6 ms·

I've always thought a pregnant woman who doesn't want the baby should have the sheriff serve an eviction notice. When the fetus fails to vacate then bring a cou

I've always thought a pregnant woman who doesn't want the baby should have the sheriff serve an eviction notice. When the fetus fails to vacate then bring a court case to force the eviction. Of course it's ludicrous, bit think of all of the case law that could be generated that should, if there is any logic to law at all, prevent reproductive restrictions.

int_19h 4y ago
Abortion as a form of self-defense is a long-standing argument in this debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
paxcoder 4y ago
[flagged]
- vkou 4y ago
  Same way that you should probably be restricted from using me as a personal blood bank for nine months. I understand that you'll die without transfusions, but that's your problem, not mine. It's not murder to not support you, just like it's not murder when the grocery store refuses to feed me for free, or when you refuse to open your house to me as a place I can live in, or when a doctor refuses to treat me, or when a prospective organ donor doesn't want to give up a kidney. There are a few situations where this support can be compelled in our society, but we place an incredibly high bar on doing so, and an even higher one when it comes to questions of body autonomy.
  - paxcoder 4y ago
    If a child is conceived, it is not a usurper, it is the most innocent party involved. When people have sex, they risk conceiving a child. This new human being is created in the woman's body, the place designed to host it. So unlike my hooking up to your bloodstream, the baby's dependence on you is perfectly natural. The two things aren't equivalent. I have no claim to you (plus you probably aren't responsible for my condition - not that the child is dying, nota bene). Besides, can you kill an infant in your home so that you don't have to feed them before foster care can take them? I support your choice to abstain from sex. I do not support your choice to end the life of your child just so that you don't have to provide for them. To deliberately cause death of an innocent human being is not a right. Unless the child acts with an intention to kill the parent, the parent may not use deadly means against them (Disclaimer: Even in self defense, one must not act with the intention to kill - see the principle of double effect)
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Does the lack of nuance in that position bother you?
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    Either a fetus is a human being, or it is not. Either murder is wrong, or it is not. We could have a nuanced discussion on, for example, societal pressures that drive people to abortion; but the central question is not "nuanced" at all.
    - vkou 4y ago
      An adult human being cannot subject you to the imposition of using your body as a life support vessel for nine months. Either you have the right to your body, or you don't. We could have a nuanced discussion on how far your obligations go to be made to use your body to support the life of another person (You could probably be cut up into enough organs to save the lives of four or five people, after all), but the central question is not "nuanced" at all.
      - Georgelemental 4y ago
        The child "subjects" its mother to exactly nothing. It is an innocent babe, incapable of such things. There are two possibilities here: - The mother made the conscious decision to have sex, while fully aware, in advance, that her action could result in a child being dependent on her for survival. To kill the child, would be to punish an innocent human so that the mother can escape the consequences of her decisions. - The mother is a victim of rape. In this case, the rapist should face severe punishment for his heinous crime (life in prison and castration at minimum). In addition, the society and state should do everything possible to support the victim and her child. But killing the child for the sins of the father would simply add more evil to an already tragic situation. The child does not deserve to die for his father's sins; one human life violated is more than enough!
        vkou 4y ago
Georgelemental 4y ago
[flagged]
- grecy 4y ago
  Remember that quite a few women who didn't choose to have sex are still being forced to carry babies to term.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    And the rapist should pay a very steep price in such cases, to punish them for forcing that on a woman. Castration and lifetime imprisonment should be the minimum penalty for such a horrible crime. In addition, society and the state should provide all the support possible to the victim. But the baby doesn't deserve to die for his father's sins; one innocent body violated is more than enough!
    - lovich 4y ago
      Why would castration be necessary if they are imprisoned for life?
      - Georgelemental 4y ago
        Just in case they escape, or misbehave in prison.
        lovich 4y ago
        Not gonna lie man, your morals seem pretty fucked up
        Georgelemental 4y ago
        What would you rather I believe?

int_19h 4y ago

Abortion as a form of self-defense is a long-standing argument in this debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

paxcoder 4y ago

[flagged]

vkou 4y ago
Same way that you should probably be restricted from using me as a personal blood bank for nine months. I understand that you'll die without transfusions, but that's your problem, not mine. It's not murder to not support you, just like it's not murder when the grocery store refuses to feed me for free, or when you refuse to open your house to me as a place I can live in, or when a doctor refuses to treat me, or when a prospective organ donor doesn't want to give up a kidney. There are a few situations where this support can be compelled in our society, but we place an incredibly high bar on doing so, and an even higher one when it comes to questions of body autonomy.
- paxcoder 4y ago
  If a child is conceived, it is not a usurper, it is the most innocent party involved. When people have sex, they risk conceiving a child. This new human being is created in the woman's body, the place designed to host it. So unlike my hooking up to your bloodstream, the baby's dependence on you is perfectly natural. The two things aren't equivalent. I have no claim to you (plus you probably aren't responsible for my condition - not that the child is dying, nota bene). Besides, can you kill an infant in your home so that you don't have to feed them before foster care can take them? I support your choice to abstain from sex. I do not support your choice to end the life of your child just so that you don't have to provide for them. To deliberately cause death of an innocent human being is not a right. Unless the child acts with an intention to kill the parent, the parent may not use deadly means against them (Disclaimer: Even in self defense, one must not act with the intention to kill - see the principle of double effect)
rootusrootus 4y ago
Does the lack of nuance in that position bother you?
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Either a fetus is a human being, or it is not. Either murder is wrong, or it is not. We could have a nuanced discussion on, for example, societal pressures that drive people to abortion; but the central question is not "nuanced" at all.
  - vkou 4y ago
    An adult human being cannot subject you to the imposition of using your body as a life support vessel for nine months. Either you have the right to your body, or you don't. We could have a nuanced discussion on how far your obligations go to be made to use your body to support the life of another person (You could probably be cut up into enough organs to save the lives of four or five people, after all), but the central question is not "nuanced" at all.
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      The child "subjects" its mother to exactly nothing. It is an innocent babe, incapable of such things. There are two possibilities here: - The mother made the conscious decision to have sex, while fully aware, in advance, that her action could result in a child being dependent on her for survival. To kill the child, would be to punish an innocent human so that the mother can escape the consequences of her decisions. - The mother is a victim of rape. In this case, the rapist should face severe punishment for his heinous crime (life in prison and castration at minimum). In addition, the society and state should do everything possible to support the victim and her child. But killing the child for the sins of the father would simply add more evil to an already tragic situation. The child does not deserve to die for his father's sins; one human life violated is more than enough!
      - vkou 4y ago

Georgelemental 4y ago

[flagged]

grecy 4y ago
Remember that quite a few women who didn't choose to have sex are still being forced to carry babies to term.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  And the rapist should pay a very steep price in such cases, to punish them for forcing that on a woman. Castration and lifetime imprisonment should be the minimum penalty for such a horrible crime. In addition, society and the state should provide all the support possible to the victim. But the baby doesn't deserve to die for his father's sins; one innocent body violated is more than enough!
  - lovich 4y ago
    Why would castration be necessary if they are imprisoned for life?
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      Just in case they escape, or misbehave in prison.
      - lovich 4y ago
        Not gonna lie man, your morals seem pretty fucked up
        Georgelemental 4y ago
        What would you rather I believe?