You're viewing part of a thread.
Your logic is fundamentally flawed. In several ways. I see several people arguing with you ineffectively because they assume you are arguing in good faith or have a coherent position... Neither of which I am convinced you possess.
In the US (and most of the world) it is a fundamental right of bodily autonomy that any individual is not subjected to any forced medical situation in the support of another person's life, regardless of that person's age, gender or relationship with the other person. Even if we agreed on when personhood happens (I assume we disagree on it) at no point must one person give up their bodily rights for another. If you provide a special case for pregnancy then we are in a discussion of if your inconsistent belief structure is valid.
Your logic is fundamentally flawed. In several ways. I see several people arguing with you ineffectively because they assume you are arguing in good faith or have a coherent position…
You're free to disagree with me, but everything I say on here is in good faith.
In the US (and most of the world) it is a fundamental right of bodily autonomy that any individual is not subjected to any forced medical situation in the support of another person’s life, regardless of that person’s age, gender or relationship with the other person.
Yep, I agree.
Even if we agreed on when personhood happens (I assume we disagree on it) at no point must one person give up their bodily rights for another.
I have no strong opinion on when personhood happens, I simply don't know.
If you provide a special case for pregnancy then we are in a discussion of if your inconsistent belief structure is valid.
A special case for what? You never expressed your disagreement with me.
Your inability to follow the argument is probably the problem.
Okay, then tell me what I missed
Why should I repeat myself?
Because clearly I failed to understand what you said, so rephrasing could enable that.