Current Events > Woman: Has abortion, no problem. Man: Attempts to give abortion pill, 22 years

(+) Yeah! (+)

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

He's saying that considering it attempted murder, when an abortion isn't, is a double-standard. Which it is.

No it isn't.

An abortion is not murder because a woman is choosing to remove a fetus from her body before it develops consciousness and becomes a living organism.

Drugging a woman to forcefully abort her child and violate her bodily autonomy IS attempted murder because you are forcibly snuffing out a potential life that you have no jurisdiction over.

A fetus does not have the right to life and are not granted personhood solely based on that reason. Because they are not born.

I implore you to read up on the UVVA to learn why it isn't murder or a double standard to get an abortion.

No, an abortion is not murder because it isn't the illegal killing of a human. You're just providing your own justification for the law. Likewise, this was attempted murder because the law said so. This entire topic lacks understanding of basic law. You're mixing a philosophy debate and a legal debate together and not making much progress on either.
---

DarkTransient posted...

And how do you murder something that doesn't have personhood?

Like I said, the UVVA. Its a special exception.
---

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And how do you murder something that doesn't have personhood?

Like I said, the UVVA. Its a special exception.

*googles UVVA*

So, you think it's not murder because of... a restaurant in San Juan? That's literally the only thing on the first page when I search the term.
---

bevan306 posted...

ssjevot posted...

Murder is literally defined as the unlawful killing of a human.

I think some people are still struggling with this concept

No one is. The reason abortion is legal is because a fetus is not considered a human. That should mean drugging a person to induce an abortion isn't murder because they didn't kill a human, they killed a fetus.
---

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And how do you murder something that doesn't have personhood?

Like I said, the UVVA. Its a special exception.

*googles UVVA*

So, you think it's not murder because of... a restaurant in San Juan? That's literally the only thing on the first page when I search the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
---

MuayThai85 posted...

bevan306 posted...

ssjevot posted...

Murder is literally defined as the unlawful killing of a human.

I think some people are still struggling with this concept

No one is. The reason abortion is legal is because a fetus is not considered a human. That should mean drugging a person to induce an abortion isn't murder because they didn't kill a human, they killed a fetus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
---

MuayThai85 posted...

bevan306 posted...

ssjevot posted...

Murder is literally defined as the unlawful killing of a human.

I think some people are still struggling with this concept

No one is. The reason abortion is legal is because a fetus is not considered a human. That should mean drugging a person to induce an abortion isn't murder because they didn't kill a human, they killed a fetus.

in that scenario, they killed her choice to have the baby that she wanted to have.

i dunno if the name of the crime should be changed to satisfy people like you who get caught up on these things, but i think the charge should be the same.
---

MuayThai85 posted...

bevan306 posted...

ssjevot posted...

Murder is literally defined as the unlawful killing of a human.

I think some people are still struggling with this concept

No one is. The reason abortion is legal is because a fetus is not considered a human. That should mean drugging a person to induce an abortion isn't murder because they didn't kill a human, they killed a fetus.

That is factually wrong. Abortion was not legalized because a fetus isn't considered human. You can read the actual decision here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision
---

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And how do you murder something that doesn't have personhood?

Like I said, the UVVA. Its a special exception.

*googles UVVA*

So, you think it's not murder because of... a restaurant in San Juan? That's literally the only thing on the first page when I search the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

So, "it's murder in one case but not in the other because a law says so; this counters your claim that it's a double-standard that the law says it is in one case but not the other"?
---

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And how do you murder something that doesn't have personhood?

Like I said, the UVVA. Its a special exception.

*googles UVVA*

So, you think it's not murder because of... a restaurant in San Juan? That's literally the only thing on the first page when I search the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

So, "it's murder in one case but not in the other because a law says so; this counters your claim that it's a double-standard that the law says it is in one case but not the other"?

Yes, actually.
---

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And how do you murder something that doesn't have personhood?

Like I said, the UVVA. Its a special exception.

*googles UVVA*

So, you think it's not murder because of... a restaurant in San Juan? That's literally the only thing on the first page when I search the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

So, "it's murder in one case but not in the other because a law says so; this counters your claim that it's a double-standard that the law says it is in one case but not the other"?

Yes, actually.

Okay, so your logic is literally "the law isn't making a double-standard because the law says it isn't".

Yeah, you don't have a point.
---

I'm arguing with the guy who thinks women should be executed for aborting rape babies, dunno why I bother.
---

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And how do you murder something that doesn't have personhood?

Like I said, the UVVA. Its a special exception.

*googles UVVA*

So, you think it's not murder because of... a restaurant in San Juan? That's literally the only thing on the first page when I search the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

So, "it's murder in one case but not in the other because a law says so; this counters your claim that it's a double-standard that the law says it is in one case but not the other"?

Yes, actually.

Okay, so your logic is literally "the law isn't making a double-standard because the law says it isn't".

Yeah, you don't have a point.

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.
---

I'm glad to see the support for the RULE OF LAW if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
---

The issue at hand has actually very little to do with abortion, and everything to do with whether we should assign personhood to fetuses. That can be a tricky question, but not one that impacts the issue of abortion at all.

ssjevot posted...

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.

Because there's an actual difference between those two things, beyond just "the law says one is fine but the other isn't".

There's no difference between person A killing someone vs person B doing it via the same method for the same reasons (unless the victim, themself, is one of those people - you could definitely argue that one's right to end one's own life is different from whether someone else can do it).
---

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.

Because there's an actual difference between those two things, beyond just "the law says one is fine but the other isn't".

There's no difference between person A killing someone vs person B doing it via the same method for the same reasons (unless the victim, themself, is one of those people - you could definitely argue that one's right to end one's own life is different from whether someone else can do it).

Are you seriously arguing there is no difference between a woman deciding to have a voluntary abortion and another person trying to force her to again her will? If you are trying to suggest you aren't trolling, you are failing at it.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Kineth posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Also which banned account created this YUHH account?

It's supposed to be ManSpread, from what others have said.

They can type in complete sentences so that eliminates that ice planet poster. Thanks for the info. *Deposits a shiny asterisk next to your tag*

Ooo, what's the asterisk mean? Good things?
---

ssjevot posted...

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.

Because there's an actual difference between those two things, beyond just "the law says one is fine but the other isn't".

There's no difference between person A killing someone vs person B doing it via the same method for the same reasons (unless the victim, themself, is one of those people - you could definitely argue that one's right to end one's own life is different from whether someone else can do it).

Are you seriously arguing there is no difference between a woman deciding to have a voluntary abortion and another person trying to force her to again her will? If you are trying to suggest you aren't trolling, you are failing at it.

In terms of the result for the baby? No, there's no difference at all.

There's definitely room for a seperate charge over the forcing, but either way is still killing someone, and it's a double-standard that one is entirely legal. If one was simply considered more severe, that would be understandable.
---

ssjevot posted...

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.

Because there's an actual difference between those two things, beyond just "the law says one is fine but the other isn't".

There's no difference between person A killing someone vs person B doing it via the same method for the same reasons (unless the victim, themself, is one of those people - you could definitely argue that one's right to end one's own life is different from whether someone else can do it).

Are you seriously arguing there is no difference between a woman deciding to have a voluntary abortion and another person trying to force her to again her will? If you are trying to suggest you aren't trolling, you are failing at it.

He was posting in my topic that women should be forced to have rape babies, that those unwanted rape babies are entitled to her body and if the woman gets an abortion she should be executed.
---

YUHH posted...

ssjevot posted...

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.

Because there's an actual difference between those two things, beyond just "the law says one is fine but the other isn't".

There's no difference between person A killing someone vs person B doing it via the same method for the same reasons (unless the victim, themself, is one of those people - you could definitely argue that one's right to end one's own life is different from whether someone else can do it).

Are you seriously arguing there is no difference between a woman deciding to have a voluntary abortion and another person trying to force her to again her will? If you are trying to suggest you aren't trolling, you are failing at it.

He was posting in my topic that women should be forced to have rape babies, that those unwanted rape babies are entitled to her body and if the woman gets an abortion she should be executed.

And again, you're misrepresenting it by implying it was specifically about rape, not about literally any pregnancy. Nowhere did I even say it only applies to women (although to be fair, very few men are capable of pregnancy - but those who are, it applies equally to them).
---

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.

Because there's an actual difference between those two things, beyond just "the law says one is fine but the other isn't".

There's no difference between person A killing someone vs person B doing it via the same method for the same reasons (unless the victim, themself, is one of those people - you could definitely argue that one's right to end one's own life is different from whether someone else can do it).

Are you seriously arguing there is no difference between a woman deciding to have a voluntary abortion and another person trying to force her to again her will? If you are trying to suggest you aren't trolling, you are failing at it.

In terms of the result for the baby? No, there's no difference at all.

There's definitely room for a seperate charge over the forcing, but either way is still killing someone, and it's a double-standard that one is entirely legal. If one was simply considered more severe, that would be understandable.

It's only inconsistent if fetuses don't have personhood.

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.

Because there's an actual difference between those two things, beyond just "the law says one is fine but the other isn't".

There's no difference between person A killing someone vs person B doing it via the same method for the same reasons (unless the victim, themself, is one of those people - you could definitely argue that one's right to end one's own life is different from whether someone else can do it).

Are you seriously arguing there is no difference between a woman deciding to have a voluntary abortion and another person trying to force her to again her will? If you are trying to suggest you aren't trolling, you are failing at it.

In terms of the result for the baby? No, there's no difference at all.

There's definitely room for a seperate charge over the forcing, but either way is still killing someone, and it's a double-standard that one is entirely legal. If one was simply considered more severe, that would be understandable.

One involves a contract and the other one doesn't, which is another reason why one is a crime and the other isn't. To argue that being unknowingly poisoned is the same as paying money for a procedure is just tone deaf.
---

Kineth posted...

To argue that being unknowingly poisoned is the same as paying money for a procedure is just tone deaf.

Hm, when you put it that way, you're right.

Hiring a hitman is considered much more severe than simply killing someone yourself.
---

DarkTransient posted...

And again, you're misrepresenting it by implying it was specifically about rape, not about literally any pregnancy. Nowhere did I even say it only applies to women (although to be fair, very few men are capable of pregnancy - but those who are, it applies equally to them).

Women shouldn't be forced to carry a rape baby and that scenario shouldn't be included in your umbrella. Since you didn't deny that it was a stance you took, he didn't misrepresent shit.
---

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

DarkTransient posted...

ssjevot posted...

Why is it okay to kill someone if it's in self-defense but if you kill them for fun you go to jail? What a double-standard.

Because there's an actual difference between those two things, beyond just "the law says one is fine but the other isn't".

There's no difference between person A killing someone vs person B doing it via the same method for the same reasons (unless the victim, themself, is one of those people - you could definitely argue that one's right to end one's own life is different from whether someone else can do it).

Are you seriously arguing there is no difference between a woman deciding to have a voluntary abortion and another person trying to force her to again her will? If you are trying to suggest you aren't trolling, you are failing at it.

In terms of the result for the baby? No, there's no difference at all.

There's definitely room for a seperate charge over the forcing, but either way is still killing someone, and it's a double-standard that one is entirely legal. If one was simply considered more severe, that would be understandable.

Same for the person being killed whether or not it's in self-defense. Circumstances are relevant.
---

Kineth posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And again, you're misrepresenting it by implying it was specifically about rape, not about literally any pregnancy. Nowhere did I even say it only applies to women (although to be fair, very few men are capable of pregnancy - but those who are, it applies equally to them).

Women shouldn't be forced to carry a rape baby and that scenario shouldn't be included in your umbrella. Since you didn't deny that it was a stance you took, he didn't misrepresent shit.

Yes, he did, because he's implying I singled out such a case.

The only exception to "abortion should be illegal and severely punished" is when there's a medical reason why it's a necessity. That's comparable to self-defence. "Something bad happened to me" makes zero difference.
---

Kineth posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And again, you're misrepresenting it by implying it was specifically about rape, not about literally any pregnancy. Nowhere did I even say it only applies to women (although to be fair, very few men are capable of pregnancy - but those who are, it applies equally to them).

Women shouldn't be forced to carry a rape baby and that scenario shouldn't be included in your umbrella. Since you didn't deny that it was a stance you took, he didn't misrepresent shit.

@kineth it's all in this topic if you want a juicy read

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77103891
---

DarkTransient posted...

Kineth posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And again, you're misrepresenting it by implying it was specifically about rape, not about literally any pregnancy. Nowhere did I even say it only applies to women (although to be fair, very few men are capable of pregnancy - but those who are, it applies equally to them).

Women shouldn't be forced to carry a rape baby and that scenario shouldn't be included in your umbrella. Since you didn't deny that it was a stance you took, he didn't misrepresent shit.

Yes, he did, because he's implying I singled out such a case.

To me, it appears that he's singling out that case and saying that's a problematic element in your ethos and frankly, I'd agree. Notice that that criticism wasn't about your stance on abortion itself, but rather on this specific scenario in regards to abortion.
---

Kineth posted...

DarkTransient posted...

Kineth posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And again, you're misrepresenting it by implying it was specifically about rape, not about literally any pregnancy. Nowhere did I even say it only applies to women (although to be fair, very few men are capable of pregnancy - but those who are, it applies equally to them).

Women shouldn't be forced to carry a rape baby and that scenario shouldn't be included in your umbrella. Since you didn't deny that it was a stance you took, he didn't misrepresent shit.

Yes, he did, because he's implying I singled out such a case.

To me, it appears that he's singling out that case and saying that's a problematic element in your ethos and frankly, I'd agree. Notice that that criticism wasn't about your stance on abortion itself, but rather on this specific scenario in regards to abortion.

Whether or not the victim of the abortion has done anything to deserve it is no different in either case.
Whether the mother's life is under threat from the pregnancy is no different in either case.

The only difference is "something bad happened to the mother prior to the pregnancy".

What next, are you going to say "if someone farts in your face it's okay to sell alcohol to kids"?
---

Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy from being raped?

You still never answered that one
---

YUHH posted...

Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy from being raped?

You still never answered that one

Why should someone be killed because of a crime their father committed?

You still never answered that one.
---

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy from being raped?

You still never answered that one

Why should someone be killed because of a crime their father committed?

You still never answered that one.

It's been answered numerous times, you just dont like the answer you get. A baby isnt being killed, a clump of cells that could potentially create life are being removed.

Your turn.
---

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy from being raped?

You still never answered that one

Why should someone be killed because of a crime their father committed?

You still never answered that one.

It's been answered numerous times, you just dont like the answer you get. A baby isnt being killed, a clump of cells that could potentially create life are being removed.

Your turn.

I'm waiting for an answer, not a "nah it's fine cause I don't count them as a person" excuse. We already covered why that doesn't mean shit.
---

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy from being raped?

You still never answered that one

Why should someone be killed because of a crime their father committed?

You still never answered that one.

It's been answered numerous times, you just dont like the answer you get. A baby isnt being killed, a clump of cells that could potentially create life are being removed.

Your turn.

I'm waiting for an answer, not a "nah it's fine cause I don't count them as a person" excuse. We already covered why that doesn't mean shit.

Your inability to answer just weakens your position, not mine.
---

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy from being raped?

You still never answered that one

Why should someone be killed because of a crime their father committed?

You still never answered that one.

It's been answered numerous times, you just dont like the answer you get. A baby isnt being killed, a clump of cells that could potentially create life are being removed.

Your turn.

I'm waiting for an answer, not a "nah it's fine cause I don't count them as a person" excuse. We already covered why that doesn't mean shit.

Your inability to answer just weakens your position, not mine.

You're literally resorting to the "people I think it should be okay to kill aren't really people" excuse. You're the one with the weak (and frankly, disgusting) position.
---

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy from being raped?

You still never answered that one

Why should someone be killed because of a crime their father committed?

You still never answered that one.

It's been answered numerous times, you just dont like the answer you get. A baby isnt being killed, a clump of cells that could potentially create life are being removed.

Your turn.

I'm waiting for an answer, not a "nah it's fine cause I don't count them as a person" excuse. We already covered why that doesn't mean shit.

Your inability to answer just weakens your position, not mine.

You're literally resorting to the "people I think it should be okay to kill aren't really people" excuse. You're the one with the weak (and frankly, disgusting) position.

That is not a person.

And back to the Nazi/KKK comparisons I see.
---

YUHH posted...

That is not a person.

Unless the diagram is literally depicting a zygote of a different species, it is one.

And once again, if you use similar logic to those groups, you're going to be compared to them, whether you like it or not. A comparison isn't inherently invalid just because it involves them. (And if we wanna go there, let's not forget that abortion disproportionately kills non-white babies - now remind me again what kind of people those groups didn't like?)
---

TIL being pro choice means you want to kill all the Jews and blacks
---

YUHH posted...

TIL being pro choice means you want to kill all the Jews and blacks

I didn't say "you're targetting the same groups". I said "you're using the same logic against the group you are targetting".

But then again, you already knew that. You're just desperate to convince yourself you're different from those groups, when really, you aren't. "My movement's victims aren't black or Jewish, they're very young babies, so it's okay!"
---

DarkTransient posted...

YUHH posted...

That is not a person.

Unless the diagram is literally depicting a zygote of a different species, it is one.

And once again, if you use similar logic to those groups, you're going to be compared to them, whether you like it or not. A comparison isn't inherently invalid just because it involves them. (And if we wanna go there, let's not forget that abortion disproportionately kills non-white babies - now remind me again what kind of people those groups didn't like?)

This is a bad post
---

YUHH posted...

@ kineth it's all in this topic if you want a juicy read

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77103891

I don't want to wade through damn near 400 posts about abortion. I can't imagine that there is a new argument against it that I haven't heard, seen or witnessed already. For the most part, I think arguing about abortion is a waste of time. Better sex education, better funded adoption centers, better labor market standards and business regulations for expecting parents, so that the next generation can grow up in stable home environments, etc. is a more substantial and productive way of eliminating abortion. I'm not gonna go out and tell people to get abortions and I'm not gonna choose that option if I'm ever put in that position, but the procedure should be available. Criminalizing it won't stop abortions from happening, it'll just make the abortions that happen unsafe for the health of the mother as well.

Long story short, I've heard it all before and don't want to use the time for that. I guess link some of the highlights of the topic.

EDIT: ... Hmm, so now he is saying that women should carry rape babies and be forced to take care of the product of their trauma. Well, that's just disgusting.
---

Kineth posted...

YUHH posted...

@ kineth it's all in this topic if you want a juicy read

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77103891

I don't want to wade through damn near 400 posts about abortion. I can't imagine that there is a new argument against it that I haven't heard, seen or witnessed already. For the most part, I think arguing about abortion is a waste of time. Better sex education, better funded adoption centers, better labor market standards and business regulations for expecting parents, so that the next generation can grow up in stable home environments, etc. is a more substantial and productive way of eliminating abortion. I'm not gonna go out and tell people to get abortions and I'm not gonna choose that option if I'm ever put in that position, but the procedure should be available. Criminalizing it won't stop abortions from happening, it'll just make the abortions that happen unsafe for the health of the mother as well.

Long story short, I've heard it all before and don't want to use the time for that. I guess link some of the highlights of the topic.

Here's one that I bet they won't bring up, but connects pretty well to your post, the last paragraph in particular.

DarkTransient posted...

Calwings posted...

DarkTransient posted...

The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection.

The latter shouldn't be illegal.

Do situations where the mother could likely die from medical complications if she gives birth to the baby, or cases where the pregnancy was caused by rape, fall under "good justification" in this scenario? Those two are the only situations where I see abortion to be justifiable, but they're important situations to note.

I agree 100% that gay marriage shouldn't be illegal.

Rape, no. While I can definitely have some sympathy, it still doesn't justify ending a third party's life (though I'd be 100% fine with "aborting" the rapist). A threat to the mother's life, absolutely, I see that as being in the same bucket as killing in self-defence. And if it's a "either one or the other, but not both, can be saved" situation, it's understandable to save the mother rather than the baby.

And most of all - I certianly recognize that a ban alone won't solve the issue, and it must be combined with better support for those who do have babies, as well as better access to contraception to reduce the demand in the first place.

---

Kineth posted...

YUHH posted...

@ kineth it's all in this topic if you want a juicy read

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77103891

I don't want to wade through damn near 400 posts about abortion. I can't imagine that there is a new argument against it that I haven't heard, seen or witnessed already. For the most part, I think arguing about abortion is a waste of time. Better sex education, better funded adoption centers, better labor market standards and business regulations for expecting parents, so that the next generation can grow up in stable home environments, etc. is a more substantial and productive way of eliminating abortion. I'm not gonna go out and tell people to get abortions and I'm not gonna choose that option if I'm ever put in that position, but the procedure should be available. Criminalizing it won't stop abortions from happening, it'll just make the abortions that happen unsafe for the health of the mother as well.

Long story short, I've heard it all before and don't want to use the time for that. I guess link some of the highlights of the topic.

That really is the best stance to have on the issue. If abortion opponents really want to reduce abortion they should want to improve sex education and make the conditions for raising children better. They seem to want to make both worse instead.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Kineth posted...

YUHH posted...

@ kineth it's all in this topic if you want a juicy read

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77103891

I don't want to wade through damn near 400 posts about abortion. I can't imagine that there is a new argument against it that I haven't heard, seen or witnessed already. For the most part, I think arguing about abortion is a waste of time. Better sex education, better funded adoption centers, better labor market standards and business regulations for expecting parents, so that the next generation can grow up in stable home environments, etc. is a more substantial and productive way of eliminating abortion. I'm not gonna go out and tell people to get abortions and I'm not gonna choose that option if I'm ever put in that position, but the procedure should be available. Criminalizing it won't stop abortions from happening, it'll just make the abortions that happen unsafe for the health of the mother as well.

Long story short, I've heard it all before and don't want to use the time for that. I guess link some of the highlights of the topic.

Here's one that I bet they won't bring up, but connects pretty well to your post, the last paragraph in particular.

DarkTransient posted...

Calwings posted...

DarkTransient posted...

The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection.

The latter shouldn't be illegal.

Do situations where the mother could likely die from medical complications if she gives birth to the baby, or cases where the pregnancy was caused by rape, fall under "good justification" in this scenario? Those two are the only situations where I see abortion to be justifiable, but they're important situations to note.

I agree 100% that gay marriage shouldn't be illegal.

Rape, no. While I can definitely have some sympathy, it still doesn't justify ending a third party's life (though I'd be 100% fine with "aborting" the rapist). A threat to the mother's life, absolutely, I see that as being in the same bucket as killing in self-defence. And if it's a "either one or the other, but not both, can be saved" situation, it's understandable to save the mother rather than the baby.

And most of all - I certianly recognize that a ban alone won't solve the issue, and it must be combined with better support for those who do have babies, as well as better access to contraception to reduce the demand in the first place.

You should reduce the incentive/demand first instead of shocking the market and removing the supply.
---

Kineth posted...

YUHH posted...

@ kineth it's all in this topic if you want a juicy read

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77103891

I don't want to wade through damn near 400 posts about abortion. I can't imagine that there is a new argument against it that I haven't heard, seen or witnessed already. For the most part, I think arguing about abortion is a waste of time. Better sex education, better funded adoption centers, better labor market standards and business regulations for expecting parents, so that the next generation can grow up in stable home environments, etc. is a more substantial and productive way of eliminating abortion. I'm not gonna go out and tell people to get abortions and I'm not gonna choose that option if I'm ever put in that position, but the procedure should be available. Criminalizing it won't stop abortions from happening, it'll just make the abortions that happen unsafe for the health of the mother as well.

Long story short, I've heard it all before and don't want to use the time for that. I guess link some of the highlights of the topic.

Honestly it's mostly being repeated here.

He wants to kill women for having an abortion for any reason.

He think rape babies are entitled to the victims body (a point he has still never explained his stance on).

He thinks the moment a sperm touches an egg a human being is formed.

He's equating me to being similar to Nazis and the KKK for being pro choice.

Yet he has the audacity to call other users disgusting and off the rocker.

I'm honestly going to bail out on arguing with him because he has reached Mal_Fet levels of critical stupidity and refusing to look at someone else's position because he is so dug in by his blind convictions.

I think this is actually the first time I've gotten into a legitimate argument with another user on this site in the nearly 20 years I've been here and I'm actually embarassed at myself for entertaining his beyond Randian madness.
---

Kineth posted...

DarkTransient posted...

Kineth posted...

YUHH posted...

@ kineth it's all in this topic if you want a juicy read

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77103891

I don't want to wade through damn near 400 posts about abortion. I can't imagine that there is a new argument against it that I haven't heard, seen or witnessed already. For the most part, I think arguing about abortion is a waste of time. Better sex education, better funded adoption centers, better labor market standards and business regulations for expecting parents, so that the next generation can grow up in stable home environments, etc. is a more substantial and productive way of eliminating abortion. I'm not gonna go out and tell people to get abortions and I'm not gonna choose that option if I'm ever put in that position, but the procedure should be available. Criminalizing it won't stop abortions from happening, it'll just make the abortions that happen unsafe for the health of the mother as well.

Long story short, I've heard it all before and don't want to use the time for that. I guess link some of the highlights of the topic.

Here's one that I bet they won't bring up, but connects pretty well to your post, the last paragraph in particular.

DarkTransient posted...

Calwings posted...

DarkTransient posted...

The former, because all other forms of killing a person without very good justification (ie: either as a penalty after a fair trial, or in self-defence) are illegal, and just because someone is a bit younger shouldn't exempt them from that protection.

The latter shouldn't be illegal.

Do situations where the mother could likely die from medical complications if she gives birth to the baby, or cases where the pregnancy was caused by rape, fall under "good justification" in this scenario? Those two are the only situations where I see abortion to be justifiable, but they're important situations to note.

I agree 100% that gay marriage shouldn't be illegal.

Rape, no. While I can definitely have some sympathy, it still doesn't justify ending a third party's life (though I'd be 100% fine with "aborting" the rapist). A threat to the mother's life, absolutely, I see that as being in the same bucket as killing in self-defence. And if it's a "either one or the other, but not both, can be saved" situation, it's understandable to save the mother rather than the baby.

And most of all - I certianly recognize that a ban alone won't solve the issue, and it must be combined with better support for those who do have babies, as well as better access to contraception to reduce the demand in the first place.

You should reduce the incentive/demand first instead of shocking the market and removing the supply.

When it's something like this, there's zero reason not to do both at the same time. With, say, tobacco (if we're gonna support banning it, which I personally don't), it makes sense to reduce demand first - that only really harms its willing users, if a few steps of basic decency are taken by those users (and not taking those steps can be banned separately and sooner).
---

Do people have bodily autonomy?

If so, then abortion must be legal.

Bet if tc knocked up one of those Chinese hookers his wife apparently gets for him his stance would change.

Plenty of pro lifers turn pro choice when it affects them. They go on about the sanctity of life,but if they, their daughter, their mistress, etc. gets knocked up that life is going to get flushed out.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Look, I get that you have your position. Just accept that I don't agree with it. I went to a few religious schools and you're wasting your time thinking that I haven't heard any of this rationale before.

I'm not interested in having a fucking pro-choice vs. pro-life debate because....

Kineth posted...

I can't imagine that there is a new argument against it that I haven't heard, seen or witnessed already. For the most part, I think arguing about abortion is a waste of time. Better sex education, better funded adoption centers, better labor market standards and business regulations for expecting parents, so that the next generation can grow up in stable home environments, etc. is a more substantial and productive way of eliminating abortion. I'm not gonna go out and tell people to get abortions and I'm not gonna choose that option if I'm ever put in that position, but the procedure should be available. Criminalizing it won't stop abortions from happening, it'll just make the abortions that happen unsafe for the health of the mother as well.

Long story short, I've heard it all before and don't want to use the time for that.

And stop running away from the fact that you think women should be forced to carry a fetus/baby that was forced on them. That's plain fucked up. This isn't about abortion itself. It's about a fucking justifiable exception to a draconic stance.
---