General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Jubilee
comments

Comments by "" (@krasmasov6852) on "Pro-Choice And Pro-Life Supporters Search For Common Ground | Middle Ground" video.

@travisjohnson7065 You're just outright admitting it. You don't care about kids at all after they're born.
6
It is part of her body though. If the fetus can't live outside of the body, it's part of it.
6
You know pro choice includes the choice to give birth, right?
5
@travisjohnson7065 Preventing a woman from ending her pregnancy is forcing her to give birth. Death is the natural result of cancer, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cut it out.
4
 @timholloway7413 No one's right to life overrides someone else's right to bodily autonomy.
3
It is her body though. No one has the right to live at the expense of anyone else's bodily autonomy.
3
@travisjohnson7065 That right does not override the right to bodily autonomy. Or do you think spare kidneys should be forcibly removed from people for the sake of those on the transplant list?
3
@texasjoehotdog1838 Nope. It's pro choice and anti choice. That's it.
3
@texasjoehotdog1838 Absolutely and embarrassingly wrong. This isn't a matter of life. It's a matter of bodily autonomy. You are against that basic human right.
3
@travisjohnson7065 You should probably look at one of a pregnant woman.
3
@travisjohnson7065 It's a matter of basic logic. If it can't survive outside of the woman, then it is of the woman, and she can do whatever she wants with it.
3
@Ankh Well, that's certainly convenient for you, isn't it?
2
@Ankh Anyone who disagrees with you can be dismissed as not having a sound mind by default, so your beliefs are never really challenged.
2
Not only should you be paying for other people's abortions, but we all should be funding public healthcare entirely.
2
@travisjohnson7065 No, the no one I was referring to was every person ever. What you're arguing for is that the unborn should have extra rights.
2
@travisjohnson7065 Can the fetus in question live on its own outside the carrier's body? If not, then it's a part of the carrier's body.
2
@travisjohnson7065 No, but it does have to do with bodily autonomy. No one has to use their body to keep someone else alive if they don't want to even if their body is the only chance that other person has to live. Anything we carry inside our body is, yeah. I'm carrying two kidneys right now, and even if you were dying and needed a transplant to survive, you cannot take my second kidney against my will.
2
@travisjohnson7065 There's no contradiction. That someone else's body is part of the carrier's body at that time.
2
@travisjohnson7065 I'm sorry your attempt at a gotcha didn't work, but you need to actually address what I said.
2
@travisjohnson7065 Correct. That isn't a contradiction. If that second body you're talking about can't survive without the support of the first body, then it's of the first body.
2
@travisjohnson7065 Nope, it can be both. Until that second body can survive without the first body, it is of the first body. I don't care about your attempt at an argument from authority. This is a matter of basic logic.
2
@travisjohnson7065 Right because this isn't a matter of biology. Even if we grant personhood to the fetus, abortion is still justified as long as the carrier wants one because no one has the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily autonomy.
2
@crimsoncourt9354 The fetus, not the baby. Babies are born. And please explain why it's wrong to end a pregnancy. Yes, a living thing dies, but no one has the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily autonomy.
2
@crimsoncourt9354 That's not the case for every pregnancy, but it doesn't matter. Getting an abortion is taking responsibility. Fetuses are not babies. Babies are born. Don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. Right, and that in the womb status is what matters here. Using someone else's body requires the consent of that someone else. No one has the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily autonomy. And no, financial support is not equivalent to bodily support. Not that you support making sure those babies are financially stable anyways. Yes, and again, nobody has the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily autonomy.
2
@crimsoncourt9354 So you should probably Google what bodily autonomy is. A consensual pregnancy isn't a violation of bodily autonomy because the pregnant person is choosing to remain pregnant.
2
@travisjohnson7065 My conscience has no problem at all with abortion. Stripping away bodily autonomy from people with a uterus though? That weighs on my conscience heavily. Horrific injustice.
2
No, it's pro choice and anti choice.
1
@TheMityquin By enslaving their carriers?
1
@TheMityquin ....what?
1
@herreramissions6283 No, you don't. If you did, you'd be pro-choice. No human has the right to live at the expense of another human's bodily autonomy.
1
@travisjohnson7065 The first part. The humans have a right to live part. There's a qualifier that should be there. We all have the right to live, but not at the expense of someone else's bodily autonomy.
1
@travisjohnson7065 That's not what I said. A person willingly carrying a baby to term isn't a violation of bodily autonomy.
1
@travisjohnson7065 It does though if that right to life is dependent on the use of someone else's body. That's why we don't forcibly remove spare kidneys from people for the sake of those on the transplant list.
1
@travisjohnson7065 So? If someone's necessity for life is a kidney transplant, we cant force someone else to give up a kidney now can we?
1
@travisjohnson7065 Not necessarily, but what does that matter? You're missing the point of the comparison. A kidney transplant isn't a necessity for life for everyone, but a working kidney is. So how is that any different? If you're opposed to abortion but do not support forcibly removing kidneys from people for the sake of those on the transplant list, you are being fundamentally inconsistent.
1
@travisjohnson7065 If you can figure out a way to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus, we'll do that instead. Until then, oh well. Bodily autonomy must be protected.
1
@travisjohnson7065 It is about ending the pregnancy though which is why giving birth is a bad solution to that. The person would want the pregnancy ended soon, not in a few months.
1
@Ankh It is their body. No one has the right to exist at the expense of someone else's bodily autonomy. If you can figure out a way to remove the fetus from the body without killing it, we'll do that instead.
1
@Ankh But how do you end the unwanted pregnancy then?
1
@Ankh Then the right to bodily autonomy is violated.
1
@Ankh What do you mean how so? You're forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will.
1
@youawesome2068 Oh there would be. It'd just be less safe. Abortion existed as a practice in the ancient world, dude. Like spend 2 minutes googling something before you comment.
1
@Ankh Yeah, the consequences in this case being no more pregnancy. Awesome.
1
@Ankh Yeah, they get awesome consequences like not being pregnant anymore. Dope.
1
@Ankh Again, the consequence here being no more pregnancy. Again, awesome.
1
@crimsoncourt9354 As long as they're in the womb and cant survive outside it, yes.
1
@crimsoncourt9354 I never said a fetus is lifeless. I'm also not a liberal. What in the world are you talking about?
1
@crimsoncourt9354 No, I know what you're saying. You're just assuming quite a lot about me.
1
@crimsoncourt9354 Its a figure of speech. My point is that what you said is outlandish and nonsensical. Lol are you for real?
1
@crimsoncourt9354 No, you're just wrong. Basic logic is not on your side. You're committing to arguing whether or not a fetus qualifies as life and continuing to push this narrative that I'm somehow claiming a fetus is nothing, which isn't something I've ever said or even remotely suggested. The fetus is alive. Abortion is still okay.
1