Abortion

[Jarhyn]

Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.

My greatest fear is that the GOP and the wealthy are using this exactly for the sake of justifying this kind of theft of bodily function, at some point on the horizon

 

[TomC]

Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.

If you caused Bob's catastrophic kidney failure and you were the sole possible donor I'd expect the government to require you to either donate one or get life in prison.
Tom

 

[Playball40]

Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.

My greatest fear is that the GOP and the wealthy are using this exactly for the sake of justifying this kind of theft of bodily function, at some point on the horizon

Oh I suspect you are correct on that. Starting with white babies women will be forced to carry.

 

[Playball40]

Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.

If you caused Bob's catastrophic kidney failure and you were the sole possible donor I'd expect the government to require you to either donate one or get life in prison.
Tom

What difference does it make who caused the kidney failure? What difference does it make if you are or aren't the only compatible match. Neither are relevant.

 

[Jarhyn]

Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.

My greatest fear is that the GOP and the wealthy are using this exactly for the sake of justifying this kind of theft of bodily function, at some point on the horizon

Oh I suspect you are correct on that. Starting with white babies women will be forced to carry.

I mean, stepping off from there towards kidney thefts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Every one has two kidneys. You can live with one kidney. Bob over there needs a kidney to live. You are a match. Should the government FORCE you to give your kidney to Bob? If the answer is NO, then the abortion question is answered.

If you caused Bob's catastrophic kidney failure and you were the sole possible donor I'd expect the government to require you to either donate one or get life in prison.
Tom

What difference does it make who caused the kidney failure? What difference does it make if you are or aren't the only compatible match. Neither are relevant.

It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff. If you get pregnant from sex, you are responsible for at least a 9 month commitment. Guys... well, that'll depend.

 

[TomC]

It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff.

This sums it up.
"Responsibility" is ridiculous. Entitlement Rulz!
Tom

 

[Worldtraveller]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

 

[TomC]

My greatest fear is that the GOP and the wealthy are using this exactly for the sake of justifying this kind of theft of bodily function, at some point on the horizon

And if we let the DNC and the libruls take our guns you know what will happen. It's right there on the horizon.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

Let's imagine I grew a tumor with eyes, ears, a mouth, a brain, just a disgusting face and CNS suddenly attached to my body. Let's imagine for a moment that this thing is somehow, absurdly, a faithful reproduction of TomC.

Am I under an obligation to let this thing grow until it metastasizes and kills me?

NO!

I am not under an obligation to allow this thinking and feeling cancer tumor to kill me, even if it would take 4 years for it to kill me otherwise, even as it begs me "not to kill it".

I'm just under no obligation to share my body with anyone ever.

I have been pretty clear insofar as usually there is a "banana peel of evil" somewhere on the cliff.

Usually it's pretty clear where it is. Here, it is a precedent that exactly allows an unwilling human to be coopted into the donation of their body, blood, organs, time, health to another.

It is exactly precedent that the ethical taboo has  already been broken against forced organ use "to save a life".

There is the misstep against good ethics. That is the step too far, beyond which the evil is already starting.

Invalid slippery slopes say "this ethical step leads to that unethical one". This is not the case here. This is already an unethical step, in and of itself.

@TomC: yes, we know where that leads: fewer dead previously living, wanted, cared-for children.

 

[TomC]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

Let's imagine I grew a tumor with eyes, ears, a mouth, a brain, just a disgusting face and CNS suddenly attached to my body. Let's imagine for a moment that this thing is somehow, absurdly, a faithful reproduction of TomC.

Am I under an obligation to let this thing grow until it metastasizes and kills me?

NO!

I am not under an obligation to allow this thinking and feeling cancer tumor to kill me, even if it would take 4 years for it to kill me otherwise, even as it begs me "not to kill it".

I'm just under no obligation to share my body with anyone ever.

I have been pretty clear insofar as usually there is a "banana peel of evil" somewhere on the cliff.

Usually it's pretty clear where it is. Here, it is a precedent that exactly allows an unwilling human to be coopted into the donation of their body, blood, organs, time, health to another.

It is exactly precedent that the ethical taboo has  already been broken against forced organ use "to save a life".

There is the misstep against good ethics. That is the step too far, beyond which the evil is already starting.

Invalid slippery slopes say "this ethical step leads to that unethical one". This is not the case here. This is already an unethical step, in and of itself.

@TomC: yes, we know where that leads: fewer dead previously living, wanted, cared-for children.

Thank you!!

I have long been unable to comprehend the mindset of many "pro-death" people and finally I see something that makes sense--that it doesn't make sense, it's rationalizing a point of faith.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff.

This sums it up.
"Responsibility" is ridiculous. Entitlement Rulz!
Tom

Self-autonomy isn't entitlement, it is a founding principle of Democracy. Slavers felt as you do, that they have control over another.

 

[TomC]

It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff.

This sums it up.
"Responsibility" is ridiculous. Entitlement Rulz!
Tom

Self-autonomy isn't entitlement. Slavers felt as you do.

Self-autonomy isn't the right to kill human beings you find inconvenient either.

Slavers did, however, decide for themselves which human beings were persons and which were not. Didn't bother with science or such nonsense, it was all about their rights. They decided which human beings mattered, and which were dispensable.
Like you do.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

Let's imagine I grew a tumor with eyes, ears, a mouth, a brain, just a disgusting face and CNS suddenly attached to my body. Let's imagine for a moment that this thing is somehow, absurdly, a faithful reproduction of TomC.

Am I under an obligation to let this thing grow until it metastasizes and kills me?

NO!

I am not under an obligation to allow this thinking and feeling cancer tumor to kill me, even if it would take 4 years for it to kill me otherwise, even as it begs me "not to kill it".

I'm just under no obligation to share my body with anyone ever.

I have been pretty clear insofar as usually there is a "banana peel of evil" somewhere on the cliff.

Usually it's pretty clear where it is. Here, it is a precedent that exactly allows an unwilling human to be coopted into the donation of their body, blood, organs, time, health to another.

It is exactly precedent that the ethical taboo has  already been broken against forced organ use "to save a life".

There is the misstep against good ethics. That is the step too far, beyond which the evil is already starting.

Invalid slippery slopes say "this ethical step leads to that unethical one". This is not the case here. This is already an unethical step, in and of itself.

@TomC: yes, we know where that leads: fewer dead previously living, wanted, cared-for children.

Thank you!!

I have long been unable to comprehend the mindset of many "pro-death" people and finally I see something that makes sense--that it doesn't make sense, it's rationalizing a point of faith.

No, it's simply that there is a recognition of a limit, a breaking point wherein if you and your neighbor are ostensibly ethical equals, and I very much accept this is true, it is our right as human beings to decide for ourselves what we will give of ourselves to others, and that determines in some ways what we should expect others to give to us.

It means I can't expect, if I were to arise as magical tumor clone or whatever, to be allowed to survive.

Not that I'd want to. I'd be like "naw, cut me off and, well, if you can, I'd prefer to be frozen and studied and have my brain scanned destructively shortly afterwards."

It's a fairly well established boundary we all generally have, and which few people other than pregnancy-theoretic-females have to deal with.

It just happens that most people who don't have to worry about it generally don't think about it often.

At any rate, I aim to make anyone who tries to steal my organs need some new ones of their own.

We need this freedom to revoke our mercy, as cold and apathetic and unappealing a freedom as it may be, to the extent that we do not recognize that we today might be entitled to such a mercy.

 

[TomC]

We need this freedom to revoke our mercy,

You keep using the word mercy.

Could you explain what you mean when you use it?

I'm not looking for a dictionary definition. I'm asking you to explain what you mean by it in this context.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

We need this freedom to revoke our mercy,

You keep using the word mercy.

Could you explain what you mean when you use it?

I'm not looking for a dictionary definition. I'm asking you to explain what you mean by it in this context.
Tom

Please see... My first post in the thread. The second post of the thread. Post #2.

I believe all the context and explanation of the idea is there, in the second post.

In general, however, it is 'that which someone asks for, but which you have no obligation to provide for them.'

 

[Elixir]

Self-autonomy isn't the right to kill human beings you find inconvenient either

How many bales of straw does it take for you to hide your religious superstitions?
NOBODY here has ever expressed any “pro-death” sentiments, or endorsed killing human beings.

A zygote is no more a human being than my fingernails are human beings. “Convenience” is your flippant term for considered choices that are not yours to make or judge.

Abortion is serious business for those who could invoke the option - those are human beings, unlike my fingernail or a zygote. Your attempt to belittle people for making choices you would have no idea how to face yourself, is … really ugly.

JH is correct; yours is the attitude of the slaver, trying to exercise control over other people’s bodies.

Being gay and exempting yourself from the possibility of ever facing such choices, is not any moral elevation “above” the problem. It is safe perch from which a coward can preach a superstitious, cavalier and uninformed opinion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It feeds into their ridiculous "responsibility" riff.

This sums it up.
"Responsibility" is ridiculous. Entitlement Rulz!
Tom

Self-autonomy isn't entitlement. Slavers felt as you do.

Self-autonomy isn't the right to kill human beings you find inconvenient either.

Inconvenient... sounds like a great title to a Mansplain' book, "The Inconvenient Pregnancy"... could become a movie.

Teen 1: *sobs*
Teen 2: What is wrong?
Teen 1: I'm pregnant.
Teen 2: How inconvenient.

It is incredible that a man can so easily show how utterly apathetic they are to women to consider pregnancy and birth a mere "inconvenience". No wonder you have no trouble convincing yourself forcing women to go through pregnancy and birth isn't a gross violation of their rights as a human being... as in present tense of being a human being.

 

[Politesse]

A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.

To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.

Tough shit. That's biological reality.

You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

 

[TomC]

What "biology" are you referring to? Not the science that goes by that name, presumably.

It's one of the most aggravating things about this discussion.

Life Cycle of a Primate is elementary science. But when science interferes with somebody's world view they don't understand it. Talking to feticide rights people about science is like talking to YEC people about science.

As long as science supports their opinions it's fine. When it doesn't it becomes incomprehensible. Suddenly, they don't understand the difference between "life", "being alive", "an individual live", and "a human life".

Really. It's right there in this thread.
Tom