From a lefty I know..."Yeah, it's murder, but that's okay as long as I view the victim as an inconvenience."
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (88)
sorted by:
Nobody forced you to open your legs 99% of the time (1% of abortions occur because of rape).
That's it.
That's the argument.
Close your legs, take a pill, wear a condom - plenty of autonomy there alone. Actions, outcomes, and consequences are a part of autonomy; you are an active participant. If you make your womb into an ontological paradox for the sake of a momentary spasm, using no protections, none of the actual autonomy you are afforded, you are the problem.
Take accountability for your actions, otherwise you really DO "have less autonomy than a corpse".
The unborn is a person in an early stage of development life like a child or infant; attempting to demarcate what separates one person in an early stage of development from another early stage of development is a fool's errand, even "Thompson's Violinist" concedes this.
Parents have a POSITIVE moral obligation to care for their children. Don't believe me? Stop feeding your kids and see what happens.
Ergo, the unborn have a right to the support of their mother's body, or more accurately, mothers have a POSITIVE moral obligation to provide support to their unborn.
This, by the way, is my standard response to "there is no non-religious reason to oppose abortion."
EDIT: This fellow really needs to square "It doesn't matter if it is a person" with "Nobody has the right to...". It seems he has unwittingly conceded something.
A generation of people who believe they are above consequences and their mind riddled to only want sex. The sexual revolution was a huge mistake.
Oh the logic doesn’t even make it that far. It’s actually an anti abortion statement…
Do moms have the right to use a babies body to save their life through abortion under this argument? That’s a negative.
I don't think they even understand what the hippocratic oath entails
Doctors don’t even know what it entails anymore. They eagerly ignore it so long as they get enough kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies to prescribe snake oil or if the government even jokingly tells them to ignore it.
They only know the hypocritic oath.
Medical schools under the thrall of social justice have revised the H.O. according to a version written in 1964 by (no kidding) a guy named Louis Lasagna that includes this gem:
"If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."
I suppose it's the abortion/euthanasia loophole.
Considering the original Hippocratic oath specifically prohibits giving women abortions, I’d argue most Doctors don’t understand the Hippocratic oath.
Also, by that logic, child support payments shouldn't ever be a thing because you're forcing someone to use their body to make money to pay someone else.
These people don't believe in "bodily autonomy". They don't believe in freedom of speech. They don't believe in rule of law. They don't believe in democracy. They just use them as convenient arguments against people who do believe in them.
We need everybody to know this.
It's literally our right (and duty) to liquidate the government.
Welfare recipients aren't the (primary) problem; they're just taking what is handed to them. There's room for criticism there, sure, but they're not the ones driving the harm, or the violation of our rights. The violation comes from that force used to take our labor.
There is no "by your logic" argument you can use on a communist that will ever accomplish anything besides giving them a reason to snicker at you.
You don't need to take it that far.
Remember that anyone who's "unvaccinated" already has not bodily autonomy rights, including children.
You can be forced to get injections, though. This person probably supported that. And yes, the courts have historically recognized coercion as force.
You can though. Dont believe me? See what happens if you are pulled over for DUI and refuse to comply with the tests.
That's illegal btw, not that anybody cares or will defend you....
I'm pretty sure mandatory blood draws (if you refuse field and/or station sobriety tests) are literally the law, and upheld as constitutional, in several states.
If you want to be pedantic, she's right. Because if it's forced, it's no longer a donation. And yes, it's amazing that a search warrant for a blood draw is constitutional.
This is hilariously unscientific
It’s a life after a zygote is formed, there is no other biological definition of life. Semen and eggs are potential lives, not zygotes.
Which is a nonsensical argument. The zygote is designed to develop at a certain rate and sentience is not an objective measure, it’s a subjective one, it’s like saying marriage is between people that love each other. A zygote will always reach sentience if there is no interference. This is the same argument as a man put into a medical coma, if he is expected to fully recover is he not alive?
I've been wondering if a brain or nervous system is even a requirement for sentience, given what we know about green plants and other so-called "lower forms of life."
What part of interference is confusing you? There’s nothing in the biological design of a zygote that doesn’t lead to sentience. Interference in the development process is what creates a stillbirth, whether it is genetic mutation, lack of nutrients, abortion etc.
No we have a scaled concept that is constantly in flux. If you ask 500 bioethicists what sentient means you get 50000 answers. Like love, sentience is a concept, but not one held to any rigidity or objective standards.
Again these are all subjective descriptions.
I bet you also have a really smart black friend whose existence proves niggers aren't retarded.
Sentience is the ability to feel physical things. If someone was unable to feel things for longer period of time, just like how, for instance, a few people on Earth don't feel pain at all, do you call them non-sentient and you think their mothers can "abort" them just for that?
More generally speaking, why is the ability to feel pain or pleasure be the argument for whether or not you can or can't kill a baby? I really don't see how the 2 are connected at all. Is a human, to you, just defined by their nervous system?
You are the communist of conservatism.
I'm with u/current_horror in regard to lolbert fatigue. Nothing personal, but your standard moral vs legal line is pretty ridiculous and has been the means by which neoconservatives (ie Trotskyites) have backed leftists for 70 years. "You can't legislate morality" has been a conservative line my whole life and its dead wrong.
All laws are written to promote a moral good. Homocide laws are written because preventing and punishing murder is a moral good. The Crean Air Act was written because preventing a polluted country is a moral good. Even fucking tax laws exist because supporting the operations of the government is (perceived) to be a moral good. Now some of these may be bad calls, but the principle remains.
Or, I should say the principle remains unless an actual conservative advocates for a law or moral position out of line with progressive ideology, then it's back to "you can't legislate morality" as our betters often tell us.
I literally just identified a similarity that has far reaching legal and social implications. As to you 80s/90s moral panic complaints: how successful were the conservatives and who is Tipper Gore?
I disagree.
These things are done to maintain the authority of the state, which is based on moral principals enshrined in the Constitution. It may be a bit pedantic but I think it's an important distinction.
While it's acceptable to question, protest, and even disobey laws and still be a loyal citizen, opposing the Constitution is treason. While laws are dynamic, the Constitution is not (or at least shouldn't be).
The reason for this is that governments should never be the arbiters of the Constitution, that's for the courts to do in order to ensure a division of power so that special interest groups can't arbitrarily change everything.
You might think this is unimportant, but take a look at a country with no Constitutional authority, like Canada, to see the difference.
What is the third branch of government?
Opposing the Constitution is not treason. The Constitution is a well written document, but it is nevertheless just the current governing document of the USA. It was not the first, and there's nothing inherent to it that makes it the last one either. Waging war against the USA by a citizen is treason. There's nothing treasonous about, for example, arguing against the Constitution in favor of returning to the Articles of Confederation.
Excellent point.
Men have been mandated to sacrifice their lives for others since the beginning of recorded history.
And, since women are except from the draft, I think it's fair to say that bringing a pregnancy to term is their equivalent in terms of a price laid to be allowed to vote.
How's that? You get the right to an abortion, or the right to vote, but not both?
I like this bargain. I think they'd choose abortion, and then lose it when they also don't have the franchise to "defend" that "right".
Russian men as well. They get even less sympathy and have way less support.
I think the bigger issue is few countries are taking Russian men as refugees. It's pretty much Turkey and Georgia
Based and correct. But that's not what a pregnancy is, and these fucking degenerates will never admit that. Also, bets on this person being all aboard the vaccine mandate train? They tried to force me to do (totally safe and effective!) things to my body, allegedly to save other people's lives. Fuckers.
Oh, 100% they probably said that people who don't get "vaccinated" shouldn't be treated at hospitals for medical emergencies. You know, the Jimmy Kimmel argument.
This is key.
I'm absolutely fine with pregnant women having their babies removed so long as every effort is made to preserve the baby's life and it is then placed into state or adoptive care.
Abortion is not that, abortion is literally murder.
I also have a strong suspicion that many women would not abandon their pregnancies if there were any chance that the child could survive and contact them someday.
This is a mangled telephone version of the violinist argument famously presented in Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion". It is a bogus argument because the premise assumes the conclusion. Your baby is not a stranger. Your baby is not a parasite. Crafting elaborate analogies about strangers harvesting your organs or surgically being attached to your body is just trying to use disgust as a wedge to slide in a flawed axiom.
Thompson is wrong because she ignores the existence of positive moral obligations. She concedes personhood to the unborn because she has to for the rest of her argument to make sense, but then sets up a system where you could argue that parents have NO obligation to their children whatsoever.
We are used to discussing moral obligations in the negative, ie I am obligated NOT to bash your brains in. Positive moral obligations also exist. In fact, agreement is pretty universal in regard to a parent's positive obligation to care for their offspring. If you leave your child to die from exposure, the State will punish you. Given that Hamiliton has already conceded "fetal personhood" and that a fetus is located in its natural environment, it is reasonable to argue that the mother has a positive moral obligation to provide support. Consent, autonomy, and the rest of such dreck are dishonest distractions.
Good point: by OPs argument, since they removed the alive/not alive argument, I should be able to abandon my children for literally any reason.
Amusingly Peter Singer (who should be feed into a woodchipper) argues in favor of legal infanticide while also disagreeing with Hamilton because certain "utilitarian calculus" indicates if you're just some shlep with nothing better to do, you should be obligated to save the violinist. Utilitarians gonna utilitarian.
Abso-freaking-lutely right! This psychotic word weasel is almost as irritating as that charlatan Sam Harris.
But let me guess, this Leftist still claims it's okay to murder a baby that would be viable if taken out of the womb, but the mother wants to kill it so bad she can't suffer its existence.
It's not "against your will" when you caused it. If it's predictable that by certain actions Nobel prize winners attach themselves to you, and die if they are detached, you could compare it. Right now, you can only compare it to rape, which 98% of people think is a permissible abortion condition.
Also, the past few years have shown just how much these people respect bodily autonomy.
The way that I think they should probably see it is as a hostage crisis.
You got pregnant, it was almost a guaranteed choice to have unprotected sex, and now that you have a child, deciding you no longer want it means killing someone who is literally dependent upon you and only you for their survival. We actually can't take the kid away from you to save it's life, because you are now holding it hostage.
A warm embrace is no longer a warm embrace when you put a gun to the head of the person you are embracing. The only way to save the hostage is for you to give birth.
Or use one of the many cheap and freely available birth control methods?
But no, absolutely anything to absolve themselves of personal responsibility.
If you put somebody into a state of limbo, you have a duty to see it through to the end. Indentured servitude is immoral, but a pilot still shouldn't be permitted to quit their job until they land the plane.
Lol, I love this.
I'm now picturing a pilot jumping out of a plane shouting "You don't have a right to use my body against my will".
Could you imagine a plane full of "shout your abortion" women and when the plane gets to 10,000 ft, the pilot yells "my body, my choice" and bails out.
the baby's body is not your body and has primacy in the situation when your life is not at risk by his presence.
The logic doesn't work, because donating blood or organs is an intrusive medical intervention that removes something from your body. Banning abortion simply forces nature to take it's course by not allowing the mother to remove something from her body through...an intrusive medical intervention.
I'm glad this person has put forward such a strong argument against conscription in the Ukraine. Wait, that wasn't the topic?
Tell that to the tax man. Tell that to the good samaritan laws.
Tell that to several jurisdictions with the exact opposite policy.
Uh, I think you have the wrong term here. They do the opposite of what you're thinking.
Good Samaritan laws explictly make you not legally liable for when you are voluntarily attempting a reasonable, good-faith, attempt at a rescue.
For example: you see someone lying in the road without a pulse, so you start doing chest compressions on them. But, you do them too hard and you break or crack part of their ribs. A Good Samaritan Law would cover you from the legal liability of the medical cost of repairing their ribs. The person can't sue you to recoup those costs.
Maybe I did use the wrong term. I mean the laws that require you to help. They require you to be a good samaritan. The state requires the use of your body to save someone's life. Now that usually means you are required to call for help (police, ambulance, fire, whatever) but I wouldn't be surprised that it will mean you must do CPR or use an automated defibrilator in the near future.
Oh, okay, those. Those aren't too common, but they do exist. Normally as part of a professional requirement. Like a psychologist mandated to inform the police if they find someone to be violently abusive.
I would love some examples if you have any
Wales, England, Germany, Belgium, several more euro countries. Check out this section on the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation#Legislation_and_global_perspectives and look for opt-out or "presumed consent".
Did they have this attitude during the scamdemic? Odd that it is not referenced
Sort of.
They were perfectly fine with drug overdoses and increased poverty due to crashing thr economy leading to deaths jist so long as they didn't catch muh Covid.
The pro-vaxx position pretty much boils down to "poor people can die to keep Boomers alive".
It does matter simply because I don't want to live in a world where the culture and way of life is founded on the idea that a mother can kill her unborn child.
Ahhh ok, so basically, if you want to abort your baby, you have to get the baby's explicit, written, pre-mortem permission first. Glad we cleared that up.
Yet people that say that insist I must be forced to take a vaccine I'm not comfortable with. The hypocrisy
Then I hope they remember that no one has a right to tell you who you can have in your home, either.
If they force me to take in "migrants", I'll just shoot, shovel, shut up, and enjoy the free dog food.
Yeah I agree. Women have different kind of problems. Sorry. Hopefully everything society does to kiss your ass makes up for it.
Every leftist you know is far more passionate about abortion than you've ever been about anything and would be perfectly willing to kill you over it.
high speed thanks for the gold kind stranger ensue
high speed yaaaasss slaaaay kweeeeeen echoing in the distances
Parents don't have the right to abandon their children.
This is at least on honest argument. We're not debating about whether or not a human is alive.
We can disregard your consent and declare you medically unfit to make decisions about yourself, thus forcing you to ingest food, take medicines, and all other such thing; but we can also kill you to save the life of another person. That's just it. You are thinking you have the right to kill another person, and that their bodily autonomy doesn't matter.
This is also why you probably said that you have the right to deny people emergency medical treatment at hospitals if they don't get Covid injections. Those people were never declared mentally unfit; and as you say: you don't care that others may get hurt; you just didn't like the conclusion they came to.
The anti-abortion crowd genuinely believes you're killing a baby, and the force they believe they can use to stop that is almost limitless. This is because you just moved your pregnancy into a hostage crisis.
This is idiotic.
Denying MDs the license to kill fetuses (feti? Fetii?) is not "forcing" women to carry their children to term.
There's always the "morning after pill."
True autonomy would be attained by self-administered abortion.
Which part of the body is the fetus?
Only when they are asked to foot the bill at Planned Eugenics (uh . . . Parenthood).