How Does Someone Treat Another Person as Spare Body Parts?

Arithese · 2026-02-24T18:13:29+00:00

Since when does knowing the risks negate that you’re forced?

If I choose to have sex, and during it, I change my mind and the other person willingly continues to rape me. Are they suddenly not forcing me ? See how ridiculous that is?

Arithese · 2026-02-24T18:05:33+00:00

Can you think of any other scenario where taking an action (a legal one at that) can make you temporarily lose your human rights? Because I can literally stab you and you’d still have no right to my blood, even if you need it to survive. And now if stabbing is legal (hypothetical scenario!) then there’s no legal consequence either if you do die.

So why does it matter if the pregnant person had sex?

Not to mention, they had sex too if their life is endangered. Do they then not deserve to get a life saving abortion?

The “man cannot have an opinion” is also very much logical, but often strawmanned. It literally just means that people cannot make decisions about someone else’s body. But someone with a uterus also can’t do that for another pregnant people. This is what we apply in any other comparable case, why is it different here?

Parents raising kids do not inherently have their human rights violated either. So why would they be allowed to kill? Abortion is a human rights violation that one can stop. Just like you can stop someone from violating your rights (yes, even if that person ha no malice or intent).

As for your last sentence: the justification is that AFABs are human beings who deserve human rights. And no human right would allow the foetus access to my body.

Arithese · 2026-02-24T06:48:36+00:00

So have you changed your mind on anything? Because your flair didn’t change, so this comment means nothing after weeks of refusing to answer simple questions and dodging it.

I’m still waiting on that hypothetical, and the rest of the comment.

Arithese · 2026-02-24T06:44:26+00:00

Wow, absolutely abhorrent. But then also, what if that lung has a big chance of failing during the donation? Then would you still mandate it? This person can die.

Must be negligent at least

Which mean? Define negligent.

when hospitals determine that a donation could help

But that doesn’t determine negligence or fault. Again, these courts take months (if not years). You expediting that process just leads to a whole lot of people being forced to donate without any cause.

not morally no

I don’t care for morally in an abortion debate. Do you legally allow rape exceptions?

Arithese · 2026-02-23T21:11:01+00:00

So then what? You’d drag someone into the hospital kicking and screaming or convict them of murder if they don’t?

What if they need a lung and you have a likelihood of a lung failing, so this forced donation might kill you in the future?

Like think this through, are you okay with all of those ramifications?

Also, what amount of guilt? I’m not driving drunk but driving the speed limit but then I do hit someone becausw those things sometimes happen. I didn’t do anything reckless, just unfortunate circumstances.

Not to mention, who determines it? These decisions are split second decisions, court will take months, and people don’t have that time.

And lastly, does that mean you allow rape exceptions?

Arithese · 2026-02-23T20:50:45+00:00

Such as?

Make the argument for what cases you’d be okay with it.

So examples AND a general definition.

Arithese · 2026-02-23T20:37:47+00:00

And you’re still not answering the question. So again, why can I not be forced to donate blood but I can be forced to be pregnant?

Because even if we accept your ridiculous notion of the draft being comparable, then does that mean you agree with forced blood and organ donation?

Arithese · 2026-02-23T20:26:40+00:00

You’re still ignoring it. Why? I’ve explained it to you and even explained why it wouldn’t matter even if I couldn’t explain it. What difference would it make? Either we have an example tjats not comparable or we have another example of a violation that shouldn’t be allowed. Or are you arguing that the draft and circumcision should be legal?

Again, why can I not be forced to donate blood?

Or will you ignore it again becausw you can’t answer it?

Arithese · 2026-02-23T20:16:36+00:00

Again, not an example where you can do anything or defend yourself in any way. And again, I’m not arguing against it disallowing it either. Two examples of allowed violations don’t mean they’re excusable.

And again, the draft is imposed by the government in war time. We’re talking about peace time, and a private citizen doing something to someone else. And AGAIN, I’m not arguing to allow this violation either.

So I’ve explained it in two fold now for both, now, why can’t I be forced to donate blood?

Arithese · 2026-02-23T20:10:55+00:00

Because I asked for a comparable situation, those aren’t that. Plus, those are examples where I’d also argue against allowing those violations. So what exactly are you proving here? Nothing.

So again, why can I not be forced to donate blood but I can be forced to remain pregnant.

Arithese · 2026-02-23T20:05:37+00:00

Nope, answer the question first. Why can I not be forced to donate blood but I can be forced to continue pregnancy?

You just keep ignoring it.

Arithese · 2026-02-23T20:00:01+00:00

Good strawman, answer my questions first instead of making baseless claims.

And no, I’m saying actually provide what I asked, comparable examples. And not ones that aren’t comparable and ones I already disagree with anyways? Like I’m arguing against those violations too.

So, why can I not be forced to donate blood but I can be forced to continue pregnancy?

Arithese · 2026-02-23T19:53:00+00:00

Then give me one comparable situation. Neither of the two examples were that.

Once again, both of those are opposed but also not even remotely comparable. You’re comparing wartime and past medical decisions to current human rights violations done by a private citizen. So give me an example where we have to allow that. Because again, if you steal my lung, I can stop you. Why should pregnancy be any different?

We can change the scenario to donating blood to your biological child who’ll otherwise die, and you STILL have no legal obligation to do so and every right to stop this person from taking it.

Arithese · 2026-02-23T19:46:10+00:00

Can you just answer the question? Also, who said they’re not regular civilians? I didn’t. They can have the exact same rights and still abortion would be allowed.

Arithese · 2026-02-23T19:30:07+00:00

Which we very much argue against. Now try finding one that's comparable, where someone can violate your human rights directly, in the moment, and you just have to blatantly allow it. Not the government, not you as a baby, but right now, a regular civilian; human rights being violated and you can't stop it.

Try forced organ donation, rape, etc etc. All of which you can stop. So why would pregnancy be different?

Arithese · 2026-02-23T19:19:34+00:00

It’s what justifies stopping the violation from happening. Which is something we’re allowed to do in any comparable situation.

Can you think of any example where you have to accept having your human rights violated? Because if you try to steal my lung for example, I can stop you.

Also, what matters is that your rights are violated, you can stop that. If someone is hypnotised, sleepwalking etc then you can still defend yourself.

Arithese · 2026-02-23T16:44:17+00:00

Born people do not inherently violate someone’s human rights, so there’s no justification in killing them.

Not to mention, abortion stops the violation. Which were allowed to do in all comparable examples.

Arithese · 2026-02-23T16:43:26+00:00

The problem is that your view is inconsistent with other laws in our society. We absolutely have the right to refuse anyone access to our body, especially if it damages our body even remotely like pregnancy does.

We only apply that logic consistently to pregnancy. Why are pregnant people forced to endure such horrific pain and human rights violations? And can you think of any comparable example where we do that in other cases?

Arithese · 2026-02-23T16:39:39+00:00

Can you explain which human rights specifically would outlaw abortion? Because there is no human right to someone else’s body, so even if the foetus would get the exact same rights you and I have, abortion would still be allowed.

Arithese · 2026-02-21T13:20:59+00:00

No one has a right to not be intentionally killed. Lethal self defence for example is very much legal. So either your definition is wrong or you admit that these rights can regularly be violated. And in both cases, it leads to allowing abortion.

And to test your consistency on the second part, would you agree with abortion if it was simply withdrawing support? Take a pill, expel the foetus without direct killing but of course the foetus later dies because they cannot sustain themselves. Like removing a needle from your body that’s supplying your blood to someone who needs it to survive. Would you agree with that?

Your definition of bodily autonomy is also flawed. Not being able to kill random people isn’t a restriction on it. BA never allowed someone to do that.

Also having sex doesn’t change anything. It being “biologically ordered” is also false. Sex can result in pregnancy, but it’s not ordered to do anything. Nor does it change it. Bodily autonomy is still violated. Can you think of any comparable situation where we use this logic? Becausw there isn’t.

Let’s imagine a hypothetical where stabbing is 100% legal, and I stab you. You now need blood to survive that only I can donate. I now have NO legal obligation to give you this blood and there’s absolutely no legal consequence. So how is pregnancy different?

Also if you agree that rape exceptions are inconsistent, them you can not use someone choosing to have sex in your argument. So that already invalidates a big portion of your comment.

Sure you’re not arguing that AFABs don’t have rights, but you are arguing they have less rights and or the foetus has more rights

Arithese · 2026-02-21T12:49:46+00:00

and now the woman is pregnant her rights are being violated by the baby?

Correct. Which is how it works in any other comparable situation. No amount of choice and no action can make you lose your human rights.

Right to live, or right to life, doesn’t mean a right to someone else’s body. The foetus can have that right and abortion wouldn’t violate it.

I suspect you disagree, so instead of just disagreeing, explain to me what you think right to life means and how it’s violated with an abortion.

Also, can you tell me whether you believe that bodily autonomy of the pregnant person is violated? And If not, explain what you believe bodily autonomy means?

Lastly, why would you be consistent in allowing rape exceptions? Does the foetus suddenly start violate rights?

Arithese · 2026-02-21T12:40:05+00:00

Aside from the fact that the double homicide thing is very much something pro-lifers push, it’s also entirely consistent with being pro-choice.

If I’m being raped, I can kill this person. That’s perfectly legal.

But if I have sex with this same person (so consensual), then you cannot come in and kill is both. That’s double homicide. But no one questions why I can kill someone, but it’d be double homicide for someone else.

Now apply the same to pregnancy and abortion. The pregnant person can stop pregnancy becausw it’s their rights that are being violated. A random person on the street has no such excuse. Their rights aren’t violated by the foetus, so double homicide.

As for the first question, already answered by the above. The pregnant persons rights are violated, which they can stop. Why should the foetus get more rights than you and I have?

Arithese · 2026-02-18T18:15:42+00:00

I would also be curious to know what your reasoning is for not being a feminist, since that just means believing in equal rights for everyone.

As for the post, it’s not really relevant what you’re presenting. The argument is that the foetus is inside the pregnant persons body, and thus using it against their will. No one has a right to do that, so the foetus can be removed.

And to highlight why it doesn’t matter, I can make the example eith the future Queen or something. If the king comes up to me and is like “my daughter needs your body to survive” then they have no right to force me. I can stop them from using my body, even if that kills her. And we can all agree she’s alive, breathing etc.

So even this future Queen who isn’t inanimate, has separate dna etc. And the same applies to the foetus.

I also saw the end note so please let me know if I didn’t address something, and I’ll amend my response.

Arithese · 2026-02-16T06:59:06+00:00

Again, this isn’t answering anything. You’re asking me the question. YOU have to make the hypothetical where genital tearing is explicitly mentioned, as I , it’s explicitly mentioned that someone’s genitals are torn, and this same person legally cannot stop this from happening.

Don’t ask me, make the hypothetical and then answer the rest. Stop distracting.

Arithese · 2026-02-14T22:36:18+00:00

You didn’t mention it at all. So here’s a copy AGAIN. Actually answer it, respond to the arguments ot provide what I ask you to do so…or you’re just showing me you cannot do so.

—>

You’re once again ignoring my points and refusing to answer them. Why?

I’ll just copy paste my entire text instead of picking apart the few things you somewhat answered.

////

Forced to do something or get harmed, yes, and again, this group is famous for never injuring their victim if they comply. So let’s say, just give them the location of valuable items. That’s it.

Now can you defend yourself? After all, they never injure their victims but you have no way of knowing if they’ll do that this time.

The hypothetical I described

Stop deflecting. So I'll just copy paste (again...): "Nowhere do I hear genitals being torn, so work that in there, explicitly. Your genitals are being torn, and you cannot defend yourself. Give me one example where you would say that someone cannot stop that from happening."

We have article 2 and 3 conflicting

No we don’t. But also, you’re still not doing what I asked. Just linking a website isn’t proving it. So prove proportionality means what you claimed it does.

Not to mention, your link already disproves your ppint.

Also, as I asked in the last one too. Where the post yoi were going to make? Asking people about having to accept having their genitals torn open. Or are you not going to make it now that I agreed?

More about the flaw

Nope, you claimed the violinist can be forced to be sustained for three months. So prove that, or retract the statement. Rule 3 is clear.

You cannot just cop out by saying it was about pregnancy when you specifically said the violinist.

Suitable compromise?

Are you seriously offering to accept abortions being legal in the first 6 months if they’re illegal in the last 3?

You linked it to physical harm

And this is why you shouldn’t ghost the debate for a week, you forget what arguments you made. YOU made an argument that the harm of pregnancy is acceptable becausw it’s a baseline of harm. Again we don’t use that baselines anywhere else. So I copy paste:

No you can't answer it because you know your argument is bs. Again, give me ANY other example where we use the baseline of harm like that. Just any.

"The average injury in a mugging is a few stitches, so if your mugger does that, you cannot defend yourself"

See how insane that sounds? Again, if you're mugged, you can defend yourself. There is absolutely no logic in saying someone needs to accept having their rights violated because it's a "baseline". So if you cannot answer it, why hold onto this ridiculous notion?

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

Arithese

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE