When you refuse to donate blood, someone dies because of your inaction. When you murder your own child, someone dies directly as the result of your action. These are two completely different scenarios. I believe in natural, God-given rights, not human rights. Sometimes they are called "negative rights". A right to life means no one can murder you, a right to liberty means no one can enslave you, and a right to property means no one can steal from you, etc. You, however, seem to believe in "positive rights" were instead of having a right to be protected from the harm others may inflict upon you, you have a right to DEMAND FROM OTHERS CERTAIN THINGS. The example of donating blood is an example of someone demanding something else FROM someone else (which defies the right to liberty as it is involuntary servitude) whereas abortion deals only with the negative right of the baby not to be HARMED BY someone else. Negative rights protect you from harm, positive rights allow you to harm others. That's why I only believe in negative natural rights and why your blood illustration makes no sense. The same can be applied to your argument over donating organs – both are VERY different from murder.
The true definition of a government is an organization with the legal privilege of using force on persons who have not harmed anyone. Inevitably it creates a hierarchy, because the government has political power, and the non-government people don't. So if you truly believed in abolishing hierarchies you certainly would not support the expansion of the political elite ruling class of Washington DC for ANY reason.
I await your response.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Firstly, my blood donation example was not meant to be a comparison to abortion, it was simply another real-world example of a right that you have (consent and bodily autonomy) that is held above other people's right to life, which was the sole point I was making. There is no perfect analogy to abortion anyway, so I ultimately find it easier to just argue in support of abortion directly. As such, if you agree that 1) you have the sole right to decide who can or cannot use your body, at any time, for any or no reason, and you also agree that 2) no one has the right to use your body against your consent, then there is no logical reason why you should be opposed to "pro-choice" without blatantly omitting one of these premises. That is literally all this comes down to: can another person use your body against your consent? If not (which should be the only correct response), then a fetus does notRead more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
If the donating blood illustration was not intended to be a comparison to abortion it's pretty ridiculous that you used it as an argument for abortion. I do not believe that abortion has anything to do with a woman's rights to use her own body (how many ties have I said this now) because it is scientifically proven that from the moment of conception the baby and the mother are two separate bodies. I agree that no one should use your body without your consent, but I also agree that no one has a right to kill another human being. Therefore I must evaluate which right is more important… Read more
@VulcanMan6 4mos4MO
If the donating blood illustration was not intended to be a comparison to abortion it's pretty ridiculous that you used it as an argument for abortion.
I didn't. As I directly stated, I was using that example to argue in support of my point that there are a plethora of situations in which one of your rights are held above another person's right to live. It was not, as I stated, a comparison to abortion, it was merely a tangential argument regarding the autonomy of individual rights. I was not directly talking about abortion during that specific argument, I was talking about righ… Read more