Kennedy Announces Plan To Retire July 31

#826
#826
evillawyer said:
Presumably you believe the government should not be able to compel you to give your kidney to someone else, even though that's the only way to preserve his life and you would be none the worse off. If that's the case, then it's not the value of life that's doing the work for you. Rather, you believe the woman should be compelled to maintain the pregnancy because she brought it on herself, essentially.
Click to expand...

again, if I agreed to giving my kidney away and had taken steps to give my kidney away yes I would expect the government to hold me to that.

also to be applicable I would have to get my kidney back in 9 months or so.

the government isn't forcing her to get pregnant, or give away the kidney.

actions have consequences and taking a life to spare one the consequences is disgusting.
 
#827
#827
ClearwaterVol said:
Why shouldn't a woman be able to decide to remove the parasitic growth. That parasitic growth doesn't have to be killed. Simply remove it and see if it survives.
Click to expand...

why shouldn't a woman be able to eat cake and not get fat?

Btw I hope your parasitic growth is doing well today. trying to call it something else doesn't change that it is a baby.
 
#828
#828
ClearwaterVol said:
Why shouldn't a woman be able to decide to remove the parasitic growth. That parasitic growth doesn't have to be killed. Simply remove it and see if it survives.
Click to expand...

Good idea, let's also remove everyone from free healthcare,food stamps and welfare see if they can survive
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#829
#829
LouderVol said:
again, if I agreed to giving my kidney away and had taken steps to give my kidney away yes I would expect the government to hold me to that.

also to be applicable I would have to get my kidney back in 9 months or so.

the government isn't forcing her to get pregnant, or give away the kidney.

actions have consequences and taking a life to spare one the consequences is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Don't think you guys are getting the point. The usual anti-abortion argument assumes that the fetus is a person (which we can accept for the sake of the point I'm trying to make) and maintains that the fetus's right to life trumps a woman's right to autonomy over her body. My point with the kidney example is that it can't be that simple because if the right to life simply trumped bodily autonomy, we could harvest all sorts of things from your body (kidney, skin, blood, plasma) on the ground that we were preserving someone else's life while not taking your life. Yes, that would violate your bodily autonomy, but the right to life trumps bodily autonomy. So my question is what is doing the work for you? The fetus's right to life + X trumps the woman's bodily autonomy. What is that X?
 
#830
#830
evillawyer said:
Don't think you guys are getting the point. The usual anti-abortion argument assumes that the fetus is a person (which we can accept for the sake of the point I'm trying to make) and maintains that the fetus's right to life trumps a woman's right to autonomy over her body. My point with the kidney example is that it can't be that simple because if the right to life simply trumped bodily autonomy, we could harvest all sorts of things from your body (kidney, skin, blood, plasma) on the ground that we were preserving someone else's life while not taking your life. Yes, that would violate your bodily autonomy, but the right to life trumps bodily autonomy. So my question is what is doing the work for you? The fetus's right to life + X trumps the woman's bodily autonomy. What is that X?
Click to expand...

If the fetus is a person (your words, for whatever point it is you’re trying to make), then, in and of itself, is it not a distinct being? If so, why does a woman’s “autonomy” give her dominion over another life, which was born out of her autonomous decision to spread her legs?

It’s like y’all don’t understand where babies come from.....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#831
#831
Squints said:
If the fetus is a person (your words, for whatever point it is you’re trying to make), then, in and of itself, is it not a distinct, autonomous being? If so, why does a woman’s “autonomy” give her dominion over another life, which was born out of her autonomous decision to spread her legs?

It’s like y’all don’t understand where babies come from.....
Click to expand...

It's not autonomous in the sense that it can only live in the womb (at least for the first 5-6 months). So it would be like the person that can go on living but only with a kidney transplant. You don't believe that a person can be compelled to give his kidney to save another person, so why is it OK to compel a woman to continue to let a fetus use her womb to go on living?

Now what it sounds like you're driving at is that women assume the risk by having sex. Consider this example. What if I wanted to travel to India but I knew that some people who go there get kidnapped and have one of their kidneys harvested. Nevertheless, I go. I get kidnapped. The US embassy learns I've been kidnapped, but I've not yet had my kidney removed. Let's assume the embassy, by paying a small fee comparable to the cost of an abortion, can easily get me back before my kidney is harvested. Should the US do nothing instead? After all, I assumed the risk by going to India and knowing that I may be kidnapped. Additionally, my kidney will be used to save another person, which is a good thing. Shouldn't the US just let them harvest my kidney?
 
#832
#832
According to a few sources, the two front-runners at this point are Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge. Just based on the little I've read, Kethledge sounds like he'd be an excellent pick.
 
#834
#834
golfballs said:
According to a few sources, the two front-runners at this point are Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge. Just based on the little I've read, Kethledge sounds like he'd be an excellent pick.
Click to expand...

Apparently Ann Coulter hates the thought of Kethledge as the pick, so that means he’s probably the best choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#835
#835
So seeing the guessed at BS reasoning offered here why abortions are needed coupled with the lefts screeching with zero information in front of them to screech about yet tells me the lefties really do know that abortion for convenience is totall BS and should have never been allowed. Who would have known they really know how FOS they are.🤔
 
#836
#836
I will help the left out today so all they have to do is fill in the blank.

"This nomination is unacceptable _____ _______ is a far right winged activist judge, we must stop Mr./Mrs. ________ from being approved for the court"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#837
#837
evillawyer said:
Don't think you guys are getting the point. The usual anti-abortion argument assumes that the fetus is a person (which we can accept for the sake of the point I'm trying to make) and maintains that the fetus's right to life trumps a woman's right to autonomy over her body. My point with the kidney example is that it can't be that simple because if the right to life simply trumped bodily autonomy, we could harvest all sorts of things from your body (kidney, skin, blood, plasma) on the ground that we were preserving someone else's life while not taking your life. Yes, that would violate your bodily autonomy, but the right to life trumps bodily autonomy. So my question is what is doing the work for you? The fetus's right to life + X trumps the woman's bodily autonomy. What is that X?
Click to expand...

did you not see the point about 9 months? its not a permanent thing, giving it up for adoption is a thing. I don't know any donor program that returns the organ back. no autonomy lost. and if there is any its because the woman said yes.

and again this isn't the government dictating that she get pregnant AND carry the baby. it would just be IF she makes choices to get pregnant she has to carry the baby because of its life. And its her child so she is directly responsible for it, unless you don't think child abuse is a thing. its not some random stranger. Its an "if then" situation not a demand. the woman loses nothing she didn't already give away.

I guess you really think little of those who actually donate for giving away their autonomy.

would you argue one who donates blood is giving away their autonomy? its the same thing at a different scale. pregnancy doesn't usually result in any death of crippling that would actually entail losing autonomy.

now that I think about it you are saying women that carry to term have given themselves away. I dare you say that to their face.
 
#838
#838
evillawyer said:
It's not autonomous in the sense that it can only live in the womb (at least for the first 5-6 months). So it would be like the person that can go on living but only with a kidney transplant. You don't believe that a person can be compelled to give his kidney to save another person, so why is it OK to compel a woman to continue to let a fetus use her womb to go on living?

Now what it sounds like you're driving at is that women assume the risk by having sex. Consider this example. What if I wanted to travel to India but I knew that some people who go there get kidnapped and have one of their kidneys harvested. Nevertheless, I go. I get kidnapped. The US embassy learns I've been kidnapped, but I've not yet had my kidney removed. Let's assume the embassy, by paying a small fee comparable to the cost of an abortion, can easily get me back before my kidney is harvested. Should the US do nothing instead? After all, I assumed the risk by going to India and knowing that I may be kidnapped. Additionally, my kidney will be used to save another person, which is a good thing. Shouldn't the US just let them harvest my kidney?
Click to expand...

I bolded some key words there. to continue, she already made her choice and gave up what little autonomy she is losing.

and guess what, she gets what ever little she loses back even if she carries to term.
 
#839
#839
evillawyer said:
Don't think you guys are getting the point. The usual anti-abortion argument assumes that the fetus is a person (which we can accept for the sake of the point I'm trying to make) and maintains that the fetus's right to life trumps a woman's right to autonomy over her body. My point with the kidney example is that it can't be that simple because if the right to life simply trumped bodily autonomy, we could harvest all sorts of things from your body (kidney, skin, blood, plasma) on the ground that we were preserving someone else's life while not taking your life. Yes, that would violate your bodily autonomy, but the right to life trumps bodily autonomy. So my question is what is doing the work for you? The fetus's right to life + X trumps the woman's bodily autonomy. What is that X?
Click to expand...

Similar to Judith Thompson's argument http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
 
Last edited:
#840
#840
ClearwaterVol said:
Why shouldn't a woman be able to decide to remove the parasitic growth. That parasitic growth doesn't have to be killed. Simply remove it and see if it survives.
Click to expand...

"Come On Man"!!!!!

Name one "parasitic growth" that can grow into a human? This is a new level of a BS excuse for abortion.......you are better than this CWV......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#842
#842
Boston Vol said:
Apparently Ann Coulter hates the thought of Kethledge as the pick, so that means he’s probably the best choice.
Click to expand...

Probably because he ruled in favor of an immigrant who had been convicted of grand theft auto - saying that it was not a violent crime and therefore couldn't be subject to deportation. Similar to the one the SCOTUS ruled on earlier this year, and Gorusch joined the libs in affirming.
The Supreme Court just handed the Trump admin a loss on immigration — Gorsuch was ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top