sovereignty. What you are talking about is a voluntary financial transaction.

Or, in a way not directly tied to money,
Say you must endure a small annoyance, to save a life, only you can do it.

Enforced pregnancy and birthing is not a "small annoyance", so again your comparison does not hold.

Say for 3 days at midnight some one will knock on your door.

I'd get a lawyer to serve them with a cease and desist if that was happening.

I’m not comparing pregnancy to a small annoyance.
Its a major physical burden for 9 months, and children are expensive to take care of.
I was offering incremental burden scenarios and asking when it might be considered too much, to determine if they believe that there is a threshold of liberty that is acceptable to have taken from you to save a life.

When you talk about bodily sovereignty, to loose that would be to loose some amount of liberty.
I am asking, should the state be able to take some amount of liberty to save a life, and if so, how much liberty. (Not like you can really quantify liberty but that’s the best way I can think of it)
(And as far as abortion goes, this assumes that at some point in pregnancy the fetus is alive, for the sake of the argument).

Well let me ask you then.
Imagine someone is dying, and only you can stop it.
To save them, you must pay the government 1$, would you do it ?
How about 10, or 100. How far until you would stop.

Or, in a way not directly tied to money,
Say you must endure a small annoyance, to save a life, only you can do it.
Say for 3 days at midnight some one will knock on your door.

These may not be the best analogies, but basically, I’m trying to ask to what degree you’ll you be willing to sacrifice liberty, or accept some burden to save a life. (In general, not only abortion)

Both of those comparisons are enormously unrealistic.

And the answer is: The fact that you’re asking ME to what degree I’d accept any such burden fundamentally misses the point. What *I* think matters less than the fact that I can’t speak for everyone. Just because one person might think an imposition is ‘reasonable’ does not mean everyone will agree, SPECIFICALLY because they are neither you nor I.

I see your point, but I asked you individually because it was a response. It’s not like I’m saying we should base Something off of the opinions of one person.
You said that the state cannot violate bodily sovereignty, to which I replied, maybe think about it in terms of liberty.
And because liberty is a range, while bodily sovereignty seems more like an absolute, I then asked you to, in the conversion to looking at things through the lens of liberty, establish where along in that range bodily sovereignty might be.

[The New California Republic]

That comparison really doesn't hold. For one, what we are talking about here is actually someone being coerced or forced into giving up their bodily sovereignty. What you are talking about is a voluntary financial transaction.


Enforced pregnancy and birthing is not a "small annoyance", so again your comparison does not hold.


I'd get a lawyer to serve them with a cease and desist if that was happening.

I’m not comparing pregnancy to a small annoyance.
Its a major physical burden for 9 months, and children are expensive to take care of.
I was offering incremental burden scenarios and asking when it might be considered too much, to determine if they believe that there is a threshold of liberty that is acceptable to have taken from you to save a life.

So if the comparison has no real relation to what is being discussed since the degree of burden being imposed isn't even remotely equivalent whatsoever, then using it is pretty much useless, isn't it? In terms of a discussion point it's thus a dead end that goes nowhere, so continuing to pursue it is pointless.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

I’m not comparing pregnancy to a small annoyance.
Its a major physical burden for 9 months, and children are expensive to take care of.
I was offering incremental burden scenarios and asking when it might be considered too much, to determine if they believe that there is a threshold of liberty that is acceptable to have taken from you to save a life.

So if the comparison has no real relation to what is being discussed since the degree of burden being imposed isn't even remotely equivalent whatsoever, then using it is pretty much useless, isn't it? In terms of a discussion point it's thus a dead end that goes nowhere, so continuing to pursue it is pointless.

Can you explain what you mean by this, I don’t understand ?

[The New California Republic]

So if the comparison has no real relation to what is being discussed since the degree of burden being imposed isn't even remotely equivalent whatsoever, then using it is pretty much useless, isn't it? In terms of a discussion point it's thus a dead end that goes nowhere, so continuing to pursue it is pointless.

Can you explain what you mean by this, I don’t understand ?

I thought what I just said was simple enough, but alright: if the discussion you are having cannot be related to abortion because the difference of degree is extremely wide, then what is the point of even discussing it? It's a dead end in terms of a discussion on abortion.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

That comparison really doesn't hold. For one, what we are talking about here is actually someone being coerced or forced into giving up their bodily sovereignty. What you are talking about is a voluntary financial transaction.


Enforced pregnancy and birthing is not a "small annoyance", so again your comparison does not hold.


I'd get a lawyer to serve them with a cease and desist if that was happening.

I’m not comparing pregnancy to a small annoyance.
Its a major physical burden for 9 months, and children are expensive to take care of.
I was offering incremental burden scenarios and asking when it might be considered too much, to determine if they believe that there is a threshold of liberty that is acceptable to have taken from you to save a life.

When you talk about bodily sovereignty, to loose that would be to loose some amount of liberty.
I am asking, should the state be able to take some amount of liberty to save a life, and if so, how much liberty. (Not like you can really quantify liberty but that’s the best way I can think of it)
(And as far as abortion goes, this assumes that at some point in pregnancy the fetus is alive, for the sake of the argument).

Both of those comparisons are enormously unrealistic.

And the answer is: The fact that you’re asking ME to what degree I’d accept any such burden fundamentally misses the point. What *I* think matters less than the fact that I can’t speak for everyone. Just because one person might think an imposition is ‘reasonable’ does not mean everyone will agree, SPECIFICALLY because they are neither you nor I.

I see your point, but I asked you individually because it was a response. It’s not like I’m saying we should base Something off of the opinions of one person.
You said that the state cannot violate bodily sovereignty, to which I replied, maybe think about it in terms of liberty.
And because liberty is a range, while bodily sovereignty seems more like an absolute, I then asked you to, in the conversion to looking at things through the lens of liberty, establish where along in that range bodily sovereignty might be.

You still don’t get it. By the fact that you’re asking what is tolerable, you defeat the purpose of your argument… because you’re letting me CHOOSE. You’re giving me the option. N
o liberty is being taken.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Can you explain what you mean by this, I don’t understand ?

I thought what I just said was simple enough, but alright: if the discussion you are having cannot be related to abortion because the difference of degree is extremely wide, then what is the point of even discussing it? It's a dead end in terms of a discussion on abortion.

Ahh I see.
You quoted one, albeit bad, example, where I talked about someone knocking on your door.
But if you look at the rest of the post, you will see that I had given different examples of a wider range of scale. And that the whole point was asking, what is the degree where you would give up liberty to save a life, not comparing to some set degree.

It was a question, not a comparison.

[The New California Republic]

I thought what I just said was simple enough, but alright: if the discussion you are having cannot be related to abortion because the difference of degree is extremely wide, then what is the point of even discussing it? It's a dead end in terms of a discussion on abortion.

Ahh I see.
You quoted one, albeit bad, example, where I talked about someone knocking on your door.
But if you look at the rest of the post, you will see that I had given different examples of a wider range of scale. And that the whole point was asking, what is the degree where you would give up liberty to save a life, not comparing to some set degree.

It was a question, not a comparison.

No, I'm talking about your entire argument. It cannot be compared to abortion as the difference of degree that you have been arguing so far across the length and breadth of your argument as a whole is so ridiculously wide that it cannot be compared to abortion.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

I’m not comparing pregnancy to a small annoyance.
Its a major physical burden for 9 months, and children are expensive to take care of.
I was offering incremental burden scenarios and asking when it might be considered too much, to determine if they believe that there is a threshold of liberty that is acceptable to have taken from you to save a life.

When you talk about bodily sovereignty, to loose that would be to loose some amount of liberty.
I am asking, should the state be able to take some amount of liberty to save a life, and if so, how much liberty. (Not like you can really quantify liberty but that’s the best way I can think of it)
(And as far as abortion goes, this assumes that at some point in pregnancy the fetus is alive, for the sake of the argument).



I see your point, but I asked you individually because it was a response. It’s not like I’m saying we should base Something off of the opinions of one person.
You said that the state cannot violate bodily sovereignty, to which I replied, maybe think about it in terms of liberty.
And because liberty is a range, while bodily sovereignty seems more like an absolute, I then asked you to, in the conversion to looking at things through the lens of liberty, establish where along in that range bodily sovereignty might be.

You still don’t get it. By the fact that you’re asking what is tolerable, you defeat the purpose of your argument… because you’re letting me CHOOSE. You’re giving me the option. N
o liberty is being taken.

I asked an open ended question about the topic.
You mean to tell me that I should not seek others opinions ?
Nobody is choosing anything…

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Ahh I see.
You quoted one, albeit bad, example, where I talked about someone knocking on your door.
But if you look at the rest of the post, you will see that I had given different examples of a wider range of scale. And that the whole point was asking, what is the degree where you would give up liberty to save a life, not comparing to some set degree.

It was a question, not a comparison.

No, I'm talking about your entire argument. It cannot be compared to abortion as the difference of degree that you have been arguing so far across the length and breadth of your argument as a whole is so ridiculously wide that it cannot be compared to abortion.

Ok, how about this.
How far up do you believe bodily autonomy is in liberty.
Do you believe that letting some stranger crash at your house for 9 months, putting prune juice in your food, and causing you stress, would be worth it if you could save a life through that act ?

[The New California Republic]

You still don’t get it. By the fact that you’re asking what is tolerable, you defeat the purpose of your argument… because you’re letting me CHOOSE. You’re giving me the option. N
o liberty is being taken.

I asked an open ended question about the topic.

No, wrong. As I said, the gulf between your arguments and the topic of abortion is so wide that it's arguably not on topic at all...

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

I asked an open ended question about the topic.

No, wrong. As I said, the gulf between your arguments and the topic of abortion is so wide that it's arguably not on topic at all...

Losing bodily autonomy is losing liberty.
I am asking would you be willing to sacrifice “that much” liberty to save a life.
(We assume that the fetus is alive, for the sake of the argument)

[The New California Republic]

No, I'm talking about your entire argument. It cannot be compared to abortion as the difference of degree that you have been arguing so far across the length and breadth of your argument as a whole is so ridiculously wide that it cannot be compared to abortion.

Ok, how about this.
How far up do you believe bodily autonomy is in liberty.
Do you believe that letting some stranger crash at your house for 9 months, putting prune juice in your food, and causing you stress, would be worth it if you could save a life through that act ?

Still not comparable to enforced pregnancy and birthing. And if a woman chooses to continue the pregnancy (focus on the wording you just used, "letting" the person stay in the house, i.e. a choice, like the woman choosing to continue the pregnancy), then it's another reason it's still not comparable to abortion.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Ok, how about this.
How far up do you believe bodily autonomy is in liberty.
Do you believe that letting some stranger crash at your house for 9 months, putting prune juice in your food, and causing you stress, would be worth it if you could save a life through that act ?

Still not comparable to enforced pregnancy and birthing. And if a woman chooses to continue the pregnancy (focus on the wording you just used, "letting" the person stay in the house, i.e. a choice, like the woman choosing to continue the pregnancy), then it's another reason it's still not comparable to abortion.

You mean to say that losing bodily autonomy is not comparable to loosing liberty ?
That it can’t be thought of in terms of liberty ?

The example above was basically the “side effects” of being pregnant without being pregnant, and then asking would you endure it to save a life. If I missed any side affects, (I’m sure I did), please correct me, but the point is more important than the semantics I believe.

[The New California Republic]

Still not comparable to enforced pregnancy and birthing. And if a woman chooses to continue the pregnancy (focus on the wording you just used, "letting" the person stay in the house, i.e. a choice, like the woman choosing to continue the pregnancy), then it's another reason it's still not comparable to abortion.

You mean to say that losing bodily autonomy is not comparable to loosing liberty ?
That it can’t be thought of in terms of liberty ?

No that's not what I am saying at all. Tbh this discussion with you is proving to be a real struggle, for two reasons: you aren't understanding the counterarguments that are being brought forward, and you are fundamentally not understanding the gulf of degree as well as specifics between what you are arguing and abortion itself.

[The Free Joy State]

No, I'm talking about your entire argument. It cannot be compared to abortion as the difference of degree that you have been arguing so far across the length and breadth of your argument as a whole is so ridiculously wide that it cannot be compared to abortion.

Ok, how about this.
How far up do you believe bodily autonomy is in liberty.
Do you believe that letting some stranger crash at your house for 9 months, putting prune juice in your food, and causing you stress, would be worth it if you could save a life through that act ?

Not the most pertinent example to a foetus in your body, using your nutrients and your circulatory system and your filtration system and putting your health at risk, but you can have that stranger evicted, you know. Or call the police and have them thrown out. If they refuse to leave, you can even use all means at your disposal to kick them out of your home.

If you want to use that comparison, you could consider an abortion a forcible eviction.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

You mean to say that losing bodily autonomy is not comparable to loosing liberty ?
That it can’t be thought of in terms of liberty ?

No that's not what I am saying at all. Tbh this discussion with you is proving to be a real struggle, for two reasons: you aren't understanding the counterarguments that are being brought forward, and you are fundamentally not understanding the gulf of degree as well as specifics between what you are arguing and abortion itself.

Well since the “gulf of degree” as you call it, seems to be the basis of your counter argument. Could you please explain what you mean by gulf of degree ?

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Ok, how about this.
How far up do you believe bodily autonomy is in liberty.
Do you believe that letting some stranger crash at your house for 9 months, putting prune juice in your food, and causing you stress, would be worth it if you could save a life through that act ?

Not the most pertinent example to a foetus in your body, using your nutrients and your circulatory system and your filtration system and putting your health at risk, but you can have that stranger evicted, you know. Or call the police and have them thrown out. If they refuse to leave, you can even use all means at your disposal to kick them out of your home.

If you want to use that comparison, you could consider an abortion a forcible eviction.

Of course, then they would die. And that is something that you would have to weigh.
My example may not be that good, but I am basically equating abortion to a loss of some amount of liberty and the holding of various burdens, and then asking, is that worth it to save a life.
Should the state give you burdens, and take some of your liberty, if it would save a life.
(Of course then the question is how much liberty, how many burdens, which I try to equate in various examples, although so far it has not been very successful).

[The New California Republic]

No that's not what I am saying at all. Tbh this discussion with you is proving to be a real struggle, for two reasons: you aren't understanding the counterarguments that are being brought forward, and you are fundamentally not understanding the gulf of degree as well as specifics between what you are arguing and abortion itself.

Well since the “gulf of degree” as you call it, seems to be the basis of your counter argument. Could you please explain what you mean by gulf of degree ?

Sorry, no, not doing it. It's all in what I've been saying to you. I really don't have the time today to dedicate to explaining repeatedly again and again and again what I mean.

[The Free Joy State]

Not the most pertinent example to a foetus in your body, using your nutrients and your circulatory system and your filtration system and putting your health at risk, but you can have that stranger evicted, you know. Or call the police and have them thrown out. If they refuse to leave, you can even use all means at your disposal to kick them out of your home.

If you want to use that comparison, you could consider an abortion a forcible eviction.

Of course, then they would die. And that is something that you would have to weigh.

Women having an abortion generally do consider that. Women who get an abortion don't skip into the clinic singing "Hooray! Hooray! It's an abortion day!". But they look at the severity of their situation: the risk to their life, to their health, the risk to the foetus, the precariousness of their family situation, their abusive relationship and how having a child could trap them, the rape that made them pregnant and how they cannot bear the thought of carrying the pregnancy and they make it. But that is their choice to make.

As the homeowner can decide that the person is putting them under intolerable, health-damaging stress and make their choice.