3 ms·

So, your solution is to kill your own son so you can avoid permanent body changes.

by meerita 4y ago

colinmhayes 4y ago
They have no right to my body.
- meerita 4y ago
  I don't, but you have the right for the body of your son. Imagine you travel on an airplane, and the owner of the airplane drops of you off on the middle of the trip just because it's his property. That's your view.
  - webmaven 4y ago
    > Imagine you travel on an airplane, and the owner of the airplane drops of you off on the middle of the trip just because it's his property. That's your view. Your analogy (well, metaphor, really) is flawed, on multiple levels. First, I as a traveler presumably have agency, probably paid for the privilege, and you agreed in advance to transport me. It is undisputed that I am a fully realized human being with all attendant rights, such as they are. But even the ways in which your metaphor is not flawed don't support your point of view. My presence aboard, having been agreed to ahead of time, is assumed not to pose any costs, danger, difficulty, or hardship that isn't accounted for by the ticket I bought, but most importantly, if ANY of that changes the owner (or rather, operator) of the aircraft absolutely DOES have the right and even obligation to put me off the plane at the earliest opportunity (including making an unscheduled stop for that purpose), for offenses as mild as simply being somewhat unpleasant toward the other passengers or crew, much less acting in a way that may actually be threatening or frightening. As a passenger, transportation is a privilege, not a right, and said privilege can be revoked at any time, despite having been paid for in advance. Also, in case you never paid any attention to the legalities of purchasing a ticket for air travel, despite having taken your money, the airline really isn't obligated to do more than make a best effort attempt to get you (and/or your luggage) to your destination. Their best effort doesn't even have to be particularly good or effective, which is how and why people end up stranded or stuck with little to no reason or recourse.
xenadu02 4y ago
There is no scientific consensus on when a developing fetus becomes a person so saying "kill your own son" begs the question to begin with. Your argument is based on a premise that a) isn't shared and b) has no evidence that doesn't devolve into "my chosen person claiming to be God's representative claims God said so". My preferred solution would be to make it much easier to avoid an unwanted pregnancy as well as much easier to have a child and keep them healthy, including with lots of financial subsidies. But so far almost none of the anti-abortion crowd are interested in any of that - in fact many vehemently oppose some or all of those things. Have you stopped to consider why? For example why not free universal prenatal care and child healthcare? Subsidized daycare and after school care. Money? If we are talking about lives here saying money is the reason admits a human life has a dollar value... so pay women to carry a pregnancy to term then. But of course arguments against that say it would encourage women to have a baby when they shouldn't... but if life is precious then is not creating a life immoral? Why or why not? There are so many extensions of these arguments worth considering. I would encourage anyone who is so certain of their moral position to spend at least a tiny bit of time considering these things honestly - without reference to "God said so" because we may not agree on the existence of God, who God's representative is, or whether God supposedly said what you think he said - which makes basing the use of the state's coercive power on "God" a massive problem and incompatible with religious freedom at the least.

So, your solution is to kill your own son so you can avoid permanent body changes.

colinmhayes 4y ago

They have no right to my body.

meerita 4y ago
I don't, but you have the right for the body of your son. Imagine you travel on an airplane, and the owner of the airplane drops of you off on the middle of the trip just because it's his property. That's your view.
- webmaven 4y ago
  > Imagine you travel on an airplane, and the owner of the airplane drops of you off on the middle of the trip just because it's his property. That's your view. Your analogy (well, metaphor, really) is flawed, on multiple levels. First, I as a traveler presumably have agency, probably paid for the privilege, and you agreed in advance to transport me. It is undisputed that I am a fully realized human being with all attendant rights, such as they are. But even the ways in which your metaphor is not flawed don't support your point of view. My presence aboard, having been agreed to ahead of time, is assumed not to pose any costs, danger, difficulty, or hardship that isn't accounted for by the ticket I bought, but most importantly, if ANY of that changes the owner (or rather, operator) of the aircraft absolutely DOES have the right and even obligation to put me off the plane at the earliest opportunity (including making an unscheduled stop for that purpose), for offenses as mild as simply being somewhat unpleasant toward the other passengers or crew, much less acting in a way that may actually be threatening or frightening. As a passenger, transportation is a privilege, not a right, and said privilege can be revoked at any time, despite having been paid for in advance. Also, in case you never paid any attention to the legalities of purchasing a ticket for air travel, despite having taken your money, the airline really isn't obligated to do more than make a best effort attempt to get you (and/or your luggage) to your destination. Their best effort doesn't even have to be particularly good or effective, which is how and why people end up stranded or stuck with little to no reason or recourse.

xenadu02 4y ago

There is no scientific consensus on when a developing fetus becomes a person so saying "kill your own son" begs the question to begin with. Your argument is based on a premise that a) isn't shared and b) has no evidence that doesn't devolve into "my chosen person claiming to be God's representative claims God said so". My preferred solution would be to make it much easier to avoid an unwanted pregnancy as well as much easier to have a child and keep them healthy, including with lots of financial subsidies. But so far almost none of the anti-abortion crowd are interested in any of that - in fact many vehemently oppose some or all of those things. Have you stopped to consider why? For example why not free universal prenatal care and child healthcare? Subsidized daycare and after school care. Money? If we are talking about lives here saying money is the reason admits a human life has a dollar value... so pay women to carry a pregnancy to term then. But of course arguments against that say it would encourage women to have a baby when they shouldn't... but if life is precious then is not creating a life immoral? Why or why not? There are so many extensions of these arguments worth considering. I would encourage anyone who is so certain of their moral position to spend at least a tiny bit of time considering these things honestly - without reference to "God said so" because we may not agree on the existence of God, who God's representative is, or whether God supposedly said what you think he said - which makes basing the use of the state's coercive power on "God" a massive problem and incompatible with religious freedom at the least.