Abortion

Why not just make people pay for abortions? Doctors can do it pro bono if they want, but if you fuck up, deal with the consequences.

>objectively
Killing is wrong.

Yes you can.
If by good and better you mean further away from a state of infinite pointless suffering for everything capable of suffering.

Does abortion in the first trimester cause suffering? No.
After that, its a problem about whether someone can be forced to give up their bodily autonomy for another human. Thats more complicated, but in the end still objective. One of those choices implemented will cause more suffering, or they are equal and it won't matter.

I think thats good. But that still leaves those ppl roaming around free to reproduce. And those ppl are not fit to be parents. I think there shold be a mandatory sterilization after n number of abortions. For starters 2 seems fine. Obviously after 2 abortions the person has on separate occasions, that tells something about her character. I would exclude rape conception.

What about the men going and inseminating those women multiple times?

This is not history.
Saged and reported.

>I would exclude rape.

In all other circumstances woman is the "gatewatcher" of her womb. And the way its penetrated.

Takes two to tango friendo.

Im sure you are female.
Your lack of reason and accountability betrays you.

I'm sure you're /r9k/. Your victim complex betrays you.

t. male

>t. male

Keep telling yourself that.

Yeah, and only one of the two can become pregnant.

When women started having sex like gay men have sex, society falls. There's just no way around it. Single mothers are the bane of society.

what an arbitrary and ridiculous idea to solve a non-problem

absentee parents are the bane of society, not the ones who remain the sole guardian of the child

I firmly believe society could develop even faster with average happiness increasing, if we employed certain harsher rules.

I dont want to turn this thread into eugenics thread, but some penalties must be set to punish behavior that goes against nuclear family values.

Im being mild in this 2 abortions law. To truly advance our society I dont even want to enter into the topic of what other measures could be made.

The older I am the more I see how much average human is basically an animal with a gift of speech. Few rise above it. I love animals but complete human being must strive to develop his/hers potential.

From a turtle I expect sleep/fuck/eat/repeat

but a human should be more and anyone less than that should be eliminated, not by force, but by making laws that make development of such individuals almost impossible. They should be minority, not an average.

>The concept is of course a noble one
But the who defines nobility, you?
Me?
Who?
I would refrain from using language that is subjectively suggestive when speaking about a topic that has subsequent and immediate ramifications for all parties involved.

In this way they would simply die off over few decades.

I must also add, majority of ppl would disagree with points I made, even if they are a)non violent b) logical, and this more than everything else, proves the majority know nothing.

Being a lazy hypersexed sack of shit is the norm now.

Why do you pppl criticize each other fallacies instead the very topic of the thread?

Its like I made a thread called "Is this good location for a wall"

And you proceed to comment on someone's brick layering skills.

Irrelevant.

I ask you - how would you solve the problem of abortion knowing that allowing it or banning it completely each has its own negative consequences?

My law is proposition of compromise which takes into accounts accidents but punishes stupidity. I honestly want to see at least one valid proposal other than mine, and backed with arguments.

There are any number of circumstances that would lead to abortion.
What if a woman gets raped, be it through force or some other means and then she decides to abort?
What if it would be a problem birth, either due to risk of the mother or some other factor?
What if employed contraceptives fail?
Putting an arbitrary limit on it is dumb.

>imo
Well that's just your opinion.

A parent that actually considers what circumstances their child might be born into is a bad fit for a parent?
Seems backward.

An unborn child up to a certain state of development is a non-conscious entity and can only be valued for the potential it possesses.
It's morally neutral.
By the definition of killing you're using you'd be killing cancer or the human body would be an automated killing machine.

>What if a woman gets raped, be it through force or some other means and then she decides to abort?

Read the whole thread.
Rape is excluded from counting.
Same goes for all medical reasons for aborting (excluding those where mother makes herself sick/poisons herself to bypass the law).

The only abortion counted are those made on purpose, where there are no medical indications.

>imo

And also logical conclusion.

>An unborn child up to a certain state of development is a non-conscious entity and can only be valued for the potential it possesses.
By the definition of killing you're using you'd be killing cancer or the human body would be an automated killing machine.

Cancer has no potential for sentience.

Okay
A) Your proposal aims to penalize people for how they use their own bodies. Maybe we should also sterilize the obese, the unfit, anyone who drinks more than you arbitrarily decide is appropriate and everyone with a Justin Bieber tattoo.
B) "Problem solved"
What problem? The problem that abortions exist. They still would under your system. The problem of people being irresponsible? You don't solve that problem either. All you do is turn women's bodied into crime scenes and then force surgery on them.
C) "Humane, forgiving and swift"
Your solution would be none of those. Forced surgery is not "humane". Your system is in no sense "forgiving" because it punishes them the second time they commit an "offense" with a life long sentence. Considering the sentence you are even less forgiving than the insane "3 strikes laws" that are proving to be a colossal mistake. Lastly it would not be "swift" because you would have to take every single case to a court of law with a jury and even if the verdict were handed down you would need to find enough qualified surgeons around the country willing and able to break their Hippocratic oaths to perform an invasive surgery on an unwilling subject.

>A) Your proposal aims to penalize people for how they use their own bodies. Maybe we should also sterilize the obese, the unfit, anyone who drinks more than you arbitrarily decide is appropriate and everyone with a Justin Bieber tattoo.

Lets keep our focus on the topic at question ok.

>B) "Problem solved"
What problem? The problem that abortions exist. They still would under your system. The problem of people being irresponsible? You don't solve that problem either.

If anything it makes ppl act more responsible with their bodies and use of protection. Certainly would eliminate much of single motherhood while not making men pay, but women who cannot a)use protection b)think and we dont want those to become mothers.
The real victory circle of this solution is in the lasting purge of society and return to more nuclear family.

>C) "Humane, forgiving and swift"
Your solution would be none of those. Forced surgery is not "humane". Your system is in no sense "forgiving" because it punishes them the second time they commit an "offense" with a life long sentence.

It punishes irresponsibility, shortsightedness and sexuality not backed by reason and protection.

All of those traits are bad for society.

> Lastly it would not be "swift" because you would have to take every single case to a court of law with a jury and even if the verdict were handed down you would need to find enough qualified surgeons around the country willing and able to break their Hippocratic oaths to perform an invasive surgery on an unwilling subject.

The law would find little place in present society since it caters to stupidity. But in centralized society I have in mind it would work.

I should've maybe mentioned it. But who knows, times change, what was 10 yrs ago a dream, now it's a law.

I have no desire to punish or do harm, but irresponsibility cannot do good, and ergo must be purged humanely (not killing a person, or visually stigmatizing them).

Put a sock in it you cringey faggot

also - not really an argument I want to use but, most women of the type that would bring themselves into the situation that would require enforcement of the law, are neither smart nor wanting to have children.

Sterilization would save state's money further down the line (no neet bucks for them, no child support).

That money could be directed into education and some benefits for complete nuclear families.

I guess that will happen in few decades.
Or family will be reinvented and society will look like it did in ancient paleolithic times with one man taking several women and lower males to serve him.

Ps:captcha was ''cave'' ;)

>Lets keep our focus on the topic at question ok.
This is on topic, you've decided that the way some people use their body is wrong and want to punish them for it. I want to know where that logic ends.

>B)
>It makes ppl act more responsible
Remember when we started punishing crime and then all crime ended? People who make mistakes aren't going to just stop making them because you created a crueler punishment for it.
>eliminate...single motherhood while not making men pay
You do realize that single mothers exist precisely because the man doesn't pay right? To solve this problem it would make more sense to force a man who impregnates a woman to marry her.
>women who cannot a) use protection b) think and we dont want those to become mothers.
You realize there are dumb-ass men too right? Should all of them be sterilized as well?
>lasting purge of society and return to more nuclear family
There is not such thing as a "lasting" purge, you will have to do it every generation. The break-up of the nuclear family wasn't caused by abortion. It was caused by improving economics which make it less necessary, a changing society that made it more permissible and a class of scum-bag men and slut women who don't think ahead. Your goal is to target the last group but you only hit half of it and even then imprecisely.

>It punishes irresponsibility, shortsightedness and sexuality not backed by reason and protection. All of those traits are bad for society.

It punishes those traits in one half of the population while the other half gets off Scott free.

>But in centralized society I have in mind it would work.
Oh, so the reality is that you want to be a totalitarian dictator so that you can mold society into the gleaming paradise that you envision regardless of how many innocence you trample in the process. There is an entire branch of fiction you should look into called "distopia".

>I have no desire to punish or do harm
Except that's literally what you're proposing

>Rape is excluded from counting.
>The only abortion counted are those made on purpose
You know what will happen, right? False rape charges will explode.

>This is on topic, you've decided that the way some people use their body is wrong and want to punish them for it. I want to know where that logic ends.

No, I dont punish their bodies, I punish their ignorance that ends up being a burden for society WHILE it could be prevented with little effort.

>Remember when we started punishing crime and then all crime ended?
It was significantly reduced though.

>You do realize that single mothers exist precisely because the man doesn't pay right? To solve this problem it would make more sense to force a man who impregnates a woman to marry her.
In all honesty that would be worse cause then the children would pay. My law would reduce single motherhood I think you can see that.

>women who cannot a) use protection b) think and we dont want those to become mothers.
You realize there are dumb-ass men too right? Should all of them be sterilized as well?
I think the nature of the sex roles makes women as child bearer the one who should exercise more responsibility.

>There is not such thing as a "lasting" purge, you will have to do it every generation. The break-up of the nuclear family wasn't caused by abortion.

Yeah of course, the law would provide lasting purge while active.

> It was caused by improving economics which make it less necessary, a changing society that made it more permissible and a class of scum-bag men and slut women who don't think ahead. Your goal is to target the last group but you only hit half of it and even then imprecisely.

Thats why I posted, Im interested in how would you make it work better. Or propose your own law/s.

>It punishes irresponsibility, shortsightedness and sexuality not backed by reason and protection. All of those traits are bad for society. It punishes those traits in one half of the population while the other half gets off Scott free.

How would you solve that problem? I agree it needs work. Maybe sterilize both.

Part 2 following.

>also - not really an argument I want to use but, most women of the type that would bring themselves into the situation that would require enforcement of the law, are neither smart nor wanting to have children.

Or just under-educated teenagers, or unlucky

>Sterilization would save state's money further down the line

Do you know what the court costs and surgery costs would be?

>Or family will be reinvented and society will look like it did in ancient paleolithic times with one man taking several women and lower males to serve him.

Ah yes, the "alpha" male's wet dream. I have a few choice words for any alpha who comes for my woman (and I'm sure she'd have a few things to say as well) but in the interest of a civil discussion I will keep them to myself.

PART 2

>>But in centralized society I have in mind it would work.
>Oh, so the reality is that you want to be a totalitarian dictator so that you can mold society into the gleaming paradise that you envision regardless of how many innocence you trample in the process. There is an entire branch of fiction you should look into called "distopia"

Innocent are being trampled while we speak, and I aint even King, Unifier of the Known World, yet.

Im less concerned with innocent being punished, more about guilty walking free. (I know how that sounds, and I maintain that innocent being punished could be minimized in my society).

>I have no desire to punish or do harm
Except that's literally what you're proposing.

You got me.

Good point and the best argument in this thread.

Yet to solve it.

>>also - not really an argument I want to use but, most women of the type that would bring themselves into the situation that would require enforcement of the law, are neither smart nor wanting to have children.

Or just under-educated teenagers, or unlucky

Could be solved with clarifications of the law (determining when and where it applies in what amount).

>Sterilization would save state's money further down the line

Do you know what the court costs and surgery costs would be?

Less than state helping the single moms.

>Or family will be reinvented and society will look like it did in ancient paleolithic times with one man taking several women and lower males to serve him.

Ah yes, the "alpha" male's wet dream. I have a few choice words for any alpha who comes for my woman (and I'm sure she'd have a few things to say as well) but in the interest of a civil discussion I will keep them to myself.

Hahaha, I dont see this as making any point I should reply on hahaha but lets say I see you arent the serving type of guy. There are those who are though. And would be happy with occasional sex and child support, while not taking the brunt of organizing the family/tribe and fighting/making money.

Its a brain storm, obviously family as most of us knew it wont make it to the end of 21. cent if things keep developing like they are.
(without some mass turnaround in thinking/world war)

>I don't punish their bodies
How exactly do you think sterilization works?

>It was significantly reduced though.
Only so long as most people agree that it is actually a crime and that the punishment is fair. Your solution is neither.

>My law would reduce single motherhood I think you can see that.
So would forcing the irresponsible men to be responsible while also being less invasive and less expensive.

>the nature of the sex roles makes women as child bearer the one who should exercise more responsibility.
Why not require equal responsibility? If your goal is to end single motherhood then targeting one half of the equation isn't nearly as effective as targeting both halves.

>Or propose your own law/s.
Sure, reverse the incentives. Reduce welfare to single mothers to be the same as non-mothers and raise the welfare for married mothers. Further make sex-ed compulsory in middle and high school. You might even incentivise women who get abortions to take sex-ed classes the way we make bad drivers take drivers-ed. Lastly you could offer free voluntary sterilization for either gender.

>obviously family as most of us knew it wont make it to the end of 21. cent
Maybe not, but irresponsibility is almost by definition self punishing. Idiots will hurt themselves forever, nothing you can do to stop that. If the nuclear family really is superior then it will rise again.

>Hahaha, I dont see this as making any point I should reply on hahaha but lets say I see you arent the serving type of guy. There are those who are though. And would be happy with occasional sex and child support, while not taking the brunt of organizing the family/tribe and fighting/making money.

I'm sure you see yourself as some kind of alpha that loads of men are just waiting to serve. It's always funny to me when people get to the "writing fan fiction about themselves' part of an argument.

>>I don't punish their bodies
>How exactly do you think sterilization works?

To me it's primary a punishment of ignorance. There is no need to punish their body had the mind operating been sane.

But, yeah you got me.

>It was significantly reduced though.
Only so long as most people agree that it is actually a crime and that the punishment is fair. Your solution is neither.

I believe it's fair. It needs some polishing but the skeleton idea is there.

>the nature of the sex roles makes women as child bearer the one who should exercise more responsibility.
Why not require equal responsibility? If your goal is to end single motherhood then targeting one half of the equation isn't nearly as effective as targeting both halves.

Because a) sex is not happening unless woman wants it b) woman is the last line of defense if all else fails and she should have the wisdom since its HER body, to know when/how to use protection. SHE bears a child, so ultimate responsibility is on HER.

>Reduce welfare to single mothers to be the same as non-mothers and raise the welfare for married mothers. Further make sex-ed compulsory in middle and high school. You might even incentivize women who get abortions to take sex-ed classes the way we make bad drivers take drivers-ed. Lastly you could offer free voluntary sterilization for either gender.

Good points.

>First two murders are free.

Fuck that.

how about leave it alone and let people do what they want with their bodies (with medical professionals providing advice)

>>obviously family as most of us knew it wont make it to the end of 21. cent
>Maybe not, but irresponsibility is almost by definition self punishing. Idiots will hurt themselves forever, nothing you can do to stop that.

Id like to help them punish themselves more efficiently though.

>If the nuclear family really is superior then it will rise again.

Good point. I hope so.

It's the little fucking body attached inside that we care about, you ignorant fuck. The one with its own gender, own blood type, own DNA, own life to live.

Stop murdering fucking children.

But they're not born, hence they're not really alive, hence it's okay to abort them.

Technically only the first.

>Because a) sex is not happening unless woman wants it b) woman is the last line of defense if all else fails and she should have the wisdom since its HER body, to know when/how to use protection. SHE bears a child, so ultimate responsibility is on HER.

A) Sex isn't happening unless they both want it.
B) The man has just as much responsibility. I suppose I can understand the logic of calling her the LAST line of defense. But you're essentially absolving him of the responsibility of to putting up A line of defense at all.

I hope you are trying to make a point with one of the most famously comical, hippocritical, badly written, tripe lines in film history ironically.

At what point does the fetus become a child though, there's a reason there's a cutoff date for abortions.

Bad idea
The purpose of the Industrialization of Abortion Services in the United States was/is to reduce/eliminate the minority population of the US, an added benefit was the reduction of Liberal offspring
Blacks were the original target, based on the number, real and percentage wise, of blacks aborting their offspring , has resulted in a form of self genocide
If Roe V. Wade had not been upheld by the SCotUS, the black population of the US would, in 2015, be between 100-125 million, because of abortion the population stands at 30 million, making them year over year increasingly irrelevant
The largest rising group of women engaging in abortion are 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics, as they are educated about their freedoms and liberated they begin the road to self genocide
White, liberal, educated, professional, single women make up the next major group aborting their young, less liberal offspring, fewer progressives

Best practice is to full fund abortion, increase access, make it completely free, offer 24 services with and Uber ride if needed
Limiting access will increase the number of non-whites, no one wants that

"Abortion Now, Abortion Tomorrow, Abortion Forever"

Men have no choice but to become parents if the woman decides keep, or to not become parents if she decides to abort. You're not making any sense.

This seems completely stupid, either abortion is okay or it isn't. If it is okay then obviously it is not appropriate to surgically mutilate someone as a punishment for doing it.

I'm not even sure what problem you are claiming is solved because if you think abortion isn't okay and it is literally murdering children then a 'two murders and you're out' rule is hardly a solution.

Not OP, but I think it has some merit besides that.

Wombs are damaged by abortions, and people born from wombs with repeated abortions might turn out deformed in some ways. Might as well just remove the chance of that happening.

>people born from wombs with repeated abortions might turn out deformed in some ways.

I would be interested whether there is any medical evidence supporting that.

How is this a Veeky Forums thread?

I don't know if there is, I just know there's damage to the tissue of the womb when there's an abortion. That can't possibly be good for human babies, but I don't know if there's been enough repeated abortions for any reliable data to have come out.

>for human babies
meant to write "for future babies"

The question of abortion is a philosophical one.

I'll take that as a no and you are just being ridiculous.

Let's talk about something more interesting: HIV/AIDS

Should people who test positive for HIV/AIDS be branded as a prerequisite for receiving treatment? I say yes.

Why?

>Rape is excluded
But how rigorous does this proof of rape have to be? What kind of severity of rape even?

And you've skirted around the issue of contraceptive failures which do happen.
A condom has a 98% chance of failure even when applied correctly.
You'd be falsely sterilizing 4 out of every 10000 women practicing sex regularly with only a condom as contraception assuming correct condom use and that none of those women intend to give birth to a child.
And there's just no way to prove that this isn't the case.

>Medical reasons are excluded
How severe does the condition have to be to be excluded from the count?

>And also a logical conclusion
You've just completely avoided my core complaint.
A parent that considers the circumstances that their child is born into isn't necessarily a bad fit for a parent.

>Cancer has no potential for sentience
Which is what I said. You're only evaluating it for its potential.
An aborted fetus that has yet to manifest sentience doesn't have potential for sentience either though.

It's not ridiculous to believe that unhealthy wombs may bring negative effects to fetuses.

I agree, but they should be branded in a place you'd only see if you're about to fug them.

1) You can't castrate a woman. Maybe you mean to have their ovaries removed? Or their uterus? Or both?

2) If so, how is forcibly removing someone's genital organs humane?

>I agree, but they should be branded in a place you'd only see if you're about to fug them.

Back of the knee maybe.

>It's not ridiculous to believe that unhealthy wombs may bring negative effects to fetuses.

If you have no evidence abortion cause deformed babies claiming it does is ridiculous.

There are many ways to sterilize women, not all of which involve removing (though all of which involve intrusive surgeries)

Because treatment extends their lives, which in turn allows them to spread the disease further, since it is not disclosed.

I'd do the groin right above the left leg. Same place for everyone, and a brand, not a tattoo. Tattoos can be removed or covered up, and are not visible in the dark, whereas a brand is always palpable.

I didn't claim it did, I said it might. And the question wasn't abortion, but repeated abortion and its effects on the womb.

We know for fact that old women's wombs have a higher change for malformations.

Regardless, how is it humane if it istill against their will?

>Because treatment extends their lives, which in turn allows them to spread the disease further, since it is not disclosed.

You've completely lost me. I thought the claim was that they should be forced to have treatment and what is not disclosed?

I'm not advocating for that, but that's not really an argument.

>how humane is it to imprison someone against their will
>how humane is it to kill someone against their will
>how humane is it to dictate psycho-therapy on someone against their will

People that break codified laws suffer from the consequences stipulated.

>I didn't claim it did, I said it might.

We have decades of medical evidence, we would know if it did.

This is my last post on the subject. I can't even be bothered to argue with someone that just makes things up out of their bum and thinks it is completely unimportant that something they just made up has no evidence supporting it.

Read that post again, user.

People are able to have and should have as many abortions as they want, and shouldn't be restricted from maternity.

I read it a few times already.

Explain what you are trying to say.

I happy to agree it may be me being thick but please reword more clearly.

How many cases of repeated abortions have there been?

I don't even know if there's evidence or not. I haven't searched it, because frankly, I don't really care about that. I'm just skeptical about the fact that repeated abortions wouldn't lead to complications given what I know about the subject (limited as it might be).

I'm not that user, but I think it's pretty clear.

>I thought the claim was that they should be forced to have treatment
This shows a complete lack of reading comprehension.

What if it's a glow in the dark tattoo?

You're being thick.
He's saying that someone should be marked if they choose to receive treatment.
They're still infectious even if they get help but through treatment the period during which they can infect others is lengthened.

It's pretty dumb anyway since sexual intercourse via the groin isn't the only way to transmit HIV.

As the person proposing the positive claim you should be the one proffering evidence.
It makes discussion significantly easier.

It's in the OP: 'humane, forgiving, and swift'. I am specifically challenging the humanity of the procedure. It clearly isn't.

People are still outraged that American and Aussie governments sterilized abo women. People still rag on Hitler for being a Eugenicist. Only a Veeky Forums autist would think anyone would let this slide.

>H
>F
>S

Okay, fair enough.

He meant literally branded. I get it now.

It didn't even register with me that anyone would make an argument that someone should be literally branded and I though he meant it metaphorically as in forcibly assigned treatment against their will if they didn't want it.

I apologise. I thought I was having a discussion with someone trying to make a serious point. I see now I was wrong.

Veeky Forums is generally more logical and better informed than the average person

>hurr durr only a retard would propose something amoral and highly effective

Fuck off back to tumblr

My "positive claim" is that it MIGHT.

My "evidence" for that we know the health of the womb affects the health of the baby, and that abortions damage the tissue of the womb to some extent (technically, these would need sources to justify those claims, but I'll be lazy. You probably don't contest them anyway).

If I was saying that it does lead to malformations, I'd need conclusive evidence of a correlation between number of abortions and number of malformations. I'm not making that claim, if anything, I'm contesting the (unstated) claim that it doesn't lead to later complications.

I'm pretty sure that even with a very pessimistic view of the average person Veeky Forums is still going to average out to being roughly the same in terms of people who are logical and well informed.

>Veeky Forums is generally more logical and better informed than the average person
This place is leddit 2.0 for fascism apologia

Only an absolute idiot quotes Star Wars.

You don't see the danger of people with AIDS being irresponsible and having sex?

I wouldn't have been born so no.
My ma had 4 abortions before me and I'm the savior of humanity, soooooooo

>for that we know
for that, is that we know

I've always loved this quote because it reveals the Jedi are secretly dogmatic morons.

The presence of the word "only" makes the sentence, uttered by a Jedi, an absolute judgement, and yet the judgement is that only the anti-jedi deal in absolutes.

If Obi Wan's rhetoric were only a little more convincing, Anakin wouldn't have been as insufferably edgy, which is how teenagers get when they catch a wiff of adult hypocrisy.

Null hypothesis is that there's no correlation between the two.
This is pretty much always the case when proposing a null hypothesis.

What you're stating isn't a position of not knowing but rather a proposed hypothesis for the positive claim that you havn't tested.
If your hypothesis is correct then the data should show it and your chance of discarding the null hypothesis mistakenly would be like rolling a 1 on a D20 because under 5% is typically the margin used for that purpose.

Yes, that's correct.

But since I'm not a biologist, it is not my job to make that testing, so I'm just bringing up doubt about the (implied) claim that it's perfectly okay.

Not history.
Also policies like this will be corrupted instantly to self serve higher up interests.