I do not understand what you are getting at. Hair-salons exist. Banning hair-salons and making it a crime to have a haircut would indeed limit people's bodily autonomy. Not only would it take away every hairdresser's/barber's livelihood and happiness, but also would it stop men and women from visiting a professional who can give them the look they desire. So, we now know that you are against abortion, cancer treatment and even hairdressers. Is tnere anything at all you are not against?
Not being able to have someone cut your hair, is NOT limiting your bodily autonomy. Now, if it was illegal to cut your OWN hair, that WOULD be. I never said that. Why are you being dishonest?
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, they don't Abortion is legal in the US. Yup, just like I posted, abortion is legal in the US.
Oh dear. You're resorting to the 'whatever argument!' Looks like you've finally reached the end of your ability to debate me! What happened? You were actually doing very well!
This is seriously pathetic excuse making. And, I'm seeing a pattern of that with you. Even those who become permanently comatose can have their values pursued through advance directive and/or will. And, the discussion here is about views on abortion.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yup, just like I posted, abortion is legal in the US. Here: chris155au said: ↑ Sure, but not late term in the majority of the country, unless it is to save the mother's life.""" BTW, I guess you "missed" that I was agreeing with you ….it is legal to save the woman's life.
To see that, you'd have to follow the conversation. Ritter's argument was that a comatose patient has something that a fetus doesn't, but I was pointing out that a dead person has that same thing too. Making it unlikely that that something actually confers personhood, or could be used to differentiate a comatose patient from a fetus, like Ritter was obviously intending to argue. If the only thing that a comatose patient has that a fetus doesn't, happens to be something that a dead person also has, well then, that doesn't seem to show that a comatose patient has much more rights than a fetus, does it?
Yes - I did my reading before commenting. Whether a person is conscious or dead doesn't contribute to this topic. What a fetus doesn't have is that they aren't a person, and never have been.
When used in an abortion argument, just saying that abortion is LEGAL without any qualifier, implies that it is legal in any circumstances.
What does this have to do with you not knowing that fetuses have rights at a certain point in the US?
Yes, but you were doing awfully, so I gave up. I am not going to have a discussion with someone who can only write one-liners followed by a laughing emoji. You are not intellectual enough for my taste.
No, no, no, no, no. The argument I made was that; 1. A comatosed patient has been born and is alive. 2. The comatosed patient is an independent being. 3. The comatosed patient has the right to life as long as someone pays for the plug. Well, that is not the case. There is one fundamental difference between being in a coma and being dead and that is life. A fetus has no rights.
