Anonymous #1 1w

Would you have an equally hard time deciding between a newborn and a zygote, and a newborn and an elderly person? Because that’s fucked up.

5

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Technically yes, because I wouldn’t give it a second thought to save the baby; but that is a personal decision which doesn’t prove that other people have no worth. And in the context of laws, personal decisions are the one thing we try to remove from the equation because biases like mine would interfere if only my opinion was taken into account.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Which is exactly why it shouldn’t be up to the law at all to have any kind of control over bodily autonomy. At the end of the day it’s a personal decision, and involving the government in that kind of thing crosses a line

1

Anonymous perry_theplatypus 1w

The whole argument of bodily autonomy is a distraction because the law’s only propose is to stop bodily autonomy. We don’t allow people to use their bodies to kill other people. That’s an invasion of bodily autonomy that we all want to preserve. The real argument comes from whether or not a fetus is a separate entity from the mother, which it is, and so it is therefore entitled to our constitutional right to life.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

I don’t think a fetus has no worth. But it’s not a person, and nobody treats it as though it is the same as a person. Not even you. And if no one actually treats it like is as valuable as a living person then it’s not murder to remove it from your body.

6

Anonymous #1 1w

Killing someone else isn’t bodily autonomy dude, what?

6

Anonymous #1 1w

Bodily autonomy is about the right to do with your OWN body what you like. Not someone else’s. A fetus is a part of a woman’s body. It’s not its own thing yet.

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I don’t want to understand this incorrectly, but are you saying that since no one treats them like people then it’s ok to kill/destroy/abort them?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I mean yeah kinda homie. They’re not really a person until they stop being a part of their mom.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Can it survive outside a woman’s body? Do they ever find themselves existing independently of a woman’s body naturally?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

How can you say a fetus *isnt* a part of a woman’s body? It grows FROM her body, and starts life forming from an organ PHYSICALLY connected to the inside of her body.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

That’s literally the same line of thinking slave owners had, that since slaves “needed” their owners they weren’t people. I know that slaves didn’t actually need their owners, but the argument is saying that dependence determines humanity.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Can a newborn survive independently from the mother? If there was only the mother and her child, could it survive by itself?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

But you still haven’t addressed the issue of dna; it isn’t hers, it’s a new set of genes that encodes for an entirely separate human when given enough time.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Theoretically sure, a newborn baby could survive without its mom. Can a zygote survive without being literally, physically connected to its mother?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Why would it matter if it has different dna? Something can have different dna as you and still be physically part of your body.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Every single sperm and egg cell also has its own unique DNA separate from the person it belongs too. is masturbating also murder?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

The slave owners in colonial America believed that slaves were physically connected to their masters and were literally a part of their body?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I was unaware of that.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

What? That’s not what I said at all, the argument is simply that dependence determines humanity.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Right but MY argument is that unborn children are literally physically part of someone else’s body, and also haven’t yet been born so aren’t people yet.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

The zygote dna does not encode for a person by itself, that’s the point.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

What do you mean by that.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Which seems like a fully different argument than what you’re talking about.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

So every external disease I contract is now a part of my body? Different dna is the entire basis of biological entities. The disease may be a virus and therefore physically attached, but it is still something other than me.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

If that disease originates from your body sure.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I mean again you’re arguing against common sense. The baby is created inside the woman’s body. It grows from single cells inside a woman’s body. It can only survive if it is connected to an organ (originating from the woman’s body) that feeds the growing child nutrients consumed by its mother. It’s connected to her physically and it ORIGINATED inside her. It’s so clear cut man.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Do you believe in inherent rights then? A person is owed their rights throughout their entire development in life and regardless of their physical dependency.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Inherent rights for people that have been born, yes.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I said external, not a disease that originates from my own organism.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Right but that’s not how babies work

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Because babies DONT originate outside the body. … right? You understand?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

The baby is created with the addition of a sperm, not just the mother. If childbirth required no other entity aside from the mom, then sure. But, it doesn’t, and that’s why the baby isn’t the product of the mother, and is not herself. She isn’t growing a clone

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Where does the sperm have to be to create a baby. Where do we usually put sperm, in order to make a baby? Inside of what? Or, whom?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Inside of a woman perhaps?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

lol that isn’t an inherent right then. Inherent means no matter the stage of development or mental/physical capacity, a human has human rights.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Does sperm have human rights?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Um, again, the sperm being external is clear evidence of the child not being a sole product of the mother.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

It doesn’t have to be the sole product of the mother to be part of her body dipshit

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

It has the same human right as a finger would when attached to its original organism.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Oh so sperm isn’t a stage of human development?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Also, a finger doesn’t have a unique human dna sequence the same way a sperm, egg, or developing human would. That dna you placed so much importance on just… doesn’t matter now?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Can it grow into a separate being by itself? In that sense, no, sperm, by itself, is not a stage of human development because nothing is being developed.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Can a fertilized egg grow into a separate being by itself? It can’t do that either. It needs the human body.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

So is the man’s child? Do you think your child genome isn’t a product of your own?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You’re like, an actual moron. I’m working really hard not to say that a whole bunch but WOW.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

What? Sperm is solely the product of a man’s genome, whereas a child is the product of two different genomes combing into a new one.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

So?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Each sperm has its own unique DNA unlike other cells, and when inside a human body can become the next stage of human development. You’re just arbitrarily drawing lines. I’m drawing the only line that makes sense. The second you stop being physically a part of your moms body, you’re a person.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

No it is BOTH the mother and the father.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Also it’s not a separate entity yet it will die if it’s not physically attached to its mother

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

The physical tether is the arbitrary line, so when the baby is outside the womb but still connected, we can just kill it?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

No because if we disconnected it, it would survive.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Like I said, dependency doesn’t determine humanity

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I have a really good hypothetical for this but I actually think you might be too dumb.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Let me know if you want me to give it a shot tho.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

No it is not, that’s not how dna works. The new genome is a new set of dna from both the mother and father. But neither one holds ownership over the new person, obviously, because that ownership would extend for the child’s entire life.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Sure just make shit up whatever

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

See? That’s arbitrary. The beginning of physical separation, in that a person is its own person, begins with the new genome. That’s how biology works

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Again literally there is an organ connecting them and their mother. They’re literally by definition a part of someone else, and thus not their own person. Basic, common sense.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

How is that any different from what I’ve been saying? The new genome is the product of the mother and father, but into a new set.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Sperm also have unique DNA sequences from the person they belong too.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

The sperm’s dna originated solely from the man, and is a part of his body because of this, the same with a woman’s egg.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

So what? That doesn’t mean they don’t have a unique genome from the person they came from

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Sure, what’s your hypothetical?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

No I’m bored and want to play video games instead, I am not full of confidence the rest of this conversation would be some thrilling intellectual stimulation lmao.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Not only is the genome incomplete in a sperm and egg cell and therefore cannot create a new person by itself, but it originated from only the person’s genome, not a new one or some other genome.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

lol I get it, who wants to waste an afternoon on the yak

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Well I have a cookie making party to go to later anyway so I won’t be bored.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I will be playing with my brother, have a good one

1