Why can't conservatards understand such a simple concept?
>inb4 they do have that right because you consented to sex and knew the consequences
You knew about the consequences of using the sidewalk, therefore if you get ran over or mugged then it's your fault because they had a right to violate you!
What?
That's not the right analogy to having unprotected sex.
>You knew the consent of walking down the middle of the road, therefore if you get ran over, it's your fault, since you were walking down the middle of the highway with no body armor
>Be American Liberal
>Only use Tumblr
>use the word "conservatard" unironically
>make a terribly put together post
You gotta go back to Tumblr, Tranny.
i wanted to have kids
the wife aborted them because they'd be inconvenient.
now every time i see a post like this i remind myself that OP's like this must have their heads beaten in so badly no one will be able to recognize them, it's not like i have a family to shame, right?
Perfect way to get vegans to attack fellow leftist abortionists. Spread it like this then watch the abortionists defend murdering creatures because they have to, then vegans will attack them for okay murder of innocence.
Lmfao your analogy is dogshit you fucking negative iq retard
I don't view leftists as people
Is it ok for me to kill them?
Asking for a friend
No retard, it's still illegal to run someone over even if they're in the road. Jesus Christ conservatards are uneducated
Yes
Your graph implies you're a giant.
Are you a giant?
Can I explore your vagina cave?
If I get ran over on the sidewalk then I have a choice to sue the idiot that chose to drive on the sidewalk. Also, it's against motor vehicle code to drive on the sidewalk.
Remember freedom to say what you want but you're not free of consequences? This applies too.
Honestly don't give a shit about abortion it really only affects niggers, spics and poor people. Should I be paying for thier choices? Nope. Women are big strong don't need no man, so they don't need this man's wallet.
you're a worthless life and I hope you'll be dead soon
Everyone has responsibility for those they put in a precarious situation. Mothers are not exempt to this.
>Mothers get to choose who uses their body
>And so they can kill the children they put in precarious situations
>The father has to support/protect/raise the child alongside the mother
>because he put the mother and child in a precarious situation
Abortion legality creates inequality.
And it's still illegal to vacuum out a baby from your uterus, what's your point?
>abortion is like using the sidewalk
Democrats, everybody.
Sure, a driver doesn't have the right to hit you. Just as a baby - or anyone for that matter - doesn't have the right to use your body without your consent
>Abortion legality creates inequality.
We are inequal creatures. Where the fuck do you think we are?
>it's ok to kill
how to prove yourself you are wrong with your own sentences, if is not a life why are you talking about killing? disgusting brainwashed libtards.
>this baby that I helped create DOES NOT have my consent to be inside me
What the fuck are you going to do, file a police report or take it to court?
YOU helped put that little baby inside you, and you are trying to use laws/courts against it so you can kill it?
Women's only true job is bringing kids into the world and belong raise them, if a woman looks at unborn children with disgust then she is a fucking demon
>attempting to justify the murder of unborn children
You know you're going to hell, right?
>What the fuck are you going to do, file a police report or take it to court?
You can, the police will then tell you to go to the nearest abortion clinic since they don't have the skills/tools to remove the freeloader
Where is my choice to kill OP? If a woman wants an abortion, why not just kill her, and the fetus inside will die as well, since it requires her for development? Think of all the dead beat women we could get rid of this way. Extra bonus if she claims it's a rape baby.
and how do you come to the conclusion that agreeing to have seed shot into your womb is not consent?
It's consent to having cum inside, it's not a fucking written contract with an unborn human about renting out your uterus. Implied contracts aren't a thing, and trust me you don't want them to be
You're an idiot. If you're a man, consent to cumming inside a woman EQUALS consent to paying for that child for 18 years. Either both can be dropped at any moment, or neither can.
How does that contradict anything in the OP flowchart? Or are you just whining?
Is it human? No? Don't give it a dime. Does it have the right to claim your income for 18 years? No? Cut it off. There's your flowchart, pinhead.
You can give children up for adoption you know? Anyway, it sounds like you want to change existing laws for men. It doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with the OP
Where do liberals think "Rights" come from?
Do they believe they grow on trees?
>therefore if you get ran over or mugged then it's your fault because they had a right to violate you!
No, they don't. That's why people go to jail for doing that.
Hospital takes person in voluntarily, puts her in bed, connect her to machine to breath and eat, need 9mo to recover. Can hospital disconnect and remove this patient 4mo into recovery?
>libtards say not my president
>libtards say not my country
Can we remove you from MY country? Better yet can we kill you first then remove you like you do with unborn babies?
Kind of, it unalienable, and it’s given to us by our CREATOR. Man(government)can’t create rights, it can only take from one group and give to another.
The only clumps of cells in a woman’s body is cum
What creator? Liberals don't believe in God.
Rights can only be secured by "Might makes Right" and democratic governments exist to "soften" the appearance of said Might, anything less is fairy tales
Our government is set up to “secure these rights” from people or corporations that wants to take it away.......in theory
>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Well since corporations are legally people I say....
Hospital's body, hospital's choice.
You realize this happens when you can't pay your medical bills, right?
So the Rights come from the Will of the Goverment.
If goverment wills that every person has a right to live including unborn children, then that is where rights question ends end.
The chart in the OP is truly mind boggling, because it would fit only an ANCAP world view.
>Its ok to kill if not a person
what kind of justification is this?
>Its a person and It doesn't have right to use your body so remove it
Removal of said person would mean death of said person, which would then become murder
Only someone who is completely disconnected from any affection to a family, or seemingly any affection to other people at all could consider the flowchart in OP sane
People can not choose whether another person lives or dies, only governments that are permit the use of Death Penalty can do so legally.
>Voluntary
How can you demand money from someone you chose to help voluntary
/leftypol/ raids are desperate
2/10 - low energy thread. also sage
imagine being so mentally ill that you would mix dna with another human (using a biological function that is well-known to result in the production of a new set of combined DNA), deny the other humans right to a claim to the resulting DNA, deny the resulting DNA has achieved personhood, and then destroy resulting DNA as if it were never invited into existence in the first place.
the absolute state of the mentally ill.
>invite someone into your home
>change your mind and ask them to leave
>they refuse and have the right to stay because at one point in time you invited them in
You realize how stupid you sound?
>Hospitals are the same as personal homes
The whole situation depends on what terms were defined during the invitiation.
If it was
>Hey come over, lets hand out for a while
Then you have every right to tell the other person to leave, as well as it being your property do defend it.
However if it was
>Yes, you can come live with me for a few months, its good
and you decide to kick this person out for no ill on his part, it is dishonest
IF the patient was voluntary helped by the hospital on the conditions that
>they will do their best with what they have available
And they no longer have resources to sustain said person, then yes, they can theoretically disconect the person from life support, however, given the The Hippocratic Oath, the least a Hospital could do is see if there is anyone else who could continue helping said person
>Hurr durr analogies
Are not arguments
>consent to having a fetus use one's own body
>the fetus doesn't have the right to use that person's body
0/10
>and you decide to kick this person out for no ill on his part, it is dishonest
you're grasping at straws, of course you still can kick them out. They don't have a right to your home while you still own it
I didn't say he could not, I said it was dishonest.
It is still the breaking of a agreement on the house owners part. Whether such an agreement is legally binding is another question.
And to my original reply
>How can you demand money from someone you chose to help voluntary
If you invite someone to your house to party, and then afterwards demand they pay up, without having disclosed that beforehand, that is dishonest move, and might even be illegal under certain circumstances.
>"Well obviously all this food and stuff doesn't pay for it self you know!"
Is in no way biding after the fact
And as I mentioned beforehand, you can not compare Hospitals to Housing as the Medical industry is bound by the aforementioned Hippocratic Oath, in one form or another.
By this logic it's not wrong to kill any animals. Your dog, your bird, whatever it may be, no problem so long as it's not a person
Of course, don't you eat meat?
What the actual fuck is this logic
I have no idea how support for abortions is so widespread like holy fuck that could've been you clipped off in the earliest stages of life
What the fuck is wrong with liberals
Go to your local park, start killing all the birds in sight and see what happens
What's your stance on trophy hunting? Just curious.
I don't care about abortion. It kills a lot of black people so I have no problem with it. The only reason I'd do away with it is to watch the left's heads explode.
user you fucking retard the purpose of sex is procreation, the purpose of using the fucking sidewalk isn't to get mugged you cretin
Better idea, go to the local park and start breaking benches.
You're arguing for rights of ownership, not animal's right to live.
Fine by me
Most people have sex for pleasure and bonding, not to make babies. Otherwise 50yo women wouldn't have sex and contraceptives wouldn't exist
by that rationale, i can eat all the meat i want and it's okay with vegan leftist degenerates
Conservatards, you think shitlib babies are going to turn into god-loving anti-freedom religitard crusaders, especially if your force their shitlib parents to have them? No, they are killing off future shitlibs. Both sides are fucking retarded.
Sex exists so you can put a baby in a womb user, does the sidewalk exist so you can get run over?
Do birds in the park belong to someone?
Animals can not be killed indiscriminately
Life is the ability of an organism to function independently of other organisms.
Fetus is not life, it's just a parasite. It's not that biologically different from a cancerous tumor anyway.
You won't argue that it is wrong to cut out a tumor, right?
It's clearly morally wrong to kill only sentient beings, those who are able to function and process information independently, individually.
Fetus is not a sentient being and can't process information anyway.
one should never abuse the equipment they are paid to clean
>Implied contracts aren't a thing
Actually, implied contracts are a fucking thing you fucking retard. At least know the law before larping on pol as a demonic harpy.
A fetus is the natural continuation of life and killing of fetuses, biologically, is detrimental to species well being.
To compare fetus to a tumor is to hate life itself
Lol nigga no life is the beginning of consciousness which begins as soon as a woman begins pregnancy
>organism to function independently of other organisms
Absolutely fucking retarded. Do you even know how mitochondria works? Or what gut bacteria is? Life is symbiotic in complex organisms at virtually every level.
It helps the audience when you take the cock out of your mouth so we can understand what you're saying.
>fetuses aren't life
I advise you see an abortion retard.
Not me. I think abortion should be legal up to age 120
>you realize how stupid you sound?
right back at you faggot
>agree to rent out your womb for 9 months
>kill the tenant after a few days
Nope, consciousness is only possible with functioning brain with vast synaptic connections. Fetus doesn't have such synaptic activity until at least 20th week.
Organisms are indeed complex systems. But gut bacteria are inherent part of a larger organism and they are not independent anyway. They won't live for long outside your gut or without you as a host.
If you take an antibiotic a lot of those bacteria die en masse. You won't argue that those bacteria have any rights to live and and all antibiotics should be banned, right?
Fetus is no different from that. Sentient beings have inherent right to determine what lives inside their bodies and what should be removed in one way or another.