Nah you don't.If you say so bud. Just remember, according to the Constitution I have more rights than a fetus.
Nah you don't.If you say so bud. Just remember, according to the Constitution I have more rights than a fetus.
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.
Nah you don't.
So a parasite?whereas a fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA. The fetus needs the woman's body as a source of energy so that it can grow, but it's not a part of her body. It's only temporarily attached to her body.
No, you're just an incoherent moron.Wow. You really are a hard-headed person. You choose not to accept reality.
No matter, the facts still stand. Abortion is NOT constitutional. You want an abortion then go to a state where it's legalized.
I don't think that's quite right. We do have some rights to bodily autonomy, at least in the US. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arm stops just short of where it hits my face. The problem is that Lacius is assuming that the fetus has no right to bodily autonomy, whereas the woman does, so therefore her rights are obviously supreme. This issue is nowhere close to being settled, so it's an ineffective argument. The whole point of opposing abortion is that you believe a fetus has rights that are violated when you kill it, so... you shouldn't kill it. Lacius's arguments are basically, "A fetus has no rights, so killing it is fine!" That's not an argument. That's just stating the extreme pro-abortion position as if it were fact, which is obviously not compelling to the anti-abortion camp.It may be suggested that bodily autonomy is the only thing that matters here, but the reality is that we don't exist in a society were bodily autonomy exists.
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.
In your opinion.Kidney metaphor is bunk for all the reasons @AleronIves pointed out.
I agree that your point about the rights of the fetus being a source of contention are not being respected by his metaphor. I disagree with the suggestion that bodily autonomy may be the premise of human rights. I'm not sure if you are going as far to say that much, but I feel if that is a point that should be addressed. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to conflate our concerns.I don't think that's quite right. We do have some rights to bodily autonomy, at least in the US. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arm stops just short of where it hits my face. The problem is that Lacius is assuming that the fetus has no right to bodily autonomy, whereas the woman does, so therefore her rights are obviously supreme. This issue is nowhere close to being settled, so it's an ineffective argument. The whole point of opposing abortion is that you believe a fetus has rights that are violated when you kill it, so... you shouldn't kill it. Lacius's arguments are basically, "A fetus has no rights, so killing it is fine!" That's not an argument. That's just stating the extreme pro-abortion position as if it were fact, which is obviously not compelling to the anti-abortion camp.
If your point to make clear that the future person could become the doctor that cures cancer, the chances of that, based on statistics, are much lower than becoming a murderer.I was restating your point in the first sentence, to make it clear in the second sentence.
I called executing someone murder, because people are calling abortion murder.
In your last post, you literally thought the kidney represented the fetus in my analogy, lol.I guess I'll try one more time. You don't seem to have thought this analogy through.
Bodily autonomy is the freedom to do, or not do, whatever I want to my body, so your distinction between action and inaction is irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy.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.
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.
I'm glad we agree. It sounds here like you should be against anti-abortion laws.people don't have an obligation to save the lives of strangers by endangering their own.
I don't have to do anything, but is it not valid to show someone they are wrong by doing the same thing they are but in a way that you know they will disagree with?Also, just because people like to call it murder, doesn't mean that you need to follow then, and thus be wrong together with them.
So it's ok to kill people based on statistics?If your point to make clear that the future person could become the doctor that cures cancer, the chances of that, based on statistics, are much lower than becoming a murderer.
Just want to help you with your constant projections of yourself.Are you ok? You seem to be up my ass a lot. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised; you seem to be the kind of person that leeches onto people smarter and more assertive than you.
Just want to help you with your constant projections of yourself.
You don't have to fight for rights you already have.Where are my projections in my fight to retain bodily autonomy?
You don't have to fight for rights you already have.
I'm not saying it is. I'm framing this in the way Lacius did solely to highlight the problem with his analogy. He says a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore she has a right to kill the fetus. The anti-abortion camp would say that a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, too, since it's a separate organism with its own DNA and not a part of the woman's body; therefore, the woman doesn't have a right to kill it. The anti-abortion camp has concerns beyond just bodily autonomy, but establishing a fetal right to bodily autonomy is as far as you need to go to refute his argument.I agree that your point about the rights of the fetus being a source of contention are not being respected by his metaphor. I disagree with the suggestion that bodily autonomy may be the premise of human rights.
I apologise for the confusion. In my defense, your analogy doesn't make sense, so it's easy to be confused as to what point you're trying to make.In your last post, you literally thought the kidney represented the fetus in my analogy, lol.
I am, to a point. I'm just trying to help you come up with better arguments by challenging your use of terrible analogies.I'm glad we agree. It sounds here like you should be against anti-abortion laws.
You are confused. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, but she does not have the right to kill a fetus. She does, however, have the right to remove the fetus from her body. There's a very real difference, and the fact that the fetus can't survive outside her is irrelevant, just like the fact that I hypothetically can't survive without your kidney is irrelevant.He says a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore she has a right to kill the fetus.
Even if we say the fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, you don't seem to know what bodily autonomy is. Bodily autonomy doesn't give you the right to another person's body. Per my analogy, I have a right to bodily autonomy, but that does not give me a right to your kidney. Even if a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, that does not give it a right to the woman's body.The anti-abortion camp would say that a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, too, since it's a separate organism with its own DNA and not a part of the woman's body.
I really don't mean to beat up on you and laugh at you like I've already done, but establishing that you don't know what bodily autonomy is is as far as you need to go to refute your argument, lol.but establishing a fetal right to bodily autonomy is as far as you need to go to refute his argument.
Instead of engaging in mental masturbation I’ll share my experience.
Early in my life my wife was pregnant.
We are both very pro-life.
However, for many reasons this could not happen.
So we choose to end the pregnancy.
It hurt us both very much.
Today we are both much older.
She is remarried with children and we have a good friendship.
And yet that personal choice still hurt us.
The future is never clear. We live in the moment.
Both of us are also saddened and scared about overturning roe.
We feel judged and yet we know our choice was correct.
Make no doubt about it.
The religious right is coming for you.
They have been for a very long time.