re: When did Republicans stop caring about bodily autonomy?

quote:

---

in your analogy, the person being killed for their kidney is the baby

---

In my analogy nobody dies unless the state respects the right to bodily autonomy.

You're fine with the state violating those rights for pregnant women, but not kidney donors. Why?

quote:

---

"well you see, this other being inside of her that isn't part of her body, somehow is part of her body, even though it's completely different, genetically"

---

Basically

quote:

---

The woman committed an action that ended up placing another person in harm's way. Bama wants that woman to be able to murder that other person because reasons

---

quote:

---

You're fine with the state violating those rights for pregnant women, but not kidney donors. Why?

---

You know this argument is stupid, don't you?

quote:

---

In my analogy nobody dies unless the state respects the right to bodily autonomy.

---

All analogies have to sides to them. The example, and the analogous object.

You are trying to mix them.

The state won't let me kill you for your kidney.

The state also shouldn't let me kill you because you inconvenience me.

In both cases, the state is RECOGNIZING bodily autonomy.

quote:

---

the problem is that the state isn't forcing women to carry babies. science is

---

The state is forcing them not to use science to end the pregnancy if they so choose. That's the state forcing them to carry babies.

quote:

---

Again, in my analogy nobody dies unless the state respects the right to bodily autonomy.

---

Again, that you suck at constructing analogies that make sense isn't my problem

All analogies have to sides to them. The example, and the analogous object.

You are trying to mix them.

The state won't let me kill you for your kidney.

The state also shouldn't let me kill you because you inconvenience me.

In both cases, the state is RECOGNIZING bodily autonomy.

quote:

---

end the pregnancy

---

Because ending the pregnancy results in a life being lost. It’s illegal to use science to end another’s persons life

quote:

---

Again, that you suck at constructing analogies that make sense isn't my problem

All analogies have to sides to them. The example, and the analogous object.

You are trying to mix them.

The state won't let me kill you for your kidney.

The state also shouldn't let me kill you because you inconvenience me.

In both cases, the state is RECOGNIZING bodily autonomy.

---

I should add that the state DAMNED SURE shouldn't let me kill you because you inconvenience me if the only reason you're inconveniencing me is because of MY actions!

quote:

---

The state is forcing them not to use science to end the pregnancy

---

"to end the pregnancy" very well may be murder, and that's clearly something most allow the state to punish

you're trying to argue that since women have to carry baby humans, they should be given an exception to the regulations of murder

your analogy makes no sense in this context b/c you're either trying to be completely dishonest (by claiming that a baby human is somehow part of the mother's body) or throwing a temper tantrum (because humans evolved for women to carry baby humans until birth)

so you choose: are you being dishonest or arguing with science?

clearly the culprit is NOT the state