MY GENES MY CHOICE

No I didn't. Shit you left somewhere is not your organs.

Just like cum stains on someone's face.

It's the same stuff.

THEY DESTROY YOUR GENETIC MATERIAL AGAINST YOUR WILL

You don't have a right to other people's organs.

Even if you squirt in them.

lol

Neuroscience student here.

I don't care if it's all the father's DNA by some kind of magic. My answer would be the same, you have the right to determine who uses your organs.

Call them babies instead of foetuses, the answer is the same. No matter how innocent someone is, they do not have the right to the use of someone else's organs.

It squares just fine, having cum left in you is not continual use of someone else's organs.

The technical distinction between babies and foetuses is used by abortion advocates to pretend the right they are in favour of doesn't kill. I make no such pretension, the right results in the killing of the foetus, and there is no hard moral distinction whatever between a foetus and a baby.

The right for your organs to not be used by others against your will trumps that in my opinion.

I am perfectly willing for all that death to occur in order for that right to be preserved.

@Whiskey-Vargas I do not hear many other advocates of reproductive rights holding this position though. Instead they merely scream "misogynist" when people disagree with them. I disagree with the curtailing of freedom to save young lives, but being against that freedom does not mean you hate women.

And these same people foolishly want to curtail the 1st and 2nd ammendments, which are magnitudes more important.

They want the right for a woman who makes the choice to terminate her pregnancy to not be judged for it, which is utter nonsense.

They also do not seem to realise that if you go after liberties that other people care about, that they don't much care about, those other people will go after theirs in turn, sometimes purely out of spite.

The abortion debate is a good example of this.

Luckily, cooler heads prevailed in the long term. Only once has a constitutional ammendment curtailed freedom, and it was repealed. It seems that enough people are aware of how foolish the game of going after other people's liberties is.

Ok.

CVD diamond is fucking awesome. Perfectly flawless, better than any natural diamond, cheaper for its quality AND no warlords with slaves were involved.

In control of their body.

I do not believe that children are property.

Your organs are part of your body.

Sperm, on the other hand, are a component of a fluid produced by a few different organs.

They are not themselves organs, like how bile isn't actually the pancreas or gall bladder.

So, who here was asking about rings?

If anyone here is looking for a ring, read up on diamonds made by Chemical Vapour Deposition.

We have a lot of them in Australia. They are beautiful stones.

(Opals.)

You can make real diamond, it's fucking beautiful.

Wear.

Gold is soft.

Once it can survive, what is the point of aborting?

You just get it out early and surrender it.

Though I don't know if anywhere in the world grants the right of surrender to men.

(Despite it being granted to women.)

Then the choice falls to them.

After the baby is out.

Because then that's just killing for no reason at all.

Is it fine legally in the US?

What I think should be legal and what I think is wrong are different.

Getting an abortion at 9 month is just... why?

I know someone who's hippie sister loves coke and sex, but an implanon is just TOOOO CHEMICUL.

So rather than having CHEMICULS IN MUH BODY, she has regular abortions.

It is killing.

I have no idea at what point it becomes killing.

But at some point it must be.

Killing is not always wrong.

I know of at least one person who was actually like that.

No, most people do not have regular abortions because they want sex but think "chemiculs in muh body" is bad, but abortions are just fine.

That is not at all most people.

This said, bad reasons do not erase your rights.

This is the inevitable problem with giving people rights.

Rights given are easily taken away. You must be willing to defend your rights by pen or by sword.

(Figure of speech. You should use rifles.)

The constitution sees the rights as codiefied in it, not granted by it.

But the constitution is a piece of paper. The paper needs some steel, propellant and plastic to back it up.

Yes.

Well, aluminium too I suppose.

The government is in place to enforce laws, and defend the country from invasion.

I don't know. Who are they protecting? What are they protecting them from?

If it's protecting it from the right to control your own body, sorry.

It's the right to control your body, who uses your organs.

I don't believe that people's organs should be used against their will.

Yes it is, it is separated by a placenta.

It is a body supporting another, growing body.

And I don't believe the government should be in our bedrooms or inside people.

Any right can be abrogated for that.

lol

No, freedom is highest for me.

You can have as many mass shootings as you want and the 2nd ammendment still stands.

North Korea and China have few mass shootings.

You CAN stop them.

But I like the freedom more.

China is state capitalist, it has been a long time since they have dared implement their ideology @Anemic Crusader.

But at least guns weren't used!

I am being sarcastic.

No it doesn't.

People don't consent to HIV.

Or rape.

That is not consenting to disease, that is undertaking a risky activity.

And I don't care what the reason is.

The reason for you using your right does not magically erase it.

The state does not take away rights because people had a bad reason. Nazis and Communists are allowed to speak.

Who has the US gaoled for free speech?

So, someone squirting in you is the same as being arrested?

You guys are like feminist strawmen.

So, you guys believe that foetus' have the right to the use of womens' organs?

I do not believe that anyone has the right to use anyone else's organs, no matter what.

We simply disagree.

What does that have to do with anything?

It is the state, not the foetus that would enforce the right of the foetus to use her organs.

I simply do not believe that it should be codified in law that women are to be human life support machines.

No.

That is not how consent works.

Walking around a bad neigbourhood in scant clothes can be a bad idea.

But you are not consenting to rape, even thought there might be a high chance of it happening.