Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?

[Hume]

Well under that theory, if mom dies while pregnant, fetus doesn’t die.

It can be delivered and cared for by doctor, nurses, etc.

Yet another self contradiction

If it has reached a period of minimal viability, that does indeed become an option. About 23 weeks or so?

The great overwhelming majority of abortions have occurred by that point.

 

[Hume]

So are you for anarchism? After all, bodily autonomy.

Liberty as a default.

That doesn’t mean we can’t move from it for good reason - we have laws because of that reality.

But it is the default. The null.

 

[Aquinas11]

Who said “external”? It’s just a threat… Without her explicit consent, it has no right to stay there.

“Her” consent? But you already said baby is “part of her” so now we need baby’s consent according to your own argument

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Who said “external”? It’s just a threat… Without her explicit consent, it has no right to stay there.

“Her” consent? But you already said baby is “part of her” so now we need baby’s consent according to your own argument

The baby had no agency, no bodily autonomy. It’s mother does, ergo it is part of her.

Put simply, it is the parasite, she’s the host. Her consent is what rules.

 

[StudentMI]

Isn’t that a contradiction though? Bodily autonomy but you have to pay taxes etc?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a former anarchist and sympathetic to it still despite my best efforts. Anarchism without adjectives FTW!

 

[Aquinas11]

If it has reached a period of minimal viability, that does indeed become an option.

So now you’re against abortion after viability since baby can survive on its own then

 

[Aquinas11]

The baby had no agency, no bodily autonomy

Baby is “part of her” and “her” has autonomy so it does have autonomy per your own argument

 

[Aquinas11]

it is the parasite, she’s the host

So now it’s not “part of her”

Again the self contradiction count is staggering

 

[Hume]

Isn’t that a contradiction though? Bodily autonomy but you have to pay taxes etc?

Nope. Taxes have no direct affect on my body…

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a former anarchist and sympathetic to it still despite my best efforts. Anarchism without adjectives FTW!

I’m not a supporter directly, but I am a fan of ideological pluralism. The more the merrier. And let us all have the liberty to be and do.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

it is the parasite, she’s the host

So now it’s not “part of her”

Again the self contradiction count is staggering

It’s a remarkably consistent position. You just don’t want to accept it for religious reasons, and I respect that.

So be pro-life. Declare your body a pro-life zone. Just give other folks the right to make the choice for themselves too - a la “pro-choice”

 

[blackforest]

I actually tried that. I’m getting no response to the question, but plenty of spam emails asking for money.

 

[Aquinas11]

It’s a remarkably consistent position.

Conclusions aren’t arguments

A parasite cannot be “part” of the host. In fact it’s precisely that it’s not “part” of the host that it’s identified as a “parasite”

I see you’ve stopped defending your indefensible position.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

It’s a remarkably consistent position.

Conclusions aren’t arguments

A parasite cannot be “part” of the host. In fact it’s precisely that it’s not “part” of the host that it’s identified as a “parasite”

I see you’ve stopped defending your indefensible position.

Lol, it’s a comparison to help illustrate the concept.

My position is cogent enough that it defends itself. She. gets. to. choose.

Don’t know what else to say…

 

[Aquinas11]

You just don’t want to accept it for religious reasons, and I respect that.

Logical reasons not religious reasons

Saying it’s “part of her” and then it’s not her for purposes of bodily autonomy is a logical fallacy.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

You just don’t want to accept it for religious reasons, and I respect that.

Logical reasons not religious reasons

Saying it’s “part of her” and then it’s not her for purposes of bodily autonomy is a logical fallacy.

ok.

I’m sorry you don’t think women should have control of their bodies. We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree here. See ya at the polls.

 

[Aquinas11]

My position is cogent enough that it defends itself. She. gets. to. choose.

You already said baby is “part of her” so “her” can’t decide absent the baby deciding

You’re stuck in a logical cul se sac but thanks for discussion.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

My position is cogent enough that it defends itself. She. gets. to. choose.

You already said baby is “part of her” so “her” can’t decide absent the baby deciding

You’re stuck in a logical cul se sac but thanks for discussion.

Again, the fetus can’t decide anything. It had no agency, no capacity for agency, no bodily autonomy.

Mom has all those things.

Thanks.

 

[Aquinas11]

I’m sorry you don’t think women should have control of their bodies

Apparently you don’t since you said baby is “part of her” yet baby has no control

 

[tafan2]

Does a new born? By your logic, no more than a baby in the womb. So you support infanticide also?

 

[Hume]

Does a new born? By your logic, no more than a baby in the womb. So you support infanticide also?

No, it’s bodily autonomy is no longer fully superceded by its mother’s. Someone else can raise the child, for example.