Trying to adapt a false analogy with new conditions that still falls short and cannot be compared to pregnancy is as close to an admission that I can get with you. Saying something is irrelevant and then trying to account for it is a mixed message.
It's irrelevant, and we can account for it. Don't be disingenuous. That, or learn how analogies work.
There is no learning how your analogy works because the "irrelevant" point that it fails to address is the point I am making. Being dismissive and calling it irrelevant is disingenuous. Getting pregnant is not "irrelevant " in the topic of abortion. It's a prerequisite.
I thought I was being nice and productive by accounting for it, despite it being irrelevant, but you haven't responded to it.
I thought you were being an idiot by suggesting that someone simply existing is the same as pregnancy.
I guess you won't tackle the amended analogy. I'm glad we are on the same page, because I don't have a solution for it either that isn't "bodily autonomy shall not be violated."
There is no point here, comrade. He is a troll dragging things out.
And that is an insane take that proves it.
Am I missing something or do you actually agree with the notion that biological father having a kidney is the same as pregnancy? Do you have a husband? Is his kidneys still okay after enduring two (or three) bouts of cancer? In case you weren't paying attention to the comments you were liking, that's what we are calling it now.
The analogy still fails. You should know better, but apparently you don't. Biological father having a kidney and kid needing a kidney is not the same as creating a child. Besides that, pretty sure that the biological father is still responsible, to some degree, for the child's welfare. "Child support". Whether that is right or not is getting off the topic of my point. That's not the same as pregnancy. When you get pregnant, you can (generally) know what is expected in the process. Acting like it's cancer is just your way of brandishing your edge.
A fetus is dependent on a mother's body for survival. A sick child in need of a kidney is dependent on his father's body for survival. Please explain the difference that would warrant the state allowing bodily autonomy in one case and violating it in the other case. Thanks.
In the first scenario, a mother hopefully understands what is being expected during (and after) the pregnancy. If I could do right by words, I'd call it a biological contract. Not to say that it cannot be nulled, but the consequence will at least have emotional and physical repercussion and it would result in a loss of life. The second scenario, one might hope that the father would be a good father and do right by his child, but he is not actively, or "biologically", creating his child's condition. Passing down bunk genetics may be another topic. Still, not giving a kidney would have emotional and physical repercussion and it would result in the loss of life.
The only thing that "warrants" what a state does is your bureaucratic faux democracy (see topic). I proposed that the goal for many "pro-life" people was to see that embryos are given rights. If that were to happen, there would be a conundrum of choosing between a woman's right to an abortion and an embryo's right to gestation. It would be possible for both to occur, but it isn't practical. If it were practical, I don't think you'd resort to calling pregnancy "cancer" in effort to handwave the issue.
Could you please tell me which scenario (pregnant woman, man with a kidney, both, or neither) should be forced by the state? That would make things more clear. You seem to be dodging the question. Thank you.
You fought for human rights on the internet and wound up with cancer.Because it's my point.
Embryos are not cancer. An unwanted pregnancy can, however, be considered analogous to cancer. They are each something unwanted growing in your body that you want removed, and if they aren't removed, they may have everlasting negative effects on your body and could even kill you.
Comparing embryos to cancer was your shortcut to handwave the proposed embryonic rights vs woman's rights conundrum. That's already documented. You weren't even trying to be nuanced and I pointed that out too.
And here it is again. You go from step 1: saying that unwanted pregnancy "can" be like cancer, to step 2: treat pregnancy like it's cancer.
My point was never once that abortion should be legal because "pregnancy can be analogous to cancer." I didn't bring up cancer. A person should be able to do whatever they want to their body, whether it's positive, negative, or neutral.
