But that’s… objectively not true. See the problem?

72

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 8w

it is tho

-22

im for mandatory abortions what do i get called? or did pro choicers take my title

48

Antinatalism is a separate philosophy

30

Anonymous #7 8w

they literally aren’t tho

49

Anonymous #9 8w

Only that life does NOT simply begin at conception. That’s a religious belief and not a scientific fact.

49

Anonymous #9 8w

Notably, that has no bearing on this subject at all.

24

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #11 8w

If it’s not living how come people are born?

-14

Comment Deleted

0

A human organism begins to form at conception. “Life” in relation to what is legally defined a human being only begins at birth. A zygote/fetus is not considered a “person,” though biologically its DNA is human

38

Anonymous #5 8w

So it is human.

-12

Anonymous #2 8w

Yes. But it does not have sentience, sapience, values, memories, or the ability to feel anything. It quite literally has less cognitive ability than a fruit fly. I’m very sick of conservatives trying to virtue signal when they know absolutely nothing about embryology

28

Anonymous #5 8w

You misunderstand. It’s a matter of whether or not it is a human being, which does begin at conception, that is determinant to many for whether or not it gets human moral consideration.

-9

Comment Deleted

0

Fair enough. I wasn’t sure whether 5 was pushing back against the argument on a purely biological basis or arguing about humans in terms of personhood

4

Anonymous #2 8w

So when you kill an insect, do you feel just as guilty as you would have when killing a human?

20

Anonymous #14 8w

i feel like it’s not very pro life to consider the unborn baby a “mistake” bc is the point to save the life or to punish the woman?

51

Anonymous #5 8w

insects are not humans. I did say human moral consideration did I not?

5

Anonymous #2 8w

I don’t remember the topic being insects

-1

Anonymous #14 8w

i love treating children like punishments for people i disagree with on religion

25

Anonymous #12 8w

You are against women having the choice between carrying a fetus to term or aborting the zygote/fetus, most commonly within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

30

Anonymous beaver_19 8w

more like pro-forced birth

52

Anonymous beaver_19 8w

Just to clarify, I am pro-choice

12

Anonymous #15 8w

that's the part they miss bc it's about control

27

Anonymous #7 8w

A lot of people don’t

19

Give you what you need, which is?

9

Anonymous beaver_19 8w

they never do. last minute abortions are almost always the medically necessary ones

22

Anonymous #2 8w

Why are humans the only animal to get moral consideration?

17

Anonymous #18 8w

why do we give any humans moral consideration at all?

1

Anonymous #2 8w

Honey that’s what I’m asking you

15

Anonymous #14 8w

Usually i would criticize your ragebait as being lazy and unbelievable, but apparently from the replies it worked 😂

8

Anonymous #18 8w

you might say “subjective experience” and I might say for simply being human

1

Anonymous #2 8w

I’m asking you what you DO say/think

8

Anonymous #2 8w

Exactly, they’re called “human rights” for a reason. When rights become “human rights + something else” we devolve into chaos. For instance, (human + sentient, which is how we get abortion), or (human + race, which is how we got slavery) or (human + religion, which is how we got the holocaust)

-4

Anonymous #18 8w

I just did

-1

Anonymous #16 8w

Plan B

4

Anonymous #2 8w

You said you might say so, and either way, I’m asking you why simply being human gives you moral consideration?

8

Anonymous #18 8w

because you are human

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Honey, again, why does being human automatically mean you get moral consideration? Just restating that you think it does does not answer the why.

7

Anonymous #2 8w

My point is that you’re placing extra moral consideration on humans for the fact that they are human, which to me makes no sense. Do you value higher cognition? The ability to have emotion? Feel pain, etc.? That’s why I’m asking. Your consideration for human life in the manner you’re describing only makes sense if ALL life is sacred to you.

9

Anonymous #5 8w

All human life is sacred…. Other animals do not possess human nature. Other animals are deserving of respect and animal cruelty is evil. But a human life is worth more than any animal life.

-2

Anonymous #9 8w

The question is WHY

9

Anonymous #18 8w

If your trying to insinuate that I only value human life because of some Christian belief your fighting a losing battle. I can give you a Christian argument all day long, but if you want say that human life has no value then what is to prevent slavery or genocide?

-2

Anonymous #9 8w

If human rights are based on sentience then we can justify killing coma patients and people who have been knocked unconscious. If it’s based on “viability” then we could kill every single person on dialysis, a pacemaker, a breathing machine, or advanced medical care. If it’s based on a heartbeat then we might as well never give someone CPR cus they don’t have anymore rights

-2

Anonymous #9 8w

Why?

8

Anonymous #5 8w

I think you don’t understand because it is such a different mindset from what you are used to. I believe humans have moral consideration because of the fact that they are human. Sure I could add the whole “We are created in the image of God”, then again you also might be inclined to ask why that matters and we would end up asking until neither of us could go further.

1

Anonymous #2 8w

So it’s just because of your religious beliefs?

9

Anonymous #9 8w

Well no because all of these have other factors than just these things alone. Are you trying to again just say “humans get moral consideration because they’re humans and because the convo gets to confusing if we don’t”?

9

Anonymous #7 8w

Plan B which does not have a 100% success rate by any means. Which is my point. There is no way to retroactively prevent pregnancy after the sperm enters the body with 100% effectiveness. It’s not even close.

10

Anonymous #16 8w

It starts at 95% effectiveness, then drops to 75% effectiveness within 3 days. So 5/100 or 25/100 women would still be carrying unwanted pregnancies as a result of assault.

13

Anonymous #18 8w

It’s not solely a religious argument. A society that does not respect a persons right to life is one that cannot continue to exist. Legalized murder is a stain upon society and causes immense degeneration of culture. If you think humans have no moral value then at least be consistent and support slavery or genocide. Ik that you don’t, but try to think about how those are different scenarios. Both allow the killing of innocent people for no other reason than where they are.

-2

Anonymous #9 8w

Innocent ppl in Gaza are killed for being in Gaza. And the unborn are killed for being in their mother’s womb. What’s the moral difference? Or are they both acceptable?

-1

Anonymous #9 8w

I never said I don’t think humans have moral value, I’m literally asking you why you think they do. And number two just keeps restating the point and then adding in some religion, which is why I was addressing them and not you.

11

Anonymous #9 8w

But answer this: Do you, as a human, have the right to your mother’s kidney if you are dying of kidney failure? She even consented to having you. She had sex. Is she not now responsible for saving your life at the expense of her own right to her body and organs?

8

Anonymous #18 8w

Yes? Do you have other ideas just because?

-2

Anonymous #9 8w

The difference is that one group of people can both experience and understand their suffering and does not rely solely on another person’s bodily resources to stay alive, with or without their consent. Do you know which group I’m referring to?

11

Anonymous #2 8w

Simply because something is human? Then what is the difference between that and valuing something simply because it has dog DNA, for example? What is the difference to you? To really distill this debate, let me ask you: would you feel comfortable blowtorching a room with a Petri dish containing 100 zygotes, or a room containing 100 babies? According to you, they’re equal.

5

Anonymous #2 8w

I mean I have my ideas about why humans deserve moral consideration, but I think a solely religious argument is ultimately pointless here

8

Anonymous #18 8w

just as pointless as yours would be. Obviously I don’t think that way “just because of religion”, I just also practice a religion which aligns with that. Do I need a philosophy degree to know not to murder?

-2

Anonymous #9 8w

What do you mean by “human + sentient”?

1

Anonymous #2 8w

No I just think that when we talk about something like abortion, something we legislate, I don’t GAF about what your religion says.

12

Anonymous #2 8w

Can someone answer my question? About what “human rights” actually entitle us to?

7

Anonymous #2 8w

Why don’t you explain your moral framework since it must be so superior

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Was this mean to be for me or are you asking yourself LMAO

10

Anonymous #18 8w

I’m asking you if you have a worthy alternative

-2

Anonymous #2 8w

Consideration for things such as higher cognition, ability to feel pain and joy, empathy, etc. is far more logically sound than the religious argument of “because my god said so.” And I’m a religious person myself

5

Anonymous #5 8w

why is it more logically sound? What form does the argument use? What are the premises?

-2

Anonymous #16 8w

I never said human rights I said human moral consideration

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Do I have an alternative besides “just because we are human”? Yes of course I do. I think our cognitive abilities plus our ability to suffer/understand our suffering gives us more moral consideration compared to something like an ant. This also leaves room for things like animals rights as they do also suffer, they just have less understanding of their suffering than we do. It’s more complex than this but that’s the basics

6

Anonymous #2 8w

Because it gives humans the ability to suffer, hence our moral repulsion at causing others pain or killing them. Humans capable of sentience also perceive loss of life as an undesirable and distressing outcome. I’m incredibly confused at your inability to understand this

4

Anonymous #18 8w

But if religious arguments are not relevant, why is killing a sentient person a problem? Why can’t I just go any kill someone on the street for fun?

-2

Anonymous #18 8w

You can have my belief and still not treat animals poorly. The only reason you are in danger of being called an ant from my moral framework is because you still believe that “subjective experience” is the ultimate denotation of deserving human moral consideration

-1

Anonymous #9 8w

Morals are not solely based in religions. This is extremely basic I fear. We have demonstrated morality long before we created religions. It’s beneficial to society to take care of each other and build community. It’s also extremely easy to think “would I want this done to me?” And make decisions based off of that.

8

Anonymous #2 8w

Considering your reasoning is “because they’re human”……LMAO

8

Anonymous #16 8w

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are generally a good basis, but I’m sure a room of philosophers could come up with smth more refined

-1

Anonymous #9 8w

What makes fetuses entitled to superior rights than other human beings?

8

Anonymous #16 8w

But of all abortions what percentage are from rape, it’s a very small number…if a unwanted pregnancy happens that’s a consequence you must be responsible there would be so many less abortions if it was performed only due to rape instances

-5

Anonymous #5 8w

Idk why two is getting mad about us having criteria for moral consideration instead of following their “well because we’re human” religious argument 💀💀

8

Anonymous #7 8w

Then let me ask you this: Do you support abortion when the mother is forcible inseminated or not?

11

Anonymous #18 8w

Why does the ability to suffer give us value? It seems you don’t think we should kill ppl because it’s “morally repulsive”… why is that? Just cus you feel bad? Or is there some principle being violated?

-1

Anonymous #18 8w

And that applies in the discussion of abortion and HUMAN moral consideration. See how we’ve drifted?

-1

Anonymous #9 8w

Because we wouldn’t want to be murdered, correct? And the ability to understand suffering and experience it is just a way for us to differentiate between us and let’s say plants or ants, we kill both all the time.

5

Anonymous #2 8w

It applies, but does nothing to actually explain WHY humans get consideration over literally any other living thing.

8

Anonymous #18 8w

Or fetuses over other human beings* This mindset they support demands that fetuses are entitled to the right of another human’s body. Not just their own. This is not a human right accepted in the West.

5

Anonymous #18 8w

I literally gave you a reason. Why does “want not to die” matter? Why does cognition matter?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

What is death if not an experience of no longer living? What is death to something which has never gained sentience? Is there no differentiation to you?

6

Anonymous #16 8w

equal rights also look like oppression to oppressors

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

A fetus has the same life experience as a tree. Or a frog. Less, arguably, and yet they are elevated to having more rights than any other human being as a result of Christian propaganda spreading.

4

Anonymous #2 8w

Because we are a civil society build upon fairness. Why would we want to live in a society that kills each other for sport? We wouldn’t get to where we are today without morality, which is why we do have it. Cognition matters as far as suffering applies, which sets us apart from things like ants and plants, things we kill all the time.

5

Anonymous #16 8w

why do you think that takes moral precedence over being human?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

….because simply being human doesn’t grant any moral preference? It’s things ABOUT being human that does so, unless, of course, you think in a religious sense and no one here GAF about that

6

Anonymous #18 8w

Non-answer. Why is that civil? Why does suffering matter?

-1

Anonymous #18 8w

and why is that?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Define suffering. And how could society function if we had no laws at all?

3

Anonymous #2 8w

Is it equal rights for me to forcibly take my mother’s kidney to survive? I am dying. And only she can save me. Do I have the right to use her body for my survival? Is that “equal”? If all is “equal”, living humans should be able to steal from the bodies of their parents.

8

Anonymous #2 8w

That’s like saying “cats are cats and that grants them moral preference over dogs” your claim is just a claim until you provide something to back it up

8

Anonymous #18 8w

you can’t back up morality. That’s the whole point. You are using way more assumptions about the world than I am.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

We can in fact back up morality, there just not a book that gives us the rules as morality is in fact subjective.

6

Anonymous #18 8w

Yes with assumptions, nothing provable. I could ask you why for all of your reasoning and then what? Where would you be? You would end up in a basic circular statement like I have. It’s called The Münchhausen Trilemma

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Do you think there’s is a way to actually proven anything is philosophy?

9

Anonymous #2 8w

Better yet, do you think something that is subjective can be “proven”?

8

Anonymous #18 8w

This is about morality. Because what you are asking for is quite literally impossible. You are asking for claims about why a morality is the correct one, but that becomes a series of because statements because morality is not demonstrable in the sense that you can prove it is a framework of right and wrong that can be based in a religion or another philosophy (like science).

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

All of you pro aborts will burn in hell for eternity.

-3

Anonymous #2 8w

Right because morality is subjective, like I said lmao

1

Anonymous #19 8w

the thing is even if it is rage bait there are people out there who believe this fr so i think it’s worth it to question

9

Anonymous #2 8w

When I give you ethical questions you ignore them. It’s one thing to have a set of morals, but being anti-abortion is not consistent with most people’s morals. It is inconsistent, and stems from Christian nationalism & misogyny.

4

Anonymous #2 8w

And we were using the phrase “back up” when it comes to morality. Yes, there are ways to back your subjective beliefs. PROVING those subjective beliefs is another story entirely. Word choice matters.

8

Anonymous #18 8w

So you concede your claims? In that case, since it is subjective, why is it wrong for me to be against abortion and right for you to be for it?

-2

Anonymous #2 8w

Morally I don’t GAF, the issue is when it comes to legislation

7

Anonymous #18 8w

That’s what they don’t get. It’s about rights, not morals. Someone choosing to abort or not is the personal moral choice.

6

Anonymous #16 8w

Literally💀💀

6

Anonymous #18 8w

what would you back up yours with that isn’t also an assumption?

-1

Anonymous #18 8w

Yeah it’s weird and I don’t think they have a logical basis for anything they’re saying, so I’m not going to engage them further

1

Anonymous #2 8w

You have to be more specific

1

Anonymous #16 8w

rights come from morals LOL

-1

Anonymous #18 8w

can you specify what you mean by “back up”?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Rights come from laws, you use your morals to make laws for the masses.

10

Anonymous #18 8w

thanks for the support

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

So EXPLAIN TO ME why your morals say: We cannot steal from the bodies of our mother to save our own lives AND ALSO fetuses can steal from the bodies of others until they are born. Explain the inconsistency between fetus rights and anyone else’s rights.

4

Anonymous #2 8w

Just providing reasoning as to why you believe a certain subjective thing without just restating your point. Like how “because you’re human” doesn’t back up why humans have moral consideration

6

Anonymous #2 8w

Support for what? You can believe what you want but when you try to legislate it, you’re going to get pushback especially when you can’t explain why outside of your personal religious beliefs

7

Anonymous #16 8w

It’s not stealing. Equal consideration for the fetus and the mother is the acceptance of the dilemma that one costs the other, and means you cannot just simply kill the fetus because of anything less than mortality, since human moral consideration does mean that the life is worth more than avoiding the trials of life

-1

Anonymous #18 8w

and vice versa. I’m aware of that.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Describe the opposite side here

1

Anonymous #2 8w

It is using. Can I use the calcium from my mother’s bones if I have osteoporosis? Can I attach myself to her with a tube and share her blood with myself? Circulating it between the two of us? I didn’t “steal” it

6

Anonymous #16 8w

The answer to all these questions are, without consent, legally, I do not have the right. And that is the point.

8

Anonymous #18 8w

you would want legislation solely on the basis of what you find to be the superior morality. So would I, except we must both agree that everyone has a right to voice their opinion in election or in policy. Particularly because we have such different moral frameworks is why we have such ferocious conflicts which won’t go away unless there is even the slight opportunity of comprise and the will to negotiate it.

-1

Anonymous #16 8w

Well don’t you know? One unproven god of hundreds said so, so ig we gotta listen😔

4

Anonymous #2 8w

Would you be willing to compromise? If so, where?

3

Anonymous #16 8w

Let me ask you. Did you have the choice not to? Are you bound by the circumstances of a biological process such that you are forced to against your will? Are you at the whim of someone else deciding whether or not you are human or garbage and have no ability neither capacity to make your case?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

To what exactly

5

Anonymous #13 8w

womp womp

11

Anonymous #18 8w

read #16’s false equivalence

0

Anonymous #2 8w

If you had the only possible kidney for a dying child, they would die without your specific kidney, should the gov have the right to force you to give away your kidney to preserve human life?

8

Anonymous #18 8w

false equivalence

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Explain why it is false. Our mothers had sex. They had children. Unless children are different than fetuses, and you haven’t said they are, you insist they are equal, should mother’s sign away bodily autonomy for the rest of their life?

1

Anonymous #2 8w

How so? Both deal with bodily autonomy and preserving human rights

1

Anonymous #13 8w

It’s sad that you believe abortion is equivalent to murder. I think you’re just very ignorant as to what an embryo or fetus really is. I’d encourage you to do more research on the subject

5

Anonymous #16 8w

I’ll explain again for you. Your example did not satisfy these conditions relating to abortion: 1) Both parties are at the whims of the very same circumstance (such as the process of developing the fetus) 2) Only one party has the choice of terminating the other. 3) The other party that can be terminated cannot make any choices whatsoever and has no autonomy. You don’t satisfy 3, the other two are debatable.

-1

Anonymous #15 8w

That’s what I thought and I also just looked it up and fewer than 1% of abortions happen during the third trimester

12

Anti-natal means that you are against bringing a child into the world under any circumstances

4

Anonymous #2 8w

1) Do the legal consequences for me taking someone’s organs depends on us both being in the same circumstance? 2) Do the legal consequences for me taking someone’s organs depend on if they have a choice in taking mine? 3) Do the legal consequences of me taking someone’s organs vary if I have no choice in the matter? If I was held at gunpoint & told to steal organs, would then, that other person have to give me their organs? (Hint: No)

5

Anonymous #16 8w

this means nothing, you’re just piling more garbage on your false equivalence barge. Can you contend with the realities of the scenario of a non-dilemma abortion?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

This is the dilemma in every pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a stay in a hotel room. It is a mother’s organs contorting to fit a human being. Donating her calcium to build the babies bones (and we don’t get extra for the baby). It is losing sleep. It is losing hair. Teeth. Producing milk. Every pregnancy has a risk of death, diabetes, permanent disablement, and extreme pain. There is no pregnancy which does not impact our rights to our own bodies.

7

Anonymous #16 8w

What rights? The fetus is not forcing you to give it calcium, it literally cannot make any decisions lmao. Also, life has a risk of death, did you know that? And everything you said, do you really think that is comparable to losing life or never getting to have the rarest experience in the universe which is existing when we exist? You confuse rights with health, but if those are the natural result of the process, is it not just as healthy as a child loosing his baby teeth?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

What does the fetuses right to decide have to do with a woman’s rights to not provide? Nothing. Whether the fetus wants to or not, a fetus WILL steal calcium from its mother. Forcibly. And this has nothing to do with health. Bodily autonomy is not about the right to preserve your health, it is about the right to control what is done with your body. You do not have a fundamental understanding of what is ethically significant to these problems. So you introduce irrelevant variables.

8

Anonymous #2 8w

Just imagine applying your comments to other bodily autonomy problems like assault. If the persona assaulting me is being held at gunpoint, do I not have the right to say no? His lack of consent, while reflective of his culpability, does not impact my rights. (And I don’t think anyone here is trying to imprison fetuses). Further, humans naturally have sex! And the risk of harm is so slight…. Again, irrelevant to the issue of bodily autonomy.

4

Anonymous #16 8w

Because you constantly objectify the process and treat as if two people able to decide and engage and retract from actions are in the circumstance. A fetus is not “stealing calcium” because your body is providing it because that is the natural course of the process. Also, to use “want”, “decide”, and “steal” are just scientifically incorrect because all of those things require intention and will that the fetus does not have. What you’re doing is like charging a legless person for not walking.

-1

Anonymous #16 8w

“Just imagine applying logic for this unique circumstance to another circumstance” right because everything is the same?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

If you don’t like the word steal I could say takes. This isn’t me saying the fetus is blame-worthy. It’s not about the fetus’s intentions at all. The fetus’s intentions, one last time, ARE IRRELEVANT to women’s rights to bodily autonomy.

9

Anonymous #16 8w

You can use takes if you mean takes like a blood vessel takes blood to parts of the body, even though it has no will of its own. I already said the fetus has no intention, but your language suggests it does to you and your particular word choice suggests you villainize it. What about the fetus’s right to life? It has no bodily autonomy not because it doesn’t want to but because it is wholly reliant on you and can’t want anything.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

~The will of the fetus to take~ is irrelevant to the other person’s bodily autonomy. Should I write a song? Create a flashcard? The fetus’s intention is irrelevant to me. I’m aware it does not intend. Very aware, as it has no sentience at all. I am not villainizing the fetus as I do not need to make something a villian in order to make a logical argument.

8

Anonymous #2 8w

And we are not talking about the right to life, we are discussing the right to live off of someone else’s body. As you said, it is wholly reliant on you.

8

Anonymous #16 8w

It’s not living off of your body in the way that one lives off of their parents. You again imply that it has a choice. Will you persecute the homeless for having no money? Will you persecute the legless for not walking?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

WHERE did I imply it has a choice? WHERE am I saying we must persecute the fetus! The legless! I do not blame the fetus for being there. I defend the women’s rights to prevent a fetus from inhabiting her body.

8

Anonymous #2 8w

I mean this in the least insulting way possible, which is unfortunately, still insulting but I digress. I believe you are not capable of comprehending what I am saying at this point. Every one of my responses to you as an explanation of what bodily autonomy is, what facts are ethically significant, and what facts are not disputed. No one is arguing fetuses should be aborted because they are bad, for example. For this reason, I leave you with what I have already said. And I wish you the best.

6

Anonymous #16 8w

And I defend the fetus from the disregard of its life and consideration from the tyranny of you. It is not your body. It is not an organ in your body. Bodily autonomy does not apply.

-1

Anonymous #5 8w

I wouldn’t feel comfortable with either

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

No one is saying the fetus is the woman’s body. No one is saying it is an organ in the woman’s body. The argument is about what can be done to our bodies’ without our consent by other people, government entities, etc. Unfortunately, this is another example of you not understanding what bodily autonomy is. It sadly affirms my previous comment. I do not know if it is the will to be ignorant, or true ignorance, but I cannot continue anymore.

8

Anonymous #2 8w

“Bodily autonomy does not apply” however, is a very dangerous thing to say. Bodily autonomy is not something that only exists in certain circumstances. It is a principle we uphold and defend in every circumstance. It is an ethical foundation for so many aspects of our lives. I implore you to learn more about it from, if not me, another reputable source.

6

Anonymous #16 8w

I mean what did we expect, this is the same person who just responded “because they’re human” when asked why being human gives you moral consideration LMAO

6

Anonymous #16 8w

On the contrary you don’t seem to comprehend anything I am saying. If the fetus has the right to life, you can’t just decide to murder it because it has a right to life.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

You have repeated that approximately 474 times. I am aware of what you have said. You simply do not understand my responses to what you said because they introduce complexities you do not wish to explore. Because that would create cognitive dissonance and challenge your existing belief the right to life is wholly unconditional.

5

Anonymous #16 8w

Why is the right for someone to not be forced to die conditional to you?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Oh brother enouuuuuugh pebbles, we’ve been over it all already, you just don’t grasp the concept

6

Anonymous #2 8w

And when I mean conditional I mean in regards to abortion. You obviously can make cases for self defense but that isn’t applicable

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Is it moral to eat another person to survive? Just a bite! Hotly debated. Some say yes. Some say no. But most people feel deeply uncomfortable regardless of their answer. Because we know the right to survive is not unlimited. But where is the line drawn? It’s not black and white. Try as we might to make it.

7

Anonymous #16 8w

why do you get to choose to murder something with the right to life when you have the option not to without dying yourself?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Well that other person is perfectly fine, not starving at all. What does he care if I have a bite? It’s just a little piece of his arm? He won’t die.

2

Anonymous #16 8w

those are two very different circumstances. Not every abortion is black and white, it’s not always one dies or the other dies. Are you arguing about the dilemma where one death leads to one living and vice versa because that’s not where I was directing things at?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

No, I am talking about a helpful snack for me and one less arm for him. No one needs to die. But they will imprison me for assault! How dare they. I attacked him to live. My RIGHT to live!

6

Anonymous #16 8w

you again make a false equivalence

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

This is not a direct comparison, but it demonstrates how the “right to life” is certainly not unqualified in our society. We have lines we do not cross, even to survive.

3

Anonymous #2 8w

you are correct! it is not equivalent! but it does discuss this “right to life” debacle.

6

Anonymous #16 8w

you didn’t need to eat your perfectly fine friend. You don’t kill someone because you don’t feel very well, you kill out of self defense. If you are starving to death and the other person is not then that is more so a case of that person choosing not to help you which would be a moral depravity

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

both of you can make choices yet one decides yours does not matter despite the possibility of the survival of both.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

so you have a stance on the cannibal ethical dilemma! team cannibal! i like it! it just means your line on when our right to life ends is different than someone else’s. no import.

6

Anonymous #16 8w

That’s not team cannibal. I said you should only kill out of self defense. You did not defend yourself when you, not comfortable, decided to take someone else’s life when both could have survived. And killing is quite different from eating.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

If you quite literally will die and all possibilities are exhausted such as the only way to survive further is to eat of your friend even though that does not guarantee your life it is still morally wrong. People will understand, some people won’t, but that’s a remorse you will face for a long time.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

And if everything was exhausted, chances are, you’re both probably starving to death. Wouldn’t provide much nutrition

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

I mean the guy who is perfectly fine has to be an idiot because not rationing makes things harder and less survivable and that puts the onus on him. If he’s actively preventing you from food and is essentially killing you it would be self defense to retaliate and kill him, and if you’re starving to death it’s still wrong to cannibalize but you’ll have some sympathy.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

Oh my friend is very chubby. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with being pro-cannibalism to survive inherently. That’s why it’s an ethical debate. Almost everything about our society says do not eat other people, but what if eating other people, who definitely do not want to be eaten, can survive? Does my right to life matter more than their desire not to be eaten? Currently, legal systems or not sympathetic to cannibals. But this is more a thought experiment about what survival is worth.

4

Anonymous #2 8w

and that’s all if you make it off the island. Either way you’ll deal with that for the rest of your life. I’d be more worried about the one who lives with no remorse.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

who said we were all starving on an island? i want to eat my fat friend because i am starving. and if i don’t eat in an hour i’ll simply perish.

6

Anonymous #2 8w

what’s his arm to him anyway?

6

Anonymous #16 8w

The funny thing is you can understand and still not be pro for it. That’s what I had at the end: you can believe it is morally wrong but you can understand that the scenario was a dilemma which yielded an unfortunate result.

-1

Anonymous #16 8w

what if it was your sibling?

-2

Anonymous #2 8w

When we hurt other people to survive, there has to be a line we draw in the sand. Otherwise we live in anarchy. We create rules, like “bodily autonomy” to have a society. Violating the rules creates madness. Very Homeric.

6

Anonymous #16 8w

Not all choices are ones that should be made. Not all answers are right answers

-1

Comment Deleted

0

classic Trolley Cannibal Island

1

Anonymous #2 8w

When your “bodily autonomy” comes into conflict with other rights, being the right to live, there are problems. Right to life in this sense being the protection to continue to exist. Death penalty and warfare is an example of where this comes to mind, because on one it is in law that the cost of some crime is the forfeit of your ROL, whereas in warfare you are forced to keep yourself alive, while violating other ROL in self defense, if law can protect you to that extent.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

Particularly, it is on between whether violating an ROL is necessary to maintain another right, though that maintenance is in violation. And to decide becomes the next action. For example, your “bodily autonomy” which I found is defined as the right to make decisions for your own body, life, and future. When you make a choice such as to have an abortion, you violate a ROL. Now what?

0

Anonymous #2 8w

When you violate ROL you essentially violate bodily autonomy. Whether or not one is capable of making decisions about body, life, or future does not seem to matter, because a right does not have to be exhausted to its fullest extent. Nobody has to make every choice, only the ones they pose for themselves, even if actively non-deciding is a choice.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

But even if you were to say that bodily autonomy does not apply to the fetus, if the fetus is deserving of rights, what takes more precedence, the fact that one is deserving of such rights and considerations, or whether or not they have indeed been declared? Because when you have not been subjected to the protection of the law, and where law is not present, there is still morality.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

To exhaust a right at the expense of others without moderation is no better than anarchy. Rights alone do not make society.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

You said it best, to exhaust a “right” (the “right” to live off of someone, or to use someone else’s body to develop) without moderation is no better than anarchy. The right to live off of someone, if it exists at all among born humans, without moderation would trample one of our most foundational rights: bodily autonomy. Because civilized people have developed rules not only to protect lives, but to make life worth living. People throughout history have chosen bodily autonomy for this reason.

6

Anonymous #2 8w

I really do implore you to learn what bodily autonomy is, and its history in this nation (and others). As well as what it looks like to live without it before so confidently saying survival is worth the expense. That the tradeoff should always fall in favor of “life” if being a fetus can even be called an experience of living, which has been taken for granted this entire time (quite a big caveat to all of this I would argue).

6

Anonymous #16 8w

The fetus is alive, and whether or not it is capable of experiencing living as a determinant for it to live is where I would diverge. I think I already had that whole meal on where I land in terms of whether or not one is deserving of moral consideration, which then feeds the answer to of deserving some right. I do not mean moderation in the sense that bodily autonomy is not violated under any circumstance whatsoever, but rather than there can be momentary suspension in deliberated cases.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

For example, an attack on you by an armed individual is an attack on your bodily autonomy. In response, that person might be arrested and certain tenants of their rights might be suspended. In prison they cannot choose to leave, so their choices of future in that sense is withheld, among others.

1

Anonymous #2 8w

In abortion, one could deliberate that hey, the life of this human should not be violated in such a case where its termination is not a necessary in terms of mortality, and thus the decision to do so would be suspended.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

someone attacking me is not an attack on bodily autonomy. bodily autonomy is choosing what to do with my body. i guess if you view it as “someone forced me to experience a pierced open chest” than sure, a physical assault violates it but not really the point. this is why i think you fundamentally don’t get what it is. you keep misusing it.

4

Anonymous #16 8w

An attack on bodily autonomy is the government saying “you can do this with your body, and you cannot do this, and you must do this.” Being told you HAVE to abort a baby would also be a product of bodily autonomy going by the wayside. Being told you MUST get pregnant is a violation of bodily autonomy. If the government can tell you what you MUST do with your body, there are going to be problems. We as a society said, no, I don’t want the government to have that much control over me.

4

Anonymous #16 8w

But when it comes to fundamental moral conflicts it isn’t that easy. I for one do not believe that your ability to make the one choice of having an abortion when it is not necessary outweighs the right of life for the fetus (assuming it is granted). We have equal rights yes, but the rights which are in conflict with one another or not always equal, especially not their tenants.

1

Anonymous #2 8w

Many decisions come down to proportionality. Someone stalking you, certainly invading privacy and en route to harassment may not be proportional to killing them in response, even though it may be understandable.

1

Anonymous #2 8w

For people who are more pro-life, this might help you understand, it is like a comparison between sacrificing the ability to make that choice, or an entire life, and understandably they would choose the latter.

1

Anonymous #2 8w

to not be sacrificed, of course* lol

1

Anonymous #2 8w

It’s not about what you would do, it’s about what the government will force us to do. The fact they can force us to do anything at all. Instead of leaving the choice to individuals. About what they want to do morally in their circumstance.

6

Anonymous #16 8w

I’m a bit confused. The government restricts choices from us and forces us to do things all the time, and often for some moral-based/ethical reasoning. Any crime like murder all the way to theft is punished. There are procedures we have to follow, taxes to pay which have less to do with morals and more to do with their economic decisions. Nevertheless, abortion is unique on the account that it is restricting specifically your ability to make a decision pertaining to yourself. However,

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

(Assuming life granted), when that self decision has an impact on another life, in this case termination, it no longer is restricted to simply the decision that you made. I think that’s also where there is conflict. Yes you decided to have an operation done that has to do with your body first, but then it also is an operation on another body. That’s also a very unique case; your decision on your own body effects another body.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

But can the government force us to reproduce if birth rates are low? Force us not to, like a one child law? Force abortions because the planet can’t handle children? Right now, no. Because bodily autonomy is enshrined as something we truly champion above all else. Vaccines are encouraged but not forcibly injected into us. So even social good does not outweigh bodily autonomy. But what about if social, “moral” good seemingly does? Abort your child for the good of planet Earth?

5

Anonymous #16 8w

Obviously not. No government should inseminate you for the purpose of producing offspring. Forcing you not to give birth, prevented from being inseminated would be against your bodily autonomy and possibly eugenic. The topic of morality in abortion is fundamental in that it requires taking a life, which concerns some of our most basic laws pertaining to things like murder and manslaughter where the fact of life taken and circumstances are weighed. What do you mean by social morality?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

WHY is the government not able to forcefully inseminate someone? WHY is the government not able to forcefully sterilize you? What is the principle behind that, which protects us from those things even when there are other competing issues?

2

Anonymous #2 8w

And again, “taking a life” being the same between non-sentient things and sentient things is your opinion. Most people don’t view killing a non-sentient tree and a sentient dog the same way.

4

Anonymous #16 8w

I mean, most people don’t treat humans and other animals the same either. How life is interpreted in law ultimately depends on the law-givers, and if they are to be selected by the people, then the people have a part in that. It wouldn’t be the first time that legislation decided to offer rights or to redefine values after recognizing under-recognized groups. That’s why we have all these political organizations and activist groups, because they want to sway public opinion and lawgivers.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

or rather, perhaps not everybody asserts that the beginning of sentience is also the beginning of those human values

0

Anonymous #2 8w

Your core principle is the ability to make decisions for yourself and experience your freedoms, but I don’t think that that is necessarily a guarantee that when there is conflict with other rights that it comes on top. Just like any right, honestly.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

i’m exhausted dude. you think fetuses are entitled to use women’s bodies for survival. even though a literal child can’t do that. we get it. we understand you haven’t listened to ANYTHING anyone has said. udgaf cuz its not ur body, its not ur womb, its not ur stakes. we get it. you don’t worry about being forcefully sterilized because why would they? until they do, because you said survival of non sentient creatures was more important than all else. don’t say we didn’t warn you though.

6

Anonymous #16 8w

Here is what I think: I think that the right of a human life to live, in this case, that your bodily autonomy in the tenant of having an abortion is suspended. I think that in such a case where your right to life is at stake, that there ought to be deliberation for you and that your bodily autonomy in the tenant of choosing abortion be not suspended. I will not insult you. I will not reframe your thinking in a way that is disingenuous to your intention. I apologize if I have done at any point

1

Anonymous #2 8w

We clearly have very different viewpoints on this. I understand your perspective on this in regards to bodily autonomy. It is important, although I have a differing view on how that is weighed in certain scenarios with other rights, as has been my train of thought. It is true that I do not hold the stakes that you might, but there are those who do hold those stakes and share my worldview or at least the parts pertaining to this.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

I am sorry if I have misread or misinterpreted your messaging, or poorly worded my own messages such that we would have this kind of conflict.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

The conflict is you not listening. You not acknowledging why a fetus would have superior rights to a baby. Which has been a question you repeatedly dodge. The human rights question you fear.

4

Anonymous #16 8w

Can you tell me what rights I am treating differently for a baby than for a fetus such that the fetus is given superior rights?

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Mothers cannot be forced to keep their children alive through their own bodily donations. You cannot be forced to donate any part of your body to anyone, except now, fetuses. Which are no different than your baby you birther, except unborn.

5

Anonymous #2 8w

than the baby you birthed* and it IS a bodily donation. pregnancy IS a donation of the body. in so many ways. and the fact you tried to discredit that earlier is reflective of how little you know about pregnancy.

4

Anonymous #16 8w

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying, is that the dynamic of the donation is significantly different for those cases. The fetus depends on your nutrients to survive. It’s not optional, unless we have the technology to transfer it so some controlled environment. You are also, and correct me if I am wrong, not really giving voluntarily. Your body is biologically acting of its accord to donate nutrients. If you could, choosing not to donate nutrients causes it to die, otherwise born.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

In the case of the baby. Now, whether or not you donate your body is not going to determine whether the baby lives or dies. Yes you produce milk, but we also have options for other resources. You have full voluntary control over what you feed your baby, and whether or not you do so using your body. Obviously, if there were no other resources in a hypothetical scenario you would have to decide whether or not to nourish the baby where otherwise it would die, which raises stakes but is irrelevant

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

Fetus: Total reliance on donation to survive Donation may not necessarily be voluntary (biologically) Baby: Not reliant (in this day and age) on donation to survive Donation is completely voluntary.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

It could determine if the baby lives or dies. There is no legal obligation to donate your blood to your baby even if you’re the only match around and it’s bleeding out in front of you. There is no legal obligation. Now you can think it’s morally wrong, but even still, the law does not butt in. Why? Bodily autonomy is THAT sacred. It actually DOES take precedence over saving a life.

3

Anonymous #2 8w

Whats important to the whole rights conflict, which is what I was talking about is those first parts, is the reliance. If the fetus absolutely needs your donation of nutrients to survive, and we believe that it has a right of life, then there is conflict. To add to the baby part, no act of bodily autonomy on your part is going to impact the baby at all.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

A newborn baby is entirely dependent on you to live because it is actively bleeding out and only YOU can donate your blood? Does the government have the right to hook you up to a machine and transfer your blood to the baby? Legally, absolutely it does not.

5

Anonymous #2 8w

My point is this isn’t about what you think is moral. It’s about what rights are prioritized in modern Western society. Above most, if not all, is the freedom to have autonomy over one’s own body. Probably due to the traumas of forced pregnancies and sterilizations. Eugenics, essentially. We do make choices about what is important, and here, in this country, we have always chosen freedom from government oppression. If we open the door to government controlled reproduction, I don’t want to exist.

4

Anonymous #2 8w

Pro-choice people are not saying people cannot be morally against abortion. Because they value life so highly. Pro-choice people simply believe these decisions cannot be made by the government. And that’s not even getting into the actual logistical and practical outcomes of abortion bans (which is usually more dead people).

4

Anonymous #16 8w

I don’t know if I’ve seen exactly that scenario with blood donation, but the law does step in the form of CPS when, say for example, a parent refuses to feed a baby or child. In that case there is governmental stepping. If this baby is reliant on your milk specifically for whatever reason, yeah they absolutely can. If this blood donation has little effect on the parent then I think they should be held responsible for that death, however. It would be akin to refusing to let your child starve

-2

Anonymous #2 8w

despite having a surplus of food

-2

Anonymous #2 8w

You’re not getting the point: They can step in but they can’t force you to donate blood. Under no circumstances can they force you to donate your body. You can make other arguments about what should happen, but losing bodily autonomy is not something the government can mandate.

11

Anonymous #2 8w

It would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Doing something like that is LITERALLY classified as torture.

10

Anonymous #16 8w

Here’s the thing. When we introduce scenarios like that, where it is genuinely depraved behavior, you will get legislation because it is not a case that has happened. Like when a cannibal consensually ate someone who wanted to be eaten in Germany. I know you say “it’s just my moral opinion” but that is what makes laws, and laws change. We can agree to disagree, but I would say that someone’s life, where the only thing that puts it in danger is you (unlike all your other examples where someone is

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

The laws will not change because it is banned by the UN to punish someone through forcible medical procedures. It’s not agreeing to disagree. It is a line in the sand that modern civilization drew years ago after centuries of reproductive violence and straight up torture to further genocide, eugenics, etc.

3

Anonymous #2 8w

You can go ahead and say “Hey government, we should be able to force people to donate blood in these fringe scenarios” and any good government would say “HELL NO”

3

Anonymous #2 8w

aLready in danger of dying), and it relies fully on you, and your self choice does directly and intentionally results in it as dying, there is conflict, and its life should be emphasized. I personally find it hard to believe that pro-choice would value so highly of life if one is so easily willing to permit the leisurely destruction of it. And while your framing may have your bodily autonomy as completely sacred to you in its current form, not all that is sacred in your eyes or in society’s will

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

appeal

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

to my senses.

0

Anonymous #2 8w

At this point I think you really just need a history book. “And remember kids, the next time someone says the government would never do that… Yes they would.”

5

Anonymous #16 8w

It’s not a matter of fringe scenarios though. The principle exists beyond law which is a duty to rescue, when you are absolutely able to save the child from drowning in the pond and choose not to. Where laws do not meet morals, there is opportunity to fix that.

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

There is no legal duty to rescue.

6

Anonymous #2 8w

And if you are saying generally, laws should be passed to force people to donate their bodies in other non-fringe scenarios, that seems even less plausible. My point was even if someone was dying, and could only live through someone else, in that scenario it would still not be allowed.

4

Anonymous #16 8w

I never said it was. I just said it could be 👉🥹👈 These conversations never would have to be had if society hasn’t degraded. There was always trust that a people could be moral where law dare not extend its grasps, but we have reached a time where that is hardly around, and doing nothing and doing everything can become equally horrifying

-1

Anonymous #16 8w

Yeah I don’t mean non-fringe scenarios. Non-fringe scenarios, depending on the case, then yes

0

Anonymous #2 8w

And notice how it isn’t? You think people haven’t considered the duty to rescue problem? Thousands of legal scholars all have said no for hundreds of years? Are they anti-life? No. There are competing interests & shit is complex. Every response you have is just “fetal survival should be prioritized over everyone and everything and even the most sacred rights” and I can’t do this anymore.

4

Anonymous #2 8w

donating organs is significantly different than donating blood. One is easy and grows back, the other is quite the opposite

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

omfg go off king, it was def important to say that blood should be harvested forcefully but not organs. glad you have a line. slay. 💀 sick of this. fully sick of this. what a pointless conversation. i hope to god you don’t see your choices result in a eugenicist genocide.

3

Anonymous #16 8w

No no, I also said there were risks and equally horrifying results from either. I was teasing a bit, I wouldn’t necessarily go that far for duty, society should do its trick on the consequences of those cases and that isn’t government, but it’s effective. But for abortions yeah life over leisure is not a hard decision, and it’s significantly different enough from every other type of fringe case that I don’t see it spreading needlessly unless the government is really broadening their definitions

-1

Anonymous #2 8w

But see that’s my struggle, I agree that there is great risk, but the needless mortality is something that no human can take lightly.

1

Anonymous #2 8w

I will also pray that this does not end badly

1

Anonymous #16 8w

I’m not even religious but wanna throw out that not all religions are like that just those extremist Christian types. In many Jewish communities life begins at birth not conception! I wish I knew more about the third biggest religion but don’t let evangelicals paint a bad light on the religious ppl who find gods love in love for their fellow people! Ik you probably know too just wanna throw that out there for anyone reading!

3

Anonymous #9 8w

If you don’t get ownership or entitlement to another persons body, no fetus should either

8

Anonymous #7 8w

“It’s a very small number” Is it underreported? Nah. Is it hard to prove in a court of law before reaching another term? Nah. Is the way we hold children UNABLE TO CONSENT to a different standard if they’re above a certain age a common and unjustified beleive? Nah Just trust me bro. trust me ik all about rape and stats.

9

By your definition, you better not bleed when you cut yourself. All your blood cells are “life”!

9

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #16 8w

Yes, because one of those choices results in the death of living human person.

-4

You also can’t take my blood, even if it’s legally mandated that I owe you one if I hit you with my car and it’s my fault you need access to another’s body. Bodily autonomy and auto theft are very different my guy. My body is always my choice because I’m a man and have the right to say no even if I’m the last match on earth for you and/or it’s my fault your body needs mine.

11

Anonymous #12 8w

One of those choices removes access to the body which yeah leads to death of the fetus as a consequence. If you needed my body I wouldn’t let you a grown person have it either. No one has the right to another’s body regardless of any circumstances.

11

Anonymous #13 8w

Imagine being pissed about something you will never encounter

8

Anonymous #9 8w

If it’s murder to remove access to one’s body, I guess I should be mourning every tampon in my family’s bathroom just in case there was a fertilized egg that didn’t attach to the uterine wall. I also guess I would be a murderer bc I would refuse to give up blood if forced for a stranger, even if I was the last person on earth who matched. We are so privileged because we get to say no regardless of the circumstances or death of another human

6

Anonymous #4 8w

Mandatory abortions were part of the eugenics movement in our government so you’re probably just a eugenist one of the main reasons why the government has no reason to interfere a woman’s body is because I already have many times in the past, forcing some women to give birth and taking others ability away.

6

Anonymous #20 8w

It*

1

Anonymous #20 8w

see its a joke where i take an absurd position that matches what words the guy uses but he misattributes them to a completely different position, so hes put in a spot where the two are completely conflated. also, "mandatory abortion" is not eugenics. eugenics is about controlled reproduction, specifically to "improve" the population. mandatory is purposefully blind of any purpose.

1

Anonymous #9 8w

Honey the holocaust wasn’t just for Jewish folk. And human rights apply to bodily autonomy. Give me a single example where a man ever has to give up his bodily autonomy. A fetus doesn’t override a persons bodily autonomy

1

Comment Deleted

0

You don’t know what antinatalism means

12