Sex strike

[Shad]

Even if you grant equal rights to a woman and an embryo, and you put those rights up against each other, the woman's rights trump an embroy's rights every time.

Nope right to life trumps the whims of another wanting to end that life.

The only way you can make an embroy's rights trump a woman's rights is to make the woman something less than human in order to remove her rights, which is appalling.

You mean likes fetuses are made less than human like you have? Hilarious.

It does not make them less. It just denies the false right to kill another human on a whim.

 

[Shad]

Answer?

Point being?

 

[crossfire]

Nope. They still have all the privacy they want. Bodily autonomy is trumped by the right to life. All via an act the people willing or unwittingly accepted themselves

Actually, bodily autonomy trumps the right to life. If it didn't, then you would see people being compelled to donate organs for transplant into those with failing organs. Granted, this practice does happen, but it is called organ trafficking and is condemned as immoral.

 

[crossfire]

Nope right to life trumps the whims of another wanting to end that life.



You mean less fetuses are made less than human like you have? Hilarious.

It does not make them less. It just denies the false right to kill another human on a whim.

Personal rights. Edited my post to reflect this.

 

[Shad]

Personal rights. Edited my post to reflect this.

So? There is no personal rights to kill another human on a whim.

Actually, bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.

Nope.

If it didn't, then you would see people being compelled to donate organs for transplant into those with failing organs.

Nope as organs are not a life. Your kidney will never be a human

 

[crossfire]

So? There is no personal rights to kill another human on a whim.



Nope.



Nope as organs are not a life. Your kidney will never be a human

You do recognize that you are arguing in favor of organ trafficking here, no?

 

[Shad]

You do recognize that you are arguing in favor of organ trafficking here, no?

Nope as organs are not human. Try again. Less projection next time

 

[crossfire]

Nope as organs are not human. Try again.

This was about bodily autonomy trumping the right to life. If the right to life trumps bodily autonomy, then people could be compelled to involuntarily donate their organs to those who are dying.

 

[Shad]

This was about bodily autonomy trumping the right to life.

Organ do not have a right to life. Next!

This is between a human that is incapable of making a choice being killed by another that made a series of bad choices and wants a mulligan to avoid the consequences of their actions.

If the right to life trumps bodily autonomy, then people could be compelled to involuntarily donate their organs to those who are dying.

Nope. The right to life ends when it causes harm to another person. Look up self-defense.

 

[crossfire]

This was about bodily autonomy trumping the right to life. If the right to life trumps bodily autonomy, then people could be compelled to involuntarily donate their organs to those who are dying.

Even a corpse has bodily autonomy--you can't just harvest organs off a corpse--they have to have designated themselves as an organ donor beforehand in order to harvest their organs.

 

[Shad]

Even a corpse has bodily autonomy--you can't just harvest organs off a corpse--they have to have designated themselves as an organ donor beforehand in order to harvest their organs.

Corpses have more rights than a fetus. Sad isn't it.

 

[crossfire]

Organ do not have a right to life. Next!

It's not the organ's right to life, but the person who need the organ in order to live right to life that i am referring to.

This is between a human that is incapable of making a choice being killed by another that made a series of bad choices and wants a mulligan to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Any choice you make has consequences. Women who have to make the hard choice to choose an abortion are often psychologically haunted by their choice.

Nope. The right to life ends when it causes harm to another person. Look up self-defense.

And a pregnant woman does not have the right to self-defense against the invasion of her body against an unwelcome intruder? If she welcomes the intruder as a guest, she will at the very least have to indure the torture of pregnancy and childbirth, and she may very well die. (Maternal deaths are on the rise, not in decline.) If she does not welcome the intruder as a guest, she has the right to defend herself against certain torture, possible bodily harm, and possible death.

 

[crossfire]

Corpses have more rights than a fetus. Sad isn't it.

And you want to make it so that a woman has more rights when she is dead than when she is living.

 

[Shad]

And you want to make it so that a woman has more rights when she is dead than when she is living.

Nope. Woman give up a part of a right for 9 months via an act 99% of the time they willingly take part in themselves. I take nothing away. I point out the consequences of an action and that the solution isn't killing something on a whim

 

[crossfire]

Nope.

You can deny it all you want, but those who read through your arguments can discern where your arguements lead to.

 

[Shad]

You can deny it all you want, but those who read through your arguments can discern where your arguements lead to.

Nope as right to life does not trump another right to life. Hence why I support abortion for life-threatening conditions. Try again. Do note your comparison is flawed as you fail to consider that the subject is about one life within the body of another while your example was of two lives with zero connections to each other.

 

[crossfire]

Nope as right to life does not trump another right to life. Hence why I support abortion for life-threatening conditions. Try again.

Your argument was that right to life trumps bodily autonomy, which I refuted as false. Try again.

 

[Shad]

Your argument was that right to life trumps bodily autonomy, which I refuted as false. Try again.

Which was in context of abortion. Try again. This time stay within context. Ergo you refuted nothing.

 

[fantome profane]

Woman give up a part of a right for 9 months

Nope

 

[crossfire]

Which was in context of abortion. Try again. This time stay within context. Ergo you refuted nothing.

LOL! You are asserting rights as universal in one instance and then saying they are conditional in another moment? LOL!