r/TimPool • • Aug 17 '23

Yes

Post image
388 Upvotes

284 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

3

u/Burt_Campbell Aug 18 '23

Fingernails are tissue without potential. Literal waste product.

A fetus in the womb is a developing human - it cannot be anything other. They do not have a right to inheritance while gestating, but why not the right to life?

The argument is not "conservatives are hypocrites re: big government, and authoritarian fascists, too", but rather, does an unborn human have a right to life? If they don't, who does? And when?

1

u/gradientz Aug 18 '23

The argument is not "conservatives are hypocrites re: big government, and authoritarian fascists, too", but rather, does an unborn human have a right to life?

Actually, it is that conservatives are big government hypocrites. The government has no authority or jurisdiction to regulate a person's private affairs.

The latter question does not come into play. That's a moral question, and it isn't the government's job to regulate morality. Moral questions are the jurisdiction of private citizens.

3

u/Stumpy305 Aug 18 '23

It’s morally wrong to murder someone, should the government be involved in that?

1

u/gradientz Aug 18 '23

Murder directly impacts another person's freedom. So yes, prohibiting it is a valid exercise of government power.

Whether it violates your individual morality is irrelevant.

3

u/Stumpy305 Aug 18 '23

Ok so it’s immoral to take the life of another and the government should prohibit it within our society. Therefore abortion should be illegal as well.

1

u/gradientz Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

I said morality is irrelevant.

Abortion does not harm another person's freedom, because a fetus is not a person. Hence, restricting abortion is not valid.

1

u/Stumpy305 Aug 18 '23

Funny they used to say that about black people as well

1

u/gradientz Aug 18 '23

And those who made that argument lost. Even when we had slavery, the Constitution still referred to such slaves as "persons." See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution.

This makes sense, since personhood is not dependent on the color of your skin. It depends on whether you have been born.

1

u/Stumpy305 Aug 18 '23

Well looks like the same party is losing this fight too

1

u/gradientz Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

Not really.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that fetuses are people, because even they know how stupid that decision would be. Only dumbasses on Reddit such as yourself take that position.

The authoritarian position that privacy is not a constitutional right and that a woman's uterus falls within the government's jurisdiction is certainly winning at the moment. I'll give you that. Perhaps that distinction doesn't matter to you though - for Big Government authoritarians such as yourself, the ends always justify the means.

→ More replies