Is abortion analogous to taxation?

[USincognito]

In nature it is. Something that a lot of atheists dismiss.

Actually there are numerous sexual behaviors by animals which are not for procreation.
Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
So good luck with the whole "atheists" spin.

 

[variant]

I've been thinking about the "my body; my choice" argument. If bodily autonomy is a right, can financial autonomy be a right as well? (as in "my money; my choice")

Or perhaps taxation is a necessary evil in which there is no viable alternative?

Your thoughts? Where do you draw the line?​

More like nation-state sanctioned organ harvesting, or at the very least a draft.

A state can tax you, but we have very few laws requiring that you give up sovereignty over a piece of your anatomy for the benefit of another.

The argument for making abortions illegal says that the state has a "compelling state interest" in unborn life.

I think this idea is laughable in that the state is not even willing to take the obvious step and pay people to have children and then put them up for adoption if it cares so much.

How can a state say it is compelled to care about something it is not willing to pay for?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I thought this was appropriate...

View attachment 256572

Unless a women is rape. She needs to be responsible for her BC. It her body. But I do think men should stick to their guns about using condoms. When a women refuses . Also laws need to be in place. To make sure men and women can get fixed when they want to. And shouldn't have to be a certain age .Or have a certain amount of kids, before they're allowed to get fixed.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I thought this was appropriate...

View attachment 256572

Unless a women is rape. She needs to be responsible for her BC. It her body. But I do think men should stick to their guns about using condoms. When a women refuses . Also laws need to be in place. To make sure men and women can get fixed when they want to. And shouldn't have to be a certain age .Or have a certain amount of kids, before they're allowed to get fixed.

 

[Not David]

Pregnancy very often harms the woman, especially here in America (CaliforniaThe earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks and 5 days. Two premature babies hold the record for this.

However, this is well before the accepted age of viability.

The age of viability is 24 weeks. At 22 weeks, there’s a 0-10% chance of survival; at 24 weeks the survival rate is 40-70%.

--David

Yes, and?"] being the exceptional state).
Yes, and?[/QUOTE]
Abortion ALWAYS harm someone

 

[Not David]

If it’s only for procreation, why did God make it so much fun?

Never said God limited it only for procreation. I'm sure you being Baptist think you have the right doctrine even though it was founded in Amsterdam in the 1600s.

 

[Not David]

Any "agenda" that your imagination conjures up doesn't change the fact that grown, self-aware, self-providing adult persons are not the same as embryos.

And babies are not the same as self-aware, self-providing adult persons, the same as children, teenagers, and even some elder and handicap people.

Do you want to keep going?

 

[Not David]

Unless a women is rape. She needs to be responsible for her BC. It her body. But I do think men should stick to their guns about using condoms. When a women refuses . Also laws need to be in place. To make sure men and women can get fixed when they want to. And shouldn't have to be a certain age .Or have a certain amount of kids, before they're allowed to get fixed.

So a woman has two vaginas or one and a penis when she is pregnant? Two eyes?

 

[Not David]

Actually there are numerous sexual behaviors by animals which are not for procreation.
Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
So good luck with the whole "atheists" spin.

Here have also been observations of animals engaging in homosexual behaviors,[3][4] as well as sex with dead animals[5] and sex involving juveniles.[6]

I guess people are allowed to do that too then.

 

[Speedwell]

Here have also been observations of animals engaging in homosexual behaviors,[3][4] as well as sex with dead animals[5] and sex involving juveniles.[6]

I guess people are allowed to do that too then.

No, the difference is we get to decide which of those things we want to do, which of them we want society to approve of.

 

[SimplyMe]

Here have also been observations of animals engaging in homosexual behaviors,[3][4] as well as sex with dead animals[5] and sex involving juveniles.[6]

I guess people are allowed to do that too then.

This is a straw man. The poster you are responding to is correcting the inaccurate claim of someone who basically tried making an "Appeal to Nature." That he corrected the person, showing that the Appeal to Nature does not fit the facts, is not him saying we should act the way the animals do.

 

[usexpat97]

And babies are not the same as self-aware, self-providing adult persons, the same as children, teenagers, and even some elder and handicap people.

Do you want to keep going?

By all means. Continue on.

 

[Pommer]

If it’s only for procreation, why did God make it so much fun?

Somebody better tell the bonobos! (They’re a randy bunch, I hear!)

 

[USincognito]

And babies are not the same as self-aware, self-providing adult persons, the same as children, teenagers, and even some elder and handicap people.

Do you want to keep going?

You're conflating an individual with groups. Try and keep track of your own arguments.

Yet, not a separate person, legally. (As of this posting.)

I'm sure blacks, Indians and others didn't mind laws calling them non-persons.

Also worth pointing out that Pommer didn't use the word "non-person".

 

[USincognito]

Here have also been observations of animals engaging in homosexual behaviors,[3][4] as well as sex with dead animals[5] and sex involving juveniles.[6]

I guess people are allowed to do that too then.

Again, you need to keep track of your own arguments.

Do you believe sex is only for procreation?

In nature it is. Something that a lot of atheists dismiss.

Actually there are numerous sexual behaviors by animals which are not for procreation.
Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
So good luck with the whole "atheists" spin.

Your claim that sex is only for procreation in nature is false.

 

[Belk]

In nature it is. Something that a lot of atheists dismiss.

Bonobos would disagree.

ETA second place is not bad.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No.

If I woke up tomorrow connected to another person through tubes in order to keep that other person alive, I feel I have the absolute right to disconnect those tubes. It would not be murder. I refuse to remove rights from people I would want to keep for myself.

What if you signed a binding contractual agreement that if you were to participate in a certain activity that their would be a possibility that your situation would occur. Even though you feel you have a right to disconnect, actually you do not. You waived that right when you participated in that activity. Yet you admit that legality doesn't matter. Even if the unborn were given legal rights as a person, you would still be supportive of murder in both a legal sense and in a moral sense. That doesn't sound very nice.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

well this thread got derailed rather quickly..

I forgot what this tread was about. Lol

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

From a philosophical perspective, if people truly accepted the notion of bodily autonomy, then that may extend to the value of labor produced by your body, per folks such as anarcho-capitalist libertarian types.

But since this is the American Politics section, and you indicated earlier in the thread we were discussing public policy, then it should also be pointed out, and often is by such anarcho-capitalist libertarian types, that if you decide to carry out this philosophy eventually men with guns will show up to enforce the will of the state.

If we were to apply the "Its my body. Its my choice." argument fairly, technically you should have the right to do anything you want as long as you are the only one affected. No seatbelt laws, no drug laws, ect... Yet there are laws preventing you from doing such things. So why is abortion the exemption?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm fine if a fetus is considered a legal person at 24 weeks. But it would still be a person* (the asterisk referring to the exception that it could be legally sacrificed in the unlikely event that the mother's life was critically endangered by the pregnancy, and live delivery was impossible.)

I would argue that regardless, the fetus is still an unborn child and a person. However, that person is already destined to die. Just like someone pulling the life support from someone who cannot otherwise survive.