BestGarbagePerson

Viability is not a fixed point. It is a probability. Nobody is either denied or granted human rights based on where they (or the person who is harming them) falls on a statistical curve of some definition of health.

That is called class-based discrimination.

You are acting as if women's choice to have sex, is a crime for which you can deny bodily rights.

You’re being unnecessarily pessimistic. Why do you keep insisting that women would be punished for miscarriage (when they clearly wouldn’t be)?

They already are, right now, in real time, in countries where abortion is restricted and/or banned completely. So that is not pessimistic.

It’s not even an issue of privacy.

Yes, it is. In fact abortion rights are always so. Making your medical history the public domain is necessary to police women who are pregnant and prevent them from obtaining un-approved abortions.

If you create a state run zygote reclamation center, you will force women to report their private pregnancies to the state, at minimum. After all those babies will be reported as coming from such and such parent, with such and such genetic data, at such and such date. Their health will be recorded as well.

what right would the woman have to say “no don’t do that, I would rather terminate it”?

Because no one has a duty to retreat from something they cannot retreat from. Which includes waiting or being forced to undergo different medical procedures against their will. You have the absolute right to do what you want with your own body.

In case you weren't aware, only 1) convicts and active criminals, 2) the mentally incompetent and 3) drafted people in the military lose these rights.

Are women one of these things merely because they are female? Are they convicts by nature of being pregnant? Are they mentally incompetent by nature of them being pregnant? Or are they drafted in the military perpetually as soon as they demonstrate adult fertility?

Terminating lives because those lives are inconvenient or uncomfortable

Can you explain how losing 1/5th of your average blood volume is just an "inconvenience" or merely "uncomfotable?" Have you ever given birth?

has been the excuse used to justify every genocide in history

This is a terrible attempt at a guilt by association that makes zero sense. No one has a duty to retreat from something or someone they cannot retreat from. Comparing the exercise of one's individual self defense (from actual, real, physical trauma and harm) to GENOCIDE, which is institutional murder, is fucking disgusting and proves you don't consider women's pain, women's wellness and women's health equally important to your own.

You also take the historical oppression of real people and steal it for your own woo woo agenda against women having equal rights over their own bodies.

When was the last time you lost a quart of blood btw?

That’s an interesting position you’ve taken.

If by interesting you mean, actually respecting universal human rights okay?

I can consent to getting inside an uber, but that uber isn't going anywhere without the driver turning the ignition.

I can consent to sex with a man, but no pregnancy is ever going to happen unless that man ejaculates inside me.

In fact, I can even orgasm without ejaculation. There is nothing about sex that requires ejaculation.

Pregnancy is only preventable by preventing ejaculation (U = Unproven, Unsupported)

No one is saying this.

Female tubal ligation prevents pregnancy. (T) + (I = Invalidates author's claim)

What part of the claim is invalidated?

1) That procedure is far simpler for men than women. 2) Why do you seem obsessed with blaming women alone for pregnancy? 3) Sex can absolutely happen without a man ejaculating. Why do you put the burden of "protecting" against unwanted ejaculation on women not men? It's men's responsibility after all. Are you saying women are responsible for rape? Because if I don't want a man ejaculating inside me and he does, that's rape. Are you saying I need to get an expensive and permanent procedure to avoid pregnancy from rape?

This is part of that broken idea that sex is a breach of tort for which you can deny bodily rights.

Is sex a crime?

Stop pretending that people are gonna die from being pregnant.

Did you not know more people die from pregnancy than from rape by a factor of 30?

Obviously, being pregnant is a large burden, but it is definitely not as large a burden as being killed.

Did you also not know that the rights to justified homicide as a last resort are not denied because you aren't "almost dead enough?"

I guess in your world, losing 1/5th of your blood volume (which is the average for pregnancy) is something that is completely fair for the government to force upon you with no just compensation.

You CANNOT tell me that a woman being pregnant is more of an inconvenience than the baby dying

First of all, it's a fetus. Google the term if you are confused.

Secondly that's not how human rights work. Justified homicide is granted as a last resort equally for all people, when you have no other means to retreat.

Which is what abortion is. This is the exercise of equal rights of women to their own bodies. A fetus has no rights when it is occupying a woman's body unlawfully (without consent.) Just like it is for any other person.

If you think the government has a right to force the trauma and danger of labor and birth on women then you admit you consider women inferior beings and fetuses superior beings. That the universal human rights no longer apply.

Do you consider btw, rape something you have the right to kill someone over? After all, rape is 30 times less dangerous than pregnancy. Can the government charge a woman with murder if she killed someone who was trying to rape her (as a last resort?)

If you don't think so, then you are being a massive hypocrite. After all, rape is less of a convenience for the woman than the death of the rapist.

Lol what did I miss indeed? How hard you jerk it to Putin?

You're right! Putin is great and never exploits oppressed groups to further his bullshit! When he scapegoats ethnic groups for his megalomanic agenda, he's actually being super generous! Thank you Putin!

If in the next few decades, we have working artificial wombs in hospitals, women will be able to free themselves of the physical burden of pregnancy while saving the life of the baby

Yes this is something that I have wondered about too and it actually got me into thinking more about bodily autonomy and yours (and mine) constitutional rights.

I wonder, if a woman did not make it to the "zygote reclamation center" in time, and she had a miscarriage would she be charged with manslaughter?

I wonder if a woman decided if she wanted a natural birth, and the baby died, instead of having it go to the artificial womb, would she be charged with murder?

No matter if we had artificial wombs, this would put an undue violation of privacy and bodily autonomy.

I repeat myself no one has a duty to retreat or wait or de-escalate force from anyone putting immediate threat and harm to them, anytime, unless they are 1) Committing a breach of tort (you have no rights while you are raping or stealing) 2)You are drafted in the military (for which you are provided just compensation therefore and only in a time of crisis)

No one's body becomes the public domain because you think fetuses are more special than others.

By even such a thing as artificial wombs, you could not ethically put an indefinite conscription of women's bodies that they must be forced to endure certain medical procedures, violations of their privacy and criminalization of their personal bodies against their will.

So the answer to your final question is yes.

Unless you prefer to criminalize women for choosing to not report their pregnancies or missed periods to the government or else face a fine. Or have their miscarriages or natural births criminalized.

I mean you can believe whatever you want, but your nasty thoughts and need to share them say a lot more about you than you than me.

I mean you can believe whatever you want, but your nasty thoughts and need to share them say a lot more about you than you than me.

If you can't explain it then you certainly do, my sweet.

Forcing people to bleed and suffer against their will even though they have committed no crime is barbaric.

Abortion is dealing with the consequences, it's just not what you approve of.

Would you like to make sex a crime?

I don't understand what the argument is.

Your arguments seem to reinforce my own.

Being racist against multiple groups doesn't make one less racist of a single group.

It also is very contradictory to claim bigotry against an ethnicity is not apparent (out of context) then literally agree that he is singling out people for their ethnicity...because "USA is Israel' s bitch" (more anti-Semitism.)

You're a mess honey.

thats a word salad

Using many big words =/= word salad

.and it ain't a spectrum

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

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10]

socialism is a range

a range

Bye indeed.

The better question is why you think they have no rights.

Not being allowed to harm another person without their consent is not "no rights."

You’re portrayal of abortion isn’t representative of the real reason women choose to abort.

Yes it is. No matter what my reason for rejecting an immediate threat to my body, I have the right to do so. Just like I can say no to sex for any reason. There is no such thing as forcing a person to bleed against their will because the "reason isn't good enough."

You are living on another planet if you don't think all pregnancies cause immediate threat and physical harm to a woman.

Most women don’t choose to abort to end the immediate duress of being pregnant, they get an abortion because they don’t want to have a child.

The reason doesn't matter, the fact is it is an immediate threat. If you touch me and I say "no please stop because I am bored with you" that doesn't mean my reason isn't good enough and you can keep touching me. In fact if you continue to touch me and my only option is to use lethal force, that is called justified homicide. Because you are harming me, even if you aren't causing me physical pain and even if you think my reason is "stupid." That doesn't make it your right to assault me without my consent.

Not wanting to raise a child shouldn’t be a sufficient reason to terminate a human being, especially when adoption is an option.

It is a sufficient enough reason for any case where your own body is being put to immediate threat and harm. To claim these basic rights don't exist whenever a class of persons called fetuses are around - is granting fetuses superior rights that no other classes of persons have.

If there is a born baby, or any other person which is not causing me physical contact and harm without my consent of course it would be murder. Because it would be unjust. Everyone has a duty to retreat from those they are physically able to retreat from. But a woman cannot retreat any further from a fetus.

Socialism a concept that defines the spectrum of gradated regulation of the product profit and processes of such by the government. All countries have a varying degree of socialism in their economic organization, from restrictions on monopolies, to caps on interest rates, to outright organization of the entire means of production for certain industries.

The pejorative "socialist" however, tends to have negative connotations and is often used to insinuate a person, political movement or country are a specter of the extremes of such organizations - where everything and everyone, including the people themselves, have no economic or personal liberty.

Government owns or regulates and controls to level of mastery the means of production.

This is not legible at all.

Name calling me will not fix your "colloquial" illegible speech.

Lmao you're genuinely trying to argue that a logical error isn't an error until it's named?

Well, if you'd like to say there's a new thing then that's fine, but we're going to have to agree that it is something special you've made up just for you.

Ironically this could almost be an Appeal to Authority except the authority you're appealing to is... a dictionary?

I honestly have no fucking clue what you are talking about. It's like you're talking from another dimension right now. Yes, actually, its correct to agree upon universally agreed upon logic.

You made two obvious logical errors- one of which actually does have a name and I actually already mentioned- Kafkatrapping, which works off the fallacy called panchreston, an argument where nothing can be falsified because you're not making any actual claims, just belittling the opponents

Except how this started is you dismissing me by calling me a female as a pejorative term. So, what are you attempting to claim is a fallacy here? The way I've continued to engage with a non-discussion over nothing? Did you not read that I am agreeing to waste your time (and mine) with this?

A is true, I have mocked the person saying A therefore, A is false.

Except that's not what I did at all. So, you still don't seem to understand. At no point was I sincerely arguing that I have a moral high-ground based on the simple use of the term male or female as a rude pejorative alone. Merely that it should be expected if you use this pejorative to others, it will be reflected back to you and you have no right to complain. Never did I argue that I am "more right" for using it, just because I used it. I am "more right" to use it because I am responding in kind. A is not being argued here, it is B.

Actually your grammar is so bad it's illegible.

https://www.grammarcheck.net/editor/

This is broken English

Government owns or regulates and controls to level of mastery the means of production.

What's your native language?

Government owns or regulates and controls to level of mastery the means of production.

Please speak English.

I just want to say it's amazing that you 'live by a code' of X is wrong therefore I should do X to people.

Show me on the doll where the person hurt you back for the thing you did to them.

'Fallacies' have names. A fallacy is a logical error and doesn't have to be written down in the Big Book of Fallacy before it becomes logically wrong.

Yes, but what type of fallacy was it? You're just claiming I am guilty of some logic crime. Which one was it? If you know you should be able to say it. If you don't know, you're making shit up. No one is guilty of a crime with no definition of what that crime was.

The error you made was "x person was treated badly in whatever way( the scale of the mistreatment is totally irrelevant it's an analogy) , if I belittle it and mock them then the treatment was no longer wrong."

That is not any fallacy I recognize with any name, you are making things up honey.

I suppose you could also call it a Kafka trap if you're so desperate for a name, "if you complain youre a crybaby, also if you protest this statement you're more of a crybaby".

Except it's not. There's nothing about a thought crime here, your actual behavior is shit.