Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to use the body of another person to live. Period.
That’s an idiotic thing to say.
We consider cells from other planets living beings, yet we turn around and says a fetus is not living? You can’t have it both ways.
Neither pro nor anti abortion, but what you wrote was just pure lunacy.
Originally posted by SquallX
That’s an idiotic thing to say.We consider cells from other planets living beings, yet we turn around and says a fetus is not living? You can’t have it both ways.
Neither pro nor anti abortion, but what you wrote was just pure lunacy.
Is it? A dialysis patient has a right to live. Therefore, by your reasoning, he has a right to use your kidneys to process poison from his blood. When can we expect you down to the clinic to be plugged into people who need your kidneys to live?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Is it? A dialysis patient has a right to live. Therefore, by your reasoning, he has a right to use your kidneys to process poison from his blood.
Oh, this old and tired argument? Great!
Comparing pregnancy to kidney disease and pretending like a random person off the street should be required to give up use of or donate their kidney.
They are not the same scenarios.
No scenario is comparable to a pregnancy except for Siamese twin issues. You can't create kidney disease analogies to pregnancies because they are not analogous until you inject government into.
Why not just use dialysis machines?
When we can grow babies outside of the womb, your argument can be, "Why not just use artificial wombs?"
Here is how the Kidney Argument breaks down and why you should stop using it:
The Kidney Donation Argument is a variation on Thompson’s Violinist Analogy. According to this formulation, we are supposed to imagine a society consisting of two citizens and a government. One of the citizens is a man who has kidney failure and will die unless he receives a kidney transplant. The other citizen is woman who is a healthy potential organ donor. The question posed by the argument is: would the government be right to force the woman to donate a kidney to the man? Most people’s (correct) reaction is to say no. Even if it would be admirable for the woman to donate her kidney, the man is not entitled to it. An illustration of two kidneys Rather, the woman has a right to exercise “ownership” over her kidney by refusing to donate the organ for the sustenance of another even if it means that a person with intrinsic value will die. If so, the argument runs, then it would also be wrong for the government to force a pregnant woman to “donate” her uterus for the sustenance of a fetus even if it means that the fetus will die as a result of that refusal.This analogy attempts to make the same argument as the Violinist Story. Because it entails fewer sci-fi contrivances, it is initially more appealing. Actually, however, it is less intellectually sound than Thompson’s story. This is because the Kidney Story fails adequately to represent the case of abortion. If having one’s kidney inside another person is analogous to being pregnant (as the story implies), then donating the kidney is analogous to becoming pregnant. Thus, all it proves is that the government should not forcibly impregnate anyone—an assertion with which everyone agrees.
Here's a better argument using kidneys but it, too, also fails:
Theoretically, the pro-choicer could respond by modifying the analogy accordingly. In the improved analogy, the woman was drugged and had her kidney removed against her will (analogous, perhaps, to a case of rape). Everyone agrees that this (like rape) should be illegal. But it happened, and now the kidney is in the man. The question then becomes: should the woman be allowed, in the name of exercising ownership over her body parts, to kill the man and rip him open in order to reclaim the kidney? This action on the part of the woman would, in the context of the analogy, most nearly approximate an abortion. We think that most people’s intuition would be that, no, the woman may not dismember or burn the man to death, regardless of the injustice of the situation. If not, then neither should a pregnant woman be allowed to do likewise to her unborn child.Finally, if the pro-choicer denies this intuition or tries to reformulate the analogy further, the “killing vs. letting die” distinction presented on the previous page is always applicable, even for the most sophisticated formulations.
https://prolife.stanford.edu/qanda/q2-3.html
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
When can we expect you down to the clinic to be plugged into people who need your kidneys to live?
Never. You need to come up with an argument that is not old and and tired, first. 🙂
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to use the body of another person to live. Period.
Doesn't change the fact abortion is murder. PERIOD.
If a woman can't take on the responsibility of a child then she shouldn't be spreading her f***ing legs for some deadbeat who has no intention of taking care of her child. PERIOD.
It is not right that an innocent defenseless unborn child has to pay the penalty for someone else's f*ck-up. If a woman doesn't want another person using her body to stay alive then she should make damn sure both the man and herself are using precautions to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. If she still ends up getting pregnant despite said precautions then the baby shouldn't have to suffer for it because the woman knew damn well the risks of having her birth control and the man's condom failing.
Originally posted by cdtm
Yeah, that kind of shit doesn't help.Honestly, hearing that garbage makes me wonder if the vocal anti-abortion side is controlled opposition.
🙄
^Triggered by the truth
What you mean is, it doesn't help your side because you know it's the truth and you don't like hearing it, dude. Tell you what, supporter of baby murder, if you can't take it then don't listen (or read, in this case) because I will keep speaking (or typing) my mind on the subject whether you like it or not. Put me on ignore if you need your crybaby little safe space, k?
It's also pathetic how you supporters of infantacide love to label those of who're pro-life "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" while calling yourselves "pro-choice". You think giving us a negative sounding label is gonna somehow discredit us. It won't. And the baby is not getting a choice in the matter is he/she?
So how about you call us 'pro-life' and we'll call y'all 'pro-death'? That way we both get a positive-sounding label. 👆
And honestly that's one of the main reasons I left the left aside from their identity politics, and a realization of the logical economic conclusions of the Lockean principles I ascribed to. The transformation of the government into the agent of responsibility rather than the individual is something that doesn't sit right with me.
My conviction is that the government's role is to secure people's liberties so they may have a private life, and that it is the role of the culture to encourage responsibility on the part of the individual in their private lives. Increasingly what I've been seeing however is the encouragement of a libertine culture suggesting that outside the bounds of government an individual should be encouraged to do whatever the **** they want, and that the government should invade people's liberties to reign in the excesses.
Though to be clear and fair, social policies like the war on drugs and banning gay marriage aren't exactly an embodiment of the ideal I spoke of either.
These are not ends, even if you seriously believe such behaviors are immoral, that warrant the use of force.
When it comes to moral values a person sincerely believes that do not concern themselves with the protection of human rights, it is that person's responsibility to advocate for them in good faith, justify them to other people to the best of their ability in the square of dialogue, not to remove people they don't like from the conversation, and not to enforce such views at the point of the government's gun.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Kinda weird how people like Adam likely think I have a responsibility to pay for some stranger's healthcare more than a mother has any degree of responsibility to her own child and in a situation she is responsible for creating.
Yeah, that's the typical dual-standards/hypocrisy of the left. In regards to your other post about the democrats' identity politics BS, I agree with that as well. I've been sick of that shit even years before Trump was elected. It just got much worse after he was. The left seems to have doubled-down on their collectivist crap since then. They don't care about the individual. Not surprising since they hate the principles are country was founded on and embrace socialism while shunning capitalism even though capitalism has proven time after time to be far superior. They think the desires of the many override the God-given rights of the individual... smh. That's not the way it's supposed to work in a Constitutional Republic though which is what we are truly supposed to be, not a "democracy."
Oh even back when I was firmly on the left, Bernie supporter type person, I was sick of that shit.
Back when I was like 6 or some shit and first learned about slavery, my first instinct was to go "damn that's ****ed up." My second instinct was to feel guilty for being white. My third instinct was to think "no that's ****ing stupid, I didn't do any of that shit, and the game of judging people on their group identity is what lead to that shit to begin with."
Then when I was roughly 16 or 17 in high school, I was taught critical race theory in one of my classes, about how there's "whiteness" and "blackness" in society and how due to interlocking totalizing systems of oppression or some shit all white people are racist and black people are incapable of being racist. My friend and I spent that whole presentation just laughing under our breaths. It was so ****ing stupid.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Some of the democrat candidates running for president are supporting slave reparations lol. I'm sure you've heard about that though. That's sheer lunacy.
Was never a slave, so I don’t need reparations. It actually makes Blacks look bad when they ask for reparations. They are basically screaming I’m useless, so white man please help me.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
If a woman can't take on the responsibility of a child then she shouldn't be spreading her f***ing legs for some deadbeat who has no intention of taking care of her child. PERIOD.It is not right that an innocent defenseless unborn child has to pay the penalty for someone else's f*ck-up. If a woman doesn't want another person using her body to stay alive then she should make damn sure both the man and herself are using precautions to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. If she still ends up getting pregnant despite said precautions then the baby shouldn't have to suffer for it because the woman knew damn well the risks of having her birth control and the man's condom failing.
So the argument here is "everyone who has sex should be willing to ruin their lives", well, women that is. All this by allowing enormous social pressure on sex, objectifying people, having reduced taxes for multimillion dollar firms that leech on dating stigmas etc.? This all happening while keeping contraception a luxury because everyone has to pay for it. And kids don't even get proper sex education. But your government has a solution for you in that dire situation: you can go to prison.
Instead of putting so much money into campaigning to ban abortions more resources should be allocated to develop temporary sterilization techniques so only people who want children are fertile awesr
Originally posted by Bentley
So the argument here is "everyone who has sex should be willing to ruin their lives", well, women that is. All this by allowing enormous social pressure on sex, objectifying people, having reduced taxes for multimillion dollar firms that leech on dating stigmas etc.? This all happening while keeping contraception a luxury because everyone has to pay for it. And kids don't even get proper sex education. But your government has a solution for you in that dire situation: you can go to prison.Instead of putting so much money into campaigning to ban abortions more resources should be allocated to develop temporary sterilization techniques so only people who want children are fertile awesr
It's sad that there are people like you in the world who think a defenseless unborn child should have to die because otherwise it would ruin someone's sex life. You don't see the callousness inherent in having a sentiment like that? That baby didn't ask to be conceived. Why should he/she be punished for someone else screwing up?
Why do you value sleeping around more than another person's inherent right to life? Use protection, make sure the woman is using birth control as well. If those safeguards fail then no, I don't think the unborn child should have to suffer for it just because his or her life would be an inconvenience to his parents.
There are other ways to get off you know if you don't wanna take the chance of getting a woman pregnant: oral sex, anal (which is gross to me but to each his own), jerking off, pulling out before ejaculation, etc.
Originally posted by Bentley
So the argument here is "everyone who has sex should be willing to ruin their lives", well, women that is. All this by allowing enormous social pressure on sex, objectifying people, having reduced taxes for multimillion dollar firms that leech on dating stigmas etc.? This all happening while keeping contraception a luxury because everyone has to pay for it. And kids don't even get proper sex education. But your government has a solution for you in that dire situation: you can go to prison.Instead of putting so much money into campaigning to ban abortions more resources should be allocated to develop temporary sterilization techniques so only people who want children are fertile awesr
I'd rather say...if women can shirk all responsibility for a kid, why can't men?
Would you be open to men being able to opt out of having to pay for child support for similar reasons women opt out of giving birth? Is it okay for a woman to abort a kid cuz she can't afford to take care of it, but also to be able to force a man to take care of it even if he can't afford it and she decides to keep it?
I'm not against child support, but if the mantra is "her body her choice". Well...why not "her choice...her job to support it" ? It *does* take two to tango, but then that can't apply here unless we're gonna say a man has an actual say in abortion, but he doesn't. A woman can abort a child even if the father is a billionaire who is promising to take care of it and the child poses no serious health risk.