roeVwade:Same-sex couples updating legal status after Supreme Court’s decision on abortion (Jay Reeves) [+CNN clip]

[TraderPatTX]

Asserting your bodily autonomy and denying someone your kidney kills a life every single time. That doesn't mean it's murder.


We can define a woman. It's just that conservatives incorrectly and dangerously deny that some women (trans women) exist.


The conservatives are the ones who deny the basic foundations of biology, geology, cosmology, etc.

Your organ transplant that you love to use is the dumbest argument since your seatbelt saves my life argument you dumbasses thought up during Covid to justify forcing everybody to use masks.

You can't take an unborn baby's kidney either because the baby has bodily autonomy also.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Your organ transplant that you love to use is the dumbest argument since your seatbelt saves my life argument you dumbasses thought up during Covid to justify forcing everybody to use masks.

You can't take an unborn baby's kidney either because the baby has bodily autonomy also.

So this isn't an answer to their post, you just had a schizo meltdown. Try focusing. I'll reiterate the proposition for you again, mind your cognitive dissonance this time.

If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?

 

[Lacius]

Your organ transplant that you love to use is the dumbest argument since your seatbelt saves my life argument you dumbasses thought up during Covid to justify forcing everybody to use masks.

You keep saying that, but it's hard to pay attention when you won't provide a good justification as to why.

You can't take an unborn baby's kidney either because the baby has bodily autonomy also.

Cool. Good thing I didn't argue anything about wanting to take fetal kidneys.

 

[LainaGabranth]

The right will not answer the question of organ autonomy, they can only dodge, because either they have to cede abortion rights back to people, or they open up a world where the "evil leftist democrats" that don't exist would be theoretically able to force them to donate organs against their will.

But I would love if some intellectual righty could prove me wrong!

 

[TraderPatTX]

So this isn't an answer to their post, you just had a schizo meltdown. Try focusing. I'll reiterate the proposition for you again, mind your cognitive dissonance this time.

If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?

Replace me with unborn baby in your stupid "what if" scenario. Read it again, very slowly. If you still don't get it, read slower. If you still fail to grasp it, delete your account here and cancel your internet service.

 

[TraderPatTX]

You keep saying that, but it's hard to pay attention when you won't provide a good justification as to why.


Cool. Good thing I didn't argue anything about wanting to take fetal kidneys.

How does a clump of cells have kidneys? Weird how all of the left's arguments are destroyed by you. What are you, some kind of alt right fascist?

 

[Lacius]

Replace me with unborn baby in your stupid "what if" scenario. Read it again, very slowly. If you still don't get it, read slower. If you still fail to grasp it, delete your account here and cancel your internet service.

Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you have a right to another person's body.

How does a clump of cells have kidneys?

I, uh, never said they do. You're the one who brought them up. Are you okay?

 

[TraderPatTX]

Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you have a right to another person's body.


I, uh, never said they do. You're the one who brought them up. Are you okay?

So sorry that you do not understand nature and how things work in the natural world.

You leftists do this all the time. I call out one of your insane beliefs that all of you worship and your only response is, "I never said this".

The abortion dogma states that fetuses are just clump of cells and that is how the left justifies killing humans. You must dehumanize groups, just like that German guy with the funny mustache and bad comb over that the left claims to hate, but you all seem to employ his same tactics. Weird.

 

[AleronIves]

If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?

One possible explanation is that of responsibility. Unless you caused this person's disease (e.g. as an employer who knowingly exposed the employee to conditions that would result in organ failure), you are not responsible for the situation and are under no obligation to fix it. Since the parents are directly responsibile for the creation of a new human, they do have some level of responsibility to the life they created. Key unanswered questions include:

• What level of responsibility do they have?
• At what point in the pregnancy are the responsibilties created?
• How do you weigh those responsibilities against the woman's right to decide if she wants children?
• What circumstances, if any, can change these relationships between competing maternal and fetal interests?

The anti-abortion camp is apparently terrible at making rational arguments, but some rational arguments do exist.

 

[TraderPatTX]

One possible explanation is that of responsibility. Unless you caused this person's disease (e.g. as an employer who knowingly exposed the employee to conditions that would result in organ failure), you are not responsible for the situation and are under no obligation to fix it. Since the parents are directly responsibile for the creation of a new human, they do have some level of responsibility to the life they created. Key unanswered questions include:

• What level of responsibility do they have?
• At what point in the pregnancy are the responsibilties created?
• How do you weigh those responsibilities against the woman's right to decide if she wants children?
• What circumstances, if any, can change these relationships between competing maternal and fetal interests?

The anti-abortion camp is apparently terrible at making rational arguments, but some rational arguments do exist.

I asked what is the difference physically, mentally and emotionally between a fetus at 8.75 months and a 2 day old infant.

The response I got was, "I never said anything about a fetus at 8.75 months".

The pro-death cult can't answer rational arguments because all of their arguments are derived from emotion, not rationality.

It'll be interesting to see if you get a coherent response from the cult.

 

[Lacius]

The abortion dogma states that fetuses are just clump of cells and that is how the left justifies killing humans.

The fetus could be a fully formed human adult, and it wouldn't matter with regard to the topic of bodily autonomy.

 

[tabzer]

The kidney transplant metaphor treats the embryo as an independent/autonomous entity and assumes that said embryo is being unreasonable to a woman by needing her as a mother. It didn't have a choice in its bodily autonomy. It was forced to exist and to need the mother.

 

[Lacius]

The kidney transplant metaphor treats the embryo as an independent/autonomous entity.

That's if we're being generous. Depending on how far along a pregnancy is, I wouldn't even grant it that.

and assumes that said embryo is being unreasonable to a woman by needing her as a mother.

The person who is pregnant should have a right to bodily autonomy, regardless.

It didn't have a choice in its bodily autonomy. It was forced to exist and to need the mother.

Generally speaking, nobody chooses to be dependent on another person's body for survival.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Replace me with unborn baby in your stupid "what if" scenario. Read it again, very slowly. If you still don't get it, read slower. If you still fail to grasp it, delete your account here and cancel your internet service.

Coping is not an argument. Here's the question again.

If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?

 

[LainaGabranth]

The kidney transplant metaphor treats the embryo as an independent/autonomous entity and assumes that said embryo is being unreasonable to a woman by needing her as a mother. It didn't have a choice in its bodily autonomy. It was forced to exist and to need the mother.

The person in the hospital didn't have a choice in needing a transplant. They were forced into it by circumstances regarding the injury. Ergo, you *must* give them the necessary organ regardless of your objection.

 

[tabzer]

That's if we're being generous. Depending on how far along a pregnancy is, I wouldn't even grant it that

That's not being generous. Your analogy likens an embryo to an autonomous being at the embryo's detriment. Pay attention.

The person who is pregnant should have a right to bodily autonomy, regardless.

That's a belief unsympathetic to the embryo.

The person in the hospital didn't have a choice in needing a transplant. They were forced into it by circumstances regarding the injury. Ergo, you *must* give them the necessary organ regardless of your objection.

It's not assumed that the a person who needs a transplant did or did not put themselves into that situation. If someone else put them into that situation they would be culpable to some degree. If you'd like to make the counter argument to how culpability and recourse ought to be measured then that would make you appear less disengenious.

 

[LainaGabranth]

So, what you're saying is, the government should be allowed to force you, against your will, to be donate your organs to someone?

 

[Lacius]

Your analogy likens an embryo to an autonomous being at the embryo's detriment.

My analogy doesn't care if an embryo is an autonomous being, since it's irrelevant.

That's a belief unsympathetic to the embryo.

Sucks. An embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people.

It's not assumed that the a person who needs a transplant did or did not put themselves into that situation. If someone else put them into that situation they would be culpable to some degree. If you'd like to make the counter argument to how culpability and recourse ought to be measured then that would make you appear less disengenious.

Whether or not Person A put Person B into a situation is irrelevant.

 

[tabzer]

So, what you're saying is, the government should be allowed to force you, against your will, to be donate your organs to someone?

I'm not saying that at all.

My analogy doesn't care if an embryo is an autonomous being, since it's irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you, which makes the analogy self-serving and not an argument.

Sucks. An embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people.

That's wholly disengenious. If you'd pretend that murder was on the table you wouldn't be having this conversation. A parent's duty to the welfare of their children? Is that sentiment wasted on you as well?

Whether or not Person A put Person B into a situation is irrelevant.

It's not relevant because it breaks your analogy, duh.

 

[AleronIves]

The pro-death cult can't answer rational arguments because all of their arguments are derived from emotion, not rationality.

Ask yourself: "If my opponents are the ones making irrational arguments based in emotion, then why am I the one calling them a pro-death cult?" You cannot have a debate until you are willing to entertain the possibility that the opposition might have at least one valid point to make. If you want people to listen to you, consider not calling them evil, as a start.