*No matter what I say, I just set off a bomb*

*Steps back carefully in manner of soldier crossing field with land mines*

I'm not against being for it except when I am for not being against it.

Here's one thing that does bother me and it's an extraordinarily unconvincing argument to my ears on the pro-baby murder choice side. It's the "my body, my choice" argument. Problem one is that society prohibits people from making certain choices. Society prohibits people from killing and stealing. Society prohibits you from getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated or from taking all manners of drugs. We gave up absolute freedom in order to live in the safety of community.

The second problem I see is that this ignores the fact that there's a second life involved in all this-the life of the unborn child. The unfortunate implication is that children are their parent's property. No pro-choice advocate (I hope) seriously argues that.

My point is that the pro-choice side needs better arguments.

I look forward to a polite and civil discussion.

6446871

1. The suffering or potential thereof of those who are actually living is more important than the life of someone who hasn’t even been born yet.
2. We should take care of the children we already have before making more; it is unacceptable that people are complaining about people getting abortions when there are still orphans.

6446871
Should the government be allowed to force you to donate an organ, or donate blood, to save someone else's life? A stranger's life? Your brother's life? Your child's life?

7435910
That's a non sequitor. What is the logical connection between what I have said and your example?

7436407
There is no logical connection between what you said and my questions. I ask them to build up to a point that is relevant though. Will you humor me?

7436410
Sure.

7436414
Thanks!
Should the government be allowed to force you to donate an organ, or donate blood, to save someone else's life? A stranger's life? Your brother's life? Your child's life?

7436415
I come very close to saying "yes." Morally speaking, if donating one's organs or blood was the ONLY way to save a life then yes, such would be morally required. Luckily, we do not live in such a world as no blood type is so rare only one person has it. The preservation of human life is the highest moral imperative to which all other moral imperatives must be sacrificed.

7436470
I would agree morally, but I’m not asking about morals. I’m asking legally should the government compel people to have to donate blood and organs?

7436514
Why would they? That is not a real life situation. It's purely hypothetical.

7436561
Really? The government of china does that all the time, so clearly it is a real life situation.

Do you think the government should compel people to donate their body (blood, organs, etc) to another person?

7436564
No, because in the real world we do not NEED to do such things. If such things were needed, of course the government should compel its citizens to take such drastic steps if that was necessary for the preservation of life. But in this world it is not needed so no the government should not do that.

The Chinese just do it as a way to terrorize political prisoners so it's an immoral act.

Let's say, I don't know, it was a post-extinction level event and there was a blood donation shortage. Then, yes, the government should make it mandatory to donate blood. That is quite the extreme example though.

7436565
No, because it wouldn't be needed to preserve a life?
Suppose I have a two year old child that is going to die unless they get a kidney transplant, or a bone marrow transplant, or a blood transfusion, and I am the only one available to provide it in time. Is it my choice to donate to my child, or should the government compel me to make the donation? In this case the child will die without access to my body's tissue.

7436568
Yes. The answer is yes. That might make me an authoritarian, but if it's necessary to save a life, absolutely, unequivocally, yes. The purpose of the State is to impose moral order, by force if necessary and the highest moral imperative is the preservation of life.

7436570
Yeah, that absolutely makes you authoritarian lol. At lease your world view is consistent!
🤜💥🤛

7436572
In the example given, if you NEED the government to tell you to save your child's life, you're kind of a terrible person, btw.

7436574
Not relevant (although I agree that its a piss poor parent that wouldn't die to save their child, we were talking legal not moral).

Under your logic, if I am in the hospital getting a hip replacement and someone comes in that needs a kidney the government can take mine without my permission to help the other. Bodily autonomy is not a right.

7436577
Yes, but this has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. There are two bodies involved. What about the body of the unborn child?

(Since I'm a wee bit tipsy, let me tell you the honest truth-if a woman wants to murder her own child in the womb, the sort of doctor she needs is a therapist. It is a complete inversion and desecration of all that is natural, moral and holy to take the life of a child. It is not AN evil, it is the GREAT evil, it is the act that damns a civilization. Yes, there are exceptions-every law has an exception. If a woman is raped or her life is in danger, but 95 % of abortions are done for "personal convenience." No one can take another's life out of "convenience." Can I murder a two year old because the tot happens to inconvenience me? The human race would not survive such a policy. The number one solution to abortion is keep yer damned pants on if you can't handle the idea of having a child with the person yer fucking. If people were to stop being so damned selfish with their privates we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sex is for making babies. That's what it's for. If you stick a dick in a pussy, you end up with a baby unless measures are taken to prevent that and sometimes not even then. So don't do that sort of thing with someone you don't want a baby with. There. I solved the fecking problem.)

7436581

if a woman wants to murder her own child in the womb, the sort of doctor she needs is a therapist. I

If anyone wants to murder anyone else then I agree with you. That, however, is not the issue.

If I choose not to donate my body to help another person and they die as a result, did I murder them? No. They died as a result of whatever natural condition was involved. Their right to life doesn't trump my right to bodily autonomy (if we believe in equal rights, which you don't).

It's the same for a pregnancy, one being is using another's body. If the person with a womb doesn't consent to that use then they have the right to terminate the pregnancy. Yes that happens to result in the death of the other individual (the fetus) just like my not donating a kidney happens to result in the death of the stranger in the hospital. The death isn't the point, it's simply a question of bodily autonomy.

There are two bodies involved. What about the body of the unborn child?

Under the pro choice model we give equal rights to both individuals. The person with a womb doesn't have the right to use the the fetus's body without consent and the fetus doesn't have the right to use the person with a womb's body without consent. (Same as with any other two individual beings). Under your model the fetus gets special rights where it get's to use another being's body with or without consent.

I'm a wee bit tipsy

Cheers!