The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

Unless you're sending them to war or forcing them to pay taxes.
Abortion, being sent to war, and paying taxes are very different things with different factors and impacts involved. I'd like to ask you something: If all people aren't equal, then all abortions aren't equal, would you agree?
 
Abortion, being sent to war, and paying taxes are very different things with different factors and impacts involved.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the latter two things are a repudiation of the general notion of the right to bodily autonomy, which is really a concept that only exists legally for the purposes of women getting abortion.

You also can't exercise "bodily autonomy" to shoot up whatever kind of drug you want into your body. Why not? It's your body, your syringe, and the drugs are in your possession (and soon enough, your bloodstream).

I'd like to ask you something: If all people aren't equal, then all abortions aren't equal, would you agree?
All people are ontologically equal on account of being human. Appealing to legalities is a cop out in the first place when you can change said legalities with enough cultural shift and/or cunning.
 
The right to bodily autonomy is a legal concept only used to protect abortion rights...? I did not know that. So, a person using the legal system to not be sent to war/pay taxes and using the legal system to induce a medical miscarriage are the same thing? Or is bearing children a legal duty to one's country? Edit: Forgot to Reply @Zero Day Defense
 
So, a person using the legal system to not be sent to war/pay taxes and using the legal system to induce a medical miscarriage are the same thing?
That's... not an implication of what I said.

The point is that the legal system can be employed to send you to war, and is employed to get you to pay taxes, and you can't use "bodily autonomy" as a way to ward away those compulsions. Yet, the reason why no state can ban abortion in their borders is allegedly because of "bodily autonomy".

Which is still bullshit, for the record, because even after Planned Parenthood v. Casey, states have been allowed to restrict access to late-term abortions.
 
Unless you're sending them to war or forcing them to pay taxes.
Taxation doesn't violate a person's bodily integrity, and I am morally opposed to conscription.

I find it funny how you are trying to imply that there must be a hypocrisy in my position when you could instead be addressing the hypocrisy I have pointed out in yours. Why don't you address that instead?
The analogy doesn't work because you are deliberately bringing the fetus into existence, and the fetus is of your flesh and blood. You're not having your body "hijacked" because you did the one exact thing that would cause the fetus to be brought into existence in the first place. It is nobody's fault that you can't make the connection between sex and reproduction.
The whole point of deliberation is that one's mind can change, and this applies to pregnancy just as it applies to sex: if a person consents to have sex with you, they still have every right to tell you to stop if they happen to change their mind at some point during the act, and the law is very clear about who is in the wrong if you fail to heed their request.

A deliberate decision doesn't suddenly rob a person of their agency; it is precisely because they have agency that they can deliberate in the first place. As such, whether a person initially chose to become pregnant is irrelevant, because they can also choose to end it.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
Taxation doesn't violate a person's bodily integrity
Ah, I'll just go ahead and not pay my taxes because I don't want to.

What was that? I have to go to prison for tax evasion?

and I am morally opposed to conscription.
You were making a point about legality. It's legal for the state to conscript. I can hardly do anything about that, as a private citizen. This is a violation of my bodily autonomy as the state supposedly understands, but that's only because the concept only applies to women trying to kill their kids-- except not even consistently so.

I find it funny how you are trying to imply that there must be a hypocrisy in my position
I wasn't suggesting that you were being a hypocrite. I was telling you that your assertion was functionally incorrect.

if a person consents to have sex with you, they still have every right to tell you to stop if they happen to change their mind at some point during the act, and the law is very clear about who is in the wrong if you fail to heed their request.
Let's put aside that there's no explanation as to why the standards for sex have to apply to pregnancy as blindly as you apply them-- aside from the aforementioned, states can still make restrictions on late term abortions.

"Bodily autonomy" isn't even a consistently upheld legal concept.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
Without science you wouldn't be typing this out.


I guess when people break bricks, they are breaking houses then.

A fetus isn't a sapient being yet, so it's not murder. Stop trying to force your evangelical fundie bullshit on the rest of us.

yes if you were to destroy all the materials to build a house the house can no longer exist.

Of course the only way for someone to have this opinion is to be a Stephen King character, that’s true
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
...an agenda to kill the welfare state to free American communities from the pernicious shackles of "help" that have evidently done the opposite of help for decades?

Yeah, kind of.

Dude, do you even have kids?

I kinda think you're retarded, have no idea what you're talking about and want to fuck Nick Fuentes in the ass.
 
Back