[Unthinking Majority]

False. That's not true. It's a fucking belief by people who don't give a shit about the woman.

That's a dumb argument. That's like saying you don't give a shit about unborn babies. It's about whose rights you prioritize: the right of the mother to be inconvenienced for 9 months, or the life of the child.

The woman has the choice, despite what misogynists like yourself want.

If I'm a misogynist then you're anti-baby child-killer. Of course, I don't believe either is true.

[Donna]

vets are the only baby killers

[Unthinking Majority]

Why? What other human entity has the right to use the body of a person to sustain their own life?

What other human entity has the right to kill an innocent healhty human?

It doesn't have any say in anything. It occupies the body of a person who has rights to bodily autonomy.

Why doesn't the baby have body autonomy? Why does the woman get 100% of the rights and the baby none? Why do you give the innocent party no rights, but the party that made the decisions that led to the baby in the first place all the rights, including the right to kill? Imagine giving one party the right to kill but not giving the other party the right to life.

[Unthinking Majority]

:hippy:vets are the only baby killers

Troll much?

[Donna]

Troll much?

Your flower power is no match for my glower power

[Pants-of-dog]

@Finfinder

I never claimed to have watched them. Seeing as you have not described the argument they (may or may not) have, I can only assume that you have not watched them, and have no intention of making an intelligent and informed argument.

Please watch them and let us know if they have an argument!

——————-

What other human entity has the right to kill an innocent healhty human?

Cops. Soldiers.

Again, if we look at my hypothetical situation, this argument of yours would mean that 5he state has a right to compel your father to keep you alive, despite his lack of consent.

Do you agree?

Why doesn't the baby have body autonomy? Why does the woman get 100% of the rights and the baby none? Why do you give the innocent party no rights, but the party that made the decisions that led to the baby in the first place all the rights, including the right to kill? Imagine giving one party the right to kill but not giving the other party the right to life.

The fetus has the same rights as the pregnant person: to not let someone else use their body.

And the baby has the same right as the pregnant person: the right to life, as long as said life does not violate someone else’s rights of body autonomy.

The problem is the balance of these two rights. In Canada, the SCC made the decision that the right to body autonomy trumps the right to life. In other words, you cannot use someone else’s body to keep yourself alive.

[Unthinking Majority]

double-post.

[Unthinking Majority]

If this were the case, then the state could compel your father to save you in my hypothetical scenario. Do you agree with that?

Your scenario is ridiculous.

Do you think one half of a siamese twin should be able to remove themselves from the other twin if that other twin would die as a result?

You never explained why responsibility is an issue with pregnancy but not with traffic accidents, smoking, or any other issue where the patient is partly or wholly responsible for their predicament.

Yes i did.

This part is not an argument. This part is basically you saying that if someone gets an abortion, they are a Bad Person. However, it does not provide a logical or evidence based argument.

Because we should care about the life of babies more than the inconvenience of entitled couples who make stupid decisions.

[snapdragon]

What other human entity has the right to kill an innocent healhty human?

Anyone who has said human occupying their body.

It is neither innocent or guilty. It doesn't have the ability.

is just in a place where it isn't wanted.

Why doesn't the baby have body autonomy? Why does the woman get 100% of the rights and the baby none? Why do you give the innocent party no rights, but the party that made the decisions that led to the baby in the first place all the rights, including the right to kill? Imagine giving one party the right to kill but not giving the other party the right to life.

Think. The woman gets 100% of the rights because it's occupying her body.

Edit: I told you not to use Siamese twins as an argument as one twin does not occupy the body of the other in such cases.

False equivalency.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your scenario is ridiculous.

Do you think one half of a siamese twin should be able to remove themselves from the other twin if that other twin would die as a result?

The two situations are not comparable. Conjoined twins do not have a clear distinction between two separate bodies, while a pregnant person and a fetus do.

Yes i did.

No. Instead, you explained how sex makes babies, and then claimed (without any support or explanation) that my analogy was “not at all parallel to abortion”.

Please explain why we should give treatment to a lifelong smoker or car racer but not a pregnant person. Thank you.

Because we should care about the life of babies more than the inconvenience of entitled couples who make stupid decisions.

Why?

[Unthinking Majority]

It is neither innocent or guilty. It doesn't have the ability.

It's as innocent as a 1 month year old. It doesn't have any ability either.

is just in a place where it isn't wanted.

Nonsense, put it up for adoption.

Think. The woman gets 100% of the rights because it's occupying her body.

What does "occupy" mean?

It isn't a parasite, as some people here have argued. It was put there by the mother and father, by their own choices. Now they regret their choices and want to kill it. The child is being victimized.

Edit: I told you not to use Siamese twins as an argument as one twin does not occupy the body of the other in such cases.

How is it different? I will use it because it's the closest equivalent of 2 adults. You don't want me to use it because it hurts your argument. They're both attached to each other, and one is dependent on the other for life. it's makes little difference if one is beside the other or inside the other.

[Unthinking Majority]

Please explain why we should give treatment to a lifelong smoker or car racer but not a pregnant person. Thank you.

You think killing the baby inside the mother is "treatment"?

The difference in a smoker and pregnant person is one is to save a life and the other to kill a life. The goal is completely the opposite. Nobody's health is in danger before most abortions, with exception of the baby is about to die of course. If the mother's life is in danger, ok fine do the abortion that's fair. That's an actual medical procedure.

A doctor's job isn't to kill healthy and viable humans, it's to save their lives. Otherwise, they're an executioner.

[Pants-of-dog]

You think killing the baby inside the mother is "treatment"?

Yea, I think abortion is a medical treatment.

The difference in a smoker and pregnant person is one is to save a life and the other to kill a life. The goal is completely the opposite. Nobody's health is in danger before most abortions, with exception of the baby is about to die of course. If the mother's life is in danger, ok fine do the abortion that's fair. That's an actual medical procedure.

A doctor's job isn't to kill healthy and viable humans, it's to save their lives. Otherwise, they're an executioner.

Now we are back to “killing is wrong”, but this does not answer my question about responsibility.

Do we treat the smoker or driver despite their responsibility? Yes or no?

[Unthinking Majority]

Yea, I think abortion is a medical treatment.

What ailment are you treating?

Now we are back to “killing is wrong”, but this does not answer my question about responsibility.

Do we treat the smoker or driver despite their responsibility? Yes or no?

Conjoined twins is far more similar to a pregnant woman than a smoker or driver. You're not causing someone else's death when you treat a smoker or driver.

[Pants-of-dog]

What ailment are you treating?

Doctors do not only treat ailments.

Conjoined twins is far more similar to a pregnant woman than a smoker or driver. You're not causing someone else's death when you treat a smoker or driver.

You keep switching arguments.

When I ask you about your responsibility argument, you reply with the killing argument,

When I ask you about the killing argument, you reply with the responsibility argument.

Are you going to pick one, or would you like me to address them both?

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder

I never claimed to have watched them. Seeing as you have not described the argument they (may or may not) have, I can only assume that you have not watched them, and have no intention of making an intelligent and informed argument.

Please watch them and let us know if they have an argument!

——————-



.

The videos speak for themselves as I was replying directly to @Godstud so either watch the videos and comment in context or admit you are here only to add to your post count and stalk me.

[Pants-of-dog]

The videos speak for themselves as I was replying directly to @Godstud so either watch the videos and comment in context or admit you are here only to add to your post count and stalk me.

Why did you not watch the videos?

[Godstud]

Post a legitimate source, quoting the argument you wish to make, @Finfinder. Biased videos you find on Youtube are unreliable sources, at best, and tend to be the opinion of the creator. I will not waste my time watching them, simply to gleam some sort of argument, for you, from them.

[Finfinder]

Why did you not watch the videos?

Ask me any question about them, of course you'd have to watch them yourself.

Its seems its a little past your bedtime let us know when you watch the videos and can comment intelligently on them. Until then maybe you should let the adults talk.

@Godstud

How absurd now you and @Pants-of-dog
make the rules on what sources are relevant and how an argument is framed.

Ill just figure both of you have lost this argument and have no rebuttal. No need reply to me until you watch the videos which BTW completely debunks your original reply. I suspect you both know this.

[Godstud]

Posting videos does not support your argument. They are the poorest of sources, at the best of times.

People don't want to watch videos. They want you to quote text that supports what your argument is, and not have to parse through dialogue and opinions to find something that supports your argument. It's lazy posting, @Finfinder