No matter if you are pro-choice or pro-life, you&#39;re going to have to bite the bullet

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

07.14.2023 09:44PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

you aren't actually describing something arbitrary though. You are just describing separate usages of the same term.

What is your preferred description of "arbitrary?"
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." And no one flipped a coin to decide if something is a person or not. They looked at the available information and requirements of a specific situation and decided based on that information if something/someone should be a legal person. That is not arbitrary. That is a series of decisions based on differing information and situation.

Submit the description of the term that was used in granting legal personhood to a Lake, and delineate how it is different from how I've applied the term.

but legally it is an important distinction.

Why?

A person has certain rights and protections,

So does a particular lake.

a fetus does not.

Because it is not as much of a "person" as a lake is.

Perhaps this is where the core of our disagreement is. I am using "person" in the legal sense. In law, a person can be a human, a company, a statue, a body of water etc.

And this is arbitrary.

Being a person and being a human are not even really related in a legal sense.

Because the legal description of personhood is based on whim.

Topic's author

#32

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,312

07.14.2023 09:52PM

-->

@Athias

If you're suffering from kidney failure, and refuse to donate my kidney, despite our being a match, have I infracted upon your "right to life" in my refusal?

No; I'm not going to bite the bullet and defend forced kidney transplants. But being consistent with not biting the bullet, there are times when pro choicers would have to bite the bullet.

That is an estimation to be made by the rightful owner of the body.

Surrogates usually charge between $80K-$150K for their services.

I'm pro-choice all the way, even after the child is born. That is, a parent should not be coerced into sustaining a child--i.e. labor, resources, time, etc.

This is biting the bullet; virtually everybody believes a deadbeat dad should be FORCED to pay child support (sacrifice fiscal autonomy) in the name of the right to life for his child.

BODILY AUTONOMY =/= RIGHT TO STEAL MONEY FOR DRUGS.

What's the difference? Bodily autonomy is freedom from pain; stealing money to buy drugs your addicted too is freedom from pain.

(I don't think parents denying their children the use of their kidneys is prominent enough to warrant pro-life attention)

The pro lifers go after surrogacy (which I think is very rare); they would go after whatever is needed to be consistently pro life.

If can join both bodily and fiscal autonomy as "Resource Autonomy" for lack of a better term, then I would state that one's "right to life" as it is commonly described is mutually exclusive from one's "resource autonomy."

The issue with that is there are times when bodily autonomy comes into conflict with fiscal autonomy, so one has to prevail. Like should someone be allowed to steal from you (loss of fiscal autonomy) to do drugs (gain of bodily autonomy)? Most people would say no, implying that someone's fiscal autonomy outweighs the bodily autonomy of a meth user.

#33

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

07.14.2023 10:53PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

there are lots of people who say there should be no restrictions on abortion. they say we should just trust women, and they usually point out that it woudln't be common for a woman to abort late term just for the heck of it.

it sounds like you wouldn't use the argument that the women should take responsibility for her the consequences of her choices, but i dont know how you would frame the argument when it comes to why you would accept the restrictions you would agree to. if it's not personal responsiblity, it would be very easy to just say a baby has no right to her mother's body, period.

#34

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

07.14.2023 11:02PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

you say in no circumstance should a criminal be required to use his body to provide for his victim. but that means you are willing to support the death of the victim. if you support the death of a real human in that situation, i dont see how you justify requiring the woman to support the baby later in her pregnancy. it's still her bodily autonomy. if you used the argument for her own personal responsibility for her actinos, then it makes sense, but you claim to not use that argument.

#35

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

07.14.2023 11:04PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

No; I'm not going to bite the bullet and defend forced kidney transplants. But being consistent with not biting the bullet, there are times when pro choicers would have to bite the bullet.

In my stating this, I'm attempting to demonstrate that one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other, i.e. bodily autonomy and "right to life." However, I do understand your point as it concerns parents and their children, and the obligations those who are pro-life attempt to coerce parents to assume.

Surrogates usually charge between $80K-$150K for their services.

What is the objection?

This is biting the bullet; virtually everybody believes a deadbeat dad should be FORCED to pay child support (sacrifice fiscal autonomy) in the name of the right to life for his child.

I don't.

What's the difference? Bodily autonomy is freedom from pain; stealing money to buy drugs your addicted too is freedom from pain.

Not quite. Bodily autonomy is subjecting the behavior of one's own body to one's own discretion. Steal money to buy drugs is just stealing to buy drugs.

The pro lifers go after surrogacy (which I think is very rare); they would go after whatever is needed to be consistently pro life.

Fair enough.

The issue with that is there are times when bodily autonomy comes into conflict with fiscal autonomy, so one has to prevail. Like should someone be allowed to steal from you (loss of fiscal autonomy) to do drugs (gain of bodily autonomy)?

The problem with your equivalence is that it assumes "stealing" is a necessary condition. Can an addict not simply purchase drugs?

Most people would say no, implying that someone's fiscal autonomy outweighs the bodily autonomy of a meth user.

Most people would say no because stealing violates one's proprietary right which can extend to both one's body and one's finances.

#36

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

07.14.2023 11:55PM

-->

@Athias

Submit the description of the term that was used in granting legal personhood to a Lake, and delineate how it is different from how I've applied the term.

that depends on what exactly you are talking about. More than 1 body of water has been designated a legal person. But typically this is to grant a specific natural feature (a water shed, forest etc) additional protections from pollution or some other man made destruction. Lake Erie, for example, was made a legal person by voters.

but legally it is an important distinction.
Why?

I explained it in the rest of the paragraph you clipped this from. A legal person has protections under the law. So whether or not someone/something is a legal person is an important question when determining what rights or protections that person/thing has.

a fetus does not.
Because it is not as much of a "person" as a lake is.

correct. A fetus is not a legal person, some bodies of water are. I think you are getting tripped up on the word person. It doesn't mean a human being.

Perhaps this is where the core of our disagreement is. I am using "person" in the legal sense. In law, a person can be a human, a company, a statue, a body of water etc.
And this is arbitrary.

No, you seem to not understand the concept of a legal person. It doesn't mean a human. Maybe the term "legal entity" would be less confusing for you. Have a look at this for more details.

Being a person and being a human are not even really related in a legal sense.
Because the legal description of personhood is based on whim.

no, it's not. You just seem to not understand the words you are using. Please have a look at the definition of a legal person/legal entity. You seem to be confusing it with the word "human" and getting tripped up.

#37

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

07.15.2023 12:01AM

-->

@n8nrgim

there are lots of people who say there should be no restrictions on abortion. they say we should just trust women, and they usually point out that it woudln't be common for a woman to abort late term just for the heck of it.

who exactly? I've never met such a person or even heard of one.

t sounds like you wouldn't use the argument that the women should take responsibility for her the consequences of her choices, but i dont know how you would frame the argument when it comes to why you would accept the restrictions you would agree to.

Because at some point at fetus becomes a person. When that happens, a person has legal and moral protections, like the right to life. At moment of conception it obviously isn't a person and should not be protected. At the moment of birth it obviously does. So a line needs to be drawn somewhere to denote when this occurs. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mother's choices.

it would be very easy to just say a baby has no right to her mother's body, period.

it does not. When it crosses the line to being a person, it has a right to it's own life. And at that point it is reasonable to protect it. But that point is usually much later than anti-abortion laws try to restrict. Which is why, in general, anti abortion laws are horrible. Because they are aimed at making it as difficult as humanly possible for a woman to get one. In some states they make it virtually impossible.

you say in no circumstance should a criminal be required to use his body to provide for his victim. but that means you are willing to support the death of the victim.

that is correct. It is not just to murder someone, even to save someone else.

i dont see how you justify requiring the woman to support the baby later in her pregnancy.

because at a certain point, the fetus becomes a person. At that point it gains the rights and protections of a person.

#38

SkepticalOne

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

SkepticalOne

07.15.2023 12:24AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I don't recall saying that in this thread. Could you provide a quote?
Here's the quote:

there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs.

We don't need to have a discussion on rights to recognize the life of the mother is of primary importance.

None of which says anything about my view of a zygote not being human or a human being.

#39

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

07.15.2023 12:28AM

-->

@HistoryBuff

that depends on what exactly you are talking about. More than 1 body of water has been designated a legal person. But typically this is to grant a specific natural feature (a water shed, forest etc) additional protections from pollution or some other man made destruction. Lake Erie, for example, was made a legal person by voters.

I'm aware of the reason Lake Erie, for example, was granted personhood. That's however not what I requested. I requested that you submit a description of personhood and delineate how its different from how I'm applying the term.

I explained it in the rest of the paragraph you clipped this from.

No, you actually didn't.

A legal person has protections under the law. So whether or not someone/something is a legal person is an important question when determining what rights or protections that person/thing has.

Why is it that "personhood" includes for inanimate objects? And if your response is that it's intended to protect such and such... then you're not really answering anything.

correct. A fetus is not a legal person, some bodies of water are. I think you are getting tripped up on the word person. It doesn't mean a human being.

Because the description of of "legal" personhood has allowed for arbitrary inclusions and exclusions.

No, you seem to not understand the concept of a legal person. It doesn't mean a human.

Seem is not an argument; and do not confuse "objection" with "ignorance/misunderstanding."

Maybe the term "legal entity" would be less confusing for you.

I'm not "confused" by it; I'm vexed by it.

Have a look at this for more details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

Quote the part you believe applies to this discussion.

no, it's not.

Yes it very much is.

You just seem to not understand the words you are using.

Seem is not an argument.

Please have a look at the definition of a legal person/legal entity. You seem to be confusing it with the word "human" and getting tripped up.

I already know. My contention is based on the hypocrisy of those who would claim that a "Lake" is/ought to be a legally protected "person" or object, while also claiming a live human being, i.e. zygote/embryo/fetus should not. The only reason a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a "legal person" is simply because it's not--except in some cases where a pregnant woman is murdered, which also results in the death of her unborn child. Hence, arbitrary.

#40

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

07.15.2023 01:02AM

-->

@HistoryBuff

i made the point but you didn't seem to pick up on it. why do you think a mother should have to carry a late term baby but a criminal has no obligation to use his body to support a hypothetical victim? how do you make that distinction for one but not the other? like if a victim was dependent upon the criminal for a few months or something.

#41

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,186

07.15.2023 01:30AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Fiscal autonomy? Fiscal? Fiscal!?! 🤦‍♂️
Yes; fiscal autonomy matters; if you disagree, give all the money you don't need to survive to an anti child (sic) poverty organization.

Juxtaposing "fiscal" with "autonomy" in regard to the "right to life" is completely illogical; and it demonstrates your clear lack of understanding of what "fiscal" even means.

The drug analogy is a false equivalency to the abortion discussion. Same with the organ obligation analogy. Irrelevant.
How so?

A pregnancy has NO LEGAL RIGHTS! The examples you gave involve born human beings with agency over their own choices, whereas a pregnancy clearly lacks said agency. Abortion Rights =/= anything to do with drug addictions and the issues/problems that coexist with it. Same for your fallacious (because it would never happen under the law) organ obligation analogy.

A pregnancy has zero legal rights! It has no rights of any kind that supersede that of the girl/woman it’s within.
In many states, an unborn baby has the right to live because abortion is banned in some US states.

Only because RvW was overturned. Recent events don't count. Also, abortion is not outright banned in ANY state. It is only regulated to a certain timeframe where ab abortion may be performed, thereafter it is banned or severely restricted. Such bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant girl/woman, not the pregnancy. It is NOT an "unborn baby" during those periods of time of ban/restriction.

Abortion boils down to pro choice = empathy and pro life = dispatched selfishness.
I have no idea how you came up with the conclusion that pro life advocates are selfish, even if you disagree with pro life ideology.

Pro-lifers argue, demand, and push for pregnant little girls and young women to give birth. Once they do give birth, pro-lifer's go dead silent. They have no responsibility or obligation to the birthed child. They do not care one iota what happens to that child, so long as the child is birthed. That is ALL they care about. Screw the 90+ MILLION unwanted (forced birthed and/or orphaned) children worldwide, so long as a pregnant girl/woman keeps giving birth.

#42

Mps1213

Debates: 11

Posts: 169

Mps1213

07.15.2023 05:39AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

“Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction?”

You are now stepping into my world. i have studied pharmacology and neuroscience for half a decade, conducted studies, self experimented etc.

So first we need to establish, you are changing the goal posts from personal freedom to harming others. It is ok to be addicted to drugs but not to steal. That’s pretty simple. It also needs to be said that only 10-20% of drug users, including those drugs, are addicts. The other 80-90% are people like me. I use drugs often, but have a high paying job, raise two children to be respectful and kind, go to college, take care of my girlfriend, and respect my parents. I have used drugs very similar to Methamphetamine and heroin, not those two in particular but not because of any reason besides I don’t like buying drugs that are made by people I don’t know, especially when I can’t analyze them.

So yes I am a proponent of drug legalization. There are already laws in place that punish people for thievery, abuse, robbing, murdering other people. There is no need to include drug possession, use or distribution as an illegal activity. It is dangerous, and can cause harm. However so can riding motorcycles, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, sky diving, snowboarding etc.

#43

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

07.15.2023 11:38AM

-->

@Athias

Why is it that "personhood" includes for inanimate objects? And if your response is that it's intended to protect such and such... then you're not really answering anything.

you're not really making any sense. You know the reason why a legal person/legal entity can be inanimate objects then say that the answer to that question isn't really an answer.

Seem is not an argument; and do not confuse "objection" with "ignorance/misunderstanding."

but you aren't objecting. All you have done is repeatedly say it is arbitrary without ever providing a reason why. That's not an objecting.

Quote the part you believe applies to this discussion.

I mean, pretty much all of it since this is a description of the legal term we are discussing. but this for starters.

In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' (less ambiguously, any legal entity)[1][2] that can do the things a human person is usually able to do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on.[3][4][5] The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people: companies and corporations are "persons" legally speaking (they can legally do most of the things an ordinary person can do), but they are not people in a literal sense (human beings).

You just seem to not understand the words you are using.
Seem is not an argument.

lol, all you are doing is repeatedly saying the word is arbitrary without ever demonstrating that you understand the word you are using. All I can say is "seem" since as far as I can tell you don't understand the word properly. You seem to be getting hung up on the word "person", but the legal term "person" and the colloquial term "person" are very different things. That is why I provided the link.

I already know. My contention is based on the hypocrisy of those who would claim that a "Lake" is/ought to be a legally protected "person" or object, while also claiming a live human being, i.e. zygote/embryo/fetus should not.

ok, again. A "legal person" has nothing to do with being human. You seem to be implying there is some reason why a zygote/embryo should inherently have that term applied to it, but you have made no argument as to why this is so. If you want to go over specific cases of why some other object was deemed to be a person we can do that. But it really sounds like your argument is coming from an emotional use of the word person rather than a logical understanding of the term "legal person".

Why do you think a fetus should inherently be deemed a legal person? Why do you think an inanimate object shouldn't? Unless I understand why you keep making these statements, I can't see what hypocrisy you are talking about.

#44

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

07.15.2023 11:43AM

-->

@n8nrgim

i made the point but you didn't seem to pick up on it. why do you think a mother should have to carry a late term baby but a criminal has no obligation to use his body to support a hypothetical victim?

I answered you pretty clearly, but I will do so again. At a certain point a fetus becomes a person. At that point, it gains rights and protections. Therefore terminating it should be illegal. But if the mother were put in a situation where carrying the baby to term was likely to cause her death (like some medical emergency) then obviously the baby could be terminated to save the mother.

No one is asking a mother to die for a fetus. If carrying the fetus to term was going to kill her, it would be extremely immoral to force her to do so. You are implying we should murder a criminal and harvest their organs to save their victim. This is wildly immoral. It is not just to murder one person in order to save another.

#45

Debates: 0

Posts: 953

07.15.2023 02:44PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

maybe i'm not being clear enough. if a victim was dependent upon a criminal's body for three months months, would you say the criminal can terminate?

#46

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,901

07.16.2023 01:13AM

-->

@n8nrgim

maybe i'm not being clear enough. if a victim was dependent upon a criminal's body for three months months, would you say the criminal can terminate?

Your scenario doesn't make sense, so I can't possibly agree or disagree with it. How would a person be dependent on another persons body? The only things they could provide for them would be blood or organs. In either case, that is what a blood transfusion or organ transplant is for. So I cannot imagine any scenario that resembles your description.

#47

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,321

07.17.2023 11:58AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Should they be allowed to steal money to maintain their bodily autonomy to smoke heroin? If you say yes to this, your biting the bullet. If you say no to this, then you believe that fiscal autonomy > bodily autonomy.

You are yet again trying to bootstrap the ‘right to theft’ as inherent to the right to fiscal autonomy. These are entirely separate things.

If person A can’t maintain their addiction without committing theft, then person A will not legally ethically or morally be able to maintain their addiction. The right to bodily autonomy is about choices, not ability.

Meth addicts are significantly more likely to steal from others than non meth addicts. Do you dispute this?

No, which is why issues like this are complicated. You are engaging in a black and white fallacy by trying to portray this and a simple choice between one right or another. It’s not.

Isn't that why socialists support Medicare for all, free housing, and free food, all because they believe the right to life is more valuable than the right to fiscal autonomy?

First of all, the right to life is specifically about abortion. Medicare, food stamps, etc. is a completely different issue.

Second, I’m not a socialist.

#48

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

07.17.2023 01:48PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

you're not really making any sense. You know the reason why a legal person/legal entity can be inanimate objects then say that the answer to that question isn't really an answer.

I intend to have you explain the reason behind the reason.

but you aren't objecting.

Actually I am.

All you have done is repeatedly say it is arbitrary without ever providing a reason why.

Rather than merely contradict for the sake of contradiction, you ought to retain the information which has already been conveyed to you.

Athias Post #20:

It's not complicated; it's whimsical and arbitrary. You can grant an inanimate object "person-hood" but not a human being at the first phase of its development? This demonstrates to me at the very least the concept of "person-hood" isn't based on any consistent principle.

And because it isn't based on any consistent principle, I have reached the conclusion that it is based on personal content and/or whim. Hence, arbitrary. It doesn't matter how "elaborate" a reason may be. And remember you yourself acknowledged this inconsistency:

This is true. In different contexts a legal person doesn't always mean the same thing. For example, corporations are legal persons in the eyes of the law, but they don't have "bodily autonomy". So the logic between the 2 is not consistent.

In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' (less ambiguously, any legal entity)[1][2] that can do the things a human person is usually able to do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on.[3][4][5] The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people: companies and corporations are "persons" legally speaking (they can legally do most of the things an ordinary person can do), but they are not people in a literal sense (human beings).

Let's save this for a bit later.

lol, all you are doing is repeatedly saying the word is arbitrary without ever demonstrating that you understand the word you are using.

Your disagreement with my application of the term "arbitrary" doesn't create an onus on my part to demonstrate the term's meaning to your satisfaction. much less demonstrate my lack of understanding. I've laid out the reason I believe its arbitrary; you've scarcely laid out the reason you believe it's not arbitrary. That's all there's been to it thus far.

All I can say is "seem" since as far as I can tell you don't understand the word properly.

That's your impression. That is NOT an argument.

You seem to be getting hung up on the word "person", but the legal term "person" and the colloquial term "person" are very different things.

I don't "seem" anything. Take responsibility for you impression/assumption and simply state, "I assume..." Or you can abandon any illusion of authority over that which I am or am not "hung up."

ok, again. A "legal person" has nothing to do with being human.

Actually it does, especially considering that legal persons include for human beings. (Your cited description states as much.) The point of "persona ficta" is to grant non-human entities certain privileges typical to persons and have its proxy be extended through juridical arbitration.

You seem to be implying there

Seem is not an argument.

some reason why a zygote/embryo should inherently have that term applied to it

Because humans beings typically have the term "legal person" applied to them. And a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being, not a "cancerous tumor."

Why do you think a fetus should inherently be deemed a legal person?

Look above.

Why do you think an inanimate object shouldn't?

Never stated that it "shouldn't." Only that a lake's status as a "legal person" and a zygote's/embryo's/fetus's exclusion were arbitrary.

10 days later

Topic's author

#49

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,312

07.27.2023 04:14PM

-->

@TWS1405_2

Juxtaposing "fiscal" with "autonomy" in regard to the "right to life" is completely illogical

Why? Fiscal autonomy matters too. If it didn’t, then I could force you to give all your money to the state. It would also legalize theft.

A pregnancy has NO LEGAL RIGHTS!

This is positive analysis, not normal analysis. The unborn right now in most states do not have rights. But pro lifers argue they should.

Such bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant girl/woman, not the pregnancy.

The bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant woman because of the belief that the unborn deserves the right to not get murdered.

Pro-lifers argue, demand, and push for pregnant little girls and young women to give birth. Once they do give birth, pro-lifer's go dead silent. They have no responsibility or obligation to the birthed child.

Then the argument you would make is, “fiscal conservatives are selfish” (which is technically correct, but I just don’t see the issue with some forms of selfishness) not pro lifers. A pro lifer that wears a mask in 2023, got vaccinated and boosted, wants vaccine mandates, wants to tax the rich more to save people’s lives, wants to ban all guns to save lives, spends all their money adopting children from Africa, wants universal healthcare, and is pro life for the whole life on all applicable issues would NOT be selfish according to your claim.

Topic's author

#50

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,312

07.27.2023 05:14PM

-->

@Mps1213

I’m fine with people using any drug they want as long as it doesn’t lead to them harming others from their drug use. I think most people are. The issue with abortion is, “If bodily autonomy (BA) is so important, are you allowed to harm others in the name of exercising bodily autonomy?” Someone who is a bodily autonomy absolutist (which the pro choice position often defends) means they are going to have to be in favor of theft to fuel drug addictions (that the addict chose to get into) because BA >FA (Fiscal Autonomy). Since this position I believe virtually everyone is strongly against, it means FA>BA.

Pro choice democrats believe BA>RTL (Right to life) and RTL>FA (which is why they are for government nationalized healthcare), so they believe BA>FA (which is against the normie position).

Pro choicers who are not democrats believe either FA>BA>RTL or BA>FA>RTL. Since the normie position is FA>BA, it means the only combination that seems to make sense is FA>BA>RTL. But this means that it would be okay for a deadbeat dad to not pay child support for his kid’s life (FA>RTL). But this is stupid to defend, so RTL>FA>BA in the context of family relations (what conservatives believe).

Topic's author

#51

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,312

07.27.2023 05:26PM

-->

@Double_R

You are yet again trying to bootstrap the ‘right to theft’ as inherent to the right to fiscal autonomy. These are entirely separate things.

If the right to fiscal autonomy was absolute, then there would be no legal theft, not even from the government (taxation). The right to fiscal autonomy is not absolute, so there is taxation that people are fine with. Taxation is (sometimes) justified theft because the right to fiscal autonomy is not absolute.

The right to bodily autonomy is about choices, not ability.

Like the choice to whether or not to do crack, even if others have to sacrifice as a result of it (theft to maintain a drug addiction). If a zygote was not a human being and nobody believed a zygote was a human being, you would be allowed to abort at least zygotes. If you want to not exercise because of bodily autonomy(BA), nobody else is being harmed from that, so nobody is going to force you to exercise. The issue is when BA comes into conflict with other rights (Right to life (RTL) and Fiscal Autonomy (FA)).

First of all, the right to life is specifically about abortion. Medicare, food stamps, etc. is a completely different issue.

The RTL just means that you have the right to be alive. With abortion, it’s RTL vs BA. With social programs that cost money, it’s RTL vs FA.

Second, I’m not a socialist.

YOU’VE changed!

#52

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,321

07.27.2023 05:59PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Taxation is (sometimes) justified theft because the right to fiscal autonomy is not absolute.

Taxation is not theft. They're categorically different things.

The issue is when BA comes into conflict with other rights (Right to life (RTL) and Fiscal Autonomy (FA)).

As I've been pointing out

With social programs that cost money, it’s RTL vs FA.

No, RTL is specifically about abortion. The only thing it stands against is BA.

FA is an entirely sperate issue.

YOU’VE changed!

Nope, still hold all of the same basic positions I held before

#53

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,186

07.28.2023 12:44AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Juxtaposing "fiscal" with "autonomy" in regard to the "right to life" is completely illogical
Why? Fiscal autonomy matters too. If it didn’t, then I could force you to give all your money to the state. It would also legalize theft.

The abortion debate/discussion regarding the “right to life” has nothing to do with ‘fiscal autonomy.’ The pregnancy has no financial value. It has no fiscal wealth, autonomously or otherwise. Neither does the pregnant girl/teen/adult female. The only issue at play is legal responsibility of the female to the pregnancy once birthed if she chooses to keep it.

A pregnancy has NO LEGAL RIGHTS!
This is positive analysis, not normal analysis. The unborn right now in most states do not have rights. But pro lifers argue they should.

That is FACTUAL analysis. And I do not care what “should,” when the only is “must”

Such bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant girl/woman, not the pregnancy.
The bans/restrictions apply to the pregnant woman because of the belief that the unborn deserves the right to not get murdered.

Murder doesn’t apply to a pregnancy. Never has. And as current laws, state and federal stand now, still doesn’t. One must be born FIRST to be protected from “murder.”

Pro-lifers argue, demand, and push for pregnant little girls and young women to give birth. Once they do give birth, pro-lifer's go dead silent. They have no responsibility or obligation to the birthed child.
Then the argument you would make is, “fiscal conservatives are selfish” (which is technically correct, but I just don’t see the issue with some forms of selfishness) not pro lifers. A pro lifer that wears a mask in 2023, got vaccinated and boosted, wants vaccine mandates, wants to tax the rich more to save people’s lives, wants to ban all guns to save lives, spends all their money adopting children from Africa, wants universal healthcare, and is pro life for the whole life on all applicable issues would NOT be selfish according to your claim.

I don’t care what pro lifers argue because it’s entirely based in emotional outrage and zero logical/rationality let alone personal responsibility.

Topic's author

#54

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,312

07.30.2023 11:05PM

-->

@Double_R

Taxation is not theft. They're categorically different things.

It’s legalized theft.

No, RTL is specifically about abortion. The only thing it stands against is BA.

FA is an entirely sperate issue.

It’s not.

Topic's author

#55

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,312

07.31.2023 12:02AM

-->

@TWS1405_2

The abortion debate/discussion regarding the “right to life” has nothing to do with ‘fiscal autonomy.’

With abortion, some people prioritize RTL > BA and some people do BA > RTL. But you need a 3rd value in there (FA) to see where some values fall relative to FA and then use the transitivity property to figure out if RTL>BA or vice versa.

That is FACTUAL analysis.

Factual analysis = positive analysis. But I’m more concerned with what SHOULD be. That’s the point of debating policy; to figure out what SHOULD be.

I don’t care what pro lifers argue because it’s entirely based in emotional outrage and zero logical/rationality

An article from the CDC states that 96% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being. So from that angle, climate change is real and a zygote is a human being; the consistent pro science position.

There are emotional and logical pro choicers and pro lifers. I try to be logical and emotional free no matter what side I take.

#56

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,186

07.31.2023 01:17AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

There is absolutely, positively NO “third option” (or variable) with the abortion debate. It is an either or, one or the other. That’s it. Money (fiscal) isn’t a part of that discussion. Period.

#57

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

07.31.2023 02:27AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people

Poor analogy. It is absolutely possible to believe both on personal property and bodily autonomy.

#58

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,131

07.31.2023 02:48AM

-->

@Athias

Its even less consistent when a zygote/embryo/fetus is not legally protected because they're not persons, but a "lake" can be.

I think I get what you are saying here. Just because something is "not a person" doesn't mean it has no value to society and deserves no legal protections.

It's a flawed argument to say that all non-persons should necessarily have no legal protections from people seeking to destroy it.

#59

ebuc

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,308

ebuc

07.31.2023 01:32PM

-->

@Greyparrot

It's a flawed argument to say that all non-persons should necessarily have no legal protections from people seeking to destroy it

> Zygote { fertilized egg } results in embryosis ergo begins as human cell embryo and prior to day 1--- salivating virtual rapists stick heir virtual nose in pregnant womans bodily atunomy without her consent--,

>> morula { day 4 } 12 - 16 embryonic cells an it morula cells as humans travel toward and into uterus ,

>>> inside uterus hollow ball of human cells { blastocist day 5 },

>>>>day 6 blastocist has implanations window to attaches to wall of uterus via placenta organ,

>>>>> over next 3 weeks will have begun to get nutrients from the pregnant womans blood { includes oxygen } and the placenta allows for wastes and carbon dioxide to leave embryo/fetus{ 10 weeks out } via umbilicord.

>>>>>>> week 4 central nervous system being formed, week 9 genitalia differrentiate out themselves,--- virtual rapist begin foaming at mouth---

>>>>>>>The placenta also makes hormones that maintain the pregnancy, influences changes in the body, and provides what the fetus needs to grow and develop (3). The placenta should normally last for the entire pregnancy and will be either pushed out of the uterus with a vaginal birth or removed during a cesarean section when the fetus is born.

>>>>>>> 10-weeks out fetus/baby continues human tissue maturing until fetus/baby is born out.

>>>>>>>>>>24 weeks viable human may be possible depending on circumstances ---virtual rapists drool gets on paper work to hire their own doctors to take over their God given rights to the fetus/baby ergo, they put on battle apparrel in preperaartion for right to life war.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 months out permanent virtual rapist encampments installed at all governement building relating to pregnant woman

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>8 months virtual rapists hire special-force in prepration for special-ops on site infiltration

#60

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,131