Bodily integrity vs moral responsibility

**Syne** · (This post was last modified: Sep 18, 2016 10:01 PM by Syne.)

(Sep 18, 2016 01:09 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: It’s a false equivalence.

How? Can you support that claim, or are you just talking out of your hat again?

If the fetus is not part of the woman's body, as pro-abortionists claim, how do you justify ending a human life, like in assisted suicide but without any consent?

You believe in consent for other things, like sex, right? Then why not consent for death?

**Secular Sanity** · Sep 18, 2016 11:23 PM

Are you a part of your mother’s body?

Brain birth and brain death? Again false equivalence.

I think we're done here.

**Syne** · Sep 19, 2016 01:38 AM

I agree that saying the fetus is part of the woman's body is a ridiculous justification. But I also agree, with science, that the fetus is a human life and not a parasite or some other made-up classification to avoid ethical quandaries. The only reason I bring up the "part of the woman's body" argument is to show how it is inconsistent with other things pro-abortionists claim (like that statement from the PP president).

Who said "brain death"? I was just talking death in general. Why should consent be important for assisted suicide but not for abortion? Usually humans who cannot physically/mentally provide consent are assumed not to give it, like the passed out drunk girl at the frat party. If the fetus is not part of the woman's body, then she does not have final say in its disposition, because it is not only her bodily autonomy at stake. It is her usurpation of the bodily autonomy of another human life...without consent.

No matter how we look at this, no pro-abortionist seems to have any consistent ethical justification. If you believe in consent, why not for fetal life? If it's part of the woman's body, why not have similar requirements to GRS? Or are you too emotionally invested to cope with this kind of cognitive dissonance?

**Secular Sanity** · (This post was last modified: Sep 19, 2016 02:24 AM by Secular Sanity.)

What in the hell was I thinking?

Okay-okay. I’ll retract this earlier statement.

**Syne** · Sep 19, 2016 02:39 AM

Yeah, those suffering from cognitive dissonance do often resort to insult as a way to avoid facing the inconsistencies in their own thinking. Luckily, I've never esteemed your intelligence high enough for any such compliments, nor their retraction, to mean anything.

**Syne** · Dec 25, 2016 05:51 AM

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/I8BRdwgPChQ

**Secular Sanity** · Jan 1, 2017 04:42 AM

This might be a good time to bring up your topic "You’re not entitled to your opinion". I don’t think that Camille Paglia qualifies as an expert on transgenderism.

**Syne** · Jan 1, 2017 05:01 AM

Considering she supports her argument, and you have not supported your criticism beyond a mere statement of opinion, she has given more reason to take her seriously.

**Secular Sanity** · Jan 1, 2017 05:18 AM

(Jan 1, 2017 05:01 AM)Syne Wrote: Considering she supports her argument, and you have not supported your criticism beyond a mere statement of opinion, she has given more reason to take her seriously.

Supports her argument? With what, her opinion?

In other video that you posted. She’s criticizing feminists saying that she could not have a single conversion with feminist inside or outside the academy. They couldn’t stand for anti-art, anti-rock n roll, or anti-rolling stones. They would not take seriously anything that has to do with biology, hormones, or anything like that.

Well, neither is she.

**Syne** · Jan 1, 2017 05:32 AM

Again, you are only making proclamations, without substance.