Roe V Wade has been repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,040
Trophies
1
XP
4,803
Country
United Kingdom
And by that you mean the right to live for some small human - some human too small and innocent to defend themselves.

LvM9C7O.jpg
What a disingenuous meme. You've outdone yourself here for pure fucktardiness
 

titan_tim

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
128
Trophies
0
Location
Tokyo
XP
1,406
Country
Japan
Right, it could be a mass murderer or the person to cure cancer.

But also, the people you are murdering by giving them the death penalty could have gone on to cure cancer too.
Yes.... that's exactly what I said. I said "It could be A, but it could also be B". Then you said "It could also be B". That doesn't move the conversation forward at all.

Also, using loaded language like murder (Which it isn't), or death penalty (Which it isn't) isn't helping your position in any way. If you read my previous hypothetical question, you'd come to the same conclusion.
 

TornMD

Member
Newcomer
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
15
Trophies
0
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
XP
157
Country
United States
Abortion is murder. By no means should anybody cut short human life for their own convenience. Don't commit the act if you can't take responsibility for the life that you brought into the world. Don't look away from the truth by using whatever excuses your fleshly mind can think up to justify the taking of innocent life. Now, that's my unpopular opinion, now here comes the hate...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29 and Metal64

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,193
Country
United States
Abortion is murder. By no means should anybody cut short human life for their own convenience. Don't commit the act if you can't take responsibility for the life that you brought into the world. Don't look away from the truth by using whatever excuses your fleshly mind can think up to justify the taking of innocent life. Now, that's my unpopular opinion, now here comes the hate...
If you refuse to give me one of your kidneys to save my life, is that murder?
 

AleronIves

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
393
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
California
XP
1,589
Country
United States
Having a kidney forcibly removed is analogous to forcibly being unable to terminate a pregnancy, since they are both matters of bodily autonomy rights. Nobody made the comparison between a "fetus and kidney."
The problem is that a kidney is a part of your body that cannot exist on its own. It therefore has no rights. A fetus, given enough time, will develop into an independent organism with the same rights as any other human. This includes rights to bodily autonomy. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want violates her bodily autonomy, and killing a fetus violates its bodily autonomy, too. That's the part you're leaving out. A kidney has no rights, whereas a fetus, at some point between week 1 and week 36, will have the same rights as every other person. Violating bodily autonomy is unavoidable when talking about pregnancy and abortion; it's just a matter of whether you prefer to violate the bodily autonomy of the woman or the fetus. The only question is where you stand regarding which one's right to bodily autonomy is more important and whether that stance changes depending on how far the pregnancy has progressed.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,193
Country
United States
The problem is that a kidney is a part of your body that cannot exist on its own. It therefore has no rights.
You've misunderstood the analogy. The fetus is analogous to me. The kidney is analogous to the pregnancy.

If you don't give me your kidney, I die. If the woman doesn't carry the fetus to term, it dies. Should the state be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Should the state be able to require you to donate a kidney to me? To be consistent, you either say "yes" to both or "no" to both.

Edit: And so you understand, it isn't a violation of a fetus's bodily autonomy abort it, just like it isn't a violation of my bodily autonomy to deny me your kidney. With respect, please familiarize yourself with these terms.
 

AleronIves

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
393
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
California
XP
1,589
Country
United States
it isn't a violation of a fetus's bodily autonomy abort it, just like it isn't a violation of my bodily autonomy to deny me your kidney.
This is your problem. You are assuming that a fetus doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy, whereas anti-abortion advocates assume it does. This is why your kidney analogy will never work. A kidney has no rights, and everybody agrees on this. A fetus may or may not have rights, depending upon whom you ask. You can't convince people of your position by using the same flawed analogy over and over, because your analogy doesn't address the real issue of the abortion debate, which is, "How do you weigh the rights of a woman against the rights of a fetus?" Saying a fetus has no rights, as if it were merely a kidney, does not help you argue your position, because you've taken too much for granted when formulating the analogy. If you want to convince anti-abortion advocates of your position, you must explain to them why a fetus is not deserving of any rights, rather than repeatedly saying that it obviously has none, because it's roughly equivalent to a kidney, and kidneys don't have rights. That's nonsense.

The same thing can be said about sperm. Should would advocate for a sperm's bodily autonomy as well?
No, it can't. Sperm has a 0% chance of developing into a separate human, just as a kidney has a 0% chance of developing into a separate human. Only once a sperm fertilises an egg and travels to the uterus can it develop into an independent organism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Metal64

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,193
Country
United States
This is your problem. You are assuming that a fetus doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy,
You don't seem to understand what bodily autonomy is. Is it a violation of my bodily autonomy to not give me your kidney?

Why should we give our kidneys to a babie killer enthusiastic?
Do you think the state should be able to force you to donate your kidney to me? Would you donate your kidney to me willingly? Are you an adult human killer if you don't? You don't appear to have thought this through.
 

Metal64

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
56
Trophies
0
Age
31
XP
161
Country
Brazil
You don't seem to understand what bodily autonomy is. Is it a violation of my bodily autonomy to not give me your kidney?


Do you think the state should be able to force you to donate your kidney to me? Would you donate your kidney to me willingly? Are you an adult human killer if you don't? You don't appear to have thought this through.
A kidney is not equal a baby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BitMasterPlus

AleronIves

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
393
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
California
XP
1,589
Country
United States
You've misunderstood the analogy. The fetus is analogous to me. The kidney is analogous to the pregnancy.

If you don't give me your kidney, I die. If the woman doesn't carry the fetus to term, it dies. Should the state be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Should the state be able to require you to donate a kidney to me?
I guess I'll try one more time. You don't seem to have thought this analogy through. For one thing, the results of action and inaction are opposed. In a pregnancy, inaction promotes life, as the fetus will continue to develop, as long as you don't kill it. Action will end the fetus's life. In the kidney scenario, inaction promotes death. You won't get my kidney unless I give it to you, so if I do nothing, you die. If I act by giving you my kidney, you will live.

Can the government compel me to save a life? No. Can the government compel me to not take a life? Yes. The government already does this by outlawing murder. Is it murder if I see a car about to run over a child, and I decide not to jump into the street to save it? No. People are not obliged to take extraordinary measures (i.e. putting their own lives at risk) to prevent bad things, including death, from befalling other people.

A better analogy would be one regarding life support: if one of your parents is in the hospital on life support, can the government compel you not to pull the plug? This scenario aligns more closely with the pregnancy situation, since doing nothing will allow life to continue in both situations, whereas acting will cause life to end.

To be consistent, you either say "yes" to both or "no" to both.
No, you don't. As I said above, people don't have an obligation to save the lives of strangers by endangering their own. People do have obligations to their progeny, but those obligations are not necessarily absolute. There's a big difference between the government compelling you to save a stranger's life and the government compelling you not to kill your own offspring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Metal64 and tabzer
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName: https://sandwichpd.com/