10000 IslandsBoard

Aprait wrote:

Oh boy. Here comes that debate.

debates are fun!

Jabberwocky wrote:

I suspect that those he massacred can't be bothered by such picayune trivialities.

Most authoritarian regimes massacred political opponents. For example, The Soviet Union, PRC, many empires, Italy, Yugoslavia, Iran,...

Breaking: Following legislation by the Ewar Elders regarding teaching Native martial arts to the populace, there has been a notable increase in general health, education, and safety.

Considering martial arts are usually very insistent on only applying it in self defence, yeah i can see that happen. Why education though?

Jabberwocky wrote:

That does not make it a recommended practice. Or even acceptable.

I know, I'm just saying that not all fascist regimes massacre minorities and not all regimes who massacre minorities are fascist. Massacring people is a crime against humanity

Whos jocospor

Yes! I finally found a fitting flag for my country, lol.

Ewar wrote:

Breaking: the Ewar Elders have made abortion illegal.

Repression intensifies

Ewar wrote:

For concern for the babies' civil rights. Birth control is still allowed, just not abortion.

Personally, I think that abortion should be legal on request before 24 weeks because before that point the baby is more like an outgrowth of the mother than a person with a right to live. But that’s just me, and everyone should have a right to their own opinion as long as they don’t impose it on others.

Piscina wrote:

Personally, I think that abortion should be legal on request before 24 weeks because before that point they are more like an outgrowth of the mother than a person with a right to live. But that’s just me, and everyone should have a right to their own opinion as long as they don’t impose it on others.

It's an emotive topic on all sides, as the hardline pro-lifers see abortion as the murder of babies, while the hardline pro-choicers see it as being about an inalienable right to bodily autonomy and feminist rights. When you see the other side as evil, it's hard not to be passionate about pushing your beliefs. One side believes they're saving human lives, the other that they're protecting fundamental civil rights. But yes, I agree with you, I think there's room there for people to have different opinions and that it's counterproductive to take positions too aggressively.

I'd note you picked out 24 weeks, which is the point at which the law draws the line in many legislatures, but its worth noting that said date is somewhat arbitrary and is picked for pragmatic rather than scientific reasons for the most part. Specifically, its mostly to do with the 21 week scan being the point where it's possible to identify chromosomal problems from foetal ultrasound features. The science is massively divided on what point a fetus is capable of feeling pain, and at what point it has a sense of self-awareness.

In actuality, development is of course a continuum, and we know that the nervous system starts to form as early as 7 weeks, but isn't fully developed even at time of birth. For example, newborn babies have almost no idea that their body belongs to them, and they become gradually aware of their physicality from the neck downwards. Only at 12 weeks postpartum, for example, do babies start to become aware of their own hands, and start examining them closely.

That makes it very hard to come up with a right answer absolute date.

I have a nation on Right to Life that is a region that is strongly pro-Life, and the consensus amongst most nations there is that a human being is a human being from the moment a sperm merges with an egg, because of the consciousness in potentia.

I personally think that's a cognitively easy position to adopt, but that it's actually all shades of grey.

My personal assessment is that abortions should have different criteria to be allowed at different gestational stages. At 8 weeks or less, it should be an absolute right that a woman has over her body, and to me the concept of potential is less important than the actuality of the present situation. I then think that between 8 and 16 weeks, there should be a considered (but fast) assessment of needs vs cost, with circumstances being needed to allow abortion, for example, the risk of significant harm to the mother, or the abortion being the product of non-consensual intercourse, or extenuating social circumstances that suggest the mother would not be able to care for her child. After 16 weeks, I'd prefer to see abortions banned. These dates are flexible in my mind, and should be subject to careful thought and consideration by experts, but broadly I believe two things: First, that a fixed yes/no cut-off is oversimplistic. Second, that 24 weeks is too late.

This middle of the road approach isn't too popular with pro-lifers OR pro-choicers of course, for different reasons, but it's my carefully considered position from assessing the evidence as a health professional and father.

Marxist germany wrote:

I oppose abortion comletely excluding cases where a severe risk exists to the mothers health.

Well, if the mother is unable to take care of the baby properly, the baby would be a constant reminder of a rape, or if the baby has significant health problems or is a threat to it’s mother’s health, then it is downright cruel in my opinion to force the mother to have it.

Marxist germany wrote:

If the mother is unable to take care of the baby, 1) there are many couples looking for children, 2) use better methods of contraception.

Mothers who get raped actually can use the baby as a way to reconcile, seeing it as rather a positive outcome (life creation) from a negative act.

Murdering disabled people is much more cruel.

If the mother's life is at risk, abortion should be performed.

1. I cannot see how this point is relevant, as despite the fact that there are couples who want to adopt a baby, the mother should not be forced to carry and give birth to a child that she doesn’t want to keep.

2. No method of contraception known to humanity is perfect. (Well, apart from abstinence, but that’s not remotely practical for almost anyone in the long term) If contraception fails due to no fault of the mother, then forcing her to give birth to a child she does not want is punishing her for no reason.

3. Note your usage of the word “can”. Although I acknowledge that such a scenario is a possibility, that is often not the case, and if it is not then abortion is almost certainly the best option.

4. Aborting foetuses early in the pregnancy is not murder in my opinion. I respect your right to have different views, but since the foetus is incapable of thoughts and wants in any meaningful respect compared to its mother, I do not see anything immoral about abortion.

5. I agree with you on this point.