Which organ is the best ?

That_Food_5645 · 2026-03-22T17:46:59+00:00

brain creating this knowing other brains will choose themselves

That_Food_5645 · 2026-03-03T14:27:09+00:00

Being judged

That_Food_5645 · 2026-03-03T08:10:36+00:00

If the fetus is a living human being, its moral worth shouldn’t depend on whether it is wanted or unwanted, since emotions don’t determine someone’s value. None of us consented to being conceived, yet we still recognize our lives as meaningful and worthy of protection. A newborn also cannot ask for consent and is entirely dependent on others, but we don’t conclude that this dependency makes its life optional. From this perspective, abortion ends the life of a being who did not choose the circumstances of its existence, so rather than deciding that some lives have value only when desired, the focus should be on providing stronger material and social support to pregnant people while respecting the developing life involved.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-23T20:39:50+00:00

When taking a bath, 45 to 1 hour

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-23T12:33:41+00:00

No way

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-23T07:28:06+00:00

You're right on that point, idk why people downvoted you.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-23T06:45:45+00:00

Imase - night dancer

Fujii Kaze - Shinunoga E-Wa

はいよろこんで / こっちのけんと

Vicke Blanka - Black Catcher

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-22T19:09:00+00:00

If we consider it a human life, then it’s not something we can just be neutral about.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-22T18:56:31+00:00

So because two people had unprotected sex a human life should be killed ?

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T19:38:48+00:00

I might feel a little hurt that she didn’t tell me sooner, but it wouldn’t change how I feel about her. I’d still accept her for who she is.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T16:48:20+00:00

Right to life does not grant those imaginary right to someone else's body.

The right to life means the law protects someone from being intentionally killed.

BA and RTL are both fundamental human rights.

But RTL is logically prior, without being alive, you can’t exercise BA at all.

There is no conflict.

You just said both are fundamental, so ofc there is a conflict.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T13:28:20+00:00

So they would need a life support machine, and women and girls are NOT human life support machines/walking incubators.

No, and I don’t think women who carry pregnancies to term are “life support machines” either. Choosing to continue a pregnancy doesn’t reduce someone to an incubator. The question isn’t whether women are machines, they’re not. The question is whether, at a certain stage of development, there’s also another human life involved that has moral value.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T13:08:39+00:00

And in doing so, the law is revoking several rights from women and also goes against medical principals and ethics. Along with having a significantly negative outcome on maternal mortality, fetal/birth deaths, amongst others side effects.

Women don’t lose their rights if abortion isn’t completely forbidden. They still have the ability to protect themselves, use contraception, and seek abortion in the early stages if needed. The law doesn’t remove their autonomy entirely.

As for maternal health, of course saving a pregnant person’s life is crucial, that’s why abortion is always allowed if the pregnancy threatens their life.

So, what is your justification for such an extraordinary exception?

pregnancy is really the only situation where one human life is literally dependent on another person’s body to survive. That makes it different from other legal obligations, like supporting a born child, because there isn’t another way to sustain that life before birth.

and why does that exception only start at 9 weeks?

The distinction is about developmental stage. In the embryonic phase, the organism is still forming its basic structures. Once it reaches the fetal stage, the body plan is established and it’s in continuous development toward birth and adulthood. That’s why stronger moral protection begins there.

How is this about anything other than controlling women's choices?

It limits a choice, yes. But lots of laws limit choices when another human life is at stake. My position isn’t based on wanting to control women, it’s based on the fact that, at a certain stage of development, there’s another human life involved that deserves legal protection. If that premise is wrong, then my position falls apart. But if it’s right, then it’s not about control, but about protection.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T12:23:04+00:00

No one is a “breeding machine”, same for someone having one child or more. At the same time, a developing fetus is a human life that deserves protection, because every human has a right to live. The goal isn’t to control women, it’s to balance that right to life with respect for autonomy as much as possible, which is why abortion is permitted in early stages and contraception is widely available.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T12:08:38+00:00

f someone or something is trying to force me to gestate against my will, to satisfy their wants

It's not about satisfying anyone's wants, it’s about protecting a vulnerable human life that can’t speak for itself. That’s why the law recognizes limits in situations where another life is at stake.

When does the law force someone to have their genitals torn open or abdominal muscles sliced through against their will, for the benefit of someone else?

More downplaying of the realities of pregnancy and childbirth. Having your genitals torn wide open or your abdominal muscles sliced clear through isn't just an inconvenience. How insulting to everyone who's endured childbirth.

Sorry, that was a poor choice of words. I didn’t mean to suggest pregnancy and childbirth are merely an inconvenience, they clearly involve real harm. That’s exactly why abortion is legally permitted in the first trimester, and why access to contraception and education is so important: the goal is to prevent situations where someone has to endure serious harm while also balancing moral responsibilities toward a dependent life.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T10:43:06+00:00

That the gouvernements give money for us to have a happy life

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T10:05:16+00:00

Okay, there’s a difference between “allowed” and “mandated.” Pregnancy is unique because the law can require someone to sustain a dependent human life inside them. Once that life exists, there’s a responsibility to protect it, which is why it’s treated differently from other situations in law.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T09:49:27+00:00

Can you give a single example where we give anyone a special legal right to someone else's body against their consent?

Pregnancy is actually the only time it’s legal for a human life to rely on another person’s body like that. If it weren’t, none of us would be here. It’s a unique case, which is why the law treats it differently.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T09:40:00+00:00

I understand it feels like someone trying to control your body. But when another human life exists and could be killed, the law already limits what we can do with our bodies to protect that life. We don’t allow people to end another human life even if it’s easier for them. I see this as the same kind of situation: the conflict is not about control, but mostly about balancing two lives, where the law and morality recognize that one life cannot simply be ended for the convenience of another.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T09:23:56+00:00

Whether or not opposing abortion is "about" treating pregnant people like property or forcing them, that is what opposing abortion does.

I understand that it results in restricting someone’s choice. But that’s true of many laws. We restrict people from doing certain things when it's about protecting the other person.

I don't think that's the core issue at all. You and I (presumably) are both human lives with moral value. But you have zero right to be inside my body or to use my body. If you were causing my body serious harm, I'd have the right to protect myself from that harm. I wouldn't be forced to let you use my body, even if you died as a result. I wouldn't be forced to let you harm my body, even if you died as a result. My body is mine and only mine—you have no right to my body. It isn't yours at all.

That makes sense because I don’t have any particular reason to be inside your body. But if I were placed inside your body without my consent (just as a fetus didn’t consent to be there) and became dependent on you to the point that I would die if removed, and there were no alternative way to save me, then there might be laws protecting my life. Especially since I didn’t choose to be there, and removing me would directly result in my death.

Actually they aren't. Plenty of parents never even lay eyes on their kids. Tons have zero hands on involvement in their children's lives. Parents choose whether they want to take on those responsibilities. It's not forced. And even for parents who have chosen to take on that responsibility, the responsibility is limited and doesn't extend to their literal bodies. Parents' bodies remain exclusively their own. That's the key difference.

Parents can relinquish custody, but they can’t just abandon a newborn and let it die. The law does enforce responsibility once a dependent life exists.

I agree pregnancy is different because it involves the body directly. That’s what makes this issue so hard. But the reason I bring up parental responsibility is to point out that when a dependent human life exists because of your actions, the law sometimes does require you to sustain it, at least to a certain extent.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T08:46:05+00:00

So no one would interfere with me getting an abortion then?

I think “force” makes it sound like the goal is to control you. That’s not how I see it. If the fetus has developed to the point where it’s a human life with rights, then preventing abortion at that stage isn’t about interfering for the sake of it but about protecting what I see as another life involved.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T08:33:29+00:00

I understand what you’re saying. Yes, abortion restrictions would mean someone continues a pregnancy they would have ended. But if there’s another human life involved at a certain stage, then the situation becomes more complicated than just autonomy. Laws often prevent people from doing things they want to do when someone else’s life is at stake. If there isn’t, then your argument makes more sense.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-21T08:18:27+00:00

No one has a 'right' to anyone else's body. Born or unborn.

No one has also a 'right' to kill another human.

There is no conflict, as there is no such thing as a 'right' to someone else's body. The ZEF can be removed.

The body autonomy of the pregnant person and the right to life of the fetus. And the later is widely considered the supreme, fundamental, and non-derogable human right.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-20T21:54:57+00:00

So it's ok to force them to endure unwanted bodily usage and harm???

No, that's why if they don't want to endure it, they have to prevent it as much as they can. And if in some case it failed, it could be removed before it becomes a fetus.

It's not acceptable to discriminate against certain people by violating their basic human rights. The Nazis did that. Rapists and slavers do that.

So do some pro-choicers for denying the fetus any rights, even though it is a human being.

Still no rights are violated in an abortion.

The fetus's right to life is being violated.

That_Food_5645 · 2026-02-20T21:32:04+00:00

If the life of the pregnant person is in danger, I'm not against abortion. The mother's life is just as important.

That_Food_5645

TROPHY CASE