I'm fine, thanks :)


You know nothing John doe





The story goes like this :

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you "

"Thomson argues that one can permissibly unplug oneself from the violinist even though this will cause his death; this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist one does not violate his right to life but merely deprives him of something – the use of someone else's body – to which he has no right. "

This is an allegory for abortion.

The question is not about the status of the life or non life of the body.

The question must stand on the right of women's body to accept OR NOT to let a POTENTIAL someone take over her body's ressources and life.

"Thomson says that abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something – the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman's body and life-supporting functions – to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the fetus's right to life but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the fetus to die "

Simple.

I consider that women rights need to be considered FIRST.
The real question is about owning up to your actions. If you fucked and got pregnant, it is your responsibility to raise your kids. A children is not a virus, its not an invasive agent that got into your body uninvited. Children are the result of your actions. Abortion is legalizing infanticide as a means of pregnancy control. Infanticide is murder.
Imagine how cruel one can be to destroy a life you generated just cause you don't feel like being bothered by it. Have you ever googled how an abortion is done? They literally chop up the kid inside the uterus. That allegory is bullshit. The premise is false. The kid isn't taking you hostage, it is the other way around. That mother and father generated that life. It's their responsability.
 
Last edited:
We are not talking about children here, but potential ones.
We are talking about a form of life that is pumping the life forces of a woman's body without consent.
My god, you are a fucked in the head if you truly think like that.
Imagine trying to jump through all those asinine hoops to come up with a justification.
 
Last edited:
I'm fine, thanks :)


You know nothing John doe





The story goes like this :

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you "

"Thomson argues that one can permissibly unplug oneself from the violinist even though this will cause his death; this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist one does not violate his right to life but merely deprives him of something – the use of someone else's body – to which he has no right. "

This is an allegory for abortion.

The question is not about the status of the life or non life of the body.

The question must stand on the right of women's body to accept OR NOT to let a POTENTIAL someone take over her body's ressources and life.

"Thomson says that abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something – the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman's body and life-supporting functions – to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the fetus's right to life but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the fetus to die "

Simple.

I consider that women rights need to be considered FIRST.
Nobody's reading allat Logiko. Abortion is murder and they're taking a baby's right to live. That's the bottom line
 
Nobody's reading allat Logiko. Abortion is murder and they're taking a baby's right to live. That's the bottom line
I read that. The premise is bullshit. That allegory says the kid is a parasite basically and the women has the right to stop the pregnancy cause its taking away nutrients and stuff from the mother. Thing is, this is a false parallel. Its the other way around. You invited that life in and you are nurturing it. Some people think i'm exaggerating when i say the left is the devil's work,vbut look how they twist things. Evil shit. Bad faith arguments.
 

Uncle Van

Monké Don't Do Taxes
Is this about a particular person or did you just randomly realize this?
You know who lmao. Also because I have dozens of personal experiences with people like that. My career fields makes you see the worst of humanity. The self righteous nutjob has always been one of the most dangerous kinds of people.
 
I read that. The premise is bullshit. That allegory says the kid is a parasite basically and the women has the right to stop the pregnancy cause its taking away nutrients and stuff from the mother. Think is,this is false parallel. Its the other way around. You invited that life in and you are nurturing. Some people think i'm exaggerting when i say the left is the devil's work,but look how they twist things. Evil shit. Bad faith arguments.
It's a really terrible argument for why abortion should be legal lol
The dude is trying to push this narrative that the baby's intruding on it's mother's body and that it's bad for her, but it's not like it's a conscious choice for the baby either, it didn't ask to be born.
[automerge]1721775761[/automerge]
You are a cop, right? I think Herrera was a legit pedo. What do i do?
Not uh.. The best place to talk about that.
 
It's a really terrible argument for why abortion should be legal lol
The dude is trying to push this narrative that the baby's intruding on it's mother's body and that it's bad for her, but it's not like it's a conscious choice for the baby either, it didn't ask to be born.
[automerge]1721775761[/automerge]

Not uh.. The best place to talk about that.
Exactly, the baby has no say in this. It didn't generate itself. The baby is a consequence of other's people action, therefore those people should take care of it. It completely twisted things. Devilish argument i would say.
 
Top