Should Abortion be Illegal?

[cosmic pivot]

B = parent 2

If a = 0,
There is no b

Wait, that doesn’t make sense 😂

Let me try again

[latent vapor]

I got a mathematical formula

Same variables

[cosmic pivot]

Y = child

Y will always be = 0
If a or b is 0

1 * 0 = 0
0*1 = 0

[latent vapor]

Parent 1 + Parent 2 = Child, Abortion = Parent 1 + Parent 2 + Child - Child. Murder: Society = Society - Person 1 (because of Person 2)

[cosmic pivot]

You need the parents to have the child, they decide wether they want one and what happens to it, until it can think by itself for its own good…

[latent vapor]

So human value has no life if it can't think for it's own? Let's go round up all those people that science have shown to not be capable of thinking.

[cosmic pivot]

?

Such as?

Alright, I’ll challenge another aspect of your reflexion then

If

If,

You consider abortion as murdering,

Fine, I don’t agree, but fine

Then I don’t care if you commit this specific type of murder

Murder in that case would be ok for me

So they get their life ruined?

Wasn’t it you that was talking about the rape thing?

Idk why you all give so little importance to the parents. While yes, the child is innocent, I can’t and won’t deny that, the parents, even if maybe not innocent, still deserve some love, don’t you think?

I don’t mind sacrificing innocents. If it has to be done, it has to be done 🫡

Who cares about the law

People write the law

Based on what they believe

Centuries ago, slaves were believed to be good working tools

[pulsar galleon]

Yes, you made the mistake you fucked up so its your fault and you face the consequences

[cosmic pivot]

I think you are more cruel than me 😂

[pulsar galleon]

The thing about Rape is that its different, it wasn’t their fault

[pulsar galleon]

Not as cruel as killing a baby?

Again just like you, I was being straight forward

[cosmic pivot]

You just said it was ok to have the lives of 2 people being ruined for the life of 1 (that may also be ruined because parents dont love em and …)

[cosmic pivot]

And I like it

[pulsar galleon]

It’s not like we kill them, the thing is that its not entirely ruined its just that they have to take care of a child that they have made meanwhile the child is simply just killed not even ruined yet

The child could atleast go to an adoption center after birth?

[cosmic pivot]

That

I agree with 100%

But some people will get attached to the child and blablabla + maybe over abundance of children in adoption center would be a problem…but sure, it would be a huge pain in the ass for the women during 9 months, but then it would be good

[latent vapor]

That's called life, if you make a decision you have to deal with the consequences, that's like saying it is curel to arrest someone for rape. They made the choice, they should face the consequences

[cosmic pivot]

But you know, the base of my argument is that “children” are already being killed everyday, and that okay, by using a condome, u kill them, by using the pill, u also do…it isn’t that big of a deal

Who doesnt like to kill children? I surely do

https://tenor.com/view/shining-heres-johnny-jack-nicholson-gif-6035548

[pulsar galleon]

By using a condom you prevent the sperm reaching the egg

You dont kill it

You sleep and you nut you don’t actually kill millions of children

[cosmic pivot]

Are you comparing making a child and rape? 😂

[pulsar galleon]

Overtime sperm die in your nutsack doesn’t mean you kill them

[cosmic pivot]

According to your logic, yeah

[pulsar galleon]

It’s sperm its not combined with an egg yet

[cosmic pivot]

Your sperm is just a child that didn’t reach an ovum

[cosmic pivot]

But it could have

It had the potential to be one

But you choose not to do it

In a way, you kill thousands if not millions of children

[pulsar galleon]

No

It simply had none unless you willingly had sex to have a baby

[cosmic pivot]

Thats the same thing

As abortion

The only difference is that you do the process of removing the child a step before

[pulsar galleon]

Abortion is killing the baby that already took the chance to become something, sperm is not a human yet its just a floating material that isn’t even half human

[pulsar galleon]

Would you consider not having sex at all technically killing children?

[cosmic pivot]

Okay, so what is the difference between your sperm and a zygote?

If we take the molecules out of the equation

Both dont act like a child

Dont ressemble one

And have no way to live without the help of the parents

[latent vapor]

I'm comparing situations where people should take responsibility for their actions

[cosmic pivot]

One is morally wrong : rape

The other, sex, is just a pleasant activity

Or a natural habit if you want

[pulsar galleon]

A half human who isn’t even a human and a baby that just started developing

A baby isn’t a baby without the egg and sperm together

[cosmic pivot]

Does that really make sense to you?

Would you see a zygote in the nature and think to yourself :

Oh wow!

What a healty human!

[pulsar galleon]

Yeah its growing already at that stage and its something thats actually living

[cosmic pivot]

As I said, it is the lvl1 pokemon

It needs to evolve 2 other times to be called a proper human

[pulsar galleon]

What about sperm then? How would it even be a Pokémon or anything without the addition of the egg

[cosmic pivot]

And even then, for it to be of any use, you need to farm xp with it

[cosmic pivot]

It is

It is half of a human

[pulsar galleon]

So by using your logic, you kill millions of babies practically every day

[cosmic pivot]

Yes

Following your logic, those are humans

[pulsar galleon]

No

[cosmic pivot]

Following my logic, those are just human cells

[pulsar galleon]

There’s a line where you draw between human and non human

A sperm without the egg is where you draw the line

[cosmic pivot]

Thats my point! 😭

[pulsar galleon]

Because it isn’t developing to become a human

[cosmic pivot]

Ok I give up

[pulsar galleon]

I dont think im getting at what you are trying to point out lol

[cosmic pivot]

If we dont have the same definition of what is a human, there is no point in continuing this

A human is so much more than just an ovum and a sperm…

[pulsar galleon]

Using that logic a 90 yr old man is so much more than a 5 year old child

[cosmic pivot]

Yes

Exactly

[pulsar galleon]

The 90 yr old man has experienced a lot more but its life is equal to the 5 year old child (not really but kinda)

[cosmic pivot]

5 year old is starting to get hype tho

But I think your brain, for instance gets almost all constructed when you hit like 25 or something

There is a reason why children have less empathy than adults, they havent developped that yet. It takes time to form a proprer human

Children, and sperms, and sperms that meet the egg, are soon to be humans, but they are not developed fully to be called “humans”. You wouldn’t describe the human race by how children react, you would describe how a grown human behaves, that has at least physically fully developed…

[latent vapor]

I'm not talking about the morality of them, I'm talking about taking responsibility for actions. Responsibility for your actions don't just go away because you view something as morally wrong or not. Morality is subjective without a God, and according to most major religions, murder is morally wrong.

[latent vapor]

So calves are not cows, since they are not fully developed? Sapling are not trees, since they are not fully developed?

[cosmic pivot]

Yeah, that's the thing about, us, "humans" .

It's pretty hard to define what is, exactly, a human when you think about it

[latent vapor]

The dictionary does a pretty fine job of it

[cosmic pivot]

-__ -

[latent vapor]

"A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens"

[cosmic pivot]

What does that mean?

Dont try to just win the argument here, be sincere

[latent vapor]

Have you taken biology class?

Which part of that definition doesn't make sense?

[cosmic pivot]

I had a philosophy class during an entire session and the name of it was "the human"

Tell me more about humans?

We are homo sapiens, sure

Now what is that?

[latent vapor]

^

A homo spaien? That is a species

[cosmic pivot]

What they do?

How do they live?

[latent vapor]

What they do depends on their age

[cosmic pivot]

How do theu communicate?

[latent vapor]

Depends on their age

[cosmic pivot]

What do they believe in?

[latent vapor]

Depends on where they grew up

[cosmic pivot]

What is their purpose?

[latent vapor]

Depends on your view of purpose

[cosmic pivot]

What do they do to have fun?

Why?

Do they all act similarly?

How so?

[latent vapor]

So you only see thing of being the same species if they are identical?

[cosmic pivot]

I never said that

I asked you questions

Tell me more about humans

[latent vapor]

Well I answered most of them, let me answer the rest

[latent vapor]

Depends on their age and interest

[latent vapor]

Why what?

[pulsar galleon]

Either be more careful or acknowledge that it comes with a risk

[latent vapor]

Depends on what level you go to, in a broad sense, yes.

[cosmic pivot]

You call that an answer? 😂

[latent vapor]

It's the truth

A person at 90 isn't going to be living the same way as a person at 35

[cosmic pivot]

But they both are humans?

[latent vapor]

Yes

Species doesn't matter about age

[cosmic pivot]

How do they interact one with another?

[latent vapor]

In what way?

There are various ways of interacting with other things

[cosmic pivot]

Such as

[latent vapor]

Such as making noises, gestures, facial expressions, marking physical objects, etc.

[cosmic pivot]

Talking with you is pointless

[latent vapor]

Because I answered your question?

[cosmic pivot]

You dont seem to want to make the conversation progress

[cosmic pivot]

Specifically because you didnt

[latent vapor]

How did I not answer it?

I told you exactly how we interact with each other

You want me to specify how each age group interacts with each other?

[cosmic pivot]

"Exactly"

[cosmic pivot]

Yeah

[latent vapor]

Ok, then you asked the wrong question

[cosmic pivot]

Lmao

[cosmic pivot]

This reminds me of child's play in elementary school when I would give an answer even more generic than the question I was asked so that the person I was speaking to would just keep asking questions endlessly

[latent vapor]

So the way infants interact is through noises, mostly crying and screaming as well as facial expressions. The way children interact is through physical touch, noises (depending on age various sounds which we recognize as words), gestures, facial experssions, I mean the list cna go on and on. Adults mostly through noises mostly words, but also sighs, grunts, etc. as well as large amounts of body language and facial expressions. Elders to my knowledge largely do the same

[latent vapor]

well the entire conversation can be ended with the simple answer of none of what you are aksing changes what a human is.

Behavior of a member of a species doesn't change it's species. It's anatomy and genes do.

[cosmic pivot]

Huh?

[latent vapor]

The question you are asking refer to characteristics of the behaviors of humans

The behavior of humans doesn't change the fact it is a human

[cosmic pivot]

Yeah, but how do you identify a human based on their behavior?

[latent vapor]

I don't

As that's not how you identify species

[cosmic pivot]

There is so much to unpack...😭

[ocean vector]

I'm confused

[latent vapor]

Let me give you an example: We can tell this is a male deer because of it's anatomy. We can't see it's behavior from this, but we can still see that it is a male deer

[cosmic pivot]

Does a zygote look like a human then?

[latent vapor]

The human zygote does look like a human zygote, yes. Just like how an adult male human looks like an adult male human and not an infant child or elderly man.

[ocean vector]

I think he means if an actual zygote looks like a human as a whole

[latent vapor]

Well by that then most animals are different from their respective species. A male deer resembles a female deer in some ways but not others, does that mean it is not the same species?

You can't compare different stages of development, that is asking two different things.

[cosmic pivot]

No

I'm not saying they are not the same

[latent vapor]

A male deer with it's antlers fallen off looks different than a male deer with it's full antlers still on

[cosmic pivot]

I'm saying you can't tell what it is by just looking at it like you did there

[latent vapor]

Yes, but you can tell through other means

[cosmic pivot]

Such as?

Dna?

[latent vapor]

I haven't studied in detail embryos, so to be honest I don't know.

[cosmic pivot]

Thanks

Being humble is important.

I wouldn't be able to neither

Anyways, I'm tired, I'll just go get noob slammed on the meta settings after 1 hour of taking cards 👋

[stuck ore]

I've seen you mention this before and it really is silly. Intent and reasonableness are two important factors in deciding whether someone can be charged with a crime related to killing someone. There are acceptable times to kill, and there are times when the eventual death was not foreseeable enough for a reasonable person to know of that possibility.

For example, a person who is rolling rocks down a cliff next to a highway kills a driver. They will be charged because even if their intent wasn't to harm someone the outcome of the action was foreseeable to a reasonable person (which I know is a ridiculous legal standard that no one can accurately define).

Whereas, if I spilled some water on the sidewalk in winter, it freezes, and 10 minutes later someone comes by and trips, hits their head, and dies, I'm not going to be charged with their death.

We could come up with thousands of examples on either side of this, with some we probably wouldn't agree on.

I'm fine with the idea that you are killing a human in the case of abortion. But you are killing them with the added context that being pregnant puts your own life in added danger (not much today conpared to the past, but still some), they are using your body and you do not wish for your body to be used, and there is no alternative means to keep them alive.

This last part is important. If there were a way to transfer a baby between wombs or keep them alive using artificial means, and the procedure to do so was a similar risk to abortion, I would support that being the course of action.

[velvet steeple]

Abortions carries several risks as well

As many as actual birth in some cases

Especially at tge later stages in Pregnancy

We live in an era of moral Degeneracy where people want to be free from Responsbilities and consequences

Its time to wake up

You make poor choices you have to live with those choices

You kill someone you go to Jail

You rape someone you go to Jail

No different here

Im not gonna pander my points to someones sexually immorality

I choose abstinence cause I did not want to risk having a child. Now that I have the means when I find a good Christian women again I will take that risk

Thats called being responsible

[vernal lark]

Here's a fun article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/11/texas-man-ex-out-of-state-abortion

[cosmic pivot]

It's been milleniums since women in one way or another get rid of unwanted child...

[latent vapor]

Ok well then there is no argument here, I believe morality has an important part and that all human life is precious and deserving of life, we are not the ones to decide who lives and dies.

[sharp beacon]

Abortion should be abolished and those who seek to murder the inocent should be criminaly charged with murder.

[velvet steeple]

And its been decades since we steralized people with mental illness whats your point

that changes little

It doesnt change the fact we live in an Era of Hedonism and immorality

where people want less punishments

and more rewards

People want ot be able to sleep around

Men and women want to have multiple partners again

all morally depraved behaviors

[cosmic pivot]

My point is simple, you said that we live in an era of degeneracy and etc and linked that to abortion. I’m saying abortion has been a thing before your so called “era”.

[cosmic pivot]

…and before we didn’t?

[cosmic pivot]

How is that depraved?

Can’t you just let others do what they want with their body?

[velvet steeple]

I can

but its morally degenerate

and a symbol of the times

I also hate the argument of their body

cause it is completely unevenly applied

by that same logic we should let people kill themselves cause their body their choice

[latent vapor]

That actually is something people are pushing for, and I think it is, don't quote me on it though, already happening in Canada.

[velvet steeple]

it is

it already exists

state assisted suicide exists in several countries

though to my knowledge not for anyone other than the terminally ill

which is still saddening

[cosmic pivot]

And I agree with that

[velvet steeple]

Man thats really sad

[cosmic pivot]

I think suicide is really a bad thing, but people do what they want with their life

[velvet steeple]

I hope no one ever sympathizes with you on that

cause that would be a dark world

[cosmic pivot]

Wow

So mean

[velvet steeple]

so many young people would die

[velvet steeple]

I meant on that

not on you as an individual

[cosmic pivot]

I get it

https://tenor.com/view/crying-crying-meme-gif-26327776

[velvet steeple]

As someone who at one point fell down that path

and strayed from Gods light

I could not imagine someone just allowing me to end my own life

what a travesty that would have been

[latent vapor]

I think these issues mostly just come down to moral views. As a Christian it is hard to see life as anything other than precious, for people without God, life is more random and meaningless other than the value we decide to place on it, which we see with babies being valued less than adults.

[stuck ore]

Life is far more meaningless from a Christian perspective. Most Christians are just waiting to die and get their "reward".

In fact, from a Christian perspective you should support abortion. Because most denominations hold that children have a one way ticket to heaven. It is much safer to allow them immediate entry than risk the chance they may lose salvation in life, right?

[velvet steeple]

This is so disengenious to Christians im not even gonna dignify it

like that is just wrong

Im not waiting to Die I still am afraid same as you

My death may hurt

will I be able to find my loved ones alongside me in Heaven

I dont know

I doubt it

but they are good people who are flawed and I cherish that time I spend with them

I grow and deepen my connection to god in this life

so that I can see him in the next

[safe mica]

The data are overwhelming. Making abortion illegal drastically reduces the number of abortions. It's not even close.

[safe mica]

Still with this argument that being pregnant adds to the risk for your own body as an argument for abortion. That's a nonsense argument. Studies show that those who have an abortion have a higher death rate than those who give birth. If your intent is to decrease risk to people, then you should be banning abortion, not falsely promoting it as a way to reduce risk.

[safe mica]

@cosmic pivot Your arguments for your own position are oddly consistent. Without a respect for conception, you cannot be expected to have any inherent respect for life, so your values would certainly come down to something entirely seperate from that, such as how long someone has been around, with a person's life gaining value over time. It's a fairly horrifying take, justifying killing all sorts of people based on a perceived lack of value, since life itself isn't valuable. This is where pretty much all arguments for abortion lead in the end, because that's the logical conclusion. That's why do much effort is spent on calling a developing child a "fetus," even though that just means child in another language. Or people call it a disease or a parasite. Anything to make it less human and easier to kill.

[stuck ore]

Thats not entirely accurate. I've seen studies that suggest as many as 800k illegal abortions were happening annually pre Roe v Wade, which is in alignment with the stats for legal abortions in recent years. There was a period where abortions spiked in the 70s and 80s, but have drastically reduced since comprehensibe sex ed became the norm. So in theory the number would still be lower with bans but still not as effective.

It's fairly difficult to track data reliably on something that is happening illegally, especially when it is something that was not always prosecuted.

I would have less disdain for the anti abortion crowd if they actually sought meaningful support for pregnant women and mothers alongside their bans, but as has been the case perpetually they don't care about the actual quality of life of children or their parents but just that they are forced into the world.

It wouldn't move me on my support for the right to an abortion, but it would change my opinion of those seeking bans. To my knowledge no republican has ever proposed free health care during pregnancy or free housing and food assistance for mothers alongside their abortion ban bills.

"They got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out if they aren't weak."

Very helpful mindset for society.

[stuck ore]

I have no issue referring to it as a baby the entire time since my main contention is that continuous consent is required to use someone's body, even for pregnancy, which no one has provided any argument against that wouldn't open the door to government designation of how people's bodies are used in other situations.

[safe mica]

I think @cosmic pivot's position is more consistent than yours, though also more horrifying as a result.

[safe mica]

The value of pregnancy and children has changed drastically over the last decade. Any abortion statistics are pretty useless in determining an impact of partial bans. Additionally, you can just order pills and don't have to go through a doctor at all, making the numbers reported extremely unreliable.

[stuck ore]

My position is fully consistent. We as a society have an obligation to protect people as best we can whenever we can, but not to the extent that we can force anyone to use their bodies to sustain another person against their will, regardless of their role in creating the situation.

I have yet to get any other example where we feel it is okay to say that one person has the right to another person's body without their continuous consent.

[safe mica]

Look, you've created an example that literally only applies to pregnancy and nothing else in the world. I'd like you to come up with a single example other than pregnancy that your thoughts apply to. At the end of the day, that's not consistent views, it's just narrowly defined views to support what you already wanted to say.

You've put pregnancy in the category of disease, and are arguing that one should be free to cure a disease. That's pretty much it. Without openly acknowledging that, I'm not going to call your views consistent.

[stuck ore]

I do not consider pregnancy a disease. I consider the child to be in a state where it's body is unable to sustain itself without outside assistance.

There are tons of situations where a humans body is unable to sustain itself without the aid of another human, and in no other instance do we force someone to do so, even if they caused it, even if they are the only one who can keep the other person alive. And don't mention keeping a baby alive. Parents can give up the baby at any time so there is an alternative to just letting it die that doesn't require them to use their bodies.

I am consistent on this. If the baby can survive outside the womb, it should be considered equally and delivered and either raised by the parents or given up for adoption. But even then I would hold the mother has the right to end the pregnancy at any point. It's just a matter of what action can be taken at that point to save the child.

[safe mica]

Give me one example of any situation where someone is continuously using someone's body.

You've basically said something that only applies to pregnancy, and then for every single example, you point out how it's not pregnancy, so someone hasn't succeeding in meeting your impossible demands. The reality is that you yourself can't think of any situation that might exist period, let alone where it exists and we even have the option of saying that someone has the right to another person's body continuously.

If not a disease, then you consider pregnancy to be slavery, which is basically the same thing.

Something intensely negative, and therefore the right to end it must be preserved.

[stuck ore]

Nope, not slavery. An almost fully comparable example would be partner dialysis. A person can be hooked up to another person to clean the other person's blood with their kidneys.

We would never force someone to do this, even for their own child. If they did it once, we couldn't use that as justification for them to do it again, and even while they are connected they could say they are no longer willing to stay connected at any time.

They would of course stabilize the other person first if possible before disconnecting.

The other reason this example is great is that a mother does this exact function for the baby.

Would you support forcing someone to do that?

[safe mica]

There are many ways to provide that function that don't involve your body.

Which makes it a bad example.

Even if we were to say someone should do that, it wouldn't be forcing you to use your body, because anyone could take your place, or a machine could do it, even if it were mandated that you provide such care.

So you could get someone else to do it and just pay them for that.

That means the example is no different from providing basic food for an infant.

[stuck ore]

Not quite. Partner dialysis is much more beneficial than dialysis done with a machine. A person can often live an extra 20 years and lead a more active and fulfilling life because of it.

[safe mica]

Sure. And you can pay someone to do that.

You're required to use a body. Doesn't have to be yours.

[stuck ore]

So who's paying mothers to stay pregnant?

And you can't be forced to accept payment to do it.

[safe mica]

Fathers, generally.

Why would you need to force someone?

Just pay them more.

[stuck ore]

Whoever is doing the partner dialysis has to willingly agree to it, whether they are paid or not.

[safe mica]

Same terms for anyone babysitting your child.

[stuck ore]

Last I checked child support doesn't start in the womb.

[safe mica]

And amazingly enough, you're required to use a body to attend to your child, whether someone agrees to it or not, because leaving them unattended is illegal.

[safe mica]

You've lost me, my man. What does paying mothers have to do with anything?

[stuck ore]

I already said don't bother with that. You aren't physically attaching yourself to them, and you can at any point relinquish a responsibility to your child you are unwilling to meet.

[safe mica]

Don't bother with what? The law?

[stuck ore]

With equating a responsibility to a child in your care that you have agreed to provide ongoing care for and which you can relinquish that responsibility to someone else at any time with using your body to sustain someone whose body can be kept alive by no other means.

[safe mica]

Literally describing only pregnancy and no other possible situation, just like I said.

All of your objections boil down to: It's not pregnancy.

There's no other situation that exists that meets those parameters.

Partner dialysis? What partner? I give up my partner.

[stuck ore]

Well sure, no two situations are ever the same completely. That's what thought experiments are for. You try to come up with similar scenarios where you would advocate for the same treatment.

[safe mica]

That's not accurate.

[stuck ore]

Partner dialysis just means another person's kidneys are cleaning your blood. It doesn't need to be your spouse or relative.

[safe mica]

Your objection is that you're still waiting for someone to describe a different scenario than pregnancy that is exactly like pregnancy.

That's impossible, basically by definition.

[stuck ore]

No I'm waiting for another example where we are okay saying in human has the right to another humans body without their consent.

[safe mica]

This literally can only apply to pregnancy

There is no situation other than pregnancy that is like pregnancy

It is not "using another human's body without consent" that you're objecting to, it is just pregnancy.

[stuck ore]

No, I also don't advocate for forced organ donation, even though there is way more of an argument that a dead person shouldn't have the right to decide whether another person lives or dies.

[safe mica]

You have yet to come up with a situation where your specific parameters apply other than pregnancy. If you can't do it, stop objecting to other people not doing it. Your parameters only apply to pregnancy. Period.

[stuck ore]

But we value autonomy even in death

[safe mica]

That's why I will continue to say your views aren't consistent.

Because something needs to happen more than once to be consistent.

You can't do something once and call it consistency. What's it consistent with?

[stuck ore]

If we don't allow forceful use of another person's body once, why would it be allowed continuously? That doesn't even make sense.

[safe mica]

The only situation where that applies is pregnancy, so your question doesn't make sense

We already have laws requiring that children be cared for.

[stuck ore]

If you really don't understand that consent is consent is consent Idk what to tell you.

[safe mica]

Pregnancy is not a matter of consent. A baby can't consent to anything. A mother isn't consenting by remaining pregnant.

That's just a perversion of a concept, applying it where it makes no sense.

There is nothing like pregnancy. It doesn't make sense to treat pregnancy like some arbitrary other action.

You are required by law to provide for the basic needs of your children. The fact that you can get around this doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

Requiring you to provide for your children in the womb isn't any different, you just can't get around it.

It's already consistent with how we treat children in society.

Pregnancy is way more similar to providing for the basic needs of a child outside the womb than it is to some arbitrary consent conversation.

[stuck ore]

I'm just glad most people agree with me and understand that bodily autonomy matters. It's not worth arguing with you since you think pregnancy is special and babies deserve special rights to other peoples bodies no one else gets. Carry on, but don't be surprised when abortion is legal again in a few years.

[safe mica]

Most people think pregnancy is special.

Creating more humans is kinda crazy, when you think about it. Way more special than building a table or sitting on a bench.

It's even more special than driving a car.

Yes, I do believe that babies deserve rights no one else gets.

I also believe they are entitled to rights everyone else gets, like not being murdered.

[stuck ore]

Here's the thing, you aren't winning this fight long term. A majority of people think abortions should be available anytime pre-viability (over 60%), a vast majority of people think emergency contraception as well as abortions in cases of rape and incest should be allowed (well over 80%). These numbers are only going to get more overwhelming as the oldest generations die off.

So the rational thing for you to do, if you actually care about decreasing abortions regardless of the state of the law, is to advocate for social programs that help mothers take care of their children, along with comprehensive sex Ed programs that demonstrably delay sexual activity and reduce unwanted pregnancies.

[safe mica]

There are plenty of programs that advocate for new mothers, providing them resources, information, assistance with childcare, etc, even up until the child is 5 years old or longer. Unfortunately, abortion clinics and organizations specifically target these centers and try to get them shut down, delisted from Google, anything they can do to keep women away from them.

PP is focused on increasing abortions, not helping new mothers.

The same holds true for any abortion clinic. That's why if you're interested in supporting new mothers, it makes zero sense to advocate for abortion clinics.

[stuck ore]

This is a classic example of projection. Planned parenthood provides women with all options based on what they want be that to remain pregnant, abort, or adopt.

This comes from the actual stories of fake abortion clinics run by Christians that string people along until its too late to get an abortion.

So they figure if they are willing to be deceptive to achieve their goals everyone else must be too.

[cosmic pivot]

I really don't understand why this is subject to debate...abortion in general

who are we to control what others do?

if a woman wants to use abortion, let her be, if not, fine

it's that easy

[stuck ore]

That is the goal, control. It all stems from a need to control women. That's why you'll see everyone who supports anti abortion laws also thinks women belong in the kitchen as the property of their father then husband. It all leads back to that.

[cosmic pivot]

maybe

it's just sad to waste brain power and time on topics like that 😕

[stuck ore]

Well it's not the person I'm debating with whose mind I think can be swayed. It's the fence sitters who have never seen the arguments laid out completely.

[safe mica]

Don't know what stories you've been told, but that's complete nonsense. Christians don't run fake abortion clinics. That's not a thing.

There are many documented cases of abortion clinics pressuring people into getting abortions, as well as attempting to get crisis pregnancy centers shut down. The examples aren't hard to find.

[safe mica]

People can come to their own conclusions, but if you're arguing that pregnancy is nothing special and you should be free to kill babies up to a year old, that probably will give people pause. One side sees life as a miracle, the other sees it like a disease. You'll never understand it as long as you keep intentionally misrepresenting it.

[cosmic pivot]

sure

[stuck ore]

No one is advocating for babies up to a year old to be killed. That's such craziness, and a perfect example of the lies people like to throw around. It is also not in line with anything I've expressed.

Less than 1% of abortions happen after viability. Of those, the vast majority are due to life threatening complications. I'm fine saying that at that point, once it can survive outside the womb, you can no longer end the pregnancy without doing everything you can to preserve its life. It would impact probably .1% of abortions at most.

Have abortions clinics pressured people? I'm sure they have. That doesn't mean it is the norm or the goal of anyone. You can find one off examples of absolutely anything if you look hard enough. How about the Christian mom who drowned her kids in the bathtub? I wouldn't tout that as an example of how all Christians or mothers act.

[safe mica]

Dude, take a chill pill. @cosmic pivot was one of the ones advocating for it during this very conversation. I guess you missed that part of it, but yes. People absolutely do advocate for young children to be under the exact same rules outside the womb as inside the womb for a certain period of time, because that's logically consistent. And when those people are in favor of abortion, then it makes sense to be allowed to kill your young child after birth, just as much sense as aborting a child after viability, which is advocated for by many these days.

If you're going to claim someone is a liar, you should probably look into their claims first.

[cosmic pivot]

I did tbh

But me and Bains have different views

[safe mica]

That's why I called yours consistent and his inconsistent.

[safe mica]

If your mission is helping new mothers, you shouldn't be trying to shut down pregnancy centers.

[cosmic pivot]

How about we all move on

This discussion is not going anywhere

[safe mica]

I don't know where you're getting your statistics from, but I'd love to see them. The reality is that post viability abortions happen for the same reasons that pre-viability abortions happen. The statistics on that don't change much. 80-90% are for elective reasons that have nothing to do with the baby's health or the mother's.

[safe mica]

This discussion is literally called "Should abortion be illegal." It's fine if you don't want to participate any more. There are other threads.

[stuck ore]

You can pull the raw data used to create this graph directly from the CDC website. There's no reason to doubt the overall numbers. I do concede that we have minimal data on the specifics of individual abortions because medical privacy. Many of the studies regarding the reason for an abortion in the third trimester have limited participants, usually under 100, which is also no great, but they do give some interesting insights. A lot of abortions classfied as third trimester abortions get misidentified as such. For example, if a baby dies in utero and needs to be removed, this will often be classified as an abortion even though I think we would both agree it is not what we are talking about.

[vernal lark]

California limits abortions post viability unless medical necessary. I know you don't trust doctors but that's the current state of law.

[stuck ore]

Now, to be fair it seems like they will generally stretch this to anything that is deemed "new information". So if a person didn't have a doctor's appointment until their third trimester, or their partner died/left them, or they were prevented from getting an abortion earlier, that is generally going to fall into an exception even though it isn't technically medically necessary.

And I'm not really in favor of this. Past the point of viability I do think that the baby should be delivered and not killed and the parent can relinquish their rights if they want. But again, this applies to so few pregnancies and is not the point of contention for most people.

[safe mica]

Nine states have no limit on abortion up to birth. And it's not about trusting doctors. You can order pills without reporting your reason for an abortion to a doctor. The statistics are inherently skewed and unreliable. And I'm sure many doctors feel strongly that there shouldn't be limits, and are therefore willing to blur lines on what constitutes medical necessity.

Where studies have been done, 80-90% of post-viability abortions are for elective reasons. About the same as pre-viability.

[safe mica]

If it actually weren't a point of contention, then it wouldn't be legal in so many states. The problem is that viability is not a philosophically consistent way to determine value. So if someone doesn't value a fetus pre-viability, then there's very little chance they'll give it much value post-viability either.

[stuck ore]

Viability isn't a measure of value, it's a measure of one's ability to self sustain, or to be sustained without the mother specifically.

As the chart shows, despite your claim that abortion is available up until birth, almost no one does that. If you were just asking for that change to law I wouldn't oppose it.

I don't value a person more or less because their kidneys aren't functioning. But the person with the good kidneys is going to survive on their own and the one with bad kidneys needs medical support. We will provide whatever support we are able to, but we won't force anyone to give up a kidney to keep them alive unless they want to do that.

The situation is simply such that if you remove the life support they die, and the life support is a sentient being allowed to decide whether they are willing to provide that support.

Come up with a way to remove 2 week old fetuses and sustain them with machines and we can talk.

[safe mica]

I literally just said 9 states allow abortion up until birth. That's not almost no one. That's nine states.

Show me any state that allows you to remove life support from a healthy person who has been injured and temporarily needs it to survive.

[stuck ore]

I said that people don't do it, even if it is allowed. The numbers for post 30 weeks are statistically zero. But I also said I'm fine changing that so there's no argument there.

[stuck ore]

This is a well known concept. People can't be forced to provide life support. You can't compare providing life support via machines to that by people. We don't force people to be life support for others. Not one time and not continuously. I've given plenty of examples you just don't accept them. Partner dialysis is the most equivalent, since it is not really dangerous but continuous and requires continuous consent. Just because you agreed to do it last week doesn't mean you can be forced to do it this week.

My cousin needed a bone marrow transplant. No one was a match. His mother was a partial match and she donated. No legal precedent could have compelled her to donate her bone marrow to save his life, even if everyone around her would have thought she was awful for not doing it. It doesn't matter that she was the only one capable of providing it, it doesn't matter that she was his mother, it doesn't matter that he would have died without it, we have never forced such donations. You can argue that we SHOULD force donation in these situations if you want to be consistent, but you seem to be hesitant to do that.

[latent vapor]

From the Chritian perspective we should support abortion? Have you read anything about Christianity? We are not God, we do not have the right to decide when people die, that is up to God. God explicitly has told us not to kill humans, which in the Chritian belief children are humans, thus it'd be a sin to kill them.

[safe mica]

What you said was, "Despite your claim." It's not just my claim that abortion up to birth is allowed. That's the reality for nine states plus DC. Calling it "my claim" makes it sound like you don't understand that.

[safe mica]

I haven't addressed bone marrow at all, because like partner dialysis, it sounds more like a distraction than relevant.

You didn't answer my question. What states allow a healthy person to be taken off life support?

[stuck ore]

If the life support system is another human, absolutely every state. That's the point of the comparisons you deem irrelevant.

[safe mica]

I didn't say it was another human, because that's not what life support is.

Pregnancy is not life support, it is pregnancy.

What state allows a healthy human to be taken off life support?

[stuck ore]

Well the idea of a healthy human being taken off life support doesn't follow. They are unable to keep themselves alive so they would be definitionally unhealthy. But it depends on the situation. I'm not up to date on every state's treatment of the issue, but most states do allow removal of life support. Most notably if the person or family member says they wouldn't want to be on a ventilator or have a DNR.

But using a machine to keep someone alive is fundamentally different from forcing someone to share their body with someone else to keep them alive, which is what pregnancy is.

[latent vapor]

^ For context the only person that can decide the fate of someone who is on life support is a person who the person on life support sets up to have their medical power of attorney. And that person also in most cases, would have documents saying if they are on life support if they want to be kept alive or have the plug pulled.

[stuck ore]

Again not relevant to the point that life support via machine is different than life support from another person. There's a thought experiment called the violinist that I'm sure you have heard before. Person is in a coma, and requires another person to be hooked up to them for a certain amount of time to live. Should we force that person to remain hooked up to them until they come out of the coma. Disconnecting would immediately kill them, no new person or machine would be able to substitute for the current person, and they originally consented but are no longer willing to do so. What the hell, lets even say they caused the person to be in the coma in the first place. Medical ethics would still be to disconnect if they request it. They might try to talk them out of it first, but in the end they would not force them to continue.

[latent vapor]

Well let's look at this thought experiment. I'll say person a (coma person) and person b (life supporter person) to make things easier.

1. I'll start with the very last apart about what if the person b cause the state of person a, well in that case person b doesn't have to keep person a alive, but if person a died as a result, person b would be arrested, depending on how person b caused person a to be in that state.

I think without this part of the problem, being one person causing another person to be in a state of reliance, then the problem is not representative of pregnancy.

[stuck ore]

So the problem I find with that distinction is that the punishable act is whatever act caused the situation, lets say a vehicle crash. Dependent on the specifics this may or may not be punishable. If they were impaired, it would likely be punishable. If they hit a patch of black ice and skidded out of control they probably wouldn't be charged. The punishable act would not be removing the life support

So by comparison we would be making the punishable act in terminating a pregnancy getting pregnant or getting pregnant recklessly which doesn't really follow.

[sharp beacon]

Have you heard of thalidomide by chance?

[cosmic pivot]

nah, but I looked it up quickly, so?

[safe mica]

Look, context might be a bit hard sometimes, but I literally just said it one post before. If someone is otherwise healthy and needs to be on life support temporarily due to an accident, what state allows you to just remove them from life support?

I'm not talking about an elderly person with a do not resuscitate order or some other reason. I'm talking 30 year old man has an accident, will recover just fine, is on life support right now. I dare you to come up with any state or country that would consider it acceptable to remove him from life support at that point.

[stuck ore]

I don't support people being taken off life support machines if they have a good chance of recovering, and to answer your question I don't think any state would allow that but that is a machine.

We are talking about being connected to another human and that other human having the right to disconnect their support of another at will.

[safe mica]

No, we're talking about pregnancy. We're literally only ever talking about pregnancy. All the ways you try to reframe pregnancy in an uncharitable light don't change the fact that the only thing you're talking about is pregnancy, because your criteria in zero of any of your scenarios apply to anything except pregnancy.

Someone living inside someone's body. Pregnancy. Using your body to support someone in a way that another human or machine can't replace. Pregnancy. "Life support" using your body. Pregnancy.

You haven't named anything that could be anything except pregnancy. It's been the same thing the whole time. "Name one thing besides pregnancy that is so narrowly defined that it has to be pregnancy. See, you can't do it." That's been all of your arguments so far.

The reality is that no country or state just let's someone who will definitely recover be taken off life support just because someone in their family wants that to happen. No one is allowed to just let their child die from lack of nutrients. None of the things you're describing about pregnancy are allowed to happen in any of the cases that don't involve "using your body" for it. The idea that the state should just let you kill someone because you don't want to use your body is wrong. The idea that you should take someone off child support because you don't want to use your body is wrong. The idea that you don't have to feed your child because you don't want to use your body is wrong. All of those things don't suddenly become morally okay just because doing the evil thing allows you to do whatever you want with your body.

[stuck ore]

Right because pregnancy is the apex. The most invasive, the most pervasive use of another person's body. There is no perfect equivalence.

But what we do have are partial equivalence in things like partner dialysis, organ donation, blood donation, marrow donation. All of these lesser invasive uses of another's body require the person's explicit and continuous consent, even if refusal means death.

So why would we say that for lesser utilization of someone body it requires continuous consent, but for the apex that is not a requirement and they have no choice.

[safe mica]

Providing nutrients for a child is "partially equivalent," and you're required to do that. Keeping a young person who will easily recover on life support is "partially equivalent," and the state is required to do that, because the doctors would be rightly sued to oblivion for wrongful death if anyone for any reason decided not to. Not murdering someone is "partially equivalent," and that's a law everywhere.

[safe mica]

In zero cases for partner dialysis, organ donation, blood donation, etc. does "refusal mean death," because there are other bodies who could step in to provide that service or that donation. It's just not even close to the same thing.

Whether or not you consent to someone else living, you don't get to murder them. Whether or not you consent to your child eating, you don't get to starve them. Whether or not you consent to someone recovering from an injury, you don't get to just take them off life support. Consent doesn't magically give you the right to end a life. And in this context, it has nothing to do with "consent." It's a perversion of the concept. What you really mean by "consent" is "doing what you want," which is not the same thing.

[stuck ore]

Actually you do if the only way to keep them alive is by being attached to you. Sorry not sorry.

[safe mica]

That applies to zero cases.

Literally not a thing. Nothing exists where someone will die unless they are attached to you. That's not a thing.

That's just a fancy way of saying "pregnant" yet again.

[stuck ore]

Yep, you can disconnect a pregnancy any time you want. Period. You don't need to let anyone, even your unborn child sustain off your body. If they can live on their own deliver them, if not they die. That is all I'm done with you.

[safe mica]

Really easy to be done with a conversation when you can't think of an analogy that actually means anything.

[stuck ore]

I've given plenty of analogies. It comes down to consent for the use of your body. There are tons of examples you just think babies are exempt from continuous consent, they aren't.

[safe mica]

I absolutely think that babies should be allowed to continue to live with or without their parents' consent, and amazingly enough, most of history agrees, and most of the world even today still agrees.

And on top of that, science agrees, where you are increasing your own risk of death if you kill your child.

[stuck ore]

That's their choice to make, but your statistics were garbage like all your arguments.

[safe mica]

You never looked at my statistics or addressed them.

[stuck ore]

I did, and you pretended they said things that they did not. As expected.

[safe mica]

You would say that.

[latent vapor]

The mother's right to consent goes out the window the second she willfully participates in sexual intercourse. The punishable act would be you intentionally forcing someone to be required to have you sustain their life temporarily. Removing it is the part that kills the child and thus would make the above murder.

[stuck ore]

It doesn't though. Consent is never one and done for a continuous process.

You can't withdraw consent when a process is already complete, but you can during it.

New information comes up, feelings change, dangers arise. It doesn't really matter the reason. It might matter to others, we can judge people for their choices, but it shouldn't matter legally what the reasoning is. Either we uphold the principle of consent or we don't.

[pulsar galleon]

I’m totally against abortion now that my 2 cousins have been born recently

[stuck ore]

That sounds like you never really considered why you held whatever position you previously held if it could be so easily swayed by a personal experience.

[pulsar galleon]

I did

but that confirms it

like

it got personal now

[stuck ore]

I'm sure your family member would appreciate that you think if she were raped she should be forced to have that baby because you like having cousins.

[latent vapor]

Most of the women in my family would have the baby, there are a few I know who wouldn't though. They don't think lesser of life because of someonelses evil. Now that doesn't mean they wouldn't put the baby up for adoption, idk what they'd do there.

[latent vapor]

She had her chance for consent when she was having sex, same as the guy. If she didn't consent to raising a baby through pregnancy, then don't do the thing that leads to pregnancy. That doesn't make sense that you can say, yes I consent to having a baby then no I don't consent to having a baby after doing everything to have a baby.

You might think that's wrong, but at that point it's just matter of opinion. You think people don't need to take responsibility for their actions, that's fine. I choose to believe people should be held responsible for their actions. Just like in rape situations, the rapist should face consequences, which I believe to be death, not the child.

[vernal lark]

The mother also shouldn't face any consequences either right, in this rape situation

[latent vapor]

The mother shouldn't face consequences at the extent of other people, such as the new child.

[vernal lark]

Cause in the rape case you have a mother who's made zero decisions to become pregnant, and is now facing the choice between going through a traumatic pregnancy or ending the life of a 6 week old clump of cells

[latent vapor]

Yes, but that isn't her choice to make. The baby does not deserve to have the however old mother (who is a clump of cells) to kill it

[vernal lark]

Couldn't we use some kind of self-defense justification for this also?

Like if someone was about to permanently disfigure you, you would be morally justified to defend yourself right

Huh this is interesting if you combine this with the https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

The fetus is an intruder in your home, that is actively harming you or about to harm you and the only way to stop that would be to use deadly force

[stuck ore]

Well not exactly. It isn't always actively harming someone or about to harm them. I do agree that you have to right to remove them, but if a safe removal option is available it should be used.

As we've seen recently you dont just shoot someone who made a wrong turn onto your property.

Which is why I hold that if the baby is viable (third trimester) and isn't a serious danger to the mother, it should be delivered if the mother doesn't want to continue the pregnancy.

But in the case of pre-viability abortions you are simply removing them from your space and the end result is death because they are unable to sustain themselves and no outside help could be given to keep them alive.

[high spire]

Why does a woman's right to autonomy trump a baby's right to life? Why does one person get to be the soul determiner if another person is killed or not? You may say: "because the mother is greatly inconvenienced", but how much inconvenience must someone experience for this to be true? If I am inconvenienced because my 1-year-old child is crying for food, to be provided by my physical actions, inconveniencing me, do I have the right to "remove them from my space" and let them starve?

[high spire]

If someone picks up a completely innocent person and throws them in your home, do you have the right to shoot them, just because they are in your home? After all, they were put there involuntarily, and had no control over this. So if you (the homeowner) knows all of these facts (as the mother does in a pregnancy), do you have a moral and legal right to still kill them.

Would the statement: you knew they were innocent, and you knew they were put there totally outside of their control, and yet you shot them anyways, hold up in a court of law? I think not.

[stuck ore]

Yes, but the point is that you aren't shooting them. You are removing them. And by simply removing them they are unable to stay alive. That's not your fault.

It's more akin to kicking a homeless person out of your house who then dies of exposure because their body can't handle the elements.

[vernal lark]

They aren't just chilling in your home passively. They are seriously impairing your ability to do basically everything, and are about to cause permanent disfigurement and a lot of pain if you don't remove them from your "home"

[high spire]

Yeah except its not at all. Because the person had no choice but to be forced into your home. In fact, the baby had no choice to exist to begin with. The choice to exist was actually partially your choice in most abortion cases. Also the person is completely innocent, both legally and morally. Additionally, the person must be killed in your home, not "removed" and then dies later.

You say:

"Its not your fault."
How is it not? You chose to have the child executed, and you probably are responsible for making choices that led to the child being in this scenario to begin with.

At the very least answer this scenario:
Your 1-year-old child is relying on you for food. If you remove the child from your house allowing him to starve, is that also simply "not your fault"? How is it different? Does the child die "because he can't handle the starvation", in the same way "the homeless can't handle the elements"? You are legally obligated to physically care for that child using your body to feed him. You are legally guilty if you throw your child out of your home, or if you do not feed the child at all. Why should the same standard not apply to the baby simply because he's in the womb?

[high spire]

I'll refer you to the same hypothetical, and also ask how much "pain" is required for your standard to be true? What if the person only flicked you in the arm once? It causes you pain, therefore you can kill them? Obviously you say no, but I ask you how you judge this spectrum of pain required for you to be legally and morally justified in murdering them?

[stuck ore]

Completely different because you can just relinquish your responsibility to the child to the state or someone else at any time. You have explicitly made an agreement with the state to take care of the child's basic needs by signing the birth certificate and taking them home.

If it were possible to remove a fetus and keep them alive on a machine or transplant them into a willing volunteers womb I'd advocate for that option, but it's not possible for them to survive right now through any means outside the womb prior to around 22 weeks.

[high spire]

If a baby-sitter did the same thing they would still be legally charged. How would you address the hypothetical, but with a babysitter who commits neglect? What agreement with the state did the babysitter enter into? Also, you think if a parent didn't sign the birth certificate, they should not be held accountable for not feeding the child they care for? They are exempt from neglect?

[stuck ore]

Babysitter made an agreement with the parents to take care of the kids. Someone having sex is not an agreement to let a baby grow inside your body for 9 months. Just stop you sound so silly.

I already said a person can give up the responsibility to care for their child at any time, and we expect them to take appropriate steps to do that.

The appropriate steps if you don't want to be pregnant anymore is to go to a doctor and get an abortion.

[high spire]

Alright let's run with this logic for a minute:

Someone having sex is not an agreement to let a baby grow inside your body for 9 months.
So what if a mother does enter into an agreement with the father to let a baby grow inside of her for 9 months. She has full intention of being pregnant, and carrying the child to birth. Then, what if midway through the pregnancy, she changes her mind. You would be in favor of not letting her get an abortion, by your logic, correct? Just because she made a verbal agreement (like the babysitter)?

Just stop you sound so silly.
I see no need for you to throw out insults with no basis here. In fact, Socrates is often credited with this quote:
“When a debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

The appropriate steps if you don't want to be pregnant anymore is to go to a doctor and get an abortion.
So to keep this statement in accord with our hypothetical, can it be said that the appropriate steps if you don't want to care for a 1-year-old anymore is to have the 1-year-old murdered? Why not? In one instance your "correct process" involves murdering the child, so why doesn't it apply to the other instance? Why is it justified in A but not in B?

[stuck ore]

It would just be nice to see some consistency from the anti-abortion folks. You clearly believe that babies are deserving of special rights to the bodies of others. That the state has a right to compel women to use their bodies to keep babies alive.

If we want to live in that dystopian state where the government can dictate who has access to whose body let's really go for it.

Mandatory monthly blood donations from all healthy adults. Mandatory listing on bone marrow registry and mandatory donation if found to be a match. Politician needs a kidney? Well he's more important than you according to the state so he can have yours.

Why the hell are we letting dead people decide what happens with their bodies when they can be used to save the living. Really so selfish.

Or we believe that bodily autonomy matters, consent, continuous consent, matters.

[stuck ore]

I've already answered this multiple times. You can't just murder a 1 year old because you can simply hand them over to the state and they will be cared for...mostly.

There is no option to let someone else take care of a fetus or under 22 week baby if you like. It isn't murder. It's refusal to let your body to be used any longer. The result of which is death. The same as if you refused to donate to someone who would die without it.

[high spire]

I would charge you with the same consistency charge regarding laws of neglect, and people in comas.

That aside, lets talk blood/organ donation. This should not be mandatory for a few reasons:
1. Your choice to donate blood does not force anything on someone else's body. It doesn't force the person who needs it to die. They will die according the to natural course of events, and while it would be very honorable to give them blood, ultimately the choice is a choice made about what to do with YOUR body. In abortion, the mother makes a choice to do something to the baby's body.

Organ/blood donation is a choice that a person chooses to do with their own body. Abortion is taking the life of an individual without that individual's consent.

2. There is the less prevalent point, but I'll still mention it anyways, which is that the situation the baby is in is at least partially due to the choice of the mother, unlike in organ/blood needs (in the vast majority of pregnancy cases). The fact that someone will die without blood is nothing you did to that person, and you aren't really withholding anything because you don't owe them. You owe the child you created when you made a choice

[before you say well it wasn't a choice, to have a child, just a choice to have sex, I'll give you two sub-points:
A. human sex exists to reproduce humans. That's why its a thing, everyone knows that, including the mother who chose to have sex.
B. What if the woman really did want a child to be created, but then changed her mind later? Then it was a choice made by her to put a child in a position of dependence on her.]

Those are just 2 ways in which the two are very different. The only distinction for you regarding my neglect example is a verbal agreement with the parents. Weak stuff.

[stuck ore]

And yes there are some situations where a person might have a legally binding contract that would prevent an abortion, in the case of surrogacy. But even then it would still be their right to get an abortion, they could just be sued for breach of contract after the fact.

[high spire]

So if you could save the child at say 3 months, would you be ok with banning those abortions?

[stuck ore]

Yes, assuming the procedure was equivalent or less risk to the mother as abortion and the state or someone else was willing to take responsibility for the child I would advocate for that.

But that will never happen because the costs to society to incubate a 12 week fetus to maturity would be astronomical.

You'd have conservatives screaming in the streets about wasted tax dollars and to kill the babies in no time.

[high spire]

So no then?

[stuck ore]

I said I'd advocate for it.

I advocate for a lot of things that will never happen.

[high spire]

I'm only asking because it seems by that logic the state holds people as legally valuable or completely un-valuable to the point of practically execution (abortion, call it what you will) based on if they can sustain themselves or not...

[stuck ore]

It's not about value, but yes if you can't sustain yourself, or be sustained on a machine, or have a person willing to sustain you with their body, you die. It's not a value proposition its just reality unless you believe the state should be able to mandate the third option.

And if you believe that they should in one case, they should be able to in others.

[high spire]

We may be defining "value" differently, but it definitely is...
Here are the two instances:
1. Baby (in womb) not viable outside womb
2. Baby (in womb) viable outside womb

Baby #1 can be murdered, and that killing be fully protected by the law. For baby #2, it would be illegal to do so. The only difference between the two? Whether the child can survive outside the womb or not.

Thats more value according to law for the life of #2 than #1.

[stuck ore]

You say murder, but that's just not the case. If you treat them exactly the same they have different outcomes. You could induce labor on both, one will die and one will live. You did nothing different and assigned to greater value to either. You simply said that if someone is no longer willing to be pregnant they have the right to end that pregnancy.

They don't use the same process for both because the baby will not survive at 6 or 8 or 10 or 20 weeks.

[high spire]

I'm talking about legally... It would be codified into law that the baby's life is not protected if unviable, and is fully protected if viable. Therefore the legal value of the baby's life is based on viability.

[stuck ore]

No, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the rationale. I do believe it is the same value at both points.

Just like I would consider any two children equal, even if one has cancer and the other doesn't. But if the only way for the child with cancer to survive is to get a bone marrow transplant, and the only match on earth (its pretty rare to ever find more than 1) refuses to donate, that kid dies. And while we might all judge the person who refused, they aren't responsible for the child's death. Even if the match is their parent, who passed on the proclivity for cancer in their genes.

At all points of a pregnancy the mother retain the right of bodily autonomy and continuous consent to decide she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore. If it is at a point where the baby can survive it should be delivered, if it isn't then unfortunately it will die because no alternative route for its survival exists.

[high spire]

We can call it "more protected by law" to avoid confusion. I don't mean value in an objective, or ethical sense, like you seem to be referring to here.

I mean as in: The law regards more rights and protection to baby 2 based only on the baby being viable, as opposed to baby 1.

[pulsar galleon]

That’s the only exception but if you had sex with some random dude who wasn’t raping you and you got pregnant that’s ALL on you

[stuck ore]

How so? They are being treated exactly the same in this scenario. If we said that past viability a mother must wait until natural birth occurs you would be right. But if she maintains the right to end the pregnancy at any time then there is no greater protection, it's just a matter of unfortunate circumstance.

[stuck ore]

And it's all on you to decide whether you are willing to continue with the pregnancy because unlike the completed sex act it is a continuous process that requires continuous consent.

[pulsar galleon]

No because you fucked up and because of your fuck up you are taking someone’s life

[high spire]

They aren't being treated the same. In one scenario the baby's life is legally protected, in the other scenario, it isn't protected. So whatever words you want to use to describe that distinction is fine by me, but there is a distinction, in the law, that determines if the baby's life is legally protected based on if the baby is viable outside the womb. There's no two ways about it.

[stuck ore]

Welcome to the structure of our entire medical ethics system.

[stuck ore]

If the law states that whatever can be done to save a child's life should be done outside of violating bodily autonomy rights of others, there is no difference in protection under the law.

[high spire]

but you said a baby who would be viable outside the womb must be legally saved, and cannot be legally murdered...

[stuck ore]

What I just stated would be how I would word it if I were writing the law.

[pulsar galleon]

Who gives a shit about what the law says, it’s still a baby’s life here lol sometimes the law isn’t even morally right

[stuck ore]

Go back to bed and let the big boys discuss. You are not prepared for this.

[high spire]

What if in order to save the child's life the procedure for that takes an extra hour of the baby being in the mother's womb than it would for an abortion? Then the mother's autonomy is violated for that extra hour when she could have an abortion and be autonomous for an extra hour, what would teh law be for that?

[pulsar galleon]

😂 who tf do you think you are bruv, you tryna defend a baby being killed for the sake of the mother not having to take care of that baby when it’s her fault that she fucked up eh?

[high spire]

What if it takes an extra day, week, month? Where and how do you draw the line? What if it only takes 10 minutes longer?

Its such a blurry line that really makes no sense. If some autonomy is violated to save the child's life, and you've said before that whatever can be done to save the child should be done, at that point, if the mother's autonomy is violated for an hour, why not just make her wait a few months more and deliver the child, preserving the innocent life?

[stuck ore]

That would be based on the doctors assessment of the situation, as they are the ones determining viability. But medically speaking it's impossible to tell something down to that level. They would do what they could to save the child at the point of delivery. But yes if the options were to uphold her rights for that hour or open the door to violating them for months I'd stick to the letter of the law.

It's only about 50/50 for a baby to survive at 24 weeks as it is.

[high spire]

So let me outline what you've said so far:
1. Violate mothers autonomy for an hour to save baby's life — yes
2. Violate mothers autonomy for a few months to save baby's life — no

That means the line you draw is somewhere between #1 and #2. So where do you draw it?

[stuck ore]

No I said I would not violate her autonomy even for that hour.

[high spire]

Oh I see. So what about 30 minutes? (you see where this is going). Basically what if its down to a minute? Is the child's life not worth an hour of violated autonomy?

Can't you say we can violate the mother's autonomy for just an hour in order to not have a child who has no control over the situation to have his life taken? is that not worth it?

[stuck ore]

I'd try to convince her to wait that minute but no I wouldn't force it. 99.9999% of people would be willing to wait short periods of time if asked. Not worth altering laws in ways that make them useless for fringe cases.

[high spire]

This seems to hold a very low protection for the life of the child though. That very little bit of inconvenience for the mother is enough to legally forfeit the innocent child's life? Surely you can at least see where we're coming from when we don't side with the abortion perspective.

[stuck ore]

Real world example for you here. I have kidney disease. Manageable at the moment but at some point in the next 10-20 years I will likely need dialysis or a transplant. Partner dialysis is far more effective than conventional dialysis and can often add decades to a person's life and increase their quality of life.

If my mother, or brother, or partner agreed to do partner dialysis with me initially, and then after a few weeks felt like it was too difficult or not what they expected they can withdraw their consent and stop doing it. Even if no one else is willing to and regular dialysis won't work anymore and no kidneys are available so I die.

Moreover I'd never want to try to force someone to do that for me against their will.

Even if they just needed to do it for one more week because I'm next on the transplant list.

[high spire]

I'm sorry to hear that, and you take a very honorable position on that.

[high spire]

I'll point back to this regarding mandatory donation.

[stuck ore]

Now I'm sure they would, but they shouldn't be forced.

Pregnancy is just temporary bodily donation.

It's dialysis and an IV and a feeding tube all rolled into one.

[high spire]

I lay out the distinctions in that message of why the two are vastly different

[stuck ore]

Yes and none of those distinctions matter. Doesn't matter who's responsible or if they initially agreed. It isn't making a choice for the baby it is simply a choice about their body that then has ripple effects on another which is no different than donation.

[high spire]

No, the choice for the mother to have her baby killed is a choice about the baby's body. There's no escaping that fact. The choice to shoot someone isn't simply the choice to "pull a trigger" and the ripple affects are that someone dies. The whole point is to kill someone.

Likewise, the whole point of an abortion is to kill the baby, with hopes that the mother will feel autonomous as a ripple effect.

[safe mica]

Still with this nonsense about completely unrelated things. There's nothing about blood donations that is related to pregnancy. Pregnancy is the only situation your conditions apply to. This idea about "consistency" is ridiculous.

There are many, many things consistent about not murdering children that have already been pointed out. This idea of forcing someone to use a body is utter nonsense, because in every case it's literally just another way of saying "pregnancy." That's it. No other situation applies to your conditions.

[sharp beacon]

Thalidomide causes birth defects in mothers. it is supposed to help with morning sickness. should a mother whos body is sovereign be able to take thalidomide?

[cosmic pivot]

From what I remember reading, it can cause a lot of negative effects, I wouldn’t give that to anyone

But yeah, she could be able to.

[sharp beacon]

so you are saying to should still be legal?

[cosmic pivot]

Though the government wouldn’t have to pay for the health care of the baby if she decides to. She made that choice, and because of that, that baby’s life will prob cost a lot more time and money to maintain, so she has to take care of it by herself…

[cosmic pivot]

I mean, depends

[sharp beacon]

ok well lets give another scenario

lets say the woman was raped and she takes it intentionally to hurt the baby. would you say that should be legal?

[cosmic pivot]

In some theoric cases, it could be, but irl, nah.

[cosmic pivot]

Same response

[sharp beacon]

you are saying that could possibly be legal?

[cosmic pivot]

In some theoric cases, it could be, but irl, nah.

[sharp beacon]

would you say that is good?

[cosmic pivot]

In another universe, maybe, in ours, no

[sharp beacon]

can u vc?

[cosmic pivot]

Well I could

[sharp beacon]

https://discord.gg/vWmfnFmN

[cosmic pivot]

Give me a min

[neat storm]

Too much to read fully, but this was a rollercoaster to spot read 😆

[safe mica]

Your death rate is higher if you choose abortion compared to giving birth. It's not the safer, lower risk option that people pretend it is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350112/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29163945/

[valid rune]

That is not the conclusion of the stuff you linked

The very fact that 1 birth has a "lower ratio" than 0 births shows the bias

There is much more baked in, like the healthcare, personal health etc. to be able to get and carry a pregnancy to term

It's also a meta analysis of almost 1000 studies, not entirely based in the USA, vs the Maternal Mortality of the USA

Also 1 abortion vs 1 natural loss are effectively identical

1.44 vs 1.45

Something you might not know given your own bias is that upwards of 20% of pregnancies are miscarriages

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298#:~:text=About 10%25 to 20%25 of,people realize they're pregnant.

Miscarriage is the sudden loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10% to 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher. This is because many miscarriages happen early on, before people realize they're pregnant.

Miscarriage is a somewhat common experience — but that doesn't make it any easier. If you've lost a pregnancy, take a step toward emotional healing by learning more. Understand what can cause a miscarriage, what raises the risk and what medical care might be needed.

[safe mica]

Miscarriage is horrible. It also most certainly increases your risk of death, similar to an abortion.

[safe mica]

I posted two articles, not just one. The one related to Finland is not a meta analysis, and states pretty clearly:
"In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth."

So how exactly am I misinterpreting those words?

Both articles specifically describe challenges in getting this data, as many countries simply do not keep track when a death is due to complications from abortion or loss of pregnancy. The US does not have mandatory reporting on such things in many states, and the data from those states ends up being very poor and incomplete.

The metaanalysis article states pretty clearly:
"Pregnancy loss associated mortality may be over twice that of birth associated mortality. TOP associated mortality is higher than miscarriage associated mortality, which is higher than pregnancy and delivery associated mortality."
"TOP associated mortality rates are higher than birth associated mortality during the first 180 days89 and remains higher for six or more years."
"There is a dose effect, whereby exposure to multiple pregnancy losses increases the negative effect on life expectancy whereas multiple births increases life expectancy."

So where am I misinterpreting those words?

I understand that your bias might be, giving birth obviously increases risk of death. So it might be difficult to read articles that directly contradict this without that kicking in and causing you to reject it. But I'd love to hear what mistakes you think they made if you disagree with their work.

[valid rune]

I'm not calling into question the work of the study. I'm calling into question your interpretation that this is defacto the abortion causing the risk, and using that as justification for banning it

It's a broad study, that doesn't account for the reasons behind the TOP

Often medical

In comparison to healthy individuals able to carry a pregnancy to term

With the added medical supervision pre and post

Again, I'll point to the "1 pregnancy" having overall better relative outcomes than the control

Because this necessarily filters for healthier individuals

[safe mica]

What is your justification for this statement?

[safe mica]

Reasons for abortion are elective in 80-90% of cases, but why would that be relevant? They also explicitly discuss miscarriage, which shows a similar detrimental effect. So either way, whether your reasons are medical or elective, your risk goes up.

[safe mica]

You also haven't said where I've misinterpreted the words that I just quoted.

[pale solstice]

tough question

legal for rape, incest, severe deformaties, danger to the mothers health

and in certain other cases that would be decided on a case by case basis by a panel of professionals

also makes me think of another question

Should a man have a say if the woman is allowed to have an abortion?

If not, I believe he should be allowed to opt out of child support if such is the case.

Thoughts?

[rare dust]

I don’t really know that the question of the legality of abortion can be separated from the morality of abortion. People’s justification for either side will always come down to moral justifications: for one side, it is immoral to terminate the pregnancy, for the other, it is immoral to take away the mother’s autonomy over her own body.

One could make an argument that in a society that offers little support for mothers or children post-birth, there is simply no one better situated to decide whether an abortion is justified than the mother and the doctor, but I doubt abortion’s detractors would find them very convincing. I think that is probably the closest I could think of as a purely functionalist argument that requires no morality, but even then there are likely moral biases present in it.

[latent vapor]

Shouldn't the father also have a say in that case then as the vast majority of the time (at least here in the US) the father is required to support the child financially, whether he wanted to keep the child or not?

[rare dust]

The father’s legal responsibility to provide child support is not equivalent to the mother who must carry the child to term and then either actually raise that child for 18 years or give up that child to a foster system that is rather lacking. Although, sure, I do think a father should be able to absolve themself of child support by giving up absolutely all parental rights. But I also think there should be more resources available for the raising of children. Raising a child should be considered labor as important as any other, and should be compensated for by society.

[latent vapor]

But you think a father, who wanted a child, should have to sit through and let the mother kill his child?

Abortions have ruined many men wher ewomen just straight up killed the mans child regardless of how he felt. It's not her child, it's their child. They both should have a right to decide. It's not her body she is killing, it's the babies body who they decided to bring into the world when they had sex.

[rare dust]

Well, now I think we do get to the unavoidable appeal to ethics or morality. Because the father does not carry the child, so to me, that simple fact gives the mother's decision primacy over the father's. If the father could carry the child, then I would say the mother would have no right to decide.

I also don't consider it murder, but I doubt we'll make much headway on that line of argument.

[safe mica]

Does this "primacy" mean the man should have no say at all, despite the legal ramifications that strongly affect him?

[stuck ore]

Men do not get a say in abortion legally, because the decision is whether or not the woman wants to continue with to allow the baby to use her body.

That doesn't mean she shouldn't discuss the situation with her partner, but legally no he shouldn't have an equal or overriding say in that.

And he should not be able to opt out if child support. That is a separate question. One is of bodily autonomy, the other is about societal obligations.

We have decided that when babies are born, both parents are financially and legally responsible for their care. They can opt out of that jointly by giving up the child for adoption, but if either decides to keep the child the other is responsible to help support them, regardless of if that is the mother or father.

The point where the man makes the decision on bodily autonomy is when he has sex. From that point on his body is no longer part of the process.

[rare dust]

Well, if there is an abortion, there are no legal ramifications for the man. Do you think a man who does not want a child should be able to force a woman to abort the pregnancy? Because that is the only decision a man could make in this matter that would affect his legal ramifications, and that seems pretty untenable as a position.

[safe mica]

There are significant legal ramifications. With no action on his part at all, a man either is legally bound to pay child support for the rest of his life or he's not. Many, many women are strongly pressured into an abortion that they do not want for this very reason, and I've known a few of them.

[rare dust]

So then you are taking the position that a man should have legal recourse to force an abortion if he does not want to support the child?

[safe mica]

No, not at all. My argument is the opposite, that we need to figure out how to prevent women from being pressured into abortion. Perhaps that's an unintended consequence of child support laws, where if a man wasn't forced to pay for a child against his will, then he might not be so adamant about pressuring a woman into abortion.

Health outcomes are worst for women who are pressured into abortion. Their risk of death goes up a significant amount more than those not pressured into having an abortion.

It would be worth looking into giving men an option other than child support, so that they don't feel like abortion is the only option to avoid it.

[rare dust]

Social pressure isn’t really a legal issue, though. And removing child support in a country where there is very little alternative financial support for mothers would lead to a lot of disastrous unintentional consequences. It is simply too expensive to raise a child by oneself in most situations, at least in the US.

If every mother was provided supplemental income for doing the social good of raising a child, I would support your proposition, but that seems exceedingly unlikely in today's world. And it would have little to no impact on my support of a woman's right to decide what to do with her body.

[safe mica]

This is the difficulty. Out of the desire to do good, we create unintended consequences. When we recognize the consequences and find them unacceptable, we still cannot undo the actions that created them, because we cannot imagine being so cruel.

Can we continue to call them unintended consequences if we recognize them and do nothing?

The legal pressures have created "social" pressures, and made life worse for the people who are supposed to benefit.

[latent vapor]

No, that is just ridiculous. You speak of bodily autonomy and then mention of forcing someone to do something against their will. That is not what I'd call autonomy. The man has to decide at sex whehter his actions should have consequences, but the woman gets to decide any time before she gives birth? That is just complete and udder hypocrisy.

The woman decided to have the baby at sex just as the man did. If he decides his genetic code portion of the child should no longer be used in the child, should he get a say in that? Our DNA after all is what makes our body.

If the woman gets to opt out of her motherly responsibilites up until birth, the man should to. He should be able to go to court and have it declared that he wants noting to do with that child, just as the mother can.

[pale solstice]

I feel it takes two to make a baby

and if the man wants a baby and the woman doesnt

she chooses to undergo an abortion you can see how this would be unfair to the man

but then if its the flipside

why should he have to pay child support if everything is decided by the mother

so a man has no say in the future of his kids? I dont think thats right

ive seen many situations where a man is devastated because the mother of his child unilaterally decides to have an abortion

[stuck ore]

Unfair, but correct legally. The law is not about fairness, or there would be no billionaires. It's about who has the right to make the decision. And the person who is responsible for carrying the child inside of them gets to decide if they are willing to continue to do so.

[stuck ore]

This is just not true. All fathers have rights. If they can't come to an agreement with the mother on splitting parenting duties, that's what custody agreements are for. But no he doesn't just get to say he wants nothing to do with the child AND refuse to pay.

[stuck ore]

Thankfully the world does not agree with you. I know it's so hard to have to hear that men should be responsible when having sex, since that's always been the conservative push towards women. But in reality men should be gatekeeping sex now because they are the ones without recourse once the deed is done.

Now that we have abortions and paternity tests women are no longer at the mercy of the dishonesty of men.

[stuck ore]

I understand this. If I got someone pregnant and they chose to abort, I would personally never speak to them again and probably hate them forever. I still think it should be their decision legally based on all existing precedent and my desire not to allow the state or anyone else to claims rights over anyone's body/body parts.

[pale solstice]

but i believe that abortion should be legally from both parents

its definitely morally right

[pale solstice]

except in the case of rape

[stuck ore]

The morality is very dependent on the individual situation. There are a lot of cases in medicine where you would not want the ethical choice to be the one dictated by law.

For example, it is morally/ethically right to give blood as often as allowed and healthy for the donor. Doing so demonstrably saves lives that would otherwise end, yet we understand that forcing people to do this violates their rights and that it more important to uphold.

[stuck ore]

Exceptions for rape do not work. They just incentivize someone to falsely claim rape. It also muddies the water on what the actual issue at hand is. Morally the idea that a woman should not be retraumatized constantly by being pregnant by her attacker, but if we say that the only thing that matters is preserving life then her mental well being doesn't matter.

Whereas if her right to decide who gets to use her body is paramount, as is the case for everyone in all other medical decisions, then there is no contradiction.

[rare dust]

How would this even work? Should a woman have to get a permission slip from a man in order to get an abortion? That seems incredibly demeaning and dangerously close to claiming a sense of ownership over another person’s body. You do not get a right to someone else’s medical decisions just because you pierced her with your crooked rod.

[pale solstice]

i think that is how it should be

at the end of the day she allowed herself to get pierced by her crooked rod

in your words not mine

at the end of the day it is his child just as much as it is hers

[pale solstice]

the first part of what you are saying does make sense to me

[lilac pilot]

kinda patriarchical based opinion ngl

[pale solstice]

how? I feel they should both have an equal say as to the life of a child

[lilac pilot]

Because you are saying that a woman needs the permission of a man to determine what she can do with her own body

[pale solstice]

its not as simple as what she can do with her body

getting a piercing is what she can do with her body

a tattoo is what she can do with her body

[lilac pilot]

Well yes it is

[pale solstice]

a baby is not just her body

the baby is as much hers as it is his

[lilac pilot]

Well, last time i checked, it actually is

Babies can grow in men now?

[pale solstice]

no but so far babies have not been made just by women

[lilac pilot]

No? So it grows in a woman?

Okay so its the womans body

[pale solstice]

it grows in a woman yes but it was made with a man

[lilac pilot]

how is this even a discussion

[pale solstice]

it is the mans baby as much as it is the womans

[lilac pilot]

yeah i strongly disagree

Very strongly

[pale solstice]

are you pro life or pro choice?

[lilac pilot]

Might even go as far as suggesting that i personally believe that your way of thinking in this specific matter is quite dangerous in my opinion

[lilac pilot]

Doesnt matter

[pale solstice]

i feel it does

[lilac pilot]

I don't believe that anyone else can make decisions for your body but yourself

With anything

[pale solstice]

because if you only consider a fetus to be a clump of cells with nothing else attached to it

i can see how this simply devolves into a bodily autonomy question

[stuck ore]

Doesn't matter where it came from. If you have a child and it needs a bone marrow transplant. The dad is a match and the mom isn't. The mom can't force the dad to donate. No doctor would forcibly take his marrow against his will, no court would order it be done. But for some reason people think forcing women to donate their bodies for 9 months against their will is perfectly fine.

[lilac pilot]

Patriarchical reflex

[pale solstice]

when women have sex they understand the risk

just as men do

[lilac pilot]

It is literally just wanting to keep the power over the life/body of a woman

nothing more, nothing less

[pale solstice]

it has nothing to do with the body of a woman but with the life of a mans baby

[lilac pilot]

It has nothing to do with a womans body? So she does NOT carry the baby then?

[pale solstice]

are you saying that the baby is not 50% genetically from the man

it is his son

his daughter

[lilac pilot]

Yeah i agree

[stuck ore]

If that were the case we would force donations in other areas in order to save lives, but we don't. We dint force blood donation, organ donation, even from dead people. Dead people have more right to bodily autonomy than women under your belief structure.

[lilac pilot]

but to me thats not relevant to this discussion

[pale solstice]

in that case why is a man forced to pay child support?

[lilac pilot]

The only thing that is relevant to me is that I would not want to live in a society where a someone can make decisions on the bodily autonomy of someone else

[stuck ore]

Because once the baby is born it needs to be supported in society and not be a drain on everyone else.

[rare dust]

This thread has a lot of divorced dad energy, tbh.

[pale solstice]

but the man wants nothing to do with it

its his autonomy

[lilac pilot]

Depends on the country, but the general answer is that there is a lack of a social safety net

[pale solstice]

havent gotten to either stage yet

[stuck ore]

Women also have to pay child support if the man raises the child and she nopes out. There is no bias here.

[pale solstice]

fair point there, but in general courts are much more biased against men

but a man will have to watch his baby get killed if the mother wants an abortion but if he wants an abortion its tough luck

[lilac pilot]

If there are social systems in place that can support a single mother without the need of financial support from a man, than child support would be redundant

[stuck ore]

This is actually not true today. In most cases the men are less likely to fight for the child. If they show any interest the courts will give shared custody in most cases.

[lilac pilot]

Think of, governmental child support, government paid childcare etc.

If you have those, then a woman does not need financial support, simple as that

I have a question for both of you

Would you say that you ''own your child''?

[pale solstice]

do you have a source for this

[lilac pilot]

Like, is your child ''your property''

idk of a better way to describe

[pale solstice]

depends, can be a play on words here

what do you mean by own

or my property

i can throw them around like a basketball?

[lilac pilot]

Is it your posession?

[pale solstice]

its a bit difficult to imagine a person as an object

[lilac pilot]

exactly

[rare dust]

I’m more concerned with whether he thinks the womb is his property once he plants his flagpole.

[pale solstice]

definitely not

theyre their own person

[lilac pilot]

Okay

[pale solstice]

i believe that BOTH parents should have a say over the life of their child until a certain age

[lilac pilot]

so then a baby in the womb of a woman is not a mans property

so why would he get a say in what happens to it

he does not own it

it is not his, in that sense of the word

[pale solstice]

so then if its not his property he should have no reason to pay for it if he doesnt want to raise it

[lilac pilot]

Already told you, if you live in a proper country, there is no need for child support

its such a non-argument

child support is required because a state is not able to support its citizens properly

[pale solstice]

its not his responsibility just like the baby is not the mothers responsibility if she doesnt want it

[lilac pilot]

exactly

[pale solstice]

there isnt a single proper country in the world

and there never will be

[pale solstice]

so therefore no matter the case he shouldnt have to pay for it

[lilac pilot]

Depends on the social system brother man

[pale solstice]

just to let you know this is coming from someone who would never abandon their kid

[lilac pilot]

do you read what im telling youy

[pale solstice]

yeah but im speaking realistically

[lilac pilot]

Okay, me too

[pale solstice]

there is no social system that will magically completely replace one income

[lilac pilot]

in the country i live, a judge decides wheter child support is required

it is not required in many cases

As if child support gives one full income

heck i dont even know how much child support is in other countries

child support is like 100€ a month here

[rare dust]

In the US it's income based with a minimum payment amount that varies from state to state.

[lilac pilot]

like 110 dollars

[pale solstice]

but im saying that if in all cases the baby in the womb of the mother is not the "property" of the father it is not his duty either so he shouldnt have to pay child support no matter what

[lilac pilot]

i would agree if the social system supports that

thats actually my preferred outcome

[stuck ore]

Not perfect, but data shows that 91% of custody cases are decided without court involvement and it is mutually decoded for the mother to be the custodial parent.

Now there could be underlying factors to this, such as an assumption by men that it would be a waste of time and money to contest because the courts are biased, but of those that went to court there was no significant bias noted so this seems to be one of those ideas out in the ether that people just believe to be true.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115

[pale solstice]

first thing im noticing

this is already incredibly biased

since myself and most people i knew were brought up in 2 household families

only my rich friends were brough up in single household families

however myself and most of my friends had our mothers work far less hours than our dads

[stuck ore]

I don't care about the article I care about the underlying data they used.

[pale solstice]

my mom would work from 8:30-3 and my dad would work from 9-7

[lilac pilot]

But this is not a US-only discussion is it?

[pale solstice]

im just saying that if i see the methodology is like this

[pale solstice]

im not from the US?

[lilac pilot]

No but it looks like the linked article is

However i cannot find the original data from there

[pale solstice]

the facts alone can tell many stories

its up to interpretation

this could just be a mother convincing a father that the kids would live a better life with the mother due to less hours worked

or simply due to more honed skills at being a mother

and its not even a far fetched assumption

[stuck ore]

Doesn't matter why, it directly goes against the narrative that the reason women tend to get custody is biases courts.

[lilac pilot]

Anyway, i wouldnt want to live in a society where others can decide over the body of someone else, whether that is abortion, death penalty, solitary confinement etc

[pale solstice]

but the courts are biased?

[pale solstice]

you dont agree with the death penalty

whats the name of that fucktard??

uhh

BREVIK

[lilac pilot]

ofcourse i dont agree with the death penalty

[pale solstice]

that nazi guy in norway

[stuck ore]

Do you have proof of court bias?

[pale solstice]

hes living a better life than I am

[lilac pilot]

Thats just how prisons are here

[pale solstice]

and he killed how many children

[lilac pilot]

where do you live

[pale solstice]

and then does the nazi salute in court

without doxxing myself too much I live in the EU

[lilac pilot]

Okay sure, and you are in favor of death penalty?

[pale solstice]

the death penalty is not a black or white situation for me because its a pandoras box for sure

[lilac pilot]

Nvm, we're straying from the topic

[pale solstice]

yeah

[lilac pilot]

Yeah for me it is the exact same argument as with abortion

i dont want anyone being abe to decide over the autonomy of someone else

So to answer the question; should it be illegal. Absolutely not

Now, do i think abortions are a good thing, thats a completely different question

I feel like always when you say you are against abortion people always immediately put you in a camp of ''baby murderer''

I guess its just a completely different mental perspective on the topic

I'm not pro-abortion, however I am pro-choice

[pale solstice]

im a bit of both

[lilac pilot]

and its quite a nuanced difference

that many people don't seem to understand

[pale solstice]

i feel humans are so diverse just having one rule in this case is going to not be right

in terms of the divorce statistics

i must admit i am finding it difficult to find what percentage of children are given to the mother during divorce vs the father

[lilac pilot]

Well, in terms of answering the question; should abortion be illegal it is very simple

[pale solstice]

because all i found is what percentage of children living without fathers

[lilac pilot]

if you are pro-choice, you do not want it to be illegal because you want to give people the choice over their own bodies and not parliament/the government

[pale solstice]

but that can be due to anything

[lilac pilot]

its that simple

[pale solstice]

it depends

i personally see a fetus as life past a certain developmental stage

now obviously this is a moral point of view

because then someone can say where do you draw the line

[lilac pilot]

Yeah but the question is a legal question

the question is not: do you think abortions should happen

the question is: should abortion be illegal

[pale solstice]

more like should the government have a say

yeah

i like to see a human point of view on things

maybe im not perfect with it

but i try to be consistent

[lilac pilot]

Is it a good thing that the government can make regulations about the bodily autonimy of its citizens?

I am absolutely opposed to that

[pale solstice]

so for me its a really tough choice

on the other hand

why do we have laws

its my bodily autonomy to dismember myself on the street infront of everyone but its pretty illegal

or willing cannibalism

like that german guy

who let another man eat him

[lilac pilot]

You can dismember yourself all you want, just not in public

its not the same

you still have the autonomy to do whatever you want to yourself

[pale solstice]

may I ask where you lie on a political spectrum

[lilac pilot]

As long as it does not conflict with the freedoms of someone else

And whenever you perform such an act in public, you do impede on the freedom of other people

hence that is a situation wher you cannot do it

however, if you want to mutilate yourself, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want

[pale solstice]

but cant you classify an abortion as impeding on the freedom of the fetus?

[lilac pilot]

Well for that you have to determine whether a fetus has rights

legal rights that is

[pale solstice]

isnt that where this whole problem starts then?

[lilac pilot]

generally, rights are given whenever a baby is born, but that depends on the country

[lilac pilot]

The legal part of the question yes

one could even argue it is later, as a baby does not have the cognitive ability to decide over their own body

[lilac pilot]

I am a progressive social-liberal

on economic topics im kinda centre

on social topics im very "left"

but im mostly just very progressive

no drip of conservatism here

Or how i like to state it: 'back in the old days... everything was worse'

[pale solstice]

hahaha thats a funny way to state it

makes sense

[lilac pilot]

I assume you are more conservative-sided

[pale solstice]

yeah pretty dead centre

id say im pretty centrist but on a conservative side

[lilac pilot]

yeah so we are pretty much opposite sided of centre then

[pale solstice]

pretty boring convo then haha

the most entertaining arguments ive ever seen were between a literal Nazi and the most typical far down leftist i could find

like an anarchist communist

[lilac pilot]

like i am red, you are blue \

[pale solstice]

none of them made any sense but their pure hatred of eachother is what kept it going

[pale solstice]

yeah pretty much

i hate being centrist-ish because everyone hates me

i remember i was speaking about my views if i remember on immigration and i had leftists getting angry at me for my views and this guy added me to his server because what i was saying made sense

then he added me to a server that seemed normal at first

but then when i looked at their political chats they were calling black people mud skins

i noped out of there so fast

and that really made me reevaluate my thoughts

[lilac pilot]

oh i would get angry lmao

those are literal nazis

[lilac pilot]

do you consider immigration to be on the left/right spectrum or progressive/conservative?

[pale solstice]

you mean my views on it?

[lilac pilot]

nah the topic in general

like being anti-immigration, does that make you right or conservative for example

[pale solstice]

i tend to mesh left right spectrums and progressive conservative spectrums together

i believe that there is a left - right spectrum

[lilac pilot]

ohhh

[pale solstice]

and progressive and conservative are moderate levels of it

[lilac pilot]

oh i see it totally different lmao

i see left-right as being merely economical

as in; do we need to let wealthy people pay more taxes in order to afford social systmes

thats left to me

but a topic of immigration for example, in my view, has little to do with that

[pale solstice]

i mean far right doesnt meat capitalist no?

[lilac pilot]

and therfore i regard it as progressive

No because there is definitely a correlation, but the term far-right is not really a correct term imo

[pale solstice]

but you can have a leftist nazi or a nazi libertarian

[lilac pilot]

ehm no

a nazi is far right

always

leftitst nazi does not exist

[pale solstice]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism#:~:text=National Bolshevism%2C whose supporters are,combining ultranationalism and Bolshevik communism.

doesnt this classify?

[lilac pilot]

That was before the nazis no?

i agree its quite complicated

basically

as far as my best understanding

The national socialist movement that was the NSDAP that started socialist

[pale solstice]

to be honest politics isnt something you can really define

[lilac pilot]

ended far right

and generally we associate nazi with far-right 1940's nsdap

not with early 1930s

[pale solstice]

its something that varies among cultures and society and individuals

[lilac pilot]

sure

[pale solstice]

yeah pretty much at the beginning it was national bolshevism

it evolved to be more of a capitalist economy

is that a correct interpretation of it?

[lilac pilot]

kinda what im saying yes

anyway im heading to bed

SOrry for not finishing this

[pale solstice]

yeah its pretty late for me to

[lilac pilot]

but i gotta go work tomorrow

[pale solstice]

no no no worries

i get it

i have a couple of days until an exam

[lilac pilot]

thanks anyway

[pale solstice]

i still have some 2am studying to do

[lilac pilot]

oh good luck

[pale solstice]

haha thanks

[lilac pilot]

what subject if i may ask

[pale solstice]

its a pretty easy exam

its biology

[lilac pilot]

ah ez

[pale solstice]

my second last one

[lilac pilot]

good luck have fun!

[pale solstice]

just the practical

haha thanks

if god wills it i get into med school after this

see you mate goodnight

[cosmic pivot]

Didn't read all

But I also think the dad should be allowed to force the abortion just like the mom can

Without the dad, there is no child. If the mom wants a baby, she can adopt one or make one with somebody else, as simple as that

[pale solstice]

i dont think the dad should be able to force the abortion

that sounds especially fucked up

i think that the dad should either have a say in whether the abortion can happen or not, or have the say if he wants to be held responsible for the upkeep of a baby he did not want

regardless of other discussions i feel abortion should never be forced

[latent vapor]

So that gives them the right to kill children and randomly accuse men of rape at will? I know it's hard to hear that double standards should not be applied, and if you are fine with double standards then don't get mad when they're used on you.

[safe mica]

This is pretty much the most messed up take anyone could ever have. You should never be able to force someone to kill a child.

[untold hemlock]

Ideally there's no abortion. Ideally it is illegal and unnecessary. But in cases where there's a life-threatening situation for the mother or when the pregnancy is due to rape I understand the need for it.

There is a lot of work to be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so that abortion doesn't even have to be a consideration anymore

Given that, I would lean towards the illegal side with the above exemptions

[stuck ore]

They should have the right to end a pregnancy. If that results in death that is unfortunate. No double standard here. Everyone has the right to make personal medical decisions regardless of the impact on others.

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. If you think I was advocating for false rape accusations you are mistaken. It would just be an inevitable consequence of making a rape exception.

[cosmic pivot]

Haha. I guess I don't value the life of a child that much

[safe mica]

It's a devastating negative impact on a pregnant woman to suffer a miscarriage. Being forced to have an abortion is by all studies far worse. Even ignoring the lost child, you're putting her health at risk for nothing.

[cosmic pivot]

“By all studies” 😂 I would like to know where you got that information from?

You read all of them?

[cosmic pivot]

And not for nothing. The dad doesn’t want a child. That is the reason

Now why he doesn’t want it, idk, but I think he has the right to not have one if he doesn’t want one

I don’t think talking about wether I’m “wrong or right” will lead to anything. We just have different pov on the subject because we have different values and therefore, what is right for me, might not be right for you…

[pale solstice]

what youre saying makes sense but on the other hand i feel staying in the middle is tougher than i thought before having this conversation

[rare dust]

Wow, I really didn’t expect someone to actually take the “dad should be able to force the abortion” position. That’s a wild take, but you slay Altair. I don’t agree because it definitely goes against the whole bodily autonomy thing, but I’m certainly entertained.

[pale solstice]

yeah thats a point ive never heard before

[cosmic pivot]

Thx

But we could argue that my take still follows the autonomy of the body if you consider the baby to be an extension of both the mother and the dad’s bodies

[rare dust]

The woman’s body is that which bears the burden of child birth. The fetus, I would say, only has a potentiality of autonomy. The man bears no physical burden during pregnancy, and physical burdens carry more weight than potential financial burdens to me. It is the mother who puts her body on the line, so I still stand by it being her choice.

[cosmic pivot]

they carry no physical burden, yes, but they can carry psychological burden

[cosmic pivot]

She puts her body on the line as soon as she gets pregnant, now, at least to me, getting rid of the foetus would only lessen the burden for both the mother and the dad, it would be a win-win situation. And if the mom wants to keep the child, well f her basically. She can make another one, it's not the end of the world.

[pale solstice]

but the fetus is not just something that can be discarded

besides abortions carry health risks to a woman

[cosmic pivot]

to me, yes it can

[pale solstice]

i hope that youre only using your example as a metaphor

because forcing someone to terminate a pregancy is definitely morally wrong

[cosmic pivot]

I already explained all my reasoning on that a while back

[pale solstice]

and this is coming from someone who tries to see things from a neutral POV

[cosmic pivot]

to you, yes. To me, no.

[cosmic pivot]

you can't say you're neutral and then say this

[pale solstice]

i take in all viewpoints

but no viewpoint i look through can help lessen the moral blackness that this is

[cosmic pivot]

and that is fine

but it means that you are not neutral

[pale solstice]

i never said im neutral

i look through things through neutral lenses

[cosmic pivot]

you can't be neutral on a topic like that anyway

[pale solstice]

but i make my own decisions on whats right or wrong

[cosmic pivot]

.

[pale solstice]

"see things from a neutral POV"

[cosmic pivot]

?

what's the difference?

[pale solstice]

if im neutral i take no sides

if i see things from a neutral pov

i look at both sides of the argument equally and make my own choice

[cosmic pivot]

but you instinctively feel one way when reading my message

so you can't see it from a truly "neutral" perspective

[latent vapor]

Ok, so the man is responsible for his actions, the women isn't. Not a double standard, fine.

[valid rune]

I don't think anyone should be able to force abortion

Just like I don't think some prudish politicians should be able to ban it

The father's decision making to the life of the fetus ends the minute he didn't wrap it up.

However, I do believe there should be a mechanism for them to not be responsible for upbringing.

If they are able to, at an early date (when abortion is an outpatient procedure) voice their desire for abortion and the mother refuses they should not be legally responsible for the child

They should be the equivalent of a sperm donor in the eyes of the law

[pale solstice]

but thats the thing, cant the same thing be said about the mother

[lilac pilot]

If men and women were viewed equally in society and in personal interactions i would agree with you for sure

However, we can observe that that is not the case

Women are more often the victim of sexual abuse etc etc...

of violence

etc

So no, men and women are unfortunately not in the same position

[pale solstice]

but what does that have to do with getting pregnant

[lilac pilot]

therefore they should not be held to similar standards

[pale solstice]

it was both the mother and the father who were irresponsible

in most cases at least

[lilac pilot]

Sure, but in most cases, people do not want an abortion anyway

its not like half of all pregnancies are terminated by an abortion

[pale solstice]

but for the few that do i can see this being incredibly unfair

[lilac pilot]

I don't see how it is unfair to be honest

It is not a man who has to physically bring up a clump of cells into a full grown baby in their own body

So why does he need equal rights in this matter?

Maybe of women have equal rights in all other aspects of life, this is something that man can ask for equal rights too

but until that point is reached, I just find it very patriarchical to even bring up the idea of men being able to decide over the body of a woman

[lilac pilot]

So their is your answer, it has to do with equality both lawfully and socially

[pale solstice]

he is the father

one of the parents

[lilac pilot]

Would it be fair to you that because he is the father, he should provide for his babies mom and the kid until they retire/die?

[rare dust]

Okay, but there is no other situation where you can force someone to undergo surgery unless they are deemed incapable of deciding for themself. And if by simply impregnating a women you have that right over her, we’re not so far off from women being treated as nothing other than property for the production of children again.

[lilac pilot]

@pale solstice this is what i mean

women not being able to do things because it is either socially or lawfully unaccepted and society does not care

But give a woman a right that a man does not have and everyone loses their mind

[pale solstice]

i believe the father has that responsibility to the mother and child but that also means the mother should not be able to have an abortion except for a few situations

because its not about rights

its a parent who doesnt want his child to die

[lilac pilot]

Well there we have an insanely hard disagreement

because to me this whole discussion is about rights

and nothing else

[pale solstice]

to me the discussion is about the life of a fathers child

[lilac pilot]

Okay, so then we are just back at the traditional gender norms

women bear children

men do all the work

[pale solstice]

i personally believe in gender roles

[lilac pilot]

ah there we go

makes sense lmao

[rare dust]

Hah, that is the crux of the issue, for sure.

[lilac pilot]

I mean i also do believe in the existence of gender roles

[pale solstice]

thats an argument i really dont feel like getting into now

[lilac pilot]

No its fine

but thats probably the core issue of our disagreement

I believe women and men should be equal

you believe that women and men have their own role in socieyt

[rare dust]

Yeah, to build on what Cury’s saying, I believe in gender roles in that obviously we have them, but I also believe in a person’s inherent right to define themselves inside and outside of those societal roles however they feel is best for them.

But also, I totally get not wanting to get into that particular discussion.

[lilac pilot]

No i agree

[pale solstice]

its true, i guess for a lot of arguments there is no right or wrong, just depends on your core beliefs

[lilac pilot]

But it has everything to do with your stance in this topic

Thats what I was trying to say

[rare dust]

I thought you did, just clarifying my position on it.

[lilac pilot]

I wasn't trying to go start a meta discussion on gender norms

[pale solstice]

but im not saying that the father shouldnt bear responsibility but the mother should

im saying they both have that responsibility

[lilac pilot]

But that makes a presumption that an abortion is irresponsible

Imma get a bit personal here, but if my mother in law did not have an abortion before my wife was born, she would've died and my wife would not exist

I know it's anecdotal

All I'm saying is that an abortion can be a responsible decision