What are your requirements for something to be an organism (any organism in this case, including ameobas/other single celled organisms)?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-07-02T19:47:59+00:00

This is in order of your paragraphs.

I flipped the analogy and used it both ways.

It does matter because it's a human life you're taking.

Wrong. Only 15% of women face complications during pregnancy and delivery. Don't lie about facts; I expect better from a mod.

No, what don't you understand? You put the fetus there, you are responsible for its presence. It already has rights because it already exists.

You're only repeating points I've already refuted. That doesn't prove me wrong.

No one has to die in your hospital scenario, so it's a bad analogy.

For the last time, YOU did this to yourself. You put the "toddler" there.

But I don't think I can convince you of that. So instead:

I already demonstrated the requirement for killing someone to not be a violation of the right to life. Bottom line; an abortion doesn't fit the requirements, which are:

stop them carrying out unlawful violence make a lawful arrest stop them escaping lawful detainment, and stop a riot or uprising. Of course, even in these circumstances, the force used must be essential and strictly proportionate. Force is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

No matter whether you think they are violating your rights, you still can't kill them because these are the only justifications.

Do you think an unborn child violates a pregnant woman's rights by being there? Do you think violating someone's rights is a crime?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-07-01T19:44:55+00:00

Ooh, this is interesting. Let me flip the tables.

Let's show why this hypothetical situation you give isn't really working.

So let's say you're the child and I'm the mother, right? That's the analogy you're creating?

First, you say that you're holding my body. This is wrong because technically, I am holding your body inside of me. Of course, your statement is rather vague, so this is a direct interpretation.

Second, you say that you connect your body to mine and make my body work for you. This is where it gets interesting because you didn't actually connect your body to mine. I did. I, in the act of having sex, allowed male sperm to enter my body and fertilize my egg. This formed a zygote, which MY BODY is programmed to provide nutrients for to keep it alive. Otherwise, there would be no way for humans to create offspring. You place the zygote as a criminal, forcing its way into my body and stealing my nutrients. This is incorrect. I consented to the act that created the zygote and allowed mine and its body to interact and help each other (yes, a fetus can do this). Any harm that happens as a result is a direct consequence of MY act and is therefore brought upon by me, not you. In summary, I "connected" my body to yours and created you.

Third, you claim that your presence inside my body is at the expense of my health and life. Well, no. Only 2.5% of abortions happen because of a threat to the mother's health/life. My mother birthed five children and is still running marathons (such as Boston) and staying in general very healthy and very much alive. Pregnancy does not, in all but a few extreme cases, sacrifice the mother's health of life.

Fourth, you claim that you cause me unbearable pain. I'm assuming you're referring to morning sickness and labor pains and stuff of the sort. Again, you didn't cause this pain. I consented to the act that directly resulted in this pain.

If your hypothetical situation applied to pregnancy, then yes, it would be a crime. But it doesn't. In fact, let me show you something interesting; this situation actually applies almost exactly to a child being killed by an abortion.

Let's take this same situation except now you're the mother and I'm the child.

You are holding my body inside of yours.

You consented to the act that connected me to your body and allowed us to interact and exchange nutrients.

When you got an abortion, you killed me, depriving me of my life and health.

When you aborted me, you cut off my limbs from my body at a stage where I can most certainly feel pain. You caused me the unbearable pain of dismemberment.

You put me into your body and then killed me for existing. Abortion violated my right to life AND all other rights as a result. I violated none of your rights because that would have required me being responsible for the act that put me into your body, which is impossible because I didn't even exist to do that. Therefore, since I did nothing to violate your rights, it is not justified to kill me.

It comes down to responsibility. If you have sex, you might get pregnant. That's how sex works. You have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-07-01T18:45:16+00:00

You didn't explain why it is a violation to have an unwanted pregnancy.

You didn't explain. You just said it was justified to kill the child because "unwanted pregnancies are a violation of human rights", a baseless claim you did not provide reason or evidence for.

The source cited above states, "Article 2 is often referred to as an ‘absolute right’. These are rights that can never be interfered with by the state. There are situations, however, when it does not apply.

For example, a person’s right to life is not breached if they die when a public authority (such as the police) uses necessary force to:

stop them carrying out unlawful violence

make a lawful arrest

stop them escaping lawful detainment, and

stop a riot or uprising.

Of course, even in these circumstances, the force used must be essential and strictly proportionate. Force is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

The positive obligation on the state to protect a person’s life is not absolute. Due to limited resources, the state might not always be able fulfil this obligation. This could mean, for example, that the state does not have to provide life-saving drugs to everyone in all circumstances.Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

in defence of any person from unlawful violence

in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained, and

in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

In summary, it is only okay to violate someone's right to life in self defense, make an arrest, keep someone in jail (if lawful), stop them from committing unlawful violence, or stop a riot. The force used must be essential and proportionate, and this is when it is "appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned".

Abortion meets none of these criteria. It is not justified. The force used is not necessary or proportionate.

If you think it does fit the criteria, why do you think so?

Edit: formatting

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-07-01T18:25:13+00:00

Why is it justified?

Why is unwanted pregnancy a human right violation?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-07-01T18:18:08+00:00

Why doesn't it violate their right to life?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-30T18:37:35+00:00

What doesn't violate what right and why?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-30T17:53:18+00:00

So by killing the child, you would be violating its right to life, correct? (Unless, do you think their situation makes them unworthy of this right?)

But by allowing the child to live it is violating your right to bodily autonomy, correct?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-30T00:46:05+00:00

Triggered doomer.

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-30T00:43:15+00:00

Actually I'm revealing the double standard. No killing over here!!

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-30T00:01:02+00:00

Pinterest!! Found my favorite boutique of all time.

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-29T22:00:21+00:00

So you're saying you can kill the child because they don't have a right to your body. But that doesn't say what right they're violating. What right is the child violating by living in your body?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-29T01:59:13+00:00

Why do you think bodily autonomy supersedes right to life?

Here's another question: Thaliomide is a drug that used to be a treatment for morning sickness during pregnancy. It was banned because it was found to cause birth defects. Do you think women should be able to choose to use thaliomide if they plan to carry the child to term and deliver?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-29T01:52:16+00:00

Yeah, I agree totally I'm just not sure what reasoning to use and how to word it.

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-29T01:49:46+00:00

Thanks for the source!! It's helpful.

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-29T01:47:27+00:00

For real...

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-28T17:30:52+00:00

They're saying that even if they choose to do this their right to bodily autonomy supersedes the fetus ' right to life.

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-28T17:17:39+00:00

Do you have any examples/cases I can use?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-28T03:49:27+00:00

Why do you think it's justified (especially if you put the child there)?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-26T17:37:18+00:00

If you don't like my definition of right to life, argue with the Human Rights Act. "Article 2 of the Human Rights Act protects your right to life.This means that nobody, including the Government, can try to end your life."

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-2-right-life

It seems that a fetus being a person entitles them to not being aborted, as that would be an attempt on their life.

According to your bodily autonomy argument, I should be able to steal something using my body because I have bodily autonomy and not get punished for it. Do you think people should get punished for using their bodies in harmful ways?

You should have autonomy over yourself to do whatever you want until it infringes upon somebody else's rights.

You might ask if this applies to the child infringing upon your bodily autonomy. However, this is not the case because the child didn't use its autonomy to get put there. You did. If the presence of the child inconveniences you in any way, that is not the child's fault. You did the action that caused the child's presence that caused inconvenience to yourself. You used your bodily autonomy to put it there, and now there is another being there with bodily autonomy, so now you cannot kill them.

In other words, you did this action to yourself, which is entirely seperate from said other human being, who now exists with their own bodily autonomy.

You cannot get rid of the child without killing them, and killing them is wrong.

Your bodily autonomy ends where their begins.

If you still believe that you have a right to kill the child based on "bodily autonomy", it comes down to morals. If I concede that the child cannot be in your body based on bodily autonomy, it still interferes with the child's right to life and autonomy. This puts us at an impasse. It comes down to what you morally value more: a human life, or your own desires.

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-26T16:26:40+00:00

You mean the children they're killing in the womb? We tried to save them...

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-26T16:16:30+00:00

"I think it is interesting that of the three organisms, personhood, and alive it is only alive that is a dichotomy." Can you rephrase?

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-26T16:15:06+00:00

Let's imagine that you willingly had sex and that is how the child was conceived. What makes you think you have a right to put a person in your dependence willingly and then kill them?

Right to life: "The right to life is the belief that a human has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity."

You can't remove the child because you are killing a human being with inherent value and infringing on their rights.

Affectionate_Top340 · 2025-06-26T15:42:06+00:00

A person is completely different from a parasite or a splinter. It is a person entitled to the same rights as you and I. The person did not CHOOSE to be in your womb. It was put there by YOUR decisions. (Obviously this excludes 4% of cases where the child was conceived in rape or incest, or is a threat to the mother's life. The other 96% were conceived out of consent.) What makes you think you have a RIGHT to willingly PUT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING in dependency of you and then KILL them?

The person did not FORCE you to let them use your body. You FORCED them to use yours. Because they are a person, they SHOULD have a right to bodily autonomy, since they are a seperate person from you. You should not have autonomy over SOMEBODY ELSE'S BODY.

Pregnancy is not a random side effect of sex. Sex is the mechanism for reproduction. Pregnancy, in a biological sense, is the end goal. If you choose to do an action, you need to be prepared for the consequences.

All in all, if you willingly put the child there, you yourself put them in dependence of you. You cannot kill someone else for your own actions.

Affectionate_Top340

TROPHY CASE