Current Events > Would you support abortion on demand being the law, in your area?

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I've already stated multiple times that someone in the situation of pregnancy should have to sacrifice that part of their bodily autonomy (not their life) to preserve the life of someone we have already granted personhood to, the same way that I believe parents should not be able to murder their newborn children just because those children require them to sacrifice their bodily autonomy.

Funkydog posted...

I feel silly in 'coming to the defence of ninjalover' and will bask in my shame of not reading through more of the topic as arguing pedantry should be beneath me.

This is a respectable way to hold an L. Props

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


It's quite simple. You've made the worst points of all the people who disagree with me. That's why I'm replying to you so much more often. Because I'm at work and your posts take about 30 seconds to respond to between tasks while someone with a more well-thought out post is going to take me a few minutes to type out a response to. I have to put their posts on the backburner until I have the time to properly respond.

Your posts just easy, rapid-fire shoot-downs.

Ninjaluver posted...

No. I'm pro-choice, but I'd put the cutoff right at about 20 weeks.

That's probably where I would grant it personhood because that's when research tells us it has developed enough. Once you grant the child personhood, then you have to accept that termination would be murder.

Unless it's necessary to save the life of the mother, then there shouldn't be a restriction.

Only people who give a shit about cutoffs are chuds who still think people get abortions for fun

Comparing murdering a child to abortion is plain disingenuous, but putting that aside, it's simply not a good comparison with respect to bodily autonomy.

All abortions should be free and given with no questions asked at any time.

Rexdragon125 posted...

Only people who give a shit about cutoffs are chuds who still think people get abortions for fun

Agreed that the only people actually out there pushing this as the forefront of their political platform are chuds because they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

I'm somewhere between an outright progressive and a soc-dem. I'd normally just call myself a progressive.

Most of the republicans actively pushing for legislation are just chuds doing it for the wrong reason. Agreed. But this is a hypothetical topic on a gaming forum asking for our moral positions. I put forth my moral position as the one that makes the most sense. I'd never push for this if I was a left-wing politician right now because it makes no sense to expend resources on an issue that is likely to do more harm than good when republicans are done with it.

That means I'm not taking things like bureaucracy or procedure or likelihood of passage into account. I'm just answer what should be the rule in a hypothetical world.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


It's like you didn't read the rest of my post. I'm not considering those factors because I'm taking this to be a moral hypothetical on a gaming forum of what should be the law.

I'm not treating this as a "If you were AOC right now, would you try to pass legislation that would restrict abortions past 20 weeks or make it on demand?" because of course I wouldn't.

Ninjaluver posted...

This is not splitting hairs, and the fact that you think it is, is just laughable. Putting an option on the table is not the same as telling you to take that option. Doctors may recommend abortion in some situations such as the woman's health being in danger, but doctors will not tell you to get an abortion outside of a risk to your health. They may "put the option on the table", as they should, because that is their job, but they are not going to tell you take that action.

A doctor isn't going to give you options that they view as stupid and unnecessary. If it's an option on the table, it's valid for that patient and the government should have no fucking say in it.

Priere posted...

All abortions should be free and given with no questions asked at any time.

As long as it's safe and performed by a legitimate doctor in the usual course of their profession, yes.

hockeybub89 posted...

As long as it's safe and performed by a legitimate doctor in the usual course of their profession, yes.

If they were free and clear there would be no need for back alley abortions any more.

If they were getting their checks cut from uncle sam, they could open dozens of locations in every big city.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This is a very good point, and it tends to be a problem in topics surrounding basic human rights.

Emotionally charged topic getting people emotional. Starting an abortion topic to stir shit is a cheat code.

Ninjaluver posted...

I advocate for a similar pro-choice

Different topic? You've done no such thing in this topic.

KitKats posted...

This is a very good point, and it tends to be a problem in topics surrounding basic human rights.

Well, at least when a person is discussing someone else's basic human rights. I can assure you with 100% certainty that if the issue was about whether or not men should be forced to be organ donors virtually every bad faith troll would fully support men's right to choose what to do with their extra kidney.

Asherlee10 posted...

Corpses have more rights than women in the US currently. :(

And its fucking stupid. Everyone should have full control over what happens to their body, full stop. There is no extenuating circumstances where that changes

Yeah, there's a lot of people who read our posts but never make any posts of their own. It definitely helps, particularly with more complex topics like this one I would say Gladius

You're doing the lord's work here

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

True. If someone suggested mandatory organ donation for the deceased, the outrage would be gigantic.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Nobody is "pretending to be a progressive". The average progressive and I would agree on 95% of political and ideological takes. The problem that is plaguing particularly the online, vocal progressive movement is that they have adopted this habit of "either you agree with us on 100% of every issue always or you're against us and must be a right-winger!"

• I believe is socialized healthcare
• I believe in socialized education
• I believe in higher taxes for the wealthy
• I am almost entirely against the idea of generational wealth
• I am pro-choice (despite what the extreme uses in this topic would have you believe, the opposite of pro-choid for the vast majority of the world means outlawing abortion at any point in the pregnancy except for rape/health reasons)
• I am pro-LGBTQIA+
• I am pro green energy and greatly concerned with climate change
• I am in support of open border policies
• I think we need to expand our institutions and programs that help the less fortunate
• I think we need extensive federally mandated maternity/paternity leave
• I've voted democrat in every election I've been allowed to vote in, and I would've voted for a more progressive candidate than Biden if one had won the primary
• I like AOC

If all of that still makes me a "right-winger" just because I don't agree with absolutely every single one of your positions, then you have to take a step back and reevaluate your beliefs about others.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The data that I'm aware of suggest very few women choose to have very late-term abortions for arbitrary reasons. If I found out that very very few people were willing to commit any specific sort of crime, I wouldn't say "well, so few people are doing it, should it really even be illegal?"

That doesn't make having those very late-term abortions not wrong if we grant that child personhood. The argument I'm having is when we grant personhood to a being, and once we do, whether it is morally acceptable to kill something that we have granted personhood.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You can keep repeating this as many times as you want, but it won't make it true. I am pro-choice. Whether you accept that or not does not change that fact.

havent read past the first page but afaik, from experience, late term abortions are indeed sought and its not always state/federal law that prevents them
in the case of my kid, it was the obstetrician that requested it and the hospital ethics committee that denied it
what happened was a hysterectomy in toto
law never played a role the process (@29 weeks gestation)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I already directly answered this in post #95.

Ninjaluver posted...

The data that I'm aware of suggest very few women choose to have very late-term abortions for arbitrary reasons. If I found out that very very few people were willing to commit any specific sort of crime, I wouldn't say "well, so few people are doing it, should it really even be illegal?"

Part of making laws is making those tradeoffs and we do it all the time. If you make a law, you have to consider the tradeoff of it impacting people unintentionally