babies are people but people don’t have the right to anyone else’s body
A "general principle" which however has a real-world application only to pregnancy, fairy stories about famous violinists notwithstanding.
Also it's begging the question. The subject under discussion is whether an unborn infant has the natural right to an undisturbed existence in its mother's uterus, and until that itself is settled then we haven't established that no people have the right to anyone else's body.
But Diogenes had better odds of finding an honest man with a dark lantern at noon than anyone has of finding an honest abortion debate on the intertubes, let alone being retarded enough to expect one in arr drama of all places.
it has a real world application to literally anything, if you are alive and you have a kidney you don’t need, and your a perfect match with the president who will die without a kidney, you can not give him your kidney and let him die and be perfectly fine
this applies to non intrusive shit too
does an unborn baby have a natural right to the womb
no lol, no one has a natural right to someone else’s body, especially when a baby can be actively damaging
you see body autonomy works by no one else having a right to your body, that’s the whole concept behind it and what western medicine is built off of
Yes, yes, because letting an unborn infant go on living is exactly the same as having your kidney forcibly torn out of you to save the life someone you don't care about. See previous comment about honest argument.
We can get into the whys if you like, but the point is that until you have demonstrated that a fetus doesn't have that right, you have not demonstrated that no-one has that right and cannot use that as an axiom to establish that a fetus doesn't have that right. This is not difficult.
My first cut as to the "why" would be that the fetus's dependence is of a unique kind that is not, and cannot be, shared by anyone else (even your kids). Nothing else in the whole world needs to, or can, occupy your womb for a strictly limited period and then be guaranteed to get the fuck out of it whether it wants to or not. Nothing else in the whole world is guaranteed to die if it doesn't get it.
But this is all sophistry. Abortioncels aren't starting from the position "this is how biology works, what therefore should the natural rights of this situation be?". They're starting from the position "I bloody well want abortion to be a right, so how can I justify this?". And once you've started out by begging the question, we're back in that position of looking for an honest man by the light of a dark lantern. We end up advancing arguments about oh what an infringement of bodily autonomy it is to allow this fetus the right to exist, when the plain fact of the matter is the only reason we're discussing bodily autonomy is that we're dead set against the idea of bringing this fetus into the world as a live baby. All the rest is just so much horseshit.
let me know again why a fetus is a specialized upper class citizen who has more rights then the average citizen?
this is especially weird considering the fetus doesn’t have consciousness and very limited if any sentience
how can a fetus have a right to someone else’s body just because it’ll die without it? if i’m gonna die without a blood transfusion and your my only match i don’t have a right to your blood. and even if i poisoned you and ruined your blood you still wouldn’t have a right to my blood, there are literally a million things with a guarantee to die if they are deprived of something
i’m not against bringing a baby into the world lmfao abortion cells aren’t baby killers
let me know again why a fetus is a specialized upper class citizen who has more rights then the average citizen?
Really? I have the right to drink, drive, vote, form peaceful assemblies, work, own property, hold a gun licence... and you think this sets me below some critter that I'm just proposing might have the one right not to be summarily killed?
Rest of your post was mainly just continuing to harp on this "u dont have teh right to my body!!1!" angle, still ignoring the part about how this particular dependency we're talking about is one that is unique to a fetus and not well accommodated by trying draw ever-increasingly inexact and unlikely analogies.
You may not be against bringing a baby into the world but the purpose of abortion is to prevent an unwanted birth, and arguments about bodily autonomy are just sophistical devices intended to justify what you've already decided you want to do.
a fetus has the right to someone else’s body, no one else has this right, just because your body can keep this fetus alive unlike anything else (artificial sex bot wombs when?) doesn’t mean it has a right to ur body
the capacity to do something and keep something alive doesn’t mean that thing has the right to being kept alive
also drinking and driving aren’t a right, and a fetus just needs to wait for the right to vote
And I'm getting tired of going over this slowly and patiently, but just because no-one else has the right to your body doesn't mean the fetus doesn't, and it doesn't matter how many or how increasingly unlikely you make the "no-one else" cases, you still haven't demonstrated that the fetus doesn't.
A fetus just has to wait for the right to vote? lol. sez the fetus, "chance would be a fine fucking thing".
Right, perhaps you need to not keep repeating stuff but, I dunno, actually engage with the counter-arguments? But that's hard, so how about you just make out I'm too stupid to agree with you?
32 comments
1 AutoModerator 2020-02-07
do not comment or vote in linked threads
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2 McFluff_TheCrimeCat 2020-02-07
What’s to justify? It shouldn’t be restricted.
And this is some rightoid bait...
1 Ohsbar 2020-02-07
Canada does it right. They have zero laws against abortion. It's legal until the kid is born.
1 AlecOzzyHillPitas 2020-02-07
Post third trimester abortion rights when?
1 Ohsbar 2020-02-07
Just get a pibble
1 Yeetsauce100 2020-02-07
Good. A person's body is private property and therefore a woman has a right to kill anyone trespassing in their vagina.
1 paulp51 2020-02-07
You are what we call, a twat
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
i wish you were aborted
1 RedditIsFullOfBasics 2020-02-07
Agendapost
1 FearOfBees 2020-02-07
I'm still confused why they think babies are not a person. We just had a kid survive at 21 weeks like 2 years ago.
2 Yeetsauce100 2020-02-07
To be fair I'm not even sure that most full grown adults are actually people
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
babies are people but people don’t have the right to anyone else’s body
this is body autonomy 101 bro
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
A "general principle" which however has a real-world application only to pregnancy, fairy stories about famous violinists notwithstanding.
Also it's begging the question. The subject under discussion is whether an unborn infant has the natural right to an undisturbed existence in its mother's uterus, and until that itself is settled then we haven't established that no people have the right to anyone else's body.
But Diogenes had better odds of finding an honest man with a dark lantern at noon than anyone has of finding an honest abortion debate on the intertubes, let alone being retarded enough to expect one in arr drama of all places.
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
it has a real world application to literally anything, if you are alive and you have a kidney you don’t need, and your a perfect match with the president who will die without a kidney, you can not give him your kidney and let him die and be perfectly fine
this applies to non intrusive shit too
no lol, no one has a natural right to someone else’s body, especially when a baby can be actively damaging
you see body autonomy works by no one else having a right to your body, that’s the whole concept behind it and what western medicine is built off of
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
Yes, yes, because letting an unborn infant go on living is exactly the same as having your kidney forcibly torn out of you to save the life someone you don't care about. See previous comment about honest argument.
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
it’s literally the same concept
why does a fetus have the right to a womb but literally nothing else has the right to your body (even your kids)
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
We can get into the whys if you like, but the point is that until you have demonstrated that a fetus doesn't have that right, you have not demonstrated that no-one has that right and cannot use that as an axiom to establish that a fetus doesn't have that right. This is not difficult.
My first cut as to the "why" would be that the fetus's dependence is of a unique kind that is not, and cannot be, shared by anyone else (even your kids). Nothing else in the whole world needs to, or can, occupy your womb for a strictly limited period and then be guaranteed to get the fuck out of it whether it wants to or not. Nothing else in the whole world is guaranteed to die if it doesn't get it.
But this is all sophistry. Abortioncels aren't starting from the position "this is how biology works, what therefore should the natural rights of this situation be?". They're starting from the position "I bloody well want abortion to be a right, so how can I justify this?". And once you've started out by begging the question, we're back in that position of looking for an honest man by the light of a dark lantern. We end up advancing arguments about oh what an infringement of bodily autonomy it is to allow this fetus the right to exist, when the plain fact of the matter is the only reason we're discussing bodily autonomy is that we're dead set against the idea of bringing this fetus into the world as a live baby. All the rest is just so much horseshit.
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
let me know again why a fetus is a specialized upper class citizen who has more rights then the average citizen?
this is especially weird considering the fetus doesn’t have consciousness and very limited if any sentience
how can a fetus have a right to someone else’s body just because it’ll die without it? if i’m gonna die without a blood transfusion and your my only match i don’t have a right to your blood. and even if i poisoned you and ruined your blood you still wouldn’t have a right to my blood, there are literally a million things with a guarantee to die if they are deprived of something
i’m not against bringing a baby into the world lmfao abortion cells aren’t baby killers
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
Really? I have the right to drink, drive, vote, form peaceful assemblies, work, own property, hold a gun licence... and you think this sets me below some critter that I'm just proposing might have the one right not to be summarily killed?
Rest of your post was mainly just continuing to harp on this "u dont have teh right to my body!!1!" angle, still ignoring the part about how this particular dependency we're talking about is one that is unique to a fetus and not well accommodated by trying draw ever-increasingly inexact and unlikely analogies.
You may not be against bringing a baby into the world but the purpose of abortion is to prevent an unwanted birth, and arguments about bodily autonomy are just sophistical devices intended to justify what you've already decided you want to do.
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
a fetus has the right to someone else’s body, no one else has this right, just because your body can keep this fetus alive unlike anything else (artificial sex bot wombs when?) doesn’t mean it has a right to ur body
the capacity to do something and keep something alive doesn’t mean that thing has the right to being kept alive
also drinking and driving aren’t a right, and a fetus just needs to wait for the right to vote
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
And I'm getting tired of going over this slowly and patiently, but just because no-one else has the right to your body doesn't mean the fetus doesn't, and it doesn't matter how many or how increasingly unlikely you make the "no-one else" cases, you still haven't demonstrated that the fetus doesn't.
A fetus just has to wait for the right to vote? lol. sez the fetus, "chance would be a fine fucking thing".
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
i think your retard bro like you can’t grasp what i’m saying
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
Ah yes, that must be it: if I don't agree with you it must be because I'm too stupid.
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
like i keep repeating stuff but u don’t get it
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
Right, perhaps you need to not keep repeating stuff but, I dunno, actually engage with the counter-arguments? But that's hard, so how about you just make out I'm too stupid to agree with you?
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
no bro it’s like you can’t grasp this
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
No, I grasp your argument, it's just that it's flawed.
1 FUCKYOURITALIN 2020-02-07
no
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2020-02-07
no u
1 pvijay187 2020-02-07
Until babies come out of the snatch, they are tumors living rent free in the body.
1 closedshop 2020-02-07
I support abortions up to the 21st trimester.