stop saying a fetus when it's a baby and not a fetus
#Should Abortion be Illegal?
rose prism
some crimes deserve it but its kinda badly implemented with the us justice system
"men are not killed for stealing horses, men are killed so that no horses will be stolen"
is also a consideration
lilac pilot
some crimes deserve it but its kinda badly implemented with the us justice syste...
No you cant say ''some crimes deserve it'' when you argued that killing is morally wrong
this is what I meant earlier with moving the goalposts everytime
you cannot say in 1 instance it is wrong and in another instance it is right
rose prism
actually a good point
But I think there is a difference between a justice system serving out punishment and murdering a criminal yourself
lilac pilot
Idk, I cannot fathom the idea that you feel abortion is worse than capital punishment
Now I am wondering how you feel about euthanasia but idk if thats too much off topic
shadow bolt
I can see the idea that abortion is worse than capital punishment. However, it doesn't have to be a good thing to be the best option you have at times. Sometimes having a kid, especially at a low age of like <16, it can ruin your life. So your options almost become murder or suicide. The question of the legality of abortion would then become: Do we want to force someone to pick one option that doesn't necessarily have to end in a death, or do we let the mother choose? I know if I was forced to pick between murder and a probable suicide, I would pick murder 100% of the time.
plucky oriole
How does abortion save babies lives? This is 100% a lie. đ¤Śââď¸
lilac pilot
How does abortion save babies lives? This is 100% a lie. đ¤Śââď¸
I think he said the same thing...
timber ravine
fetus
an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception)
baby
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
timber ravine
stop saying a fetus when it's a baby and not a fetus
Obviously fetus and NOT a baby
Unless your sperm is also a baby
All men are serial killer murdering all these babies
Billions
lilac pilot
They probably mean that a fetus will eventually grow into a baby if there are no complications, so in that sense you also save a baby if there is no abortion
timber ravine
So a potential prospective baby
lilac pilot
But I agree that the way they phrase it is an unfair representation of the idea
timber ravine
Which is the same as donât masturbate you are committing genocide
lilac pilot
Idk, some people argue that life ''starts'' at fertilization
timber ravine
So a potential prospective life is more important that death row inmates wow
lilac pilot
But that is bullshit imo as both sperm and eggs are living cells before fertilization
lilac pilot
Yeah its really hypocritical to say abortion is immoral but then go on arguing capital punishment is moral
lilac pilot
Exactly what i argued earlier
timber ravine
The worst argument Iâve heard is âwhat if that baby grew up to cure cancerâ đ
And what if the baby grew up to be Hitler 2.0
lilac pilot
The worst argument Iâve heard is âwhat if that baby grew up to cure cancerâ đ
And then argue somewhere else that evolution is waaaaay to unlikely to believe it, and here one of your arguments is a super specific extremely unlikely event
lilac pilot
ah shit you got me
lilac pilot
sure
rose prism
How does abortion save babies lives? This is 100% a lie. đ¤Śââď¸
banning abortions*
humans have rights from the point when they are one being, at conception
shadow bolt
IIRC humans have rights from the moment they're alive. So then the question becomes, when do you consider something alive?
I wouldn't consider something alive until it is capable of sustaining its own life. I don't mean it needs to be earning an income to buy food for itself, but it needs to be able to breathe, or more generally: absorb oxygen from its environment, without any outside help. For a human this means that I don't consider a fetus to be alive until it's born.
lilac pilot
IIRC humans have rights from the moment they're alive. So then the question beco...
But the cells are always alive even before conception. So it is not really a matter of ''when it becomes alive''.
shadow bolt
Maybe a better phrasing of the question then would be something like: How many human cells do you need to call it a human organism?
shadow bolt
I don't think there's a proper answer. It's just whatever you think it is.
Is a human stem cell an organism? I don't think so. Is an entire human an organism? I'd say so. Via Rolle's Theorem there now has to be a flipping point, a number of cells after which the group of human cells could be considered a human organism. However, where that flipping point is, is unclear and open to interpretation.
This is probably not a good way to think about it, since it doesn't come closer to answering the question at all.
shadow bolt
Arguing from the assumption of a heaven and hell, I don't think I can properly justify abortions either. It seems to be a sin, similar in effect to something like lust or gluttony: doing something bad to make your life on earth a lot better. And if your goal is to get as many people as possible to heaven eventually, then I do understand fighting for a ban on abortions. However, sometimes it's not the person that is seeking an abortion that sinned. Sometimes they did nothing wrong whatsoever, and now have to choose between a very difficult life with a kid, or hell. So basically, if you want to make abortions illegal, you also need to strongly support the people that would have gotten one otherwise.
devout cloak
Yeah its really hypocritical to say abortion is immoral but then go on arguing c...
I mean not really? Not saying I'm anti abortion, but you could argue that everyone innately has the right to life but death row inmates have forfeited it due to their actions whereas a fetus has done nothing wrong
rose prism
IIRC humans have rights from the moment they're alive. So then the question beco...
There is vast scientific consensus that a fetus/unborn baby is alive from conception. Whether it should be considered legally/morally a person is disputed
rose prism
I mean not really? Not saying I'm anti abortion, but you could argue that everyo...
exactly. "Life has inherent value" and "crimes should be punished" are not mutually exclusive concepts
eg unborn children are the most innocent and weak human beings of all, they do nothing to deserve death
lilac pilot
How does one in general ''deserve'' death
rose prism
I don't really want to argue this point
Not super relevant since most people support punishment for criminals regardless of abortion
Unless you disagree and think it is relevant but
it's an interesting philosophical question though
lilac pilot
No it was not about the punishment thing but I was just wondering what you meant with deserving death
It seems like a strange concept to me I guess
rose prism
Hmm. should I do this from a religious pov or not
1: Some actions are unjustifiably wrong
Sometimes homicide is a grey area, like in war, coercion or self defense
Those have different levels of severity depending on context
but some are simply wrong (rape, murder etc)
lilac pilot
is it like an eye for an eye thing?
rose prism
I don't think I can find moral roots for punishment without using objective truth
lilac pilot
I think im understanding where you come from
rose prism
is it like an eye for an eye thing?
Sure
lilac pilot
Alright, i can respect that but politely disagree
Dont want to start an argument or anything
was just curious
lilac pilot
gotta google that for a sec
rose prism
Like
Do you think that we should have laws punishing rape just so that rape does not happen
lilac pilot
yes ofcourse
rose prism
And that's the only reason?
Er
Do laws exist only to deincentivize crimes
or do they also fulfill moral judgement
lilac pilot
no, laws exist to be able to live in a society and be cool with unknown people
rose prism
So yes that'd be utilitarian (practical)
lilac pilot
I mean sure but preventing crime is just one thing
There is plenty of stuff in the law like taxes
But sure
rose prism
Right
lilac pilot
I guess i agree that law should just fulfil its purpose to make us able to live in larger societies by making some basic rules everyone can follow
rose prism
Well it's a disagreement
lilac pilot
basically to maximize the overall welfare of the area
rose prism
I think it also serves that purpose but not only that purpose
lilac pilot
ahhhh that makes sense
rose prism
simply put, you have the right to own things/objects. similarly, we are all God's objects. "God-given rights"
We are all God's property
Actually it's a good question
Here
lilac pilot
Its because humans in general dont like unfairness
rose prism
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
lilac pilot
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that t...
Alright but I still dont understand what this has to do with how we should punish crimes and what purpose the severity in a law serves from your perspective
and how this is all related to whether abortion should be illegal
rose prism
Restoring the moral order is a good way to put it
An eye for an eye
If I deprive someone else of their right to property I forfeit my own to an extent
Eg if I murder someone else immorally I deserve to die
lilac pilot
I mean, I am not religious, although I was raised that way. But from my perspective it seems unnecessarily cruel to punish someone harder than needed to get the same point across
I hope you understand my pov, find it hard to put in words
rose prism
From my pov we do not have full understanding of "the point"
From a religious pov, if I commit a mortal sin I deserve to be sent to hell
lilac pilot
But this makes me wonder, from your perspective and my limited knowledge of the Bible, should it not be God who ultimately decides the punishment? Why do we take this moral punishment into our own hands
rose prism
We cannot possibly understand how severe our sins sre
lilac pilot
Or would you say that someone who commited a heinous crime is not worthy of living in gods world or whatever?
Sorry i feel like that was rude but i am genuinely interested
rose prism
No it's a good question
It's good that I have to consider it too
Because I've taken this for granted to an extent
Eg that immoral action deserves punishment
Held it to be self evident
lilac pilot
Like from my perspective its like God tells us not to kill, but then when somebody does it we as other people decide to kill as a result of that anyway... Shouldn't it be god who decides the fate and not the people in Gods place
Im trying to say this as respectful as possible
lilac pilot
Nah i mean thats pretty much it i guess
rose prism
Like from my perspective its like God tells us not to kill, but then when somebo...
I promise I will get back to you on this question when I have a satisfactory answer
rose prism
Or would you say that someone who commited a heinous crime is not worthy of livi...
To this:
lilac pilot
awesome
rose prism
Or would you say that someone who commited a heinous crime is not worthy of livi...
Yes, which is why Jesus forgiving our sins and giving his apostles the authority to do the same is such a powerful act. I believe that if I commit a mortal sin and die without confessing it, I'm going to go to hell.
Even after death, we spend time in purgatory so that we are cleansed from our sins (confessed ones as well) before we enter heaven
Oh ig I misread that a little
lilac pilot
It seems like you want to rob them from the chance to repent their sins before Gods judgement
By taking matters into your own hands
rose prism
The death penalty isn't clearly rejected or supported by church dogma for... Reasons lol
lilac pilot
No I know but it seems weird to me, its just not how I learned about God growing up
but idk maybe we were raised with a different kind of christianity
rose prism
I previously have always considered punishment for evil actions to be self-evident
An eye for an eye, punishment restores the moral order etc
rose prism
By taking matters into your own hands
I used to be against the death penalty for this reason
I'll think more on this/do more research
I do have to go now, however
devout cloak
An eye for an eye, punishment restores the moral order etc
I mean does it though?
I think that's more just a poetic deterrent
And like I guess this maybe isn't the exact forum of it but like shit what's the point of hell
Infinite unending punishment and torment for crimes committed in less than a hundred years it's a lil intense to me, way overkill
And dying without confessing it is a weird division
especially when you consider the different levels of awareness and mental capacity of individuals. If someone goes through an extreme psychotic break and kills people due to layers of trauma surfacing in their brain to the point where they don't have an understanding of reality that gets shot after killing people is condemned to hell because they didn't have the capability of confessing at the moment?
Someone that had been beaten and abused while growing up for any mistake and misstep that has deeply internalized it to the point where they in essence feel like they will bring about to themselves a hell (that they have an actual historical experience of) if they were to admit their wrongdoing might be/feel incapable of confessing to their sins due to no fault of their own
Look at me, saying "I guess this isn't the exact forum for it" and then going in anyways oop
velvet steeple
I think abortion should be totally legal personally after all the person who decides to go through with it has to live with the choice anyways. If they feel no guilt so be it but at the end of the day it is not a living human being yet and its quite possible that the child would end up being illegally aborted anyways. Its safer for everyone as a whole to keep things above board with medicine I'm not pro abortion let me be clear but at the same time. the idea that abortion is killing is the same argument that could be said for a vasectomy you had the potential for kids now you killed millions of possible children. Truth is though law has no place in regulation of peoples daily lives. Roe V Wade being overturned is a disaster for modern medicine because once again the government is intervening peoples medical choices just like they did with the forced sterilization of people with genetic conditions (which hopefully never happens again).
timber ravine
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that t...
But there no creator⌠đŚ
rose prism
especially when you consider the different levels of awareness and mental capaci...
Just because someone led you into a grave sin does not mean the sin is not mortal
If you were abused, and that's why you sin, then the sin of the abuser is thst much greater
rose prism
And like I guess this maybe isn't the exact forum of it but like shit what's the...
All good comes from God. In the end, it's your choice between choosing to live with God or without God. The latter will only result in suffering
timber ravine
In a forum about legality I donât think god should be a factor. Church and state have to be separate
velvet steeple
good an evil are subjective as was mentioned earlier this is also not a religous arguement this is a legal arguement
timber ravine
good an evil are subjective as was mentioned earlier this is also not a religous...
Nice timing
rose prism
I mean they're inexplicably linked
velvet steeple
religion has no place in a court of law
rose prism
Church and state are separate means that the gov should have no influence on religion
Not the other way around
timber ravine
Church and state are separate means that the gov should have no influence on rel...
LOOOOOL EXACTLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND
rose prism
Religion always has and always will influence culture
timber ravine
If church has infouence over state true freedom of religion doesnât exist
velvet steeple
Your referring to laws passed under religious context which were passed because a protestant majority utilized the separation of church and state to pass pro Christian policy
timber ravine
Religion always has and always will influence culture
It supposedly doesnât. Itâs not supposed to but those in power value their personal beliefs more than their oaths at times
rose prism
Do you know why many people left England for some random colonies
timber ravine
Yeah because they were criminals, unwanted or poor
rose prism
It was because the king established a state religion
timber ravine
Or wanted more power
rose prism
Ok that too
velvet steeple
Do you know the American government was composed of church sceptics
rose prism
Define church
velvet steeple
Almost all the founding fathers were not religious
They claimed to be protestants
timber ravine
Freemason skeptics
rose prism
Do you have a citation for this
velvet steeple
But almost none attended church
rose prism
The problem they had was that much of Europe's religion was influenced by its politics
timber ravine
But here is something you might not know. To be a Freemason you actually have to believe in a higher power and most are actually somewhat religious. Just more skeptical about it.
velvet steeple
Exactly
timber ravine
But almost none attended church
Yeah cause they believed in God, not church
velvet steeple
Freemasons challenged the concept of organized religion
rose prism
facepalm
Religion influences culture
Culture influences politics
This will always be true
timber ravine
Religion influences culture
It does. But shouldnât
rose prism
Uh it should that's what that means. Religion influences people's beliefs
velvet steeple
And usually doesn't in states with secular ideology
Like for example almost all the developed world
timber ravine
The establishment clause prohibits all levels of government from either advancing or inhibiting religion.
rose prism
That is exactly what I said
velvet steeple
The establishment clause prohibits all levels of government from either advancin...
Bingo
rose prism
Government should not influence religion
timber ravine
đ¤Śââď¸
timber ravine
And church should not influence religion
velvet steeple
Also true
rose prism
Guys you're free to a religion
timber ravine
Otherwise you can only believe in Jesus
rose prism
Because you're free to your own beliefs
velvet steeple
He's arguing religion is a fundamental part in law which is objectively not true
rose prism
Obviously your beliefs and which religion you pick influence each other
timber ravine
Guys you're free to a religion
Not because of the Bible! Because of the separation. The church wanted a state religion. No mosques, no nothing
rose prism
Not because of the Bible! Because of the separation. The church wanted a state r...
Right because that follows their beliefs, and most people don't think that so it's not implemented
timber ravine
If the church had its way all the us would be Protestant Christians
velvet steeple
People pick a religion they believe their morals align with
rose prism
Bro if everyone in the US had certain beliefs
The exact same ones
Laws would be easy
Right?
velvet steeple
No
timber ravine
By the beliefs of the people
No đ
timber ravine
Laws are influenced by popularity to voters
rose prism
So true
velvet steeple
This isn't religious
It specifically states not religion
If you cannot contribute without Bible quotes stop posting
rose prism
Established religions and the existence of religion are two different contexts
timber ravine
What happens when a court of law values their religious beliefs MORE than what the people want though?
Aka Roe V Wade
rose prism
well you live in America I presume
Do you believe in the constitution or not?
if not why do you live here
velvet steeple
No I live in Zimbabwe
rose prism
@timber ravine probably does since we're talking about us stuff
timber ravine
<@285888036309434368> probably does since we're talking about us stuff
I live in the US
rose prism
Right. The way us gov is made means it does and in future will act according to the Constitution
If the people no longer believe in it
timber ravine
To a degree. Can also change the constitution
rose prism
Right
But the fact is, the Constitution is based on the declaration which is based upon God
timber ravine
How?
rose prism
The nation is literally build on religious beliefs
Hold these truths... Etc
It's not a stretch to say the declaration of independence was a founding document as well
Since it's the document that explains why they revolted
rose prism
I'm saying that the founding fathers based the constitution on the same beliefs they had in the declaration
timber ravine
Only some Deep South states. The constitution of the US doesnât have anything about God
rose prism
I'm saying that the founding fathers based the constitution on the same beliefs ...
Is this really something we have to debate
timber ravine
Even the Supreme Court agreed the constitution doesnât and cannot endorse religion
rose prism
I didn't say that
timber ravine
I'm saying that the founding fathers based the constitution on the same beliefs ...
Their beliefs were against the power or church though
rose prism
But the Constitution was still based on judeo-christian beliefs
rose prism
The nation has a fundamental flaw when its people reject the beliefs that its government is build on
rose prism
That's my point
velvet steeple
I agree
timber ravine
The nation has a fundamental flaw when its people reject the beliefs that its go...
Have you read the constitution?
rose prism
yes
timber ravine
I donât understand⌠are you confusing the US constitution with the constitution of Alabama maybe?
rose prism
Government is based upon culture, right?
velvet steeple
Back in USSR
rose prism
Culture is influenced by religious beliefs which are also influenced by organized religion. This has been true across time
timber ravine
I mean 3/5 people who wrote the declaration didnât believe in Jesus
They believed in deism
velvet steeple
Facts lmao
rose prism
a right to life is clearly mentioned in the declaration
timber ravine
Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems.
timber ravine
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ....
Here. Clearly about people who are already born
velvet steeple
Don't bother arguing with this guy
rose prism
Every person has certain unalienable rights, among these are life
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness
timber ravine
Every person has certain unalienable rights, among these are *life*
Without due process yeah⌠but person means a living breathing born one, not a fetus!
velvet steeple
Allah wills it
rose prism
Allah wills it
Please stop making snide comments that contribute nothing
It's just degrading
rose prism
Laws are clearly related to morality and government so this is not unrelated
velvet steeple
It is actually
rose prism
Without due process yeah⌠but person means a living breathing born one, not a fe...
When do you think humans are given rights
Because sperm does not have rights
velvet steeple
Finally back on track
timber ravine
@rose prism think of it simply. The super religious Supreme Court took down roe v wade. Why wouldnât they just say the constitution says every fetus has a right to life? Why didnât they use this as an argument against roe v wade. IF the constitution gave a right to life to unborn babies TRUST me they would already have made it illegal to have an abortion federally
rose prism
But born babies do
velvet steeple
True
rose prism
Btw I only have 8 more minutes I'm not trying to dodge y'all
timber ravine
In my personal opinion until the fetus is viable with no aid that is when it is no longer just a parasite
velvet steeple
The Court tried to ban abortion before and it failed
timber ravine
Prospective life is dumb
velvet steeple
In my personal opinion until the fetus is viable with no aid that is when it is ...
Ummmm
timber ravine
Itâs like sperm. Make masturbating and periods illegal
velvet steeple
So children born premo have no rights
timber ravine
Even Nature kills possible babies monthly
timber ravine
So children born premo have no rights
They are viable. I mean aid from the wound
velvet steeple
Because they need support to live
timber ravine
Womb
velvet steeple
I would argue when a child can feel pain
timber ravine
I would argue when a child can feel pain
Once itâs a child it has rights. You mean fetus?
velvet steeple
No because by the time the child has a nervous system it's capable of assisted survival
timber ravine
Why is pain a thing? You can feel pain without lungs and a heart. Even without most of your brain. Itâs a chemical reaction
rose prism
<@722188747080204298> think of it simply. The super religious Supreme Court took...
Because humans do not always make correct decisions. just because the court made a decision doesn't mean it's infallible
timber ravine
Because humans do not always make correct decisions. just because the court made...
Not what I said. I said if they could argue that they 100000% would
velvet steeple
True but Roe v Wade was a good choice
rose prism
Without due process yeah⌠but person means a living breathing born one, not a fe...
Ok so living born beings
Have a right to life
Do we agree
?
When do they get that right
rose prism
no, morally
timber ravine
I donât care about morality. This is a forum regarding legality
rose prism
Because rights are not decided by laws. Eg courts can make laws that are immoral
timber ravine
Even said when I made it NOT MORALLY
rose prism
.... We are arguing whether unborn babies have rights
Because that's what should define the subject matter legally
Right?
timber ravine
Because rights are not decided by laws. Eg courts can make laws that are immoral
The bill of rights forms the laws
timber ravine
.... We are arguing whether unborn babies have rights
Yes. According to the constitution, not morality.
velvet steeple
I would however argue that unborn children should still be allowed to live
Depenfing on the factors which brought about their conception
If no birth control is used no condom is used and someone gets pregnant because they were irresponsible they should have to live with the consequences
But at the same time if someone practiced safe sex and still got pregnant anyways abortion should be viable for IMO for 14 weeks
After that though a child becomes sentient and I don't like the idea of killing sentient creatures who have by this point an extremely high likelihood of being born
lilac pilot
Church and state are separate means that the gov should have no influence on rel...
Bro what?
The French revolution means nothing to you
lilac pilot
When do you think humans are given rights
at the moment they are reported to the government as a citizen
lilac pilot
If no birth control is used no condom is used and someone gets pregnant because ...
Why should the circumstances matter whether abortion should be legal or illegal
velvet steeple
because it matters in any law
lilac pilot
IMO even if someone makes a stupid decision, you still can't take their right to decide what they do with their own body
lilac pilot
I said in my opinion
velvet steeple
The right to vote is stripped from convicts for this exact reason
lilac pilot
afaik prisoners still have bodily autonomy
velvet steeple
I mean not really
Strip searches and cavity searches are legal in prison
the right to basic human decency becomes forfeit even for petty crimes
lilac pilot
pretty much depends on the country
velvet steeple
Allowing people total freedom of abortion legally is a bad idea
just like with drugs or anything else in law circumstances are important
lilac pilot
But my point was not whether it is or is not legal now, my point was that my personal opinion is that circumstances shouldnt matter in a case about bodily autonomy
lilac pilot
Allowing people total freedom of abortion legally is a bad idea
why?
velvet steeple
Well other than the fact that abortions would severely clog up maternity wards
It would be used extremely halfhazardly
lilac pilot
There are plenty of countries where abortion is legal where that does not happen so i don't think thats true
velvet steeple
go there youll see why we defy the standards
lilac pilot
But if there are many countries that are culturally different where this is not an issue, why should it be an issue in the US
velvet steeple
we put trashcans on every streetcorner yet people still litter
because americans like pushing subjects and lws to the limit
our gun laws are a perfect exmaple of this
If things are left totally unrestricted they will get abused
abortions are a last resort measure
other methods of anti contraception should be paramount before a decision is made
just like with any other law the circumstances determine the outcome
lilac pilot
other methods of anti contraception should be paramount before a decision is mad...
I mean thats pretty obvious to most people
velvet steeple
and contrary to what you think very very few countries have totally unrestricted abortion
lilac pilot
I mean, it is not like having an abortus is nice to do
Most people still feel a lot of guilt afterwards
its mentally and physically draining on most people
velvet steeple
and yet most abortions are done on parents who used no contraception
lilac pilot
and yet most abortions are done on parents who used no contraception
Sure but I dont see how this is relevant in any way
velvet steeple
It is relavant in every way
lilac pilot
Oh i misread my bad
velvet steeple
Many of these people getting abortions are using it in lieu if consequence
there should be penalties for poor choices
a 300 dollar abortion which is sometimes covered by insurance is not a penalty
lilac pilot
there should be penalties for poor choices
Yes i agree, but I think the mental and physical pain of undergoing an abortion is enough of a penalty
velvet steeple
yet people can be repeat offenders
also mental pain is for people like you and me who think abortion is bad but legal
there are plenty who couldnt care less
lilac pilot
No mental pain is for the people who feel guilt their entire lives because of ''what if it was born''
velvet steeple
they see it as nothing and insignificant
lilac pilot
If you think so
velvet steeple
I know people who have had multiple
they dont care
the only reason they havent had more is because they are now too old
lilac pilot
A very close friend of mine the exact opposite tho
velvet steeple
because being sterilized is more expensive
lilac pilot
Still very upset about an abortion she had 8 years ago
lilac pilot
because being sterilized is more expensive
But then a lack of affordable safe contraceptions is the real problem
velvet steeple
no
lilac pilot
And not the abortion itself
lilac pilot
okay do you have to pay for contraceptives in the US?
velvet steeple
no more tubes
lilac pilot
Do you have to pay for sterilization in the US?
velvet steeple
YES and they are super expensive
velvet steeple
sterlization is usually over a grand
velvet steeple
and contraceptives vary but can run anywhere from 60 to 300 depending on what for
velvet steeple
Plan B is at least a hundred dollars
lilac pilot
So most US citizens dont have access to affordable contraception...
So then THAT is the real problem
that is the reason people get unwanted pregnancies
velvet steeple
and birthcontrol is prescription based only so usually around 20 bucks a month you use it for
velvet steeple
meh
depends what brands
but not too expensive
like 20-30 bucks for a large box
Last time I looked a single was like 1.25
the problem is that birth control meds are not possible for some women
and they have serious side effects
and condoms fail
so then you have 2 lines of defense
lilac pilot
and condoms fail
yeah but most of the time they dont
velvet steeple
plan B which is just as expensive as an abortion
lilac pilot
so than you would still have a lot less unwanted pregnancies
velvet steeple
and only semi likely to work
or an abortion which is sure fire
and roughly the same price
so of course
a lot of people will skip steps
lilac pilot
alright, so for example, in my country you can have a hormone implanted in your womb idk the english word for this which works for like 5 to 6 years
guess the price
lilac pilot
exactly
velvet steeple
but again I believe circumstances are important
lilac pilot
Well in most countries healthcare is not something to make a profit off
thats really just the US
velvet steeple
failure to be responsible and exhaust other options should be a misdemeanor
lilac pilot
So then my answer is:
- Make sure everyone has access to the right contraceptives that are affordable
- Prevent most unwanted pregnancies
- Abortion rate goes down significantly
- Abortion stays legal for people who need it
velvet steeple
if you fail to practice safe sex and get pregnant both you and the guy responsible should be punished
agreed
im not saying make it illegal
im saying make it so poor choices are penalized
lilac pilot
Yeah but i mean, your arguments can be mostly prevented by affordable contraception and good education
lilac pilot
So then that would be the real solution to the abortion debate
velvet steeple
for the irresponsible few there should be repercussions
lilac pilot
If less people require an abortion, it shouldnt be such a big deal if once in a while someone does need it
lilac pilot
I dont agree with you on that tho
velvet steeple
im completely okay with people needing an abortion
but failure to practice safe sex should be penalized
theres a process to this
an abortion is the last resort
not the pull out game and chance it resort
lilac pilot
I mean, a lot of people do a lot of stupid things, you cant penalise everyone for making a stupid decision.
velvet steeple
agreed but this is more than a stupid decision
its like reckless driving
sure they didnt hit anyone
lilac pilot
Yeah i disagree
velvet steeple
to the people who exhausted other options and failed to avoid contraception there shouldnt be penalties
but actions have consequences
lilac pilot
Yeah but in general, if you make a bad decision you shouldnt be penalised by law
i mean depends on how you define bad decision
but like just a minor fuckup
velvet steeple
thats how misdemeanors work
not on a criminal record
but you have to pay a fine
lilac pilot
im not familiar with US law
velvet steeple
or do community service
its a slap on the wrist
rather than going to jail
in the US we have felonies which are crimes bad enough to warrant jail time
and misdemeanors which are like shoplifting or speeding
where you get a fine and a warning that continuing to make bad choices will result in jail
lilac pilot
In my county we have many different types of law, for example criminal law, building law, tax law whatever. But only criminal law can warrant possible jail time depending on what you did and the circumstances
velvet steeple
yeah thats not how things work here
hence why Im saying there should be punishments
but no need to ruin their lives or anything
give them a fine or community service for making poor choices
hopefully is discourages them from skipping steps again in the future
for people who went through proper proceedures though I agree
no penalty
though I do believe in the 14 week cutoff
if you decide to carry the child beyond 14 weeks your in it to stay
by that point the child can feel pain and it mentally developed enough to feel
timber ravine
by that point the child can feel pain and it mentally developed enough to feel
Fetus you mean not child
velvet steeple
I would consider the concept of sentience the point where the fetus ends but yes
velvet steeple
I mean again
timber ravine
Doesnât matter what you consider this is what it means đ
velvet steeple
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority:
the terms are not mutually exlcusive
this the definition of both
something can be a fetus that doesnt make it not a child
timber ravine
Baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
timber ravine
you take it even further it's even worse
velvet steeple
Really
velvet steeple
Yes the definition of child
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority:
timber ravine
fetus-infant-baby-child....
velvet steeple
Is a human fetus human
timber ravine
no
velvet steeple
It's a human fetus
timber ravine
show me any research referring to an unborn "child"start here @lilac pilot read and help me
come on i'll wait
velvet steeple
Okay it won't be clinical since child isn't a clinical term but one second
timber ravine
it can be anything published peer reviewed in any reputable journal
velvet steeple
Fetus is defined as: An unborn baby that develops and grows inside the uterus. An unborn child is medically referred to fetus starting at eleven weeks.
Crazy
timber ravine
please avoid theology or church ones as they are not peer reviewed objective journals
timber ravine
that's making my point
timber ravine
if it's a child why say an unborn child. firstly. secondly you didn't show me where it's from
it's like saying a fetus is unfertilized sperm so sperm is a fetus
so sperm is a baby, so sperm is a child
velvet steeple
Not even close
velvet steeple
Child is any conceived human
It's a term to describe any human born or unborn its extremely bland
timber ravine
Child is any conceived human
wait wait wait still waiting on the source of that sentence before i take it as true đ
timber ravine
nice peer reviewed journal đ
velvet steeple
I'm not gonna waste time walking to class searching for peer reviewed journals
timber ravine
next time cite the bible
timber ravine
ok just go to class maybe you'll learn something
velvet steeple
Lmao
timber ravine
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority
timber ravine
Does a human fetus match that description
no
velvet steeple
HOW
timber ravine
does a 1 hour old fetus match it?
cause 1 hour old and 20 week old fetus is still a freaking fetus
timber ravine
No cause a fetus must be at least 8 weeks
an hour old fetus is an 8 week old embryo lol
it sis still an hour old fetus.
i didn't say a 1 hour cell from conception
velvet steeple
Well no it would cease being a embryo and become a fetus
timber ravine
Well no it would cease being a embryo and become a fetus
and after 1 hour it would be a 1 hour old fetus wtf
lol
timber ravine
are you going to biology class now?
velvet steeple
No I finished college bio two years ago
Hence why I'm telling you child and or children is a term to describe any offspring
timber ravine
No I finished college bio two years ago
and you referred to just formed fetuses as children?
velvet steeple
Refers to all offsrping
And yeah if you wanted to you could call a fetus a child
Though again
More technically it's described as an unborn child because it is still a child but to specify more medical records it's noted it is in fact not born yet
A baby is also a child
A toddler is a child
Anything post conception to age of consent can be defined as a child
Hence why it's not a medical term
timber ravine
yet i have never seen fetuses referred as children in academia.
velvet steeple
Cause children isn't used in medical academia at all
timber ravine
why not
velvet steeple
No patient medical record says child
Because it's to broad
It spans way too large a range
timber ravine
why are child doctors called child doctor?
timber ravine
and prenatal doctor prenatal
timber ravine
They are called pediatricians
which literally is pedi (child in greek)
child doctor
velvet steeple
Brug
Prenatal doctors are specially trained for unborn children
Also
They specialize in more than just the child
They are specialized in conception
The effects on both parents and unborn child
timber ravine
so in your opinion a fetus can be called a child
velvet steeple
Correct
timber ravine
so you believe that abortion is cool until 8-10 weeks?
velvet steeple
And that would be acceptable per the definition of child
timber ravine
but not after
velvet steeple
About 14 weeks
timber ravine
why 14?
velvet steeple
Because that's when the nervous system is capable of feeling
timber ravine
if it's a child and you think we shouldn't kill children
timber ravine
Because that's when the nervous system is capable of feeling
so "children" that can't feel should be culled
velvet steeple
And it allots plenty of time for the mother to seeks treatment and other options
timber ravine
And it allots plenty of time for the mother to seeks treatment and other options
14 weeks does not
velvet steeple
Ah I see now what your doing
You've given up on winning the arguement
So you just seek to make me look bad
timber ravine
Ah I see now what your doing
for once i'm using your train of thought cause you either don't listen or not understand
velvet steeple
Lol
velvet steeple
14 weeks yes
timber ravine
what's the difference between 8 weeks and 14 weeks. Just feelings?
velvet steeple
That's when the pain receptors form
timber ravine
That's when the pain receptors form
for some
velvet steeple
No no like that's the point when they will begin forming
timber ravine
and pain receptors are what gives you rights to life?
velvet steeple
not what im saying
but in a way inadvertantly yes
by this point the mother has had plenty of time to complete an abortion and any other medical intervention
14 weeks is a long time
timber ravine
i'm not trying to trick you. i'm trying to understand something that makes sense to me. I'm looking at legality and using biology to look at it. I have a Biology degree and cannot make sense of what exactly you support. I'm just trying to figure it out as i didn't ready your discussion with cury
timber ravine
by this point the mother has had plenty of time to complete an abortion and any ...
i personally do think there should be a cutoff point. that is not the argument at hand. If you think it should be 14 weeks you are in favour of abortion being legal
timber ravine
abortion being illegal means no abortion
timber ravine
and they are even trying to make counterceptives illegal
velvet steeple
I want to make it so theirs penalties for people who are irresponeible
and use no contraceptives
timber ravine
that's also not making sense
velvet steeple
get pregnant and just immediately rush for an abortion
timber ravine
you don't realise you are pregnant until 20 weeks there are many circumstances
timber ravine
you can't really punish stupidity.
timber ravine
"my hubby had good pullout" is not
it's not i agree with you personally. The law is different beast
timber ravine
purely objectively noone has a right to life before they are born
velvet steeple
just that there should be outlined reasons that if you meet no penalties
timber ravine
even if I have different personal beliefs
velvet steeple
but if you fail to have safe sex and get pregnant you should face penalties
timber ravine
just that there should be outlined reasons that if you meet no penalties
but why?
velvet steeple
if you decide to abort it
timber ravine
this is a legal issue
velvet steeple
indeed
timber ravine
what legal argument can you use to punish people aborting at 9 months?
it's the old question "should suicide be illegal and considered murder"
velvet steeple
I prepose misdemeanors for parents who do not practice saf esex and get pregnant
timber ravine
and then punish that with the death penalty đ
velvet steeple
I can use the same arguement that is used for reckless driving
timber ravine
I prepose misdemeanors for parents who do not practice saf esex and get pregnant
UNDER WHAT LAW ARGUMENT
velvet steeple
they are putting both their lives and their doctors mental health at risk needlessly because they are being irresponsible and reckless
timber ravine
their doctors?
velvet steeple
thats the legal arguement
timber ravine
how?
velvet steeple
yes but also no
timber ravine
yeah but also yeah
timber ravine
you don't even lose your job
velvet steeple
again
timber ravine
you are medically obligated to help
not true
velvet steeple
as a doctor
timber ravine
nope
velvet steeple
do you live in the US
timber ravine
yes
timber ravine
not obliged to do anything if it's not a life threatening circumstance. also abortions are not carried in any hospital you know
velvet steeple
The ability to perform an abortion is paramount in the practice of gynecology. Although doctors cannot refuse abortions when a motherâs life is in danger, they can push her health risk to the very limit to avoid performing the procedure.
again
timber ravine
to be forced to do it you'd need to be the only available doctor and be a life threatening situation to the mother
velvet steeple
hence why I said yes and no
normally you are right
but there are circumstances in which doctors can be forced
timber ravine
so their mentality gets screwed either way. kill the fetus or the mother
timber ravine
but there are circumstances in which doctors can be forced
nope
velvet steeple
correct
timber ravine
i'm still not hearing an argument that can stand up in court
velvet steeple
Im a law student
timber ravine
perfect
velvet steeple
SO again let me try to explain the legal implications
timber ravine
can mothers with unwanted pregnancy have mental issues?
velvet steeple
you are by waiting till the last minute
endangering both yourself and putting the doctors mental health at risk
hence why there should be a legal cutoff
which there is
timber ravine
you are still arguing a different topic
timber ravine
of abortion
velvet steeple
but only up to a certain point
velvet steeple
then no I dont support killing a child 4 minutes from birth
timber ravine
but only up to a certain point
since you are a law student you probably know that's impossible to do federally
velvet steeple
not really
Its already done
the law specifies the legality of abortion up to certain point
timber ravine
there should be a law allowing abortions federally up to a certain point whatever it is, and the states can do more if they wish
timber ravine
the federal government can't impose a uniform timeframe
velvet steeple
no
timber ravine
that's uncontintutional
velvet steeple
Im not imposing they do
timber ravine
so why would there be punishments?
velvet steeple
secondly I prepose penalties for people who refuse to practice safe sex
timber ravine
you can punish the doctors if they break their states' laws if you want
timber ravine
secondly I prepose penalties for people who refuse to practice safe sex
you can't do that
velvet steeple
you actually can legally
timber ravine
not in the US
timber ravine
a fine for what? not using condoms?
velvet steeple
a fine for failure to have safe sex
timber ravine
so make it illegal to have unsafe sex?
timber ravine
are you also going to provide free birth control, guarantee 100% efficiency of contraceptives?
velvet steeple
but if you want an abortion because you were irresponsible and didnt use any contraceptives or protection
you should ideally be penalized
velvet steeple
You would be safe from this if you used any form of protection irrespective of weather it failed or not
the fact you made a responsible choice
and tried to prevent pregnancy
timber ravine
what if you want to have sex without condoms and have an abortion every week?
velvet steeple
fines
velvet steeple
lots of fines
timber ravine
WHY
timber ravine
great legal argument.... it is irresponsible
it's not like you are wasting taxpayer money you know abortions cost
there is your fine
velvet steeple
but see this is where imma have to say I dont belive abortions should cost money
but again abortions are a last resort measure
velvet steeple
I mean in general
timber ravine
so... there is your fine...
if you are raped next day pill is also provided for free
velvet steeple
correct but I dont think people who used contraceptives' and were responsible but got pregnant anyways should be punished
timber ravine
you know there is also absolutely no way of controlling that right?
velvet steeple
sadly yes
timber ravine
and we are making fun of the pullout method but it's also considered a contraceptive
velvet steeple
you see what I mean
I dont think I need to argue with you about what I mean
when I say contraceptives
Im speaking in ideals
not it practice
timber ravine
no i really don't. You are proposing something based on no legal arguments that cannot be controlled and doesn't make much sense. And without having the infrastructure to support it.
timber ravine
Im speaking in ideals
well that's fine but when you say this to a forum about Legality of abortion it can get heated
velvet steeple
and proving someone didnt use contracpetives
timber ravine
the problem is in the enforcement aspect
and the aspect that this is a moral argument and not a legal one
timber ravine
how are you going to impose a fine? what's the law they broke?
velvet steeple
You would create a law mandating abortions are legal if sex is safe and attempts to prevent conception were used
timber ravine
irresponsible lack of usage of helmets?
velvet steeple
yeah
actually perfect example
the problem is proving the guy isnt wearing his helmet
timber ravine
hold up
velvet steeple
but the concept is effectively the same
velvet steeple
YES
both should be held responsible
since sex is characterized by consent from 2 parties
velvet steeple
he a guy wants a child has sex without the women consenting to that its rape
timber ravine
come on man get serious please
timber ravine
he a guy wants a child has sex without the women consenting to that its rape
wait what?
that's a stretch
so if a condome breaks put the fine on the company who made them also
velvet steeple
If a man is told he can have sex with a condom and refuses to wear one anyways
still makes the girl have sex
that rape
timber ravine
no no no
velvet steeple
consent is void in that case
velvet steeple
oh okay
timber ravine
but didn't want a baby
velvet steeple
I thought you were saying he just goes for it
timber ravine
and he says but i don't mind a baby i'm against abortion
velvet steeple
without her approving
velvet steeple
condom break is not their faults
timber ravine
good luck
velvet steeple
so abortion should be paid for ideally by the company
velvet steeple
hence why I said enforcement would be impossible
timber ravine
so enforcement is impossible yeah
velvet steeple
but in that scenario I would say IMO he isnt at fault
timber ravine
what precedent is there according to the constitution
velvet steeple
The constitution is only used to determine the legality of a law not to define all aspects of legal activites
timber ravine
yeah the precedent in general
velvet steeple
Well again seatbelts and helmets are a good example
timber ravine
i just don't want something that was upheld by the constitution of Alabama and not from the US constitution i mean
velvet steeple
oh yeah no i would not ever use state constitutions for basis of federal laws
timber ravine
that puts others in danger
velvet steeple
how does you not wearing a helmet put other people in danger
timber ravine
why is it legal to not wear one in the back seat?
timber ravine
how does you not wearing a helmet put other people in danger
i meant helmet as a condom earlier lol
haha was a joke
velvet steeple
but it actually was a great legal example
several states have laws regarding laws of helmets
many states require you wear one
though they usually arent super enforced
because again
timber ravine
you are forgetting giant issues
are you legally required to wear a seatbelt in private property?
velvet steeple
no but you are with a helmet
timber ravine
what?
velvet steeple
yeah
timber ravine
i don't think that's true
velvet steeple
one second
timber ravine
there can't be a law like that it's unconstitutional
velvet steeple
No, the helmet law applies on public and private property. Who is responsible if a violation is found by an officer? The operator of any vehicle is ultimately responsible for any violation, including the failure of the operator to wear a helmet.
it is totally legal
timber ravine
i need to see that there is no way
only criminal statutes apply to private property
velvet steeple
heres one
this in reference to the DC area
but I can find some more one second
Ill find the speciffic clause
timber ravine
DOTâapproved ATV or motorcycle helmets are required for all ATV/UTV operators and passengers under age 18. Bicycle helmets do not meet this requirement.
timber ravine
It's not federally and can't really find any other state even
velvet steeple
Itâs important to note that helmet laws typically donât apply to private property. However, minors must wear helmets if riding on a public street, bike trail, or path. California Helmet Laws
again
federally its not
bc the federal gov doesnt care enough to get involved
timber ravine
yeah if someone were to take this to the supreme court it would be unconstitutional
velvet steeple
no
timber ravine
yeah
velvet steeple
thats not how that works
number one
In what way is it unconstitutional
define which constitutional clause it violates
timber ravine
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
can't have due process when these statutes don't apply to private property
timber ravine
that's one
velvet steeple
life liberty and pursuit of happiness is defined currently by the supreme court as nothing with restricts your personal freedoms
timber ravine
5th isn't it?
velvet steeple
due prcoess is the 5th yes
now lets talk due process
Due process is the idea that if arrested you are legally required to have a fair and expedient trial
timber ravine
not only that come on
velvet steeple
okay one second
timber ravine
you've read the 14th ammendment
velvet steeple
Due process of law is application by state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to the case so all legal rights that are owed to the person are respected.
timber ravine
i'm assuming
velvet steeple
Okay
so thats due prcoess
so it wont violate that
as their legal rights are being respected
timber ravine
but you can't enforce non criminal laws in private property
it's taking away liberty
velvet steeple
now it could be said
its government ovvereach
as it regulates activites you can do within your own domicile
however
thats hard to fight
timber ravine
not really
velvet steeple
precedent would be against you
timber ravine
been argued many times
velvet steeple
indeed
velvet steeple
It was debated
but ovveruled
courts dubbed it legal
it was argued with guns in cars as well
weather you need a concealed carry in your car in order to have a firearm inside your car
timber ravine
weather you need a concealed carry in your car in order to have a firearm inside...
and it's not required
velvet steeple
this was ruled unconstitutional
timber ravine
yeah
timber ravine
in private property
velvet steeple
because it does not infringe upon your right to live or be happy
velvet steeple
no no the states legalized i
timber ravine
i think it's that all cars HAVE to have seatbelts and be worn
timber ravine
i think it was hartdog v state or something like that
velvet steeple
but federally you are not required to wear a seatbelt
only on the stae level
someone contested the state ruling
timber ravine
but federally you are not required to wear a seatbelt
there is no way
velvet steeple
okay one seconf
timber ravine
cause some intestates and highways don't fall within state jurisdiction