The Abortion Debate

[ClownUnit02]

I don't believe in abortion. It's a myth. It was created by the Man to scare us and keep us in line.

[GoatShow]

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

And yet, wouldn't forceful removal infringe on its bodily domain?

[eIitebanao]

GoatShow

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

And yet, wouldn't forceful removal infringe on its bodily domain?

As the OP states:
You can only violate the BD of another if and only if doing so is the only viable way to end a violation of your Bodily Domain by them that is currently in progress.

[Macai]

[Shimizu-chan]

GoatShow

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

And yet, wouldn't forceful removal infringe on its bodily domain?

As the OP states:
You can only violate the BD of another if and only if doing so is the only viable way to end a violation of your Bodily Domain by them that is currently in progress.

The woman is violating the embryo's BD by default, since the embryo had quite literally no choice at all about whether or not it would end up there, whereas the woman (barring rape) really did.

[Kata Samoes]

Macai

The woman is violating the embryo's BD by default, since the embryo had quite literally no choice at all about whether or not it would end up there, whereas the woman (barring rape) really did.

By that logic, a mentally retarded man cannot be killed because his intent wasn't to rape. He didn't have a choice, he liked her!

Intent is irrelevant, it's there WITHOUT consent, even in cases where women willingly get pregnant and change their minds.

[Lillylove9]

GoatShow

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

And yet, wouldn't forceful removal infringe on its bodily domain?

no. removing it does not cause damage to it's body. Thus it's bodily domain is not infringed upon.

[IcarusDream]

[Shimizu-chan]

GoatShow

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

And yet, wouldn't forceful removal infringe on its bodily domain?

As the OP states:
You can only violate the BD of another if and only if doing so is the only viable way to end a violation of your Bodily Domain by them that is currently in progress.

Situation: Conjoined Twins. They have grown up. One wants separation. Claims right to BD is violated. Only one of them can survive. Other doesn't want separation, but if it came down to it, would claim the same right. Who wins.

[Aino Ailill]

Lillylove9

GoatShow

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

And yet, wouldn't forceful removal infringe on its bodily domain?

no. removing it does not cause damage to it's body. Thus it's bodily domain is not infringed upon.

Rape does not necessarily cause damage to the body. It is an infringement.

[Macai]

Kata Samoes

Macai

The woman is violating the embryo's BD by default, since the embryo had quite literally no choice at all about whether or not it would end up there, whereas the woman (barring rape) really did.

By that logic, a mentally retarded man cannot be killed because his intent wasn't to rape. He didn't have a choice, he liked her!

Intent is irrelevant, it's there WITHOUT consent, even in cases where women willingly get pregnant and change their minds.

Intent is irrelevant? Excuse me? Intent is very relevant. [1]

[Dark Lord Drake]

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

Well if the fetus has any kind of right to existance, it would be violating that right. So we have them conflicting. But, the woman, if she wasn't raped, is the cause for it being there. She essentially invited it in. She let it into her body. She knew there was a risk of it being there. Thus, I see it that if it had a right to existance that did not automatically overrule her right to bodily domain, she did in fact allow it in.

If the fetus has no right to existance, then it would be utterly irrelevant as there's no problem at all getting rid of it.

[Heart of the Fallen Angel]

Dark Lord Drake

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

Well if the fetus has any kind of right to existance, it would be violating that right. So we have them conflicting. But, the woman, if she wasn't raped, is the cause for it being there. She essentially invited it in. She let it into her body. She knew there was a risk of it being there. Thus, I see it that if it had a right to existance that did not automatically overrule her right to bodily domain, she did in fact allow it in.

If the fetus has no right to existance, then it would be utterly irrelevant as there's no problem at all getting rid of it.

She also asked it to leave. If I invite a person to my house, then tell them to leave and they refuse, I take more serious actions to remove them. First I call the cops. If that doesn't work, the cops attempt to forcefully extract the person. If all else fails and the person creates a danger to life in my house, they will be killed to end that danger.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Heart of the Fallen Angel

Dark Lord Drake

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

Well if the fetus has any kind of right to existance, it would be violating that right. So we have them conflicting. But, the woman, if she wasn't raped, is the cause for it being there. She essentially invited it in. She let it into her body. She knew there was a risk of it being there. Thus, I see it that if it had a right to existance that did not automatically overrule her right to bodily domain, she did in fact allow it in.

If the fetus has no right to existance, then it would be utterly irrelevant as there's no problem at all getting rid of it.

She also asked it to leave. If I invite a person to my house, then tell them to leave and they refuse, I take more serious actions to remove them. First I call the cops. If that doesn't work, the cops attempt to forcefully extract the person. If all else fails and the person creates a danger to life in my house, they will be killed to end that danger.

If you invited them in knowing they would die if they left I doubt the cops would forcibly eject them. And if you killed them because you thought they were a potential threat, knowing full well you invited them in and they could not leave without suffering death, I highly doubt the cops will be fine with it.

[Kata Samoes]

Macai

Kata Samoes

Macai

The woman is violating the embryo's BD by default, since the embryo had quite literally no choice at all about whether or not it would end up there, whereas the woman (barring rape) really did.

By that logic, a mentally retarded man cannot be killed because his intent wasn't to rape. He didn't have a choice, he liked her!

Intent is irrelevant, it's there WITHOUT consent, even in cases where women willingly get pregnant and change their minds.

Intent is irrelevant? Excuse me? Intent is very relevant. [1]

And how does that apply, as her BD is being violated first when she withdrew (or never gave) consent?

[Kata Samoes]

Dark Lord Drake

Heart of the Fallen Angel

Dark Lord Drake

Heart of the Fallen Angel

The fetus does have a body, yet, it's body is infringing on the rights of a woman's bodily domain.

Well if the fetus has any kind of right to existance, it would be violating that right. So we have them conflicting. But, the woman, if she wasn't raped, is the cause for it being there. She essentially invited it in. She let it into her body. She knew there was a risk of it being there. Thus, I see it that if it had a right to existance that did not automatically overrule her right to bodily domain, she did in fact allow it in.

If the fetus has no right to existance, then it would be utterly irrelevant as there's no problem at all getting rid of it.

She also asked it to leave. If I invite a person to my house, then tell them to leave and they refuse, I take more serious actions to remove them. First I call the cops. If that doesn't work, the cops attempt to forcefully extract the person. If all else fails and the person creates a danger to life in my house, they will be killed to end that danger.

If you invited them in knowing they would die if they left I doubt the cops would forcibly eject them. And if you killed them because you thought they were a potential threat, knowing full well you invited them in and they could not leave without suffering death, I highly doubt the cops will be fine with it.

But that goes into purposely inviting them just to leave so they die. Malice, intent, murder.

The better scenario would be that she invited him onto her property, but never inside the home. He comes/goes in anyway. She asks him to leave, knowing he may die but he trespassed her home and trust. Why should he stay?

That'd be like punishing her because she "started it." She never wanted him inside, and is sticking to that lack of consent.

[xladykittyx]

I think that women should have the free will to have abortions. It is wrong to kill a fetus since it is a living being but it would be worse for the child to grow up while being that "hated" or "unwanted" child. Pregnancy puts the women's health at risk and it is technically her body so she should be able to do as she pleases. Some women may have money troubles and that would also be harmful for the baby while growing up. There is the thought of being put up for adoption but that may make him/her feel unloved because their real parents don't want them. I do believe in adoption though because it gives the child a chance to feel love or to grow up with their foster family.