Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?
I’m not aware of any newborns, elderly people, or severely disabled people that need to be tethered to the bodily systems of another human being to survive. Some require organ transplants or blood infusions, but there is no law requiring their friends or family to give it to them.
Heck, in America, a corpse has more rights to its body than a pregnant woman.
It’s this.
PP who’s feigning stupidity, you know we can see through you, right? We cannot compel people to donate blood, pieces of liver, marrow or kidneys. We can’t even take perfectly good live-saving organs after death without the appropriate permission. But forced birthers want to compel women to stay pregnant, and as the Michigan GOP has demonstrated, they want to take away women’s ability not to get pregnant.
And parents are forced to provide food and shelter for their newborn babies. You can’t legally bring your newborn home and leave them outside in the cold or refuse to feed them. You are de facto forced to do this for the good of the newborn. Are you okay with that?
I’m really trying to see your logic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?
Don't pretend to be stupid. We're not talking about dependent people. We're talking medically. I can remove a living thing - zygote, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it - from my body if I don't want it there. If it dies because it no longer can use my body, that is my right.
My dad made me. If I get a disease and a SINGLE cell from his body is all the scientists needed to generate a cure for me, but he doesn't want to give me his cell, then I am out of luck. Even if he's a corpse! If he didn't sign an organ donor authorization, I have no claim on any part of his body, even if it's a matter of life and death for me.
We're not talking about parental, familial, or societal obligations to care for other people. We are talking about the ownership and disposal of one's own body. Bodily integrity.
If we citizens cease to own our own bodies, the government owns us. Male or female. Simple.
So how do you feel about the death penalty or being conscripted into a war? This is nothing new. The rest of us live so that those in power can use us for their benefit. That’s the way humans work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?
Don't pretend to be stupid. We're not talking about dependent people. We're talking medically. I can remove a living thing - zygote, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it - from my body if I don't want it there. If it dies because it no longer can use my body, that is my right.
My dad made me. If I get a disease and a SINGLE cell from his body is all the scientists needed to generate a cure for me, but he doesn't want to give me his cell, then I am out of luck. Even if he's a corpse! If he didn't sign an organ donor authorization, I have no claim on any part of his body, even if it's a matter of life and death for me.
We're not talking about parental, familial, or societal obligations to care for other people. We are talking about the ownership and disposal of one's own body. Bodily integrity.
If we citizens cease to own our own bodies, the government owns us. Male or female. Simple.
Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?
Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?
I’m not aware of any newborns, elderly people, or severely disabled people that need to be tethered to the bodily systems of another human being to survive. Some require organ transplants or blood infusions, but there is no law requiring their friends or family to give it to them.
Heck, in America, a corpse has more rights to its body than a pregnant woman.
It’s this.
PP who’s feigning stupidity, you know we can see through you, right? We cannot compel people to donate blood, pieces of liver, marrow or kidneys. We can’t even take perfectly good live-saving organs after death without the appropriate permission. But forced birthers want to compel women to stay pregnant, and as the Michigan GOP has demonstrated, they want to take away women’s ability not to get pregnant.
And parents are forced to provide food and shelter for their newborn babies. You can’t legally bring your newborn home and leave them outside in the cold or refuse to feed them. You are de facto forced to do this for the good of the newborn. Are you okay with that?
I’m really trying to see your logic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?
I’m not aware of any newborns, elderly people, or severely disabled people that need to be tethered to the bodily systems of another human being to survive. Some require organ transplants or blood infusions, but there is no law requiring their friends or family to give it to them.
Heck, in America, a corpse has more rights to its body than a pregnant woman.
It’s this.
PP who’s feigning stupidity, you know we can see through you, right? We cannot compel people to donate blood, pieces of liver, marrow or kidneys. We can’t even take perfectly good live-saving organs after death without the appropriate permission. But forced birthers want to compel women to stay pregnant, and as the Michigan GOP has demonstrated, they want to take away women’s ability not to get pregnant.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?
I’m not aware of any newborns, elderly people, or severely disabled people that need to be tethered to the bodily systems of another human being to survive. Some require organ transplants or blood infusions, but there is no law requiring their friends or family to give it to them.
Heck, in America, a corpse has more rights to its body than a pregnant woman.
Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the “if something can’t survive on its own then it is not a big deal to abort its life” philosophy to me? Do you apply the same rationale to newborns, elderly people, and severely disabled people?