I don't care how far along the pregnancy is, or even if it was a grown adult person attached to your body, you would STILL have every right to sever that connection, even if doing so would kill the other person, because that's what it means to have bodily autonomy. Your right to your own body, and the decisions over what procedures you will or will not have, or who can or cannot use your body, is one of the single most important rights you can have.
@997QT5R1yr1Y
you also cannot just go around sleeping with a ton of men and just get a ton of abortions in your life time and if women can walk out on the child what about men?
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
I mean, you totally could sleep around and just get abortions if you get pregnant, because that's just a personal lifestyle/medical choice between an individual and their partner(s)/doctor(s). As for walking out on your child, I assume you mean after they're born? In which case, single parents definitely exist, yea, both single mothers AND single fathers take care of kids by themselves after another parent is absent for whatever reason. Either parent can walk out of their child's life, as sad as that may be. Men can already walk out on a child before OR after they're born, so I'm not sure what you're asking...
@9B9WG7D1yr1Y
“Men can already walk out on a child before OR after they're born, so I'm not sure what you're asking...”
That is called a deadbeat dad and there are laws against that. At least in every state I have lived in. Even had billboards for dads that were deadbeats posted. So while they CAN do it, they are legally held responsible (read: punished) if they do. That was a pretty ignorant flippant way to address that point.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
The previous person's argument was "if women can walk out on the child what about men?" but either parent literally can walk out at any time if they want to, so I'm not sure why it's phrased as if they can't. Both single mothers AND single fathers absolutely do exist, because any parent can already be absent for any reason. Your only legal obligation may be child support, and even that is still just optional at the behest of the other parent; unless the other parent takes the legal action to demand child support, there is no other punishment or consequences for… Read more
@TruthHurts10112mos12MO
Um please let's have a shred of morality here.
@VulcanMan6 12mos12MO
You're right, let's. It is perfectly moral to agree that a person has every right to choose to abandon their familial obligations, if they so choose. As sad and unfortunate as we may think that is for someone to do, it would be morally unjustified for us to force our personal beliefs onto what choices they can or cannot make with their own lives. If someone really wants to walk out on their family, for whatever reason, that decision is for themselves to make and to live with. "Morality" is subjective, as much as we may wish it weren't...
@TruthHurts10110mos10MO
This is amazing. Flabbergasting. Made we spit out my coffee and wonder at the stupidity of today's world. So you think that the government doesn't have a right to ban abortion? That's funny. Really funny. Because I read quite a lot of the answers you gave on your quiz and you seem to be perfectly fine with all manner of huge government, Statist programs that are dangerous to life, liberty, and limb but somehow don't think the government can ban abortion. That's as stupid of an argument as claiming that just because murder is wrong we can't impose that on murderers by punishing them. This is a wicked and perverse generation, God save us all.
Morality is far from subjective, in fact there's a great book on it. It's called the Bible.
@L1b3rtyAriannaGreen10mos10MO
I agree with this perspective. Consider the situation where a person is trapped in an abusive relationship. They have children, but the cycle of violence is damaging to everyone involved. If this person chooses to leave, even though it means leaving their children behind, they're making a difficult choice that they believe is for the best. They're choosing to prioritize their own safety and mental health, potentially with the hope of creating a better future for them and their children.
In this scenario, we see the complexity of these decisions - they're not always clear cut, and they're often made in the context of challenging circumstances. So, doesn't this lend credence to the idea that individuals should have the autonomy to make these choices, rather than having society dictate what is 'correct'?
@9C3CZ6D12mos12MO
You are spot-on. Abortion is murder. The original Roe v. Wade ruling was unconstitutional and it violated the 14th Amendment.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-1/
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
@98BGB9K1yr1Y
What about that persons rights? They have the right to live as well.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
Sure, everyone has their own right to live, but no one's right to live takes precedence over any other person's right to their own body; that's why organ and blood donations are optional and not enforced by the state, because even if a person will die/is dying, you still have the right to deny them access to your own body. Your right over who can or cannot use your body, at any time, for any or no reason, is absolutely more important than any other person's right to life; simply having the right to live does not entitle someone to another person's body, even if their life literally depends on it.
@98GJMZZIndependent1yr1Y
I understand where you are coming from but I will choose to disagree
@98GJMZZIndependent1yr1Y
According to this website I am a better match with Hillary than you So…
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
Well, I don't like Hillary, so that may be understandable...
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
That's what having the personal choice means; you don't have to get one if you don't want to.
@TruthHurts10110mos10MO
That's blatantly false; obviously you have not the slightest understanding of the concept of natural rights which is what our country was founded on, which states that rights can be in conflict but THE MOST IMMEDIATE, IMPORTANT, AND INALIENABLE RIGHT of all is that to life, and whenever it contradicts another right the right to life is the one that must be preserved.
@VulcanMan6 8mos8MO
So do you support forced organ donation?
@9C3CZ6D12mos12MO
I agree. I'm a devout member of one of the most conservative and Biblically accurate Christian denominations in America (The Southern Baptist Convention).
@VulcanMan6 8mos8MO
Was that supposed to be a good thing..?
unborn children don't have rights yet I can get being against abortion if its after 6 months in but other than that 100% pro choice
@98ZTTPC1yr1Y
life starts a conception even scientist have confirmed this. I dont think it’s justifiable to kill an unborn baby because of the mother and fathers actions and their selfish needs? Do you?
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
Of course life starts at conception, because the original cells have to be living in order to grow in the first place. Literally no one is debating the fact that the cells are alive, because they would have to be alive for it to even be a living fetus (even though you and science are likely talking about a different meaning of "life" here). The entire abortion argument is about bodily autonomy and consent...the "life" of the fetus is completely irrelevant. YOU have sole and total say over who can or cannot use your body, at any time, for any or no reason. So to answer your question: yes, it is absolutely justifiable to abort an unborn baby if the mother does not consent to it using her body, even if her reasoning is purely because she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore...
@8V6LBTQ12mos12MO
What was your stance on bodily autonomy regarding the Covid-19 vaccine? Were you consistent?
@VulcanMan6 12mos12MO
Please provide references for the claims you made in this message.
You mean that the government should not force you to receive vaccinations against your consent? Yes, and luckily that didn't even happen in the first place. No one was legally forced to get vaccinated, nor did the government break down anyone's door to hold them down and forcibly vaccinate them...because we still ultimately have the right to bodily autonomy (or at least we should). It is still, and should be, your right to decide whether you want to receive a medical procedure (such as abortions or gender affirming care) or not receive a medical procedure (such as vaccinations or organ donations).
@TruthHurts10110mos10MO
The government was tyrannical and despotic during the pandemic, its mandates killed millions of jobs and sent us into a Faucian despotism that is a blot on our country
@VulcanMan6 8mos8MO
We have always had a tyrannical government, and our economy is even moreso, because that's just how they were designed in the first place.
And there are definitely much larger blots on this country than the "Faucian despotism" of having to wear a mask at Applebee's or whatever...
@VulcanMan6 12mos12MO
You mean that the government should not force you to receive vaccinations against your consent? Yes, and luckily that didn't even happen in the first place. No one was legally forced to get vaccinated, nor did the government break down anyone's door to hold them down and forcibly vaccinate them...because we still ultimately have the right to bodily autonomy (or at least we should). It is still, and should be, your right to decide whether you want to receive a medical procedure (such as abortions or gender affirming care) or not receive a medical procedure (such as vaccinations or organ donations).
@98ZTTPC1yr1Y
I dont think anyone has the right to kill their child whether its born or unborn the fact that people see an abortion as no big deal is shocking. Parents kill thwir child for their own selfish needs yet they created that child with their actions they should be made to face the consequences! Unless the women is raped incest or ectopic pregnancy of course
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
If you kill a child that is already born, then that's just normal murder, whether it's yours or not. However, an "unborn child" is different, because it fundamentally relies on the use of another person's body, hence it's right to life is entirely dependent on the consent of the host individual. If you don't want it to continue using your body, then you have every right to stop it from doing so, regardless of whether you initially wanted to be pregnant or not. Surely you agree that another individual does not have the right to use your body without constant consent, right?
@9B9WG7D1yr1Y
“because it fundamentally relies on the use of another person's body,”
Have you seen babies? Heck, there are college kids that can't do anything without support for the resources from their parents or other people's body. Welfare queens relies on working people's body. Cerebral palsy depend on it as well. They are open to be terminated? Just a clump of cells after all?
You don't have the right to kill someone just because they depend on you.
And Siamese twins don't have that right all the time. They don't get to kill the other just because they want to revoke consent.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
You do understand that I used "the use of another person's body" literally, right? Not dependent on "financial support" or "a person's labor", but the literal use of another person's physical body, without their consent. A fetus is literally connected to the mother's body, and using it to keep itself alive...that's why the discussion is about bodily autonomy, and not welfare, because this is about the literal use of your body. NONE of your metaphorical examples apply to this, nor do they have anything to do with bodily autonomy (granted,… Read more
