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

[Equai]

If we are is’t going on your opinion is just as right as mine then why do you want to get rid of abortion since everyone has different opinions

Because I like my opinions more than yours.

Everyone can like their opinion more then someone else's. That's what personal bias is. The problem isn't that you like your opinion more but that your so called-opinion is stripping rights off an oppressed group (women in this case) which is not an opinion anymore but a tool of oppression. Your evidence are laughable at best, you are unable to give concrete arguments, you are unable to form a basic understanding that person is alive only when they have consciousness. Its not the problem that you have your opinion but its the problem the harmful action you are actively encourage by being so-called pro-lifer and that harmful action you are encouraging is stripping rights off women.

[American Legionaries]

Yeah.

Why? No one in the real world gives a damn about your opinion, after all.

That's how the world works. And judging by the fact that my opinions are policy for one of the major political parties, and evidently more than half of the justices of the United States Supreme Court, It seems at least some people care.

[Necroghastia]

Why? No one in the real world gives a damn about your opinion, after all.

That's how the world works. And judging by the fact that my opinions are policy for one of the major political parties, and evidently more than half of the justices of the United States Supreme Court, It seems at least some people care.

What, precisely, is how the world works?
And those aren't your opinions. They didn't get them from High Priest of Boom Boom Sticks Telconi.

[Equai]

Why? No one in the real world gives a damn about your opinion, after all.

That's how the world works. And judging by the fact that my opinions are policy for one of the major political parties, and evidently more than half of the justices of the United States Supreme Court, It seems at least some people care.

That argument is very flawed and its very much same argument used by any oppressive group trying to justify why they oppress people.

[American Legionaries]

That's how the world works. And judging by the fact that my opinions are policy for one of the major political parties, and evidently more than half of the justices of the United States Supreme Court, It seems at least some people care.

What, precisely, is how the world works?
And those aren't your opinions. They didn't get them from High Priest of Boom Boom Sticks Telconi.

People force their opinions upon others.

I never claimed to be the source of the opinions, only that the opinions are shared.

[Necroghastia]

What, precisely, is how the world works?
And those aren't your opinions. They didn't get them from High Priest of Boom Boom Sticks Telconi.

People force their opinions upon others.

Oh, please. You know quite well that isn't true for every opinion. This whole god forsaken thread is about the struggle to let people form their own opinions about the course their lives should take. Duh.

I never claimed to be the source of the opinions, only that the opinions are shared.

You did, however, attempt that as a rebuttal to the fact that virtually no one in the real world gives a damn about your opinions.

[Thepeopl]

Very weak answer considering that in the basic 5th grade biology you are an organism if you can live individually separated from dependencies of your host's nutrients, which is why virus is not a real organism but a weird abomination between alive and dead and why fetus cannot be considered a full organism because it still depends on the person's nutrients in order to grow to be an alive being at the very late stage of pregnancy so it can survive outside the person's body. Of course this is very big oversimplification that eaves a lot of details. Also in order for something to be considered organism it needs to check 5 characteristics of life, which a group of cells called fetus cannot check because its not an organism by the scientific field

Today I learned parasitic organisms aren't actually real.

They can live outside the body of the host, or else, they'd all die when the host dies. Parasites can have multiple hosts during their lives.

All parasites have a life cycle that involves a period of time spent in a host organism and that can be divided into phases of growth, reproduction, and transmission. Life cycles of parasites can be further divided into two categories: direct (monoxenous) and indirect (heteroxenous). Parasites with direct life cycles spend most of their adult lives in one host, known as the parasitic stage, with their progeny transmitted from one host to another, known as the free-living stage. Direct parasites often lack an intermediate stage and must leave their host. To do this, they must be able to survive in an environment outside their original host and then locate and establish in a new host. Parasites that depend on the host stage are called obligate parasites, whereas parasites that can skip the parasitic stage for several generations are called facultative parasites.

See full link:
https://www.britannica.com/science/para ... ife-cycles

Anyway. No person is allowed to use an other person's body without consent.

Why would it be different for foetuses?

Parasites aren't trying to kill their host either. They too are innocent. Most parasites can infect us because we weren't careful enough or abstain from eating meat/ faeces or sleep under a mosquito net. Did these people consent to a parasite infestation?

[American Legionaries]

People force their opinions upon others.

Oh, please. You know quite well that isn't true for every opinion. This whole god forsaken thread is about the struggle to let people form their own opinions about the course their lives should take. Duh.

I never claimed to be the source of the opinions, only that the opinions are shared.

You did, however, attempt that as a rebuttal to the fact that virtually no one in the real world gives a damn about your opinions.

It's true for a great many of them. What makes this situation unique?

No more or less than anyone else in this thread. Which isn't really an argument.

[Thepeopl]

What, precisely, is how the world works?
And those aren't your opinions. They didn't get them from High Priest of Boom Boom Sticks Telconi.

People force their opinions upon others.

I never claimed to be the source of the opinions, only that the opinions are shared.

And there we have it. Why the pro CHOICE group isn't fond of banning abortion.

Because it was FORCED upon them. By ppl who think: rules for thee, not for me. And who are a minority.
In America: 49 % pro choice vs 47 % pro life

https://www.statista.com/statistics/225 ... ro-choice/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... oe-v-wade/

[Necroghastia]

Oh, please. You know quite well that isn't true for every opinion. This whole god forsaken thread is about the struggle to let people form their own opinions about the course their lives should take. Duh.

You did, however, attempt that as a rebuttal to the fact that virtually no one in the real world gives a damn about your opinions.

It's true for a great many of them. What makes this situation unique?

No more or less than anyone else in this thread. Which isn't really an argument.

lol are you seriously asking how allowing CHOICE is forcing something on someone

[Vassenor]

Why? No one in the real world gives a damn about your opinion, after all.

That's how the world works. And judging by the fact that my opinions are policy for one of the major political parties, and evidently more than half of the justices of the United States Supreme Court, It seems at least some people care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[Space Squid]

I don't care.

The fact of the matter is consciousness, and the existence of the brain, are reliable indicators. Whereas all of the other gibberish you mentioned are unreliable and riddled with exceptions.

A fact which absolutely everyone acknowledges as a practical reality. Only when it comes to "pro-life" shenanigans do people suddenly lose their perspective on what is reasonable.

These aren't facts, these are your beliefs, and as you ao eloquently put it... I don't care.

If you have a heart transplant, you don't become another person. If your entire genetic code were re-written by a virus, you wouldn't become another person. If your head were grafted onto the shoulder of some other person, you would be two people sharing a body, but you wouldn't become them, and you wouldn't be a single person.

But if they took your brain out, threw it in a bin, and replaced it with some other brain... you would be dead. And someone else would be living in your place.

The brain is the "person" part. Everything else is disposable, or interchangeable. Not the brain. This is basic common sense to everyone except "pro-lifers."

[Islamic Essarn]

this is my question : if we assume that the foetus is alive (which it is’t) then at what point does it gain the level of consciousness that makes it wrong for it to be terminated

Again: the parasite is very much alive.

The placenta isn't soley formed by the mom.

Search placenta anatomy human foetus.

And it is quite the same with tumors

Or are you going to say that the parasite's mouth also is made by the host?

We all heard you the first time and that was’t my question.

[Equai]

Again: the parasite is very much alive.

The placenta isn't soley formed by the mom.

Search placenta anatomy human foetus.

And it is quite the same with tumors

Or are you going to say that the parasite's mouth also is made by the host?

We all heard you the first time and that was’t my question.

The answer is when it get out of the womb.

[Thepeopl]

Again: the parasite is very much alive.

The placenta isn't soley formed by the mom.

Search placenta anatomy human foetus.

And it is quite the same with tumors

Or are you going to say that the parasite's mouth also is made by the host?

We all heard you the first time and that was’t my question.

Your "question" is already answered by many others:

When de brain and nerve system are developed far enough to support the organism outside of the womb.

Roughly speaking: 24/ 28 weeks into pregnancy. That's why we use 24 weeks as "cut off" for "normal" abortions.
https://www.peanut-app.io/blog/when-doe ... op-a-brain

And no, that isn't when the foetus starts moving. Because else we wouldn't be allowed to kill parasites either.

Humans are hypocrites anyway, because many animals that *do* have conscious thought, a language, a culture; we will kill off with no second thought. Did you know that cows develop friendship bonds? That pigs are highly intelligent?

[Page]

A fetus is alive. That is objectively true. It's also not an argument against abortion. Every human ever kills living things every day.

[Islamic Essarn]

We all heard you the first time and that was’t my question.

Your "question" is already answered by many others:

When de brain and nerve system are developed far enough to support the organism outside of the womb.

Roughly speaking: 24/ 28 weeks into pregnancy. That's why we use 24 weeks as "cut off" for "normal" abortions.
https://www.peanut-app.io/blog/when-doe ... op-a-brain

And no, that isn't when the foetus starts moving. Because else we wouldn't be allowed to kill parasites either.

Humans are hypocrites anyway, because many animals that *do* have conscious thought, a language, a culture; we will kill off with no second thought. Did you know that cows develop friendship bonds? That pigs are highly intelligent?

I’m asking people pro lifers. (I thought this was obvious, but next time I’ll add a tag)

[Xerographica]

Let me start off by saying that I'm pro-choice, especially when it comes to choosing where your taxes go. But in terms of abortion I recognize that the pro-choice position is logically inconsistent.

The pro-choice argument is basically that people should have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies. I strongly agree with this. However, a person can only ever have one body*. And it's really easy to differentiate between bodies thanks to DNA.

Admittedly, pregnancy is a weird case where one individual is entirely inside another individual. But should this weirdness somehow change individual rights?

Let's say that I'm in your home, thanks to your invitation. Does the fact that I'm on your property somehow give you the right to harm me? Nope.

Let's remove the invitation. I break into your home. Do you now have the right to harm me? Yup.**

But what if I end up in your home against my will? Someone kidnaps me, ties me up, and puts me on your property. Do you still have the right to harm me? Nope.

Consider this passage from Murray Rothbard's Wikipedia page...

In Rothbard's view of parenthood, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights".[110] Thus, Rothbard stated that parents should have the legal right to let any infant die by starvation and should be free to engage in other forms of child neglect. However, according to Rothbard, "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children". In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum".

A pro-choice person will say that a pregnant individual should not be responsible for supporting the new individual inside her. However, the same pro-choice person will also say that, once the new individual is no longer inside another individual, then somehow the mother should be responsible for supporting the baby. Because... a baby is more individual than a fetus? Eh? The more individual someone is the more rights they should have?

The majority of people who debate abortion seem to assign great significance to when life begins. So a pro-choice person who shouts "it's MY body" will very conveniently ignore when individuality begins in order to focus on when life begins.

The same pro-choice person would also probably abhor Rothbard's idea of people legally selling babies.

The abortion debate is a small picture issue. It's only a debate because most people miss the big picture. The big picture issue is that we aren't mind-readers. A pro-life person will say that a fetus is priceless. A pro-choice person will vehemently disagree. But if it was legal to sell babies, how much money would the average baby be sold for? We have absolutely no idea. We can't use everybody's words to correctly guess everybody's values. If selling babies was legal, and the average baby sold for $5, then nobody could reasonably argue that a fetus is priceless.

Of course, if the average baby sold for $800,000... then what would happen to the debate about abortion? Who in their right mind would flush a ton of cash down the toilet? Very quickly we'd see clinics paying big bucks to remove fetuses and keep them alive in test tubes. So much for the abortion debate.

Right now a small committee, in this case the supreme court, can decide whether abortion should be legal. As if this small committee, or any committee, can read our minds. They can't. The decision should be made by donations to the government. Whichever side donates the most money to the gov should win. Then, and only then, would the most beneficial decision be made. Plus we'd all get more public goods and/or less taxes.

In the big picture, we are more likely to make more valuable decisions when we aren't ignorant of each other's true valuations. This is why markets work.

* Perhaps you thought I'd point out a real exception to this rule? Naw. I just wanted to point out how absurd it is to have to state that an individual can only ever have one body.

** Anybody remember my thread where I argued that if you have the right to kill intruders, then you should also have the right to enslave them? Hmmmm does slavery count as an exception to the rule that an individual can only ever have one body?

[Aymes]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

[Antipatros]

I think that the closest analogue for parent choice when it comes to living children is putting them up for adoption (or otherwise transferring the responsibility for their care to another, putting them in foster care is another example).

So our society does have a kind of mechanism for this. What we do not have is a "free market in children".

[Washington Resistance Army]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

Unless you support a vast and extensive welfare state with paid parental leave and such things this isn’t really true.

[Xerographica]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

Uh... aren't both sides basically concerned with the true value of a fetus? Isn't the point of markets to figure out the true value of things? You might think your paintings are priceless, but if nobody is even willing to pay pennies for them, then...

[Vassenor]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

Apparently dictating what women can do with their bodies isn't trying to control them now. Huh.

[Xerographica]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

Apparently dictating what women can do with their bodies isn't trying to control them now. Huh.

A woman's freedom to swing her fist ends where...?

[A m e n r i a]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

I agree. There's also the fact that a pregnant woman is obviously a distinct individual from her child from her soul. Something we've known for centuries before we had DNA tests.

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

Apparently dictating what women can do with their bodies isn't trying to control them now. Huh.

*dictating what women can do with the souls of their children

I think that the closest analogue for parent choice when it comes to living children is putting them up for adoption (or otherwise transferring the responsibility for their care to another, putting them in foster care is another example).

So our society does have a kind of mechanism for this. What we do not have is a "free market in children".

We do, it's just concentrated in Batam and Kalimantan.