Killing "babies" (fetuses, they aren't fucking babies) is ok solely because women have a right to choose.
Like yeah, it's 100% true that women have the right, but I guarantee you,
I guarantee you,
If an actual 6 year old child was super glued to your stomach, and tearing them off them would kill them, literally everyone would be against killing them. You would have to wait for it to unstick, or get careful surgery.
It would be completely completely unconvincing to me if you said that medical autonomy says you can do whatever you want with your body in that instance. Even if there was a surgeon backlog for 9 months to safely separate the skin.
Because obviously if the other entity is a person, they have their own rights!
The real difference is that embryos and fetuses arent goddamn people, they are a convenient tool used by the right to dominate women's lives.
If you concede the point that embryos and fetuses are the same as actual people, then you are literally just telling chuds that you would kill other people too. That's part of why nothing productive ever comes out of that.
I don't agree with this - you can win the argument even if you admit the premise that it is a person.
The government can't force you to give blood, even if it would save a life, right? It can't arrest you and harvest your second kidney or your bone marrow to keep someone else alive even though you could absolutely survive the process, and it would be terrible if they could, everyone agrees with that. Hell, they can't even take it out of your corpse without your expressed permission. This is because your right to bodily autonomy supercedes someone else's right to life. So if you can't be forced to let another human being use your blood, you can't be forced to let another human being use your uterus either.
I think there's an obvious unavoidable difference here however in that conception (outside of assault and other things) is a known and directly caused outcome of intercourse. This isn't a person across the street that you had no impact on, but one whose reliance on you was generated by you.
Of course, this particular problem isn't even a major point for many anti abortion people because they also refuse to provide birth control/condoms/etc that would prevent this direct cause but assuming a hypothetical person with rational and consistent moral beliefs on abortion by itself, they could easily hold a distinction between the two scenarios.
Ironically such a principled stance could end up where removing the 6 year old (assuming it occured through no fault of your own) is fine but abortion would not be.
Not really because your need of a kidney doesn't exist because of them. However it would create an interesting situation where if you crash into someone, you would be obligated to donate your organs to them.
your right to bodily autonomy supercedes someone else’s right to life
I think /u/SerLava's point about the 6 year old child was meant to illustrate that most people are not absolutists about this. It's easy to construct scenarios where most people would choose one person's life over another's bodily autonomy.
My example is pretty good- if someone, especially you yourself, attached an actual person to your body, you're SOL and have to deal with it.
Interestingly enough, it actually becomes a murkier question if someone else forces that super glue situation on you. That's basically equivalent to the "sexual assault exception".
I don't think it's a very good analogy because the super-glued person is not dependent on you to continue their vital functions. A better analogy would be whether you are responsible for the survival of the person behind you in the human centipede.
yeah they just respond with moral outrage/shock if you go this route, chuds don't buy in to the logic like libs already have about "choice". Not sure what's better though, fuck it might be some shit along the lines of family planning = family values or something. I try not to talk to chuds about abortion often because it's literally harder than defending Mao Zedong lol
I haven't gotten into an argument about this for some time, but I realized something
Sperm having less body parts than a single cell embryo doesn't make it any less "human" in any concrete moral way. A sperm or egg is a lot closer to an embryo than a full person is.
Oh it doesn't have all the DNA? Who cares, embryos also don't have almost anything I have. Sperm has half the DNA and a lot more of the other stuff that an embryo has. DNA is nerd shit anyway, does god make souls out of DNA??
So if embryos are sacred, then Every Sperm is Sacred.
What are the implications of this.
Well, sperm constantly die in men's balls. Just having balls is genocide.
We have to act fast.
Cut off everyone's balls RIGHT NOW and freeze them. Cut off everyone's balls before they hit puberty, and use the pre-existing stocks of frozen sperm to fertilize eggs for thousands upon thousands of years.
Same with ovaries, they gotta go. Anyone even delaying this procedure will be imprisoned at the Hague for genocide.
Honestly I think some Americans value personal autonomy to such a degree that it is possible that the fetus = baby argument could possibly convince a few people. One hypothetical scenario could be this: there's two identical twins, and Twin A needs a kidney from Twin B to survive. If, for whatever reason, Twin B refuses to donate one kidney, knowing that Twin A will die, is that tantamount to murder? If the answer is yes, then the fetus = baby argument won't work, but if the answer is no, then the fetus = baby argument could still convince them abortion is morally okay.
Of course, most people don't choose their morality from thought experiments, so I think your point is better anyways
The detail that is often lacking here is that people have faces, voices, birth dates, memories, recognition of others, explicit aspirations, all sorts of things that unborn human beings and various nonhuman animal life do not have.
Placing the fetus in a category of "prospective human" would probably go a long way. The difference between a prospective human and an actual human is why one person's bodily autonomy trumps the right of a fetus to develop.
Do people make this argument while accepting the fetus as a person/has bodily autonomy?
I thought the argument was implicitly based on the obvious knowledge that a fetus wasn't developed enough to be considered a person?
If you accept that a fetus is a person then it comes way too close to a mother choosing to kill their kid but being ok with it for ethical "bodily autonomy". But that's arguing against chuds within their own mental gymnastics gym.
In my experience, pro-choice arguers don't address fetal personhood at all, and simply respond to the cries of "but you're killing BAYBIES" with "a woman has a right to choose"
Which is just saying they can kill "babies" which is incredibly unconvincing... like, that's what murder is. It's choosing to kill a person
Ah right, yea I haven't really ever met a "pro-life" person tbf. But agreed, that's an unconvincing line of argument given you're basically accepting their premise.
Interesting how this ties into vaccine mandates. People that are anti-abortion are almost certainly anti-mandate, because it violates their autonomy, even though it saves the lives of others around them and themselves. Kind of the opposite of their notion of abortion, but I suppose pointing out the hypocrisy of reactionaries is just wasted breath.
Yeah I think I've seen that before, and they literally never ask, what if you literally are the person doing the weird kidney hookup shit to yourself?
A lot of anti-abortion freaks still support a "rape exception" because actually, if you do assume fetuses are the same as the violinist, yeah, that exception becomes pretty evident.
I got a spicy one.
Killing "babies" (fetuses, they aren't fucking babies) is ok solely because women have a right to choose.
Like yeah, it's 100% true that women have the right, but I guarantee you,
I guarantee you,
If an actual 6 year old child was super glued to your stomach, and tearing them off them would kill them, literally everyone would be against killing them. You would have to wait for it to unstick, or get careful surgery.
It would be completely completely unconvincing to me if you said that medical autonomy says you can do whatever you want with your body in that instance. Even if there was a surgeon backlog for 9 months to safely separate the skin.
Because obviously if the other entity is a person, they have their own rights!
The real difference is that embryos and fetuses arent goddamn people, they are a convenient tool used by the right to dominate women's lives.
If you concede the point that embryos and fetuses are the same as actual people, then you are literally just telling chuds that you would kill other people too. That's part of why nothing productive ever comes out of that.
I don't agree with this - you can win the argument even if you admit the premise that it is a person.
The government can't force you to give blood, even if it would save a life, right? It can't arrest you and harvest your second kidney or your bone marrow to keep someone else alive even though you could absolutely survive the process, and it would be terrible if they could, everyone agrees with that. Hell, they can't even take it out of your corpse without your expressed permission. This is because your right to bodily autonomy supercedes someone else's right to life. So if you can't be forced to let another human being use your blood, you can't be forced to let another human being use your uterus either.
I think there's an obvious unavoidable difference here however in that conception (outside of assault and other things) is a known and directly caused outcome of intercourse. This isn't a person across the street that you had no impact on, but one whose reliance on you was generated by you.
Of course, this particular problem isn't even a major point for many anti abortion people because they also refuse to provide birth control/condoms/etc that would prevent this direct cause but assuming a hypothetical person with rational and consistent moral beliefs on abortion by itself, they could easily hold a distinction between the two scenarios.
Ironically such a principled stance could end up where removing the 6 year old (assuming it occured through no fault of your own) is fine but abortion would not be.
By this reasoning if an EMT saves your life then they're obligated to give you a kidney if you need it
Not really because your need of a kidney doesn't exist because of them. However it would create an interesting situation where if you crash into someone, you would be obligated to donate your organs to them.
deleted by creator
But that's a lot different from "you wouldn't need the kidney if they didn't steal your kidney"
Most legal remedies involve someone losing some right due to their actions, so that another person can have their rights restored
I think /u/SerLava's point about the 6 year old child was meant to illustrate that most people are not absolutists about this. It's easy to construct scenarios where most people would choose one person's life over another's bodily autonomy.
My example is pretty good- if someone, especially you yourself, attached an actual person to your body, you're SOL and have to deal with it.
Interestingly enough, it actually becomes a murkier question if someone else forces that super glue situation on you. That's basically equivalent to the "sexual assault exception".
I don't think it's a very good analogy because the super-glued person is not dependent on you to continue their vital functions. A better analogy would be whether you are responsible for the survival of the person behind you in the human centipede.
They depend on you not ripping them off. Doesn't really matter if that's internal or external biology.
:yes-comm: :gui-better:
(whomst don't deserve it) :yes-sicko:
Everyone can make their case before the People's Tribunal
deleted by creator
yeah they just respond with moral outrage/shock if you go this route, chuds don't buy in to the logic like libs already have about "choice". Not sure what's better though, fuck it might be some shit along the lines of family planning = family values or something. I try not to talk to chuds about abortion often because it's literally harder than defending Mao Zedong lol
I haven't gotten into an argument about this for some time, but I realized something
Sperm having less body parts than a single cell embryo doesn't make it any less "human" in any concrete moral way. A sperm or egg is a lot closer to an embryo than a full person is.
Oh it doesn't have all the DNA? Who cares, embryos also don't have almost anything I have. Sperm has half the DNA and a lot more of the other stuff that an embryo has. DNA is nerd shit anyway, does god make souls out of DNA??
So if embryos are sacred, then Every Sperm is Sacred.
What are the implications of this.
Well, sperm constantly die in men's balls. Just having balls is genocide.
We have to act fast.
Cut off everyone's balls RIGHT NOW and freeze them. Cut off everyone's balls before they hit puberty, and use the pre-existing stocks of frozen sperm to fertilize eggs for thousands upon thousands of years.
Same with ovaries, they gotta go. Anyone even delaying this procedure will be imprisoned at the Hague for genocide.
It's the only way to save the babies.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Honestly I think some Americans value personal autonomy to such a degree that it is possible that the fetus = baby argument could possibly convince a few people. One hypothetical scenario could be this: there's two identical twins, and Twin A needs a kidney from Twin B to survive. If, for whatever reason, Twin B refuses to donate one kidney, knowing that Twin A will die, is that tantamount to murder? If the answer is yes, then the fetus = baby argument won't work, but if the answer is no, then the fetus = baby argument could still convince them abortion is morally okay.
Of course, most people don't choose their morality from thought experiments, so I think your point is better anyways
The detail that is often lacking here is that people have faces, voices, birth dates, memories, recognition of others, explicit aspirations, all sorts of things that unborn human beings and various nonhuman animal life do not have.
Placing the fetus in a category of "prospective human" would probably go a long way. The difference between a prospective human and an actual human is why one person's bodily autonomy trumps the right of a fetus to develop.
Won’t someone think of the poor exploiters and billionaires and wage slavery owners?!
Do people make this argument while accepting the fetus as a person/has bodily autonomy? I thought the argument was implicitly based on the obvious knowledge that a fetus wasn't developed enough to be considered a person?
If you accept that a fetus is a person then it comes way too close to a mother choosing to kill their kid but being ok with it for ethical "bodily autonomy". But that's arguing against chuds within their own mental gymnastics gym.
In my experience, pro-choice arguers don't address fetal personhood at all, and simply respond to the cries of "but you're killing BAYBIES" with "a woman has a right to choose"
Which is just saying they can kill "babies" which is incredibly unconvincing... like, that's what murder is. It's choosing to kill a person
Ah right, yea I haven't really ever met a "pro-life" person tbf. But agreed, that's an unconvincing line of argument given you're basically accepting their premise.
Interesting how this ties into vaccine mandates. People that are anti-abortion are almost certainly anti-mandate, because it violates their autonomy, even though it saves the lives of others around them and themselves. Kind of the opposite of their notion of abortion, but I suppose pointing out the hypocrisy of reactionaries is just wasted breath.
I've always thought that the violin player essay was completely insane, despite being adamantly pro-abortion.
Yeah I think I've seen that before, and they literally never ask, what if you literally are the person doing the weird kidney hookup shit to yourself?
A lot of anti-abortion freaks still support a "rape exception" because actually, if you do assume fetuses are the same as the violinist, yeah, that exception becomes pretty evident.