My point wasn't that you didn't tag me before. My point was that your post didn't say much other than "nuh uh," and I wasn't sure if I should expect another post from you later.I did tag you. Should've been implied when I replied and quoted your post.
I've already explained to you that the fetus isn't being killed anymore than I'm being killed when I don't get my kidney donation, so yes, your post was pretty much a "nuh uh" post, particularly the second half.And this is not a nuh uh argument. I gave you a reason. You're just trying to downplay the fact that the fetus is being killed.
Then at the end of the day, you're killing the man who needs a kidney. Should the state still require you to donate one of your kidneys?At the end of the day you are killing the fetus. It doesn't matter if you twist the argument to try to convince yourself that you are not killing the fetus or try to not use the word kill so that the anti abortion crowd doesn't get rilled up at that emotionally charged word.
It's a simple question. Do you believe the state should impose laws violating people's bodily autonomy in the name of saving lives?You'll need to give examples of what you mean by this. Saying something general is useless if I don't have a specific scenario since not everything is black and white. There may be some cases where laws may make sense but other times where it doesn't. In general, no laws should not be imposed in the name of saving lives. But that's in general without any specific situations.
I gave you one. Pretend the person who needs the kidney is a biological offspring/dependent.Where is the dependent, aka fetus, in the kidney metaphor?