Stfu Hypocrites

I’ve heard a lot of pro-choice people say that it doesn’t matter if a fetus is a human being because protecting him/her would give them rights no other living being has - the right to use another’s body.

prolongedeyecontact:

pixyled:

doubtingansley:

But if a fetus is a human being then we are also giving the person carrying the fetus a right that no one else has - the “right” to kill another human being without  consequences. 

The question really boils down to what is more important - the right to bodily autonomy or the right to life?

So instead of telling me why it doesn’t matter if a fetus is a human being or not, prove to me that the right to bodily autonomy is more important than the most fundamental of all human rights - the right to life. 

Well, that is very simple. if we valued the right to life above the right to bodily autonomy, the organ donation wouldn’t be voluntary, but an obligation. Blood donation wouldn’t be voluntary, but mandatory; after all, it isn’t fair at all that people can just decide not to donate blood because they don’t feel like it while countless people in hospital beds that need that blood are left to die. Tissue donation would also be mandatory. It would be ridiculous for people to have to consent to donating their organs when they are dead because they obviously will not be using them, and with things like hearts in such short supply and highly needed, countless lives could be saved by them. But because in our society, even dead people’s bodily rights are more important than born people right to life, this isn’t the case and taking the organs of a dead person who didn’t consent when alive is illegal.

Justifiable Homocide wouldn’t exist in cases where a person’s life is in danger as it currently is (Justifiable Homocide is justifiable in cases of great bodily harm, not just in cases of life or death.) 

The right to life isn’t even as important as property rights in some cases. In the winter, countless homeless people die on the streets from having no place to go. They freeze to death. I don’t see citizens being mandated to house homeless people in their houses in the name of the homeless’ right to life. If a homeless person broke into my house, I would be well within my rights to toss his ass back out on the streets to die. 

I’m not allowed to steal food, even if I’m starving to death because the food would be some one else’s property.

I wouldn’t be allowed to steal money to pay for an operation to save my life, because my rights to life>other people’s right to property.

The fact of the matter is, the right to life only includes your own resources and resources other people willingly give to you. That’s how it works in society. Something doesn’t belong to you? Then you can’t claim “right to life” and take it against the owner’s consent. You’re only entitled to your own body, your own money, your own house. If you’re violating some one else’s rights, people are allowed to use the minimal force necessary to stop you. 

I can not think of a single instance in society where some one can justfiably infringe on the rights of another person under the “right to life” and have it be legally standing. It seems the only case people ever make this argument is abortion. Suddenly in that case, the right to life trumps everything and everyone and its the most sacred thing ever. Meanwhile, in the rest of society, that is not the case.

Emphasis mine. Thank you for taking the time to spell this out for our antichoice friends. I would have thought it to be blatantly obvious that if something’s entire existence directly conflicts with my health, my life, my right to life, and my bodily integrity that it gets no rights and certainly none that could ever trump mine.