• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sex strike

Shad

Veteran Member
Even if you grant equal rights to a woman and an embryo, and you put those rights up against each other, the woman's rights trump an embroy's rights every time.

Nope right to life trumps the whims of another wanting to end that life.

The only way you can make an embroy's rights trump a woman's rights is to make the woman something less than human in order to remove her rights, which is appalling.

You mean likes fetuses are made less than human like you have? Hilarious.

It does not make them less. It just denies the false right to kill another human on a whim.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Nope. They still have all the privacy they want. Bodily autonomy is trumped by the right to life. All via an act the people willing or unwittingly accepted themselves
Actually, bodily autonomy trumps the right to life. If it didn't, then you would see people being compelled to donate organs for transplant into those with failing organs. Granted, this practice does happen, but it is called organ trafficking and is condemned as immoral.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Nope right to life trumps the whims of another wanting to end that life.



You mean less fetuses are made less than human like you have? Hilarious.

It does not make them less. It just denies the false right to kill another human on a whim.
Personal rights. Edited my post to reflect this.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
This was about bodily autonomy trumping the right to life.

Organ do not have a right to life. Next!

This is between a human that is incapable of making a choice being killed by another that made a series of bad choices and wants a mulligan to avoid the consequences of their actions.

If the right to life trumps bodily autonomy, then people could be compelled to involuntarily donate their organs to those who are dying.

Nope. The right to life ends when it causes harm to another person. Look up self-defense.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
This was about bodily autonomy trumping the right to life. If the right to life trumps bodily autonomy, then people could be compelled to involuntarily donate their organs to those who are dying.
Even a corpse has bodily autonomy--you can't just harvest organs off a corpse--they have to have designated themselves as an organ donor beforehand in order to harvest their organs.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Even a corpse has bodily autonomy--you can't just harvest organs off a corpse--they have to have designated themselves as an organ donor beforehand in order to harvest their organs.

Corpses have more rights than a fetus. Sad isn't it.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Organ do not have a right to life. Next!
It's not the organ's right to life, but the person who need the organ in order to live right to life that i am referring to.

This is between a human that is incapable of making a choice being killed by another that made a series of bad choices and wants a mulligan to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Any choice you make has consequences. Women who have to make the hard choice to choose an abortion are often psychologically haunted by their choice.



Nope. The right to life ends when it causes harm to another person. Look up self-defense.
And a pregnant woman does not have the right to self-defense against the invasion of her body against an unwelcome intruder? If she welcomes the intruder as a guest, she will at the very least have to indure the torture of pregnancy and childbirth, and she may very well die. (Maternal deaths are on the rise, not in decline.) If she does not welcome the intruder as a guest, she has the right to defend herself against certain torture, possible bodily harm, and possible death.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
And you want to make it so that a woman has more rights when she is dead than when she is living.

Nope. Woman give up a part of a right for 9 months via an act 99% of the time they willingly take part in themselves. I take nothing away. I point out the consequences of an action and that the solution isn't killing something on a whim
 

Shad

Veteran Member
You can deny it all you want, but those who read through your arguments can discern where your arguements lead to.

Nope as right to life does not trump another right to life. Hence why I support abortion for life-threatening conditions. Try again. Do note your comparison is flawed as you fail to consider that the subject is about one life within the body of another while your example was of two lives with zero connections to each other.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Which was in context of abortion. Try again. This time stay within context. Ergo you refuted nothing.
LOL! You are asserting rights as universal in one instance and then saying they are conditional in another moment? LOL!
 
Top