If you want to control something, apply that logic to something else.

https://i.imgflip.com/3lx7xe.jpg

okay basically what i said was this meme is a shit composition/division argument and makes no sense

I agree. it making front page reminds me where I'm at...

And they actually told me I had missed the point so I tried to ask for clarification and they replied "yes"...? Troll on I guess.. ¿

lmaoooo mans said 'i got a lot of likes on the meme site so you telling me im full of shit doesnt matter 🤓'

tell me what you didnt understand tho, ill try to explain better. if it's the 'composition/division' thing thats a logical fallacy that basically means that someone is arguing one part of something must apply to all other parts of something as well (in this case this gun control argument must be applied to the abortion debate, actually when i read it just now to check for a strawman the meme makes less than no sense i dont know how you guys thought it was any good)

I'm not sure if you understand...
I understood you. I did not understand the point of who_am_i 's meme.

Comparing rules/arguments to 2 totally different concepts makes no sense. You should not be able to get a driver's liscense if you are blind in both eyes. But it obviously would be illogical to deny blind women abortion just because the blind shouldn't be able to get driver licenses. And the fact that blindness should not apply to the right to have an abortion does not mean it should not apply to the right to get a driver's license.

and yet somehow 60+ upvotes for this ...🤨 hooray for imgflip user demographics

this is the second time ive misinterpreted someone agreeing with me in two days oh god my bad

It's all good.. I did hop into the conversation.. maybe you thought I was the previous person idk

3gxc1a.gif (click to show) misses the point

Ok help me out...
Was your point that gun arguments are illogical because they dont work when applied to abortions? Or are you saying if we actually had the rules being argued for guns, we should also apply them to abortions? Both? Neither?

yes

Well? Do you think that mother is fit to raise a child?

If she's pregnant, abortion may be a good decision until she gets her life in order.

It's her decision to make, and not being able to raise a child is a valid one.

I have issues with your definitions, but I will just ignore them for now. My rationales work even if you consider the fetus to be a fully-fledged person.

"Her decision to kill her own child is just as valid as my decision to kill anyone I want, too."

No, it's not. Unless that person is hooked up to you, in which case you have the absolute right to withdraw use of your organs from them. Because it's your body. Which is exactly the position a fetus is in.

We do not force people to donate their organs or even something less invasive, like their blood, even if it can be proven that doing so would save another person's life. You cannot take a person's organs from them without their consent, even after they are dead. They must have made the decision to be a registered organ donor before dying.

Why is abortion any different? Why should a fetus get *more* rights than someone who has been born, and a mother get *fewer* rights than someone who is dead?

"What gives her the right to kill her child?"

It's her own body. See above.

For purposes of this particular debate, I already conceded that the fetus is a person.

But it's a person on life support, basically -- particularly before the point of fetal viability. It's a person who has no independent means of living apart from its mother's willingness to carry it in her womb.

The state cannot force a person to donate blood, or a kidney, or even force a dead person to donate his or her vital organs to save someone else's life. And correspondingly, we should not force a woman to use her womb to support a fetus's life.

Again: taking that position would mean giving the fetus more rights than a living person, and the mother fewer rights than a dead person.

A mother who failed to feed her child with breastmilk, or formula, or otherwise, or entrust the child to the care of another, would be properly charged with criminal neglect. Nothing says she has to use her breastmilk. Plenty of mothers cannot, or choose not to.

Your analogies fail over and over again. I've never taken the positions you've raised about people who are unable to care for themselves. Obviously there are many situations where one person is entrusted to the care of another, including raising a child.

This is about bodily autonomy, point blank. The state cannot force someone to donate organs, donate blood, donate vital organs after death, *or* to share a body with another (as you have characterized it) without their explicit permission. Even if it means the other person dies.

But if I'm wrong and you're right -- and abortion is murder to anyone with half a brain -- then take these arguments right to the Supreme Court where your brilliant logic is sure to get a fair hearing by, if no one else, a 5 conservative Supreme Court justice majority.

At this late stage of pregnancy? Geesh.