NATION

PASSWORD

[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Honey or Vinegar?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Would you use honey or vinegar to address your issues with abortion?

HONEY: Encourage women to keep the pregnancy with incentives (specify if ya want)
71
25%
VINEGAR: Discourage women from getting an abortion by whatever means (specify if ya want)
31
11%
BOTH: Incentives AND Inquisitions! (For those who have to be complicated)
49
17%
NEITHER: I dun' see nuffin' wrong with how it is now. (And there's nothing wrong with that... I think)
79
28%
SHUT UP: No, YOU shut up.
51
18%
 
Total votes : 281

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7084
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 9:51 pm

Galloism wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:This thread is about abortion, Gallo.

Not child custody. Abortion. I was trying to get us somewhat back on-topic.


I was explaining why complete legal equality does not work in practise.

While child custody isn't the topic here, I never said that the most appropriate parent should not seek and gai custody. But I try and avoid veering too far off topic.


Complete legal equity should be the norm, and would work in practice. If you favor inequalities in law based on sexist notions regarding "complete legal equity does not work in practice", that's a sexist position - full stop.

Complete legal equality with regards to abortion laws -- which is what I'm discussing -- does not work.

Complete legal equality with regards to other areas is the goal, but that is not the topic of this thread.


In the UK, the birthmother has automatic rights until she negates them.


Yes, the UK is a very sexist place. Hell, when it comes to rape of men, it's not even recognized as rape, so it's sort of a funny discussion to have when we started with abortion rights when it comes to rape victims.

But in regards to parental rights and such, the UK is a very sexist place. You should get to work on that.

I was referring only to birthmother's rights in surrogacy (which is less sexist and more ensuring women don't feel pressured to give up their infants). I thought that was clear, in context.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Fri May 17, 2019 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison


My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57365
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 9:57 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Galloism wrote:
Complete legal equity should be the norm, and would work in practice. If you favor inequalities in law based on sexist notions regarding "complete legal equity does not work in practice", that's a sexist position - full stop.

Complete legal equality with regards to abortion laws -- which is what I'm discussing -- does not work.

Complete legal equality with regards to other areas is the goal, but that is not the topic of this thread.


Ok.

Yes, the UK is a very sexist place. Hell, when it comes to rape of men, it's not even recognized as rape, so it's sort of a funny discussion to have when we started with abortion rights when it comes to rape victims.

But in regards to parental rights and such, the UK is a very sexist place. You should get to work on that.

I was referring only to birthmother's rights in surrogacy (which is less sexist and more ensuring women don't feel pressured to give up their infants). I thought that was clear, in context.

I mean, you're the one saying birth fathers should feel pressured to give up their infants if they are rape victims, or put their rapist in their lives for the rest of it if they are unwilling to give up their infants.

That's literally the only two options you presented in response to the "rape victims should be able to force abortions from their rapists" - either put up with their rapist for the rest of their lives, or surrender their infant to their rapist.

Based almost solely on gender - 99.99% overlap.
Last edited by Galloism on Fri May 17, 2019 10:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7084
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 10:04 pm

Galloism wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:I was referring only to birthmother's rights in surrogacy (which is less sexist and more ensuring women don't feel pressured to give up their infants). I thought that was clear, in context.

I mean, you're the one saying birth fathers should feel pressured to give up their infants if they are rape victims, or put their rapist in their lives for the rest of it if they are unwilling to give up their infants.

That's literally the only two options you presented in response to the "rape victims should be able to force abortions from their rapists" - either put up with their rapist for the rest of their lives, or surrender their infant to their rapist.

Based solely on gender.

Forced abortions are immoral. Whatever evil act someone has perpetrated, stealing their bodily sovereignty in return is not the answer.

I have not discussed what the options for a male rape victim would be because this is not actually the thread for that. If this was a thread to discuss custody options for male rape victims, I would have gone into more detail, but I do not want to be thought of as threadjacking, and the OP has already asked us to divert back towards the topic once.

But suing for custody need not mean the rapist being in their life. If the rapist was found unfit to parent (and I already outlined how they might be assessed), they could sue to have sole custody and for the rapist to not have access. Or, yes, they could get a paper abortion.

So, I would thank you to stop misrepresenting my opinion, based on the things I didn't say, simply due to trying not to let this thread get too far off track.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Fri May 17, 2019 10:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison


My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57365
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 10:08 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Galloism wrote:I mean, you're the one saying birth fathers should feel pressured to give up their infants if they are rape victims, or put their rapist in their lives for the rest of it if they are unwilling to give up their infants.

That's literally the only two options you presented in response to the "rape victims should be able to force abortions from their rapists" - either put up with their rapist for the rest of their lives, or surrender their infant to their rapist.

Based solely on gender.

Forced abortions are immoral. Whatever evil act someone has perpetrated, stealing their bodily sovereignty in return is not the answer.

I have not discussed what the options for a male rape victim would be because this is not actually the thread for that. If this was a thread to discuss custody options for male rape victims, I would have gone into more detail, but I do not want to get into trouble for threadjacking, and the OP has already asked us to divert back towards the topic once.

But suing for custody need not mean the rapist being in their life. If the rapist was found unfit to parent (and I already outlined how they might be assessed), they could sue to have sole custody and for the rapist to not have access. Or, yes, they could get a paper abortion.

So, I would thank you to stop misrepresenting my opinion, based on the things I didn't say, simply due to trying not to let this thread get too far off track.

I still see no reason to give rapists default custody based on their gender because they decided not to have an abortion, which is what you inferred here:

The Free Joy State wrote:But demanding that someone give birth and has the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.


It's not coercion to tell the rapist they don't get to keep the child of their victim if they choose not to have an abortion, just as it's not coercion to tell a rapist father he automatically loses custody of his child because he's a damn rapist and the victim gets default custody.

Stop pretending like the cordiality of not having an abortion means the person who gave birth should get default custody even if they're a rapist. Fathers get attached too - and just as easily. Women are not special in this regard. There should be no default.
Last edited by Galloism on Fri May 17, 2019 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7084
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 10:15 pm

Galloism wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:
Forced abortions are immoral. Whatever evil act someone has perpetrated, stealing their bodily sovereignty in return is not the answer.

I have not discussed what the options for a male rape victim would be because this is not actually the thread for that. If this was a thread to discuss custody options for male rape victims, I would have gone into more detail, but I do not want to get into trouble for threadjacking, and the OP has already asked us to divert back towards the topic once.

But suing for custody need not mean the rapist being in their life. If the rapist was found unfit to parent (and I already outlined how they might be assessed), they could sue to have sole custody and for the rapist to not have access. Or, yes, they could get a paper abortion.

So, I would thank you to stop misrepresenting my opinion, based on the things I didn't say, simply due to trying not to let this thread get too far off track.

I still see no reason to give rapists default custody based on their gender because they decided not to have an abortion, which is what you inferred here:

The Free Joy State wrote:But demanding that someone give birth and has the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.


It's not coercion to tell the rapist they don't get to keep the child of their victim if they choose not to have an abortion, just as it's not coercion to tell a rapist father he automatically loses custody of his child because he's a damn rapist and the victim gets default custody.

Stop pretending like the cordiality of not having an abortion means the person who gave birth should get default custody even if they're a rapist. Fathers get attached too - and just as easily. Women are not special in this regard. There should be no default.

I explicitly said not to give rapists who become pregnant default custody. Stop cramming words into my mouth in the hope people won't check!

The Free Joy State wrote:I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.
[...]
Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.


And not forcing women to have an abortion is not "cordiality". That's called avoiding torture.

Anyway, child custody still seems off-topic to me. For the god-knows-how-manyth-time.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Fri May 17, 2019 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison


My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57365
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 10:25 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Galloism wrote:I still see no reason to give rapists default custody based on their gender because they decided not to have an abortion, which is what you inferred here:



It's not coercion to tell the rapist they don't get to keep the child of their victim if they choose not to have an abortion, just as it's not coercion to tell a rapist father he automatically loses custody of his child because he's a damn rapist and the victim gets default custody.

Stop pretending like the cordiality of not having an abortion means the person who gave birth should get default custody even if they're a rapist. Fathers get attached too - and just as easily. Women are not special in this regard. There should be no default.

I explicitly said not to give rapists who become pregnant default custody. Stop cramming words into my mouth in the hope people won't check!

The Free Joy State wrote:I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.
[...]
Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.


And not forcing women to have an abortion is not "cordiality". That's called avoiding torture.

Anyway, child custody still seems off-topic to me. For the god-knows-how-manyth-time.

When you send a child home with their birth mother, this establishes default custody. It's literally what happens.

Regarding your carve outs, is this also true regarding male rapists?

Alternate Universe Free Joy State wrote:Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the father's beliefs and his likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep him on the right road, whether he understands bodily autonomy, whether he's mentally capable, his psychological balance, whether he realises he committed an offence, does he/can he feel remorse.


I ask because previously you said this:

-- Rapists who impregnate someone else should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the rapist who becomes pregnant to keep parental access does not keep the rapist in her victim's life.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Jakker
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1847
Founded: May 17, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Jakker » Sat May 18, 2019 6:30 am

Let's knock off the conversation about child custody and focus back on abortion. You can take that discussion elsewhere. Get back on topic please.
One Stop Rules Shop
Getting Help Request (GHR)

The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.

User avatar
LiberNovusAmericae
Minister
 
Posts: 2844
Founded: Mar 10, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby LiberNovusAmericae » Sat May 18, 2019 2:57 pm

Katganistan wrote:
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:People who are very left-wing don't take olive branches.

People who are very right wing don't accept logic. See, I can do that too.

Perhaps. :)

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 42031
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Sun May 19, 2019 1:22 am

Nuclear take: Why don't conservative states use "thoughts and prayers" to stop abortion like they do to try and stop people from murdering actual live children in schools?
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
Gormwood
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1540
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Gormwood » Sun May 19, 2019 6:09 am

Vassenor wrote:Nuclear take: Why don't conservative states use "thoughts and prayers" to stop abortion like they do to try and stop people from murdering actual live children in schools?

Fetus fetish. Live children are just welfare-leeching parasites to them.
The Most Hated Individual On NSG. It's a badge of honor.
Bloodthirsty savages who call for violence against the Right while simultaneously being unarmed defenseless sissies who will get slaughtered by the gun-toting Right in a civil war.

User avatar
Runtopia
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Apr 30, 2019
Anarchy

Postby Runtopia » Sun May 19, 2019 9:01 am

3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26803
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Sun May 19, 2019 9:25 am

Runtopia wrote:3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.

A rape or incest victim should be be forced to carry to term a child they didn’t want?

If a fetus is person why doesn’t the census count them? If a fetus is a person why don’t we give pregnant women two votes in an election?
Last edited by San Lumen on Sun May 19, 2019 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16423
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Sun May 19, 2019 9:31 am

Runtopia wrote:3 Reasons why abortion is not justified
1. The embryo is alive: The embryo contains all 7 characteristics of life: it moves, breathes, responds to the environment, grows, contains genetic material (DNA), gets rid of wastes, and takes in nutrients. So abortion is killing.
2. The embryo is human: Even though the embryo is not legally a person, it is still human, the scientific name is still Homo sapien. So abortion is killing another human being.
3. Abortion is a brutal death: There are 3 different abortion procedures, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and dilation and extraction all of them are very brutal. Aspiration is the dissolving of the fetus and then sucking it out of the womb. Dilation and evacuation is the chopping up of the fetus and then extracting it from the womb. Dilation and extraction is the crushing of the fetus's skull then extracting it from the womb. So abortion is the killing of other humans in the most brutal way.


But as long as the killing happens before the 24th week or so the fetus itself does not care.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baltenstein, Dumb Ideologies, Fartsniffage, Gormwood, Heloin, Ngelmish, Odinburgh, Oyada, Serconas, Tarsonis, Victorious Decepticons, Washington Resistance Army, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads