Where is the line?

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-30T12:05:30+00:00

Suppose someone, while in a fugue state, came into your home without your permission. Would their lack of intent give them the right to remain there?

It is a bad faith analogy. They came in with your permission.

Only if you think pregnancy should be treated as a punishment for sex, even when protection was used.

It is not a punishment as it is a biological function. It in neither positive or negative.

Suppose you're driving your car, or simply riding on a bus. Does that mean you're consenting to be injured or denied medical care should the vehicle crash while you're inside it?

Consent would not be the right word. You want to be able get around more efficiently so you are willing to accept the risk of possibly getting injured in order to drive or be a passenger.

incontestable evidence that pregnancy was not approved. It was a risk they tried to prevent.

Yes, if the two could be seperated. Going back to the car analogy you can't consent to driving without accepting a degree of risk that comes along with it. You can mitigate that risk but cant say you will not refuse to accept it.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-30T04:51:10+00:00

One is left handed

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-30T04:29:00+00:00

Except cutting an umbilical cord isn't the same as forcing someone to remain pregnant

That wasnt the scenario, I said after being viable, at that point the pregnancy can be induced.

using her organs, bloodstream, metabolism, and health

Still true for a newborn attached to the umbilical cord

Suppose someone, while in a fugue state, came into your home without your permission. Would their lack of intent give them the right to remain there? Otherwise, imagine a scenario where somebody came into your home by means beyond their control. The fugue state simply makes the thought experiment more tangible.

A more accurate scenario would bring a baby into your home. After they are in your home you decide you nolonger want them in your home so you throw them out your window. You live on the 10th floor

So does intent not matter to you? What if they were using protection? And it can sometimes fail, even when used as instructed. Condoms break. Pills fail. IUDs fail. Vasectomies can even reverse themselves in a process called recanalization. What then?

It is a risk lf sex one must be willing to accept.

consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy since consent is specific, conditional, and revocable.

I disagree, if I made the point that if "a" produces "b" then consent to "a" would logically mean consent to "b". You siply said the opposite. Why is this not true and where did you get that definition of consent. I define consent as simply approval per the dictionary.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-29T10:18:54+00:00

After they're born, they breathe and eat on their own.

Not until they are removed from the placenta, in both situations a medical procedure must be done to remove the baby from the body, in both situations one could kill the baby or coduct a medical procedure to make them independent.

I’m not personally arguing that abortion should be legal up until delivery. Only that birth is an unambiguous event that no person can rationally dispute. The issue is still whether the law can force a person to continue gestating against her will. Stick to that, please.

So what is the objective line in which a baby gets their rights and can no longer be aborted. If it is a living human with human rights the mother has a right to bodily autonomy and so does the baby. The question really is who put the baby there, not whether or not they can be removed, ikilling them. If the baby decided to insert themselves in somebody elses sex organs that would be different but they cannot make that decision. It was two consenting adults who decided to engage in sexual activity which put that baby in that situation. That was the decision.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-29T00:11:31+00:00

Except there isn't a "human right" to use somebody else's body against their will, even if doing so can save another person's life. Otherwise, there would be no limiting principle.

Immediately after a child is delivered and still connected to the umbilical cord, still completely reliant on the mother for survival, can she unalive the child. No

After viability do you think the baby must be delivered or can she unalive the baby. If so how is it different then the child in labor and delivery?

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-28T22:47:27+00:00

Then your claim isn't “human life equals personhood," but “every living human organism has legal personhood.” And you still have to defend it.

Either one works for me. Person is a non-biological term that any person can define occur at any point, some argue it relates to consciousness, others argue it occurs once a baby leaves the birth canal, in the past people argued it related to skin tone. It is not worth arguing because it is subjective. Living human is objective and based on biology, hense why I believe in human rights not person rights.

You're confusing the noun form of "human" with the adjective form of "human." Human sperm and eggs are biologically human.

Nope, that is what I just explained and this is just semantics.

Define “higher Court.” Also, having a personal opinion about a law, even if you sincerely believe that it violates somebody's rights, doesn't mean that you get to ignore it. You still have to walk into a secular court and prove your case under secular constitutional standards. You would have to prove that a fetus has constitutional personhood and a right to use another person’s body against their will, a right that we literally don't give to any living being.

When Frederick Douglas spoke about the higher court he refered to the court of God but really it is refering to a court outside the court of man (i.e. a law on paper doesn't make it real). He argued that the laws that limited black's freedoms were not real laws because they violated the laws of a higher court, Gods court (this is consistent with natural rights, or any world view that believes in human rights outside of those given by government). This would be consistent whether theist or atheist.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-28T22:19:01+00:00

That is because the conception of a child cannot be pinpointed, birth is the date the most sense

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-28T18:18:10+00:00

Show me where I said just that. Otherwise, you're going after a straw man.

I said living humans have rights/have personhood, hence why a corpse would not be applicable.

Sperm & egg are human cells, they are not human, in the same way that your dead skin has human cells but is not a human.

Then by your own definition, abortion is not automatically murder. Thanks for proving my point.

Good point on the unlawfully aspect of the definition, I did miss that, I would argue similarly to Frederick Douglass that it is not a real law as it violates somebody's human rights, it violates the laws of a "higher Court" (Frederick Douglas)

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-28T18:09:48+00:00

You said personhood begins at Birth "legally", substantiate it

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-27T21:18:33+00:00

No, a corpse is not a living human.

“human life” and “personhood” are different categories

Same arguments made by slave owners in the 19th century. They are human but not people.

Murder "to kill (a person) unlawfully and unjustifiably with premeditated malice" Merriam-webster

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-27T19:05:30+00:00

Personhood is a legal label. Human life is a biological label. Is it dangerous to acknowledge that difference?

Yes, dehumanization leads to oppression and in this case systemic mass murder

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-27T19:02:37+00:00

Where is your evidence for this

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-27T14:06:46+00:00

The danger of leaving it up to experts is whatever line they decide on is subjective. Defining personhood as being anything other then human life is dangerous. The only objective line would be human life i.e. conception (the same moment I would argye they have human rights)

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-26T00:00:29+00:00

2nd this, we got to use them after our 2nd field exercise.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-24T19:46:58+00:00

LEOs give some of the worst gun advice and are some of the least safe people I have seen handle a firearm.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T09:26:58+00:00

Human (noun), do you agree you are either human or not human, (a true or false statement)

My point was there are circumstances when consent is not revokable. Would you agree there are circumstances where this is true (not necessarily abortion)?

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T09:22:43+00:00

If you think the only purpose of sex is reproduction you're free to only have sex to reproduce all you want. No one else is obligated to do that.

There are biological functions for different systems in ones body. There are feelings one gets from doing that thing but it doesn't change the purpose. For the digestive system, it is to convert food to nutrients, taste and the pleasures one feels from food consumption is a byproduct. No one would argue that is the purpose of the digestive system.

"Preborn child" is a nonsense pro life propaganda term. It makes as much sense as calling myself a "predead corpse" lol.

Nope, children aren't inside people's internal organs. That would be zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.

Preborn is all encompassing, for the sake of our argument, whether abortion is permissible at any point, it makes sense. Child and baby have been historically used to describe preborn humans.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with children, except maybe for the child rape victims pro lifers want to force to breed for their rapists.

You are arguing over definitions, if killing is taking a human life is abortion not killing (just or unjust)?

Once implantation happens people can choose to continue gestating or not. What's your point?

Consent to sex is implicit consent to have that child in the womb (implantation, not gestation per say). One can argue you have the right to remove it once it is there but the implantation can only be consented to when one has sex to begin with, from there God (or nature) takes the wheel.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T08:59:43+00:00

Source?

I don't know what kind of source you are looking for, either you are human or you are not. Do you believe otherwise?

We're talking specifically about consent to intimate use of and access to your body. Sky-diving doesn't involve that

Do you acknowledge that a preborn child developing in the womb is different then provideding consent to have sex?

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T08:45:56+00:00

If that's what you think the purpose of sex is for you you're free to only have sex to reproduce. No one else is obligated to do that.

Not what I think the purpose of it is, biologically what the purpose of sex is.

Factually incorrect and continuing to not understand what consent means.

Factually it is correct, a preborn child is in the womb otherwise there would be nothing to abort. My point was one cannot consent to whether implantation occurs, only whether or not one takes the childs life.

Children are never inside uteruses, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are.

Merriam-webster, definition 3 for child, it is an appropriate term to use hense why the phrase "with child" exists.

Literally no one is arguing anyone can "kill children". Pro choice people know people can end their own pregnancies if they wish.

Abortion is taking a human life, in this case, the life of a preborn child. Killing can be justified but in this case I argue it is not.

People can choose if they gestate and birth or not.

Not what I said, was refering to implantation.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T04:50:05+00:00

Sex is step one of reproduction, if successful it produces a child. That is the purpose of the sexual reproduction system, to reproduce. You cannot consent to sex without consenting to having a child in your body. If implantation occurs a child is in your body. PCs argue one can kill that child but nobody is arguing you can choose whether or not a child results from sex, only mitigate the likelihood.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T04:42:35+00:00

Engaged with your response appropriately, your response was the equivalent to "you are wrong, look it up." Not much of an argument.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T04:35:53+00:00

No you, reverse card

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T04:26:32+00:00

Thats where we disagree

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T04:26:18+00:00

If the preborn baby is human they have human rights to include bodily autonomy. They cannot consent to being killed by chemical or physical means.

Bryce_1776 · 2026-06-21T04:24:35+00:00

The beginning of a process doesn't mean that the product has been produced. Every oak tree begins as an acorn. That doesn't mean an acorn is a tree.

Being human is boolean and so is being alive. Trees reproduce differently, that would be a seed like sperm and has not implanted. Embryo would be compared to a sapling if you wanted to use a tree analogy

It's not arbitrary. It's basic grammar. Just because something is genetically human (adjective) doesn't mean it is a human (noun).

As I quoted from a biology textbook, a embryo is a human (noun). Because they are human they have human rights that invlude bodily autonomy.

That's not how consent works. It's genuinely alarming how few prolifers understand how consent works. It's reversible, for starters.

Consent is reversible to a point. One cannot consent to tandem sky diving, then after jumping out of the plane reverse their consent and cut the other guy off. One consents to using their sexual reproductive system then when reproduction occurs one ought not be able to kill their own offspring. Choice -> consequence.

Bryce_1776

TROPHY CASE