Biden’s Vaccine Mandates: IRONY? HYPOCRITICAL?

[BigPapaKain]

(10-24-2021, 12:18 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Can people who make house payments, car payments, pay for their children, etc., afford those things on the salaries being offered at those restaurants?

Oh you're so close. Let's see if you can get there without some road signs. r/selfawarewolves

[Dill]

(10-24-2021, 12:18 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It just means that it's not her body because an unborn baby in the mother's stomach has those things.

Thought we were considering whether or not the woman's body was being controlled.

Surely a women forced to birth a child she does not want to carry is not in control of her own body.
Whoever is forcing her to do that has control.

That a baby has ears does not refute this.

[BFritz21]

(10-24-2021, 12:26 AM)Dill Wrote: Thought we were considering whether or not the woman's body was being controlled.

Surely a women forced to birth a child she does not want to carry is not in control of her own body.
Whoever is forcing her to do that has control.

That a baby has ears does not refute this.

You're acknowledging that she's killing another person.  The fact that it's in her body was by her own choice.  

[Dill]

(10-24-2021, 12:50 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're acknowledging that she's killing another person.  The fact that it's in her body was by her own choice.  

Not necessarily by her own choice. 

And I did not acknowledge she was killing another person. 

Are you acknowledging that preventing a woman from choosing abortion
places her body under someone else's control? 

[BFritz21]

(10-24-2021, 12:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Not necessarily by her own choice. 

And I did not acknowledge she was killing another person. 

Are you acknowledging that preventing a woman from choosing abortion
places her body under someone else's control? 

You said a baby.  A baby's a person.

Preventing a woman from getting an abortion isn't placing a woman's body under someone else's control because no one is doing anything to her body.

[BigPapaKain]

(10-24-2021, 01:28 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You said a baby.  A baby's a person.

Preventing a woman from getting an abortion isn't placing a woman's body under someone else's control because no one is doing anything to her body.

So no one is feeding off her. No one is relying on her for blood and oxygen. No one is using her as an incubator.

Congratulations - you're pro-choice.

[Benton]

(10-24-2021, 01:28 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You said a baby.  A baby's a person.

Preventing a woman from getting an abortion isn't placing a woman's body under someone else's control because no one is doing anything to her body.

So if no one is doing anything to her body, then she can do what she wants to her body?

[Dill]

(10-24-2021, 01:28 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You said a baby.  A baby's a person.

Preventing a woman from getting an abortion isn't placing a woman's body under someone else's control because no one is doing anything to her body.

A fetus is not necessarily a person, though. And that is how babies begin.

So the law could not stop a woman from having an abortion?

If there was a law against abortion, no one would be enforcing it by controlling
a woman's body by forcing it to grow a baby and then birth it, which she would
not otherwise do if she could abort?

[BFritz21]

(10-24-2021, 10:22 AM)Dill Wrote: A fetus is not necessarily a person, though. And that is how babies begin.

So the law could not stop a woman from having an abortion?

If there was a law against abortion, no one would be enforcing it by controlling
a woman's body by forcing it to grow a baby and then birth it, which she would
not otherwise do if she could abort?

Then what is it?

Does a woman's vaginal canal have some magical power that passing through it all of the sudden makes a fetus a person?

[BFritz21]

(10-24-2021, 02:31 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So no one is feeding off her. No one is relying on her for blood and oxygen. No one is using her as an incubator.

Congratulations - you're pro-choice.

I wasn't breathing on my own for a while while I was in a coma.

I wasn't being fed through a machine.

Was I not a person?

(10-24-2021, 07:07 AM)Benton Wrote:

So if no one is doing anything to her body, then she can do what she wants to her body?

Yes, but the baby growing inside her isn't her body, it's the baby's body.

[GMDino]

Oh...look.  An abortion thread where one side says it's the woman's body so she can make her own choices and the other saying she can't because they think the fetus has rights equal to the woman.

I bet THIS time we get everyone to agree on this thread!

[Dill]

(10-24-2021, 01:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then what is it?

Does a woman's vaginal canal have some magical power that passing through it all of the sudden makes a fetus a person?

That “canal”—does it belong to the woman in question, her body her womb, or to someone else? The woman’s father? Her feudal lord? The nation? Different answers have been advanced to this question.

And who controls it if a woman does not want to carry a fetus term—but is required to by law? A husband? A judge? A state legislator? The baby?

How could the woman be in control, if she must follow the order to birth against her will.

That was the question before us. Not when or if a fetus becomes a baby

[BigPapaKain]

(10-24-2021, 01:21 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I wasn't breathing on my own for a while while I was in a coma.

I wasn't being fed through a machine.

Was I not a person?

Genetically, sure. But a fetus isn't a person from a genetic standpoint. It's a cluster of cells able to become a person. It doesn't have a will of It's own or consciousness. But if we're basing human life off of potential, then every guy in the world has about 7 million abortions everytime they ejaculate, since that's roughly the amount of sperm that have the potential to be a person that die unfulfilled.

Congratulations, by your own standard you have a higher body count than nature.

[BFritz21]

(10-24-2021, 08:18 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Genetically, sure. But a fetus isn't a person from a genetic standpoint. It's a cluster of cells able to become a person. It doesn't have a will of It's own or consciousness. But if we're basing human life off of potential, then every guy in the world has about 7 million abortions everytime they ejaculate, since that's roughly the amount of sperm that have the potential to be a person that die unfulfilled.

Congratulations, by your own standard you have a higher body count than nature.

Sperm, left alone, wouldn't become a person.

By your standards, newborns should be allowed to be killed since they aren't developed enough to take care of themselves.

[BigPapaKain]

(10-24-2021, 08:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Sperm, left alone, wouldn't become a person.

By your standards, newborns should be allowed to be killed since they aren't developed enough to take care of themselves.

That's quite a leap. The mental gymnastics on display here are remarkable.

There are some keywords in my post that you must have missed. Go read it again and you can give it another shot at making some counter argument.

[BFritz21]

(10-24-2021, 08:35 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: That's quite a leap. The mental gymnastics on display here are remarkable.

There are some keywords in my post that you must have missed. Go read it again and you can give it another shot at making some counter argument.

A fetus, left alone, becomes develops into a baby.

You're arguing that the stage of development is what constitutes being a person.

[BigPapaKain]

(10-24-2021, 08:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A fetus, left alone, becomes develops into a baby.

You're arguing that the stage of development is what constitutes being a person.

I'm not actually. Science has already figured that part out. It's why legal abortions can't happen after a certain stage.

You're arguing that a cluster of cells scientifically classified as NOT HUMAN is in fact human based solely on it's potential. I'm arguing that if we're saying aborting a cluster of cells that could potentially be human, then every man is guilty of an ever growing genocide of their own kind.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-24-2021, 08:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A fetus, left alone, becomes develops into a baby.

You're arguing that the stage of development is what constitutes being a person.

I got a hundred thousand people in my balls

[BFritz21]

(10-24-2021, 09:00 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I'm not actually. Science has already figured that part out. It's why legal abortions can't happen after a certain stage.

You're arguing that a cluster of cells scientifically classified as NOT HUMAN is in fact human based solely on it's potential. I'm arguing that if we're saying aborting a cluster of cells that could potentially be human, then every man is guilty of an ever growing genocide of their own kind.

Once again, that's false.

By itself, will sperm ever develop into an adult person?

[Vas Deferens]

(10-24-2021, 09:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Once again, that's false.

By itself, will sperm ever develop into an adult person?

You are so bad at this.