«12. . .2,3702,3712,3722,3732,3742,3752,376. . .2,6462,647»
Re: the abortion debate, I will not crunch numbers and go into an unwise discussion about the gestational state, nor touch upon the extremely contentious subject of when exactly a fetus is eligible to be considered a "person." This question is not only biological but also philosophical (and for some people, spiritual) and whenever something more elusive than the cold, hard biological facts enter the discussion, reaching agreement becomes impossible.
I will argue for a more radical viewpoint instead. I will argue that in principle a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy regardless of the gestational stage (and regardless of whether the fetus is a "person" according to someone's arbitrary philosophical or spiritual criteria). This is not because the baby's life doesn't matter, but because (in my opinion) the bodily autonomy of a person matters more - and more importantly, the state/ government cannot force a person to sustain someone else's life with their own body.
To understand my point of view better, consider the following thought experiment. There is a guy named John, let's say, and he is suffering from severe kidney failure. Unless he receives a transplant now, it is pretty much certain that he will die. There is a very long waitlist for receiving a kidney from a cadaver, and there are no living donors around... except you! Your kidney is a perfect match for John, it is near impossible to find anyone else to donate a kidney to John to save his life, and let's be honest, this is not your life against John's, because you can survive and live just as well with one functional kidney.
Now, there are two relevant questions here.
(1) Do you have a moral obligation to donate your kidney to John?
Well, you probably do - literally any utilitarian philosopher would argue that you should donate your kidney to him, since 2 people surviving is better than 1 person surviving and 1 person dying (especially if the latter person could have been saved). But how many people do you think will agree to giving up their kidney to save John's life? Very few people would sign up for that.
But the second question is more important.
(2) Should the state/ government - or any other comparable authority - have the power to force you to donate a kidney to John to save his life, at the expense of your own bodily autonomy?
I don't know about you, but my answer to this question is a resounding NO. If you do not want to give the government the power to take away your "spare organs" to save another person's life - indeed, if you find this utterly outrageous - then why grant the same government the right to force a woman to use her own body to sustain a fetus's life, at risk to herself?
It is a question of freedom and a question of who we believe has the ultimate decision-making power over a body.
John's life doesn't matter less than the life of a baby. But the government should not be in a position to force anyone to sustain John's life with their own bodies. And in the same way, the government should not be in a position to force anyone to sustain a fetus's life with their own bodies.
You are entitled to your opinion about whether it is morally permissible to terminate a pregnancy. Perhaps you believe that it is moral to carry a baby to term, especially after a certain benchmark.
But the moment you take what you consider to be a moral obligation and try to make it into a legal obligation, I will not be on your side.
No human being can be legally required to use their body as an incubator to preserve another life. Life is precious, but not as much as freedom.
Verdant Haven, Einswenn, Siornor, Jutsa, and 13 othersMount Seymour, Daarwyrth, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, Canaltia, The void territories, Northern Wood, Roless, Zerphen, Heidgaudr, Nation of ecologists, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
My dad likes to say that he supports abortion up to and including the 25th year after birth (it's cuz I'm 25, every year that date gets pushed further back).
Einswenn, Siornor, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, and 8 othersMount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Northern Wood, Faurexus, Nation of ecologists, Ecologist Hegemony, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
Gah, this issue. I myself keep flipflopping on it because I simply don't know enough about it to feel like I could make a solid opinion (and in no small part because of folks from the General Assembly and on youtube). I certainly believe that early-stage abortions should be (when you compare flushing a somewhat innumerated chunk of cells to the billion other worse things that go on that a solid chunk of us wouldn't give a second thought to), but it's the mid and late stages I've never been comfortable with unless necessary.
That said, as someone who is not biologically equipped to grow one of my own kind inside of me (which I'm thankful for; that sounds painful), I also feel a bit like it's really not my place, either. :p
Frieden-und Freudenland, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Faurexus, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
Hey, Forest!
The lusitanian games are close to the end. Send your submissions now! The photography competition ends on June 30 and the flag design competition ends on July 14! Send your submissions before it's too late!
For more information, access the Lusitanian Games dispatch below.
Is the camera rolling? Let's do this then!
Welcome to the First Edition of the Lusitanian Games (or Lusitaníadas in our oh so tongue-twisting Portuguese). In a never-seen-before attempt, Portugal, Europe, Forest and 10000 Islands came together to offer a fun and engaging time for all the NationStates multiverse: a cultural competition! Consisting of three seperate competitions - Writing, Photography and Flag Design - we hope these games may bring forth some peaceful banter and aid in the strengthening of bonds during such turbulent times. Without further ado, let the games begin!
How can I participate?
Regardless of your region, status in the WA, heck as long as you have a pulse you may join any of the three competitions we have in store for you!
But first, please read the rules below (click the images) and, when your project is finished, send it in the appropriate medium via telegram to each competition's judges.
Tournaments
Grito Corujense: desta vez é pessoal! by Piatinum bees
All the judges, for the English competition
Our Minister Alentejo and Algarve, for the Portuguese competition.
Black and White photos
Photos of national monuments and landmarks
Animal photos
Free category
Jury: Ofiussia (Portugal); The Union Empire (XKI); Logar (Europe)
Submissions:
-
For the English Competition:
For the Portuguese Competition:
The nations who wish to join must write a story regarding either an event or a simple story set within their NS countries. This part of the competition will be divided in two seperate sections: one for English-written stories.
Regarding the texts themselves, these must be written out in a dispatch in the respective language of the competition the writer wishes to join (they can submit up to 1 in each). All text formats are allowed (poetry, prose...) and there is no word limit. Plagiarism and hate speech will not be tolerated in a submission (though hateful topics may be explored in the narrative).
In the English competition a jury composed of players from different regions will give out four different thematic awards to the best texts: best scenery, best story progression, best character development and best plot;
As for the Portuguese one, a poll will be conducted in Portugal for its citizens to choose the best text out of the bunch.
Once finished, submissions must be sent via telegram in a dispatch to:
Text by Author | Scenario | Story Progression | Character Development | Plot |
7 🥈 | 9 🥇 | 8,3 🥇 | 7,7 🥇 | |
9 🥇 | 8,3 🥉 | 6,3 🥉 | 7,3 🥈 | |
7 🥈 | 8,6 🥈 | 7,3 🥈 | 7,3 🥈 | |
6 | 4,3 | 1 | 2,3 | |
5 | 3,7 | 2,3 | 2 |
Text by Author | # of Votes | Place |
4 | 1st 🥇 | |
3 | 2nd 🥈 | |
2 | 3rd 🥉 | |
2 | 3rd 🥉 | |
1 | 4th | |
Grito Corujense: desta vez é pessoal! by Piatinum bees | 0 | 5th |
Jury: Astartia (Portugal); Totaristan (Portugal); Uan aa Boa (Forest); Wille-Harlia (XKI)
You will be able to compete in 4 different categories, submitting up to 2 photos taken by you in each one:
Filters will be permited for the photos, but their impact on the quality of the pictures will be taken in account. Plagiarism won't be tolerated.
The 3 best pictures from each category will be chosen by a multirregional juri, to whom you must send your pictures with links (you might wanna use 
imgur) or in other available mediums that facilitate the jury's work.
- Photos of national monuments and landmarks
Contestant | Best Photo | Remaining Photos | Place |
|
| 1st 🥇 | |
| 2nd 🥈 | ||
| 3rd 🥉 |
Jury: Alentejo and Algarve (Portugal); Jutsa (Forest); Pilipinas and Malaya (Europe); Markanite (XKI)
The participants will be encouraged to submit one original design - and with absolute thematic freedom - with the following limitations:
- You can only use up to 4 colours and in this set of 4 you can only use one of the following {green, red, blue}. Coat of arms and others like it must abide by the same rules.
The submission of the flag design must be done in the same way as the photography one, sending the design to all the members of the jury, which will select the 3 best designs.
Flag | Contestant | Portuguese Judge's Score | Forest Judge's score | European Judge's Score | Islander Judge's Score | Average | Place |
 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 8.75 | 1st 🥇 | |
 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8.25 | 2nd 🥈 | |
 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 7.25 | 3rd 🥉 | |
| 6 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 6.25 | 4th | |
 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6.25 | 4th | |
 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 5.75 | 5th | |
 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6th | |
 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.25 | 7th | |
| 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2.25 | 8th | |
 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9th | |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | Disqualified |
Region | 🥇 | 🥈 | 🥉 | Total |
3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | |
1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | |
1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Anything else?
See you later! Bye ;D
→ If you have any doubts, please send a telegram to 
Herya or 
Alentejo and Algarve
Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Uan aa Boa, Yoakekuni, and 1 otherGreat julunaphra
Word. Word to your whole post but especially to this last line. And in America, of all places, I think being against "choice" is a vile sin.
Verdant Haven, Einswenn, Frieden-und Freudenland, Northern Wood, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
Interesting take. I personally consider the pro-life argument to be based on 3 premesis, which are pretty similar to your axioms, just a bit more specific. They are as follows:
P1: Excluding self-defense, it is wrong to kill a human.
P2: Abortion is the act of killing a fetus.
P3: A fetus is a human.
C: Unless in self defense, abortion is wrong.
Call me arrogant, but I believe this to be a valid argument (i.e. if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true), however, if you find a way to reject a premise, it is no longer sound. P2 seems pretty indesputable to me, so I won't touch on that. If someone has a way to reject that, I'd love to hear it (maybe you can argue a fetus isn't alive, and therefore non-killable, but then you need to find a way to separate "life" from the biological definition).
I think a lot of people would go with P1 here, which I personally think is the easiest to dispute. The death sentence isn't an act of self-defense, it's an act of retribution. Euthenasia isn't self-defense, it's a consensual agreement. Western bombing in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Libya weren't acts of self-defense in my opinion, but people still defend those. To abstract a bit, there are people in favor of easing safety regulations, which would definately lead to death, there's just an extra layer now. If you're willing to take that step, then all of a sudden, antivaxxers, people who don't wear seatbelts, the NRA, any company with southeast Asian sweatshops, and anyone opposed to complete state surveillance to prevent terrorism are all in violation of this premise. Hell, this is what the trolley problem hinges off of, where diverting the trolley is saving 5 people while directly killing one, while doing nothing leads to 5 deaths, but where the fault lies is debatable.
The rest would try to dispute P3. I'll admit, I may have cheated a bit when writing this up, because wether or not a fetus is a human is a biological question, not a philisophical one, and ever since the discovery of DNA, a fetus has always been considered a member of the species homo sapien, and therefore a human. If you're willing to claim that humanity and personhood aren't interchangeable, then you can just replace "human" with "person" and this is no longer an issue. But then you need to have something non-genetic to tie personhood to, which is when things can get a bit sketchy. I've already said what mine is, the potential capability of self-awareness, but this includes a fetus, so it's not really useful here.
Here, it seems like you're disputing P3, on the basis that a fetus does not contain the emergent property of personhood. I find that to be very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what exactly is personhood, assuming I'm reading this correctly? By saying that at a certain age, a fetus can survive outside the womb, it seems like it's linked to autonomy, but I don't want to assume that because I don't think it's a good argument (comas and disabilities and whatnot). Would it be somewhat linked to development? And if so, any specific metric, or is it just arbitrary (not in a negative sense; my definition of personhood is arbitrary too).
Of course, you could just do what 
Frieden-und Freudenland has done and sidestep the whole thing by saying that morality alone should not dictate law, which I'd agree with, for the utilitarian reason of practicality. Because at the end of the day, real world legislation isn't written by philosophers and biologists, it's written by politicians who can't be bothered to think of the consequences of their actions.
Siornor, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, and 6 othersRuinenlust, Faurexus, Nation of ecologists, York Zionia, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
I completely agree with what you have to say here. While I personally am iffy about abortion after around 30 weeks (except in the case of rape or medical reasons, obviously), I think that my views should not at all dictate what other people do with their bodies. Everyone should be able to do what they want with their bodies, and other people, especially men, have no right to tell others what they should do. I live in New England, so the overturning of Roe v. Wade doesn’t have as much effect here (relatively, at least >_>), but I cannot fathom how scary it must be in other states where abortion is now outlawed. It’s truly disheartening to see that 30% of the nation is forcing its views on the other 70%. As somebody who is not yet old enough to vote, it’s also sad to see that people have no care about what this means for younger generations, mine included.
Verdant Haven, Siornor, Frieden-und Freudenland, Ruinenlust, and 3 othersUan aa Boa, Nation of ecologists, and Great julunaphra
am I the only one who rejects P3 lol
Rhodevus, Ruinenlust, Station 8, Yoakekuni, and 1 otherGreat julunaphra
Rhodevus, Siornor, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, and 8 othersMount Seymour, Uan aa Boa, Canaltia, The void territories, Faurexus, Nation of ecologists, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
I'm not going to answer your questions, because while they are fun to consider, they don't really have an objective answer, and I don't think my answer really matters that much. Also, I'm pretty sure they're meant to be rhetorical, not a challenge. If you need more amateur philosophical ramblings in your life, I'll answer them following my definitions, so lmk if you want answers.
But the defense you've made here is actually something I didn't consider at all. I can't lie, it's mainly because of the "binary vs bimodial distribution" discourse surrounding transgenderism that's turned me off of categorical philosophy. Also Aristotle. I hate that guy. I think that all categories are arbitrary to a degree, even where things are substantially different from each other. Color is real, but our names for them are constructs of language and how we group them is arbitrary. Blue and green are objective categories, but where "blue" stops and "green" starts is subject to interpretation. I could say a shade of turqoise is green rather than blue, and no one could go about disproving that.
That's not an issue with the argument (it seems to even integrate the above issue to a degree), it's just non-refutable, and anything non-refutable is a bit offputting to me. In this case, I think it's perfectly cohesive, and making societal perscriptions based on it would probably be morally correct imo. So yeah, different method than what I would go with, and even a different (but not condemnable) conclusion, but with the exact same perscriptions and a watertight logical line. I'm not trying to act as some arbitor of what is a good argument here, but this is in direct response to me, so I feel like I should say something.
Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
Well then, I'm going to take my [imaginary] fetus and go home!
Lol, quite right, I didn't mean for you to answer them, and they were rhetorical. And also just kind of whimsical and idle thought, not a cohesive line of questioning in service of a larger argument. I just wanted to include you in my post, since you made good points, and they speak to things that matter a great deal in the overall topic, but that I don't have answers to. :-)
Rhodevus, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Canaltia, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
You make some good points in your post, but I take issue with this statement, as well as your example with John's kidney transplant.
My question is, at what point does the right to bodily autonomy vest in a human? Conception? Birth? Age of Majority? Ever? Every law that has ever existed restricts what humans can do with their bodies (and therefore, body autonomy).
Further, at what point does one's "body" matter end? Or to what point can you reasonably, legally lay claim to matter that is considered "your body" and therefore have legal, autonomous control? Just the extent of your person? That would be a narrower view than I'd take.
My view on the extent of "body" a person is entitled to full, legal autonomy over is any matter originating from the body containing DNA that hasn't been willfully or freely relinquished. So, saliva on a fork at a public restaurant? No longer your body, since you've freely given that saliva up in order to eat, and left the fork there willingly. What about plasma you've decided to donate to a relative that needs it for an operation? I'd argue that plasma belongs to you, even after it's been removed from your body until the point it's been used in the procedure for your relative--for its proper purpose. Therefore, the medical professionals transferring the plasma from you to your relative have to respect your autonomy over your body while performing the procedure, and cannot do anything with your plasma that hasn't been expressly authorized.
Now, to illustrate my point, I'm going to use your example of the kidney transplant, because I believe your premise is flawed--that the state is forcing individuals to sustain life at the expense of their own bodily autonomy. This is because the state (at least in the US) has not forced anyone to perform *the required actions* that result in pregnancy. Therefore, using your kidney transplant example, the abortion debate looks more like this:
John is having kidney failure and needs a transplant. You volunteer to donate your kidney to John. Prior to the procedure to remove your kidney, your doctor advises you of the potential terminal and non-terminal risks associated with removing your kidney, so you are well aware of anything and everything that could possibly go wrong. He even provides you with a list of things you could do the week leading up to the procedure that could reduce the risks associated with kidney removal (eating certain foods, avoiding certain activities, etc.) so that you are at minimal risk during and after the procedure. You do all the things on the list and still agree to the procedure. A week later, the procedure is performed, your kidney is removed, John receives the transplant, and all is well.
But low and behold, a week after the procedure, you start to experience symptoms of one of the non-terminal diseases your doctor warned you about prior to the procedure--despite doing everything he recommended and knowing of all the risks associated with the procedure. The only way to remedy the condition is to get your kidney back.*
*(Not necessarily the case, because you could wait for another donor to come along, and you could live with some discomfort while taking medication, since its a non-terminal disease, but since we're intentionally limiting everyone's choices, as in most abortion scenarios, we'll do the same here... i.e. no chance for adoption).
However, luckily for you, there is a law that allows you to force the recipient of your donated organs to give them back up to 12 weeks after the procedure (or at any point in time after the procedure, depending on how pro-choice you really are), regardless of the effect to the donee. So being a pro-choice, pro-body autonomy individual, you force that parasite John to undergo the required procedure to remove your kidney. You get your kidney back, you're no longer suffering the disease, and--unable to find another donor in time--John dies shortly thereafter.
The state hasn't forced pregnancy on anyone, its entered into freely by performing certain *acts* (at least the overwhelming majority of the time) with full knowledge of the risks and potential consequences, even with preventative measures in place. This is true for every living species on the planet. Technically every birth that's ever occurred is a "forced" birth since birth is the natural consequence of pregnancy. So one cannot force birth unless one forces pregnancy, and that just isn't the case for the vast majority of pregnancies.
Now, going back to what I mentioned earlier--regarding the bounds of "bodily autonomy" and the example about the fork in the resturaunt--I brought that up because a unique set of DNA is created at the moment of conception. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has already developed a completely unique and complex set of genetic material that is distinguishable from the mother carrying it. Who's to say that fetus/unborn child can't have autonomy over its DNA, effective against 3rd parties, the moment that DNA comes into existence?
Sure, the unborn cannot express an opinion, at the time, on what he/she wishes to do with their DNA (body)--but we already have (somewhat) arbitrary laws denying persons under the age of majority from entering into business contracts, or buying certain items, working under the presumption that those who do not seek to contract/buy do not wish to do so--and even if they did, would be denied from doing so if under a certain age. So how can any 3rd party make decisions interfering with the genetic material of a fetus, when that fetus hasn't freely given its express permission to do so?
This is operating under my personal standard of what falls under the realm of "bodily autonomy" (which I understand may not align with everyone else's, but I don't believe it to be egregiously poor given the universal application, and the need for practicality in lawmaking), and I'm more than open to discussion and persuasion on that standard (because at the end of the day, I don't have every piece of relevant information--but I believe I have enough to hold a valid opinion on the matter).
Further, I do not wish to start a fight with anyone with this post, and I apologize if any part of this comes off as combative, as that is not my intention (an I apologize if I sound snarky, I haven't been able to express my views on the matter in a meaningful way since the Roe decision, and I thought this would be a good time/place to do so)--I only wish to participate in the discussion, given the magnitude of the issue.
I welcome any and all debate/discussion/muckracking, and I hope to remain y'all's good graces, as I appreciate this Forest's welcoming debate from both sides of the issue.
:)
EDIT: In response to the arguments I'm seeing regarding the legal aspect of a fetus's personhood, I would also like to add that abortion is and has been, an exception to the legal rights of a fetus, as they relate to 3rd persons. From the moment of conception, a fetus can be the beneficiary of a will. Parents can sue & recover medical malpractice/tort damages on behalf of a fetus, from the moment of conception. In most states (if not all) a person will be charged with double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman. It is not that the law doesn't recognize the rights of fetuses, its that the law makes an exception for abortion. (and personally, I'm not a fan of most legal exceptions)
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Faurexus, Nation of ecologists, and 2 othersForest Virginia, and Great julunaphra
I think it's easy to forget that the vast majority of sexual acts done, are not for the purpose of pro-creation and they have never been. We also live in a time where contraceptives are currently legal, and Plan B and other forms of birth control are available. We live in a society where hamburgers are marketed through sexual appeal, and it's not taboo to discus sexual activities in television shows. We are surrounded with the idea of sex for pleasure.
Now, what happens when people have sex? Either on purpose or accidently it is possible for one party to get pregnant. At which point, that person is blamed for not having the decency to know what they are getting into. Of course, by engaging in those acts, pregnancy isn't 'forced' on them. It was entered into freely. Unless you account for faulty (the pill is 91% effective, condoms are 82% effective, female condoms are 79%, diaphragms and caps are 71-88% and natural family planning [ie monitoring ones period cycle] is 76% effective) contraceptive measures, or the trusty 'pull out method' which some boys tend to prefer (I say boys, cuz real men use condoms).
But, this is all beside the point. Nobody is blaming people for having sex, right? It's not like we live in a society where men are cheered for having high body-counts.
But what of the kidney example? Well, John needs a kidney. Lucky for him, you decide to go to a shady party with your friends. Don't worry, the risk of coming home safe is between 75 and 91% (or, I guess you could say 1/4 to 1/10 chance of something happening, depending on what you do). Unfortunately, you are one of the unlucky few and you wake up strapped to a chair and told that you're being kept around for a bit so they can prep you for a kidney transplant. John needs a kidney, you see. But, it's alright. It's not like you really need the kidney anyways. And you're only going to be stuck there for a short amount of time. 9 tops. Only a small chance of long-term effects, we promise. If you didn't want to lose a kidney, you shouldn't have gone to that party, so who's really to blame? Not me, I'm just the doctor performing the transplant. Oh, you can't leave. Yes, I can see that you have a phone to call the cops to stop me, but you see, we live in a state where I, as the transplant doctor, can be in charge of you until you give the transplant. Don't worry, we promise that you will be extra safe.
Transplant done, I kick you to the curb.
Abortion is the ability to choose to call the cops in the above scenario. Not everyone chooses it. Some choose to keep the pregnancy to term. But why is it up to someone else to make that choice?
Now, here is another question along the same vein. it's a familiar puzzle.
There is a train heading down a track with no breaks. The track is split in two. One one side, is a person you don't know. Never met them before. On the other is you.
Luckily for you, you have the button to flip the switch and choose the track the train goes onto. Who do you pick? Yourself or the other person?
But that's a hard question. It's a gut response to say yourself, but I don't give enough details to accurately make a choice. You have eyes. You can see the person.
It's a kid. No more than 5. Who do you save?
It's a baby, only a handful of weeks old. Who do you save?
It's a fetus. Who do you save?
Okay, that's not super fair. There is the chance that you will save yourself, regardless of everything. Instead, it's your sister. Your cousin. Your daughter. Your girlfriend.
Who do you save?
But, again, all those philosophical things don't really help much. We instead have to look at laws, such as ownership. Who owns DNA. Well, obviously you do, right? NOPE! You have no ownership of your own DNA. Supreme Court said so. Which isn't saying much cuz F them, but there's the rules. So, if you don't own your own DNA, why does the clump of cells known as a fetus get to claim ownership of their own DNA?
Now, let's forget about DNA and work on body autonomy. Who owns your body? You do! Well... not really. I mean, if you're pregnant, you lose that right. Right? Okay, back to philosophy. You have cancer. I'm sorry, but you have cancer. Okay, then just go get the surgery and cut it out, ya? Sorry, can't do that. You see, when you were born, you had chimerism. AKA, when you were born, some cells were absorbed into the fetus and thus, the cancer that has metastasized in you isn't actually you. Well, cut it out! it is me, right? What gives you the right to cut out that cancer? it's growing on it's own. of course, it can't survive when you remove it from your body, but that's besides the point. It is currently growing (attached to you) and it is alive!
We all know deep down that a fetus isn't a human. Otherwise, we wouldn't celebrate birthdays. WHy would we care about the day we are born? We were brought into this world when a viable fetus was created, when our parents had sexy times. We should be celebrating our s3x-day! That's the real day we were brought into the world, right?
Until that fetus can survive on it's own without a body container, it isn't a human. It is a parasite. Now, you tell me you want to institute a law that states that you cannot have an abortion once the fetus is viable to life on its own outside the womb? Go for it. I won't support you, but at least I understand you.
Otherwise, it just comes down to victim-blaming and control. Morality is subjective. Not objective. It depends entirely on our beliefs, lived experiences and knowledge.
This has been a long rant to essentially say that there are very, very few arguments that hold up under scrutiny for why abortion should not be legal. Being pro-choice doesn't mean we want everyone to have an abortion, always. Just that it is up to the pregnant party to determine if they can or cannot raise a baby. What of adoption? Well, with 400,000 children in foster care, and 2 million awaiting 'parents', the adoption industry is an industry. Increasing the supply of babies isn't the way to go about this.
Sorry, this is definitely very snarky and more than likely rude. It's almost midnight and I've had this debate too many times over too many years. I've gone through the debate with a focus on science (scientifically, life does not begin at conception. The sperm cell is already alive and thus you were born in your father's balls. Also, with the ability to transfer fertilized embryos between parties, you could easily make it free to perform the surgery to transfer an embryo from one party to another who actually wants to be pregnant, but it's not free and it is likely quite hard to do that legally, because it was never about that), I've discussed the philosophy (see above), I've gone through religion. I've even debated this topic focusing solely on the environment.
It ends the same way. Neither side agrees with the other. And in the end, it is left in the hands of men who don't have to deal with these issues, and women who either have had an abortion, or are religious and want to force their beliefs on others.
I a little sad now. Sorry for the long-winded rant to the wind, and a very big sorry to York, since I kinda was rude to a bunch of points they made, which I definitely could have discussed in a nicer manner.
Verdant Haven, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and 5 othersUan aa Boa, Nation of ecologists, York Zionia, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, and 4 othersNation of ecologists, York Zionia, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
No need to apologize--I get it. Likewise, I don't expect agreement (the opposite, actually), and I'm actually glad you took time to engage--so for that I thank you. But I am going to address some of these points regardless (cuz why not?):
(1) Actually the overwhelming majority of sexual acts are performed for the purpose of procreation (and always have been), they just aren't performed by humans.
(2) Just because sex happens to be pleasurable doesn't mean that the purpose of sex is pleasure. The purpose of sex always has been procreation. Sex happens to be pleasurable because we were meant to procreate.
(3) Regarding the kidney example - no reasonable person goes to a party with the expectation their kidney is going to be removed (that's kind of like believing toilet seat pregnancies are a thing). Similarly, no one boards a cruise ship with the expectation of going to Mars. However, people do board a cruise ship knowing that they will be completely surrounded by water (the purpose of a cruise), even if they don't want a drop of water hit them the entire trip. (Maybe they just want to enjoy the sun and sightseeing, idk). So even if you board a cruise, knowing that it's possible to avoid touching water the whole trip, you boarded that cruise knowing you'd be surrounded by water. Just because you don't want to touch water, doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect to remain dry the entire trip.
(4) Not as many people "cheer on" men having "high body counts" as you'd believe and society (and biology) provide deterrents, whether child-support, STDs, or otherwise.
(5) I'm not really sure how your train example is applicable here. If you're implying that that only the mother or child (but not both) are capable of surviving child birth (because we know that isn't true, for the overwhelming majority of all modern births) then that's just not a very good argument. If you want to address the circumstances in which a mother's life is endangered by her pregnancy, then that's a different discussion (in which we're far more likely to agree), but I'm not exactly sure how that applies here.
(6) Regarding DNA ownership - Not sure which case you're referencing here, but that's an overly broad interpretation on SCOTUS rulings regarding DNA/genetic material ownership. Generally, the law recognizes human ownership of DNA not freely or willfully discarded/relinquished (going back to my fork at the restaurant example). One does not have to knowingly discard DNA in order to do so freely. There's a difference there, and SCOTUS has recognized such.
(7) Labeling a fetus (or anything other than actual, literal parasites) as a "parasite" is an extremely dangerous game to play (it's was a particularly favored tactic of 20th-century dictators)--especially since you're referring to the literal future of the human race. Is anyone who relies on anyone else for their well-being/livelihood a parasite? That appears to be the standard.
And do we really, actually all know deep down that a fetus isn't a human? That absolutely isn't the case, and it's precisely why we're writing late-night essays on the RMB. So no, not going to concede that at all.
I'll address this later, perhaps in a telegram. I don't want to make a muck of the RMB, but I would like to delve into your argument a bit more--it's just late. Hope you don't mind if I push off my response.
Best,
-YZ
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, Nation of ecologists, and 2 othersForest Virginia, and Great julunaphra
The thing is that the abortion question isn't a cosy after dinner debate between intelligent and educated people, with clever examples, trolley problems and premises P1, P2, and P3. It's about children being born into circumstances where nobody has the capacity to care for them so they grow up with few chances to do anything except repeat the same sh1tty cycle. It's about the end of dreams, careers and relationships. It's about psychological trauma, shame and bitter regret for the road not taken.
I think most people could agree that abortions are bad in the sense that it would be better if fewer of them happened. As has been said, this is best achieved through there being fewer unwanted pregnancies. The idea that the state can deal with undesirable consequences by simplistically banning them is beyond infuriating. How can you get better outcomes through the return of backstreet and DIY abortions, or by ensuring children are born unwanted into circumstances social services may later need to remove them from? By widening already yawning inequality by restricting abortion to those with the means to travel? I will never understand America, the land where owning an assault rifle requires less regulation than owning a uterus.
Banning stuff isn't taking a position in this philosophical debate, it's snuffing out the discussion. This is the process whereby, if armchair philosophicy is your thing, you decide what you'd do if it was you. Maybe later when the chips are down you even stick to it. A ban means that what you think doesn't matter.
My partner and I always felt we'd never go for an abortion and we declined the tests for fetal abnormalities on the grounds that we were going ahead either way. It wasn't a premise P1, P2, P3 kind of thing but it was a stance we felt had a certain dignity, a dignity it would have been stripped of by government compulsion. How crass it would be to presume to impose that choice on everyone.
My mother worked in a London gynaecological hospital before abortion was legalised in Britain. She always felt that after dealing with the aftermath of coathangers and bleach she had little appetite for philosophy.
Siornor, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, and 7 othersRuinenlust, The Cypher Nine, Northern Wood, Zerphen, Nation of ecologists, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
So I've stayed out of the Abortion debate on here but I've seen a few points I'd like to address:
Disclaimers first! I consider myself pro-life with exceptions (rape and life of the mother). Those are my personal views. That said, if I were a politician I would probably campaign on the platform of not allowing abortion after the point of viability (somewhere around the 21st week). With all due respect, if you support killing a fetus near the end of a pregnancy, you are down right disgusting - in my view that's no difference than tossing a new born in a dumpster.
So that brings me to the point 
Ruinenlust brought up in regards to the "exceptions"... I think a surprisingly large number of poeple are pro-life with exceptions, at least in my community anyway. The extremes on the issue drown those in the middle out. For me, it's not so much about the woman being worth less than the fetus or vice versa. It's more about the fact that a women doesn't choose to be raped thus the pregnancy is forced. Outside of rape, a woman is not forced to have sex. As 
York Zionia points out, that's a choice that comes with potential consequence of pregnancy. Actions have consequences... but but but what about the 1% that get pregnant while on birth control????? Well as York Zionia illustrated with cruise ship example, odds are it wont happen but it can happen and everyone knows that.
When the life of the mother is in danger it should be her choice... I can't imagine the pain in having to make the choice...
At the end of the day, I am a realist and agree with the following points:
Making abortion illegal won't stop them... thus the reason if I were a politician I would only call for a ban after the point of viability.
I generally stay out of the abortion debate as I feel morally conflicted from both ends being that I fall in the middle on this issue. Morally I think abortion is wrong. I also think it is immoral to take the anti-abortion stance yet do nothing to help those kids. I see it as a lose - lose situation until society itself makes major changes.
Lastly, I would like to comment on what sparked all the debate. The US Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal. Rather they left the issue up to the states. Personally I wish this would be the case with more issues especially on the economic side of things. Smaller federal government is better. The people at the local and state level know better what they need and prefer than casting a blanket over the entire country.
Siornor, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and 4 othersUan aa Boa, York Zionia, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
I'll quick throw my bit in here, in part because I can personally relate to FV's stance on this, given it was my first and long-held standpoint until I learned more about this (and still mostly agree with), but also because some of the other points raised have definitely given me more to think about.
This part has always been confusing to me. I certain as heck agree - for the most part, and would've agreed 100% a couple years ago with how little knowledge I have on the matter. That said, I've also been told by folks in the WA (sad source to get this from, I know), and particularly Sanctaria I believe, that really late-state abortions are not so much a guaranteed death as an early-induced birth. I still agree that's probably not right under most circumstances, but assuming the baby is not particularly likely to have major complications, and particularly if the mother's health is genuinely at stake, I could see it being a viable possibility; but realistically, it's one of those instances of "Gosh, I really don't know enough about this" and I myself haven't done enough research to even know what to think personally. Still, it seems a dad more nuanced then "baby killing ree!", though feel free to correct me otherwise. ;p
I'm glad they technically stepped away from some states' rights, although personally I wish they would've done that with other things instead. I can appreciate protecting civil rights over state rights, and I also believe the "fed" is often surprisingly lenient when it comes to enforcing things otherwise legalized (see: marijuana). But states are an important part of our checks and balances, and the amount of blatant ignorance of our 10th amendment in many circumstances is a little worrisome if I may be frank.
I'm still a little worried about states outright banning abortions (as Texas already practically did not long before the court overruling anyway), though. One could argue that if it was that important, an individual would find a way to either visit or outright move to another state to have an abortion there. It's definitely difficult - especially if you're dirt-poor, where this is maybe the biggest problem. Just missing a paycheck, much more finding a viable time and affordable way to another state, is imaginably quite difficult (as I see Uan's touched on). And yeah, it absolutely would have a negative effect on our already rampant inequality.
Last word of note: I'd argue that states already had significant freedom to regulate abortions to a certain degree, such as within periods of time or under certain circumstances (health, rape, etc.). I frankly don't quite get where allowing states to outright ban it remotely comes in handy.
Bigger point here... yeah. Not to mention we're at around the world population limit and are swiftly running out of resources and are likely heading toward a period of significant die-off as-is anyway, but that as an aside, the suffering due to a lack of resources and people willing to actually care for them (arguably related) is enough of a reason. Although, I personally wouldn't use that as a reason for an abortion past a certain period; after all, those neglected are largely still with us for a reason. (I'm ready for a contentious debate about that.)
*Sigh...* Yeah, that's a really depressing issue - and one where I can sadly understand why it's done. One could theoretically argue that doing it legally would encourage more abortions, but I'd argue that it largely means getting them done faster (thus less tragically) and more safely. I'd still hope that, given the relative ease of going from one state to another in the US, it wouldn't be as big of an issue as it may've been in the UK, buuuut... yeah, that might just be the largest reason why I'm a bit nervous about it being banned anywhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Final note: While the Roe vs. Wade overruling allowed states to ban abortions, wasn't there also some... deeper implications? I've heard a little bit about it potentially having major implications about right to privacy in general, although I'm not too enlightened on the matter. Don't suppose anyone else could shed a little light on that for me?
Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
Neither is a man, and male choices have consequences too. Are many conservative states that now restrict abortion likely to enact measures that leave fathers responsible for those consequences? If not, it's going to continue to be seen as a fundamentally sexist position.
I absolutely get that, but let's not delude ourselves that these judges on the Supreme Court are motivated by bringing power closer to the people and are coincidentally starting that project with Roe vs Wade. Sure, in economic terms localism is good. Rights are supposed to be universal, and that's why they're properly the subject of federal government and international law.
Verdant Haven, Rhodevus, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, and 7 othersMount Seymour, Ruinenlust, The void territories, Northern Wood, Faurexus, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
a bunch of things are based on roe, or use the same precedents as roe, such as gay marriage and legal contraception. and technically interracial marriage. It took alabama 4 days following roe's overturning to use the court's own words to work to get transgender healthcare banned.
Justice Thomas already said that they should look into the court ruling which legalized gay marriage.
Also, abortion is about healthcare, which is a federal issue, not state one.
Gun control is still up for debate whether it is state or federal issue. If it's a conservative state, it's a state right. but if you are in a liberal state, then it is federal. We know this, cuz the supreme court struck down a state law which was in place to reduce handgun ownership.
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, Yoakekuni, and 1 otherGreat julunaphra
Jutsa, Ownzone, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, and 2 othersForest Virginia, and Great julunaphra
Mmhm, I'd note that "health" is a traditional police power, which is a state issue. You can make arguments about the necessary and proper clause or whether we should really let this stop us (I basically think the Constitution's enumeration of powers at this point is pretty obsolete regardless, and I dislike the Supreme Court, which has made besides Dobbs a number of terrible decisions recently), but I would note anyway that abortion is not healthcare in this case, because the question of whether to allow it or not is about a moral argument, not an argument about the practicality of it on the level of healthcare. And morals, again... are a police power, and thus the jurisdiction of the states (again, in theory that I don't care about too much, but let's not misstate).
Sorry about double posting, but there were more responses after my last :P
Edit: One more point, I also don't think "men don't have to deal with the consequences" is a valid argument, either. The fact that some group gets away with something doesn't make it acceptable for another group. That said, I actually agree with Uan aa Boa's post to the degree that absolutely I think a fully consistent pro-life position necessitates strong protections for pregnant women and new mothers and as far as possible ought to hold men responsible for the situations they put women in.
Jutsa and Great julunaphra
Some rather disturbing views posted above about people having sex. Such views usually come form virgin teens or frigid middle aged/elderly women. Trust me, sex is great. Everyone should do it all the time.
IMO, the woman's right to her own body is paramount and nobody can justifiably force her to use for a purpose she does not wish to use it for.
Verdant Haven, Rhodevus, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, and 6 othersRuinenlust, Uan aa Boa, Northern Wood, Heidgaudr, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
But what if women don't want to be "protected" but would prefer equality with men? In terms of making men responsible for their actions "as far as possible" how about a government agency turning up on the doorstep and saying "Here's your baby - whether you want or are able to care for is irrelevant," which (with the addition of pregnancy and childbirth) is absolutely the situation an abortion ban seeks to place mothers in.
Instead you still say
and again the man's obligation has been mysteriously forgotten.
I obviously don't think we can escape the biological reality of the situation, but Ruinenlust nailed it a few pages back. If men got pregnant there'd be drivethrough abortions at gas stations.
Bananaistan, Verdant Haven, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, and 4 othersRuinenlust, Nation of ecologists, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
As a virgin past-20 individual with the mind of both a teenager and a middle-aged/elderly woman* accompanied by unnaturally low impulses, and as your supreme overlord, I must vehemently disagree,
Rhodevus, Frieden-und Freudenland, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, and 6 othersUan aa Boa, Zerphen, Faurexus, Forest Virginia, Yoakekuni, and Great julunaphra
«12. . .2,3702,3712,3722,3732,3742,3752,376. . .2,6462,647»
Advertisement