PortaJohn

[Hobo Hilton]

Just 6 Percent of New S&P Jobs Went to White Applicants in The Wake of George Floyd, Analysis Shows

Only 6 percent of new S&P 100 jobs went to white applicants in the year after George Floyd’s death, according to an analysis by Bloomberg News, a testament to the pervasiveness of legally tenuous diversity programs throughout corporate America.

freebeacon.com

S&P 100 companies added 323,094 new jobs between 2020 and 2021. Of that total, 302,570 of them—94 percent of the total increase—went to "people of color," defined as blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, the analysis found. Together, those groups make up just 40 percent of the U.S population.​

All part of the plan. When the white folks are forced to go into one of the Government agencies to apply for unemployment or other government subsidies... The "people of color" will shuffle them to the back of the line, lose their paper work or send them to stand in another line. Ask me how I know.

 

[Beefmanne]

Fuck this moron. Abortion is about legal rights. Whether to do so or not is a moral (and sometimes medical) decision to exercise this basic human right of not being required to use your body to sustain another body. If men could get pregnant, we could get an abortion in 7/11.

Just another bullshit post claiming people are not responsible for their actions.

 

[theLBC]

 

[Mike Islander]

Explain to me how they are required to sustain “another” body.
There is a hint in my last sentence about the morality.

R

This is a terrible medium to explain the bodily autonomy argument. But YouTube has many good examples.

In a nutshell, no person can legally be required to donate a portion of their body to keep another person alive. You can create, for example, children that will inherit a disease that will kill them, and not be obligated to donate a kidney to save the child's life. It's a LEGAL argument of bodily autonomy. The morality of this is of course deciding to donate the kidney or not. Certain religions would find it immoral to donate the kidney. Others wouldn't. The legal argument protects both viewpoints as the LEGAL DECISION of the donor. Same argument for "remaining pregnant".

 

[Mike Islander]

Just another bullshit post claiming people are not responsible for their actions.

It's a legal argument, not a moral argument. Probably a bit of a cross-post, but the headline says it's not about legality. The problem might be about morality, but the process is all about legality and legal protection for bodily autonomy.

 

[Mike Islander]

He was talking to religious conservatives, not you. He is stating to them what they consider to be obvious. And evidently a significant percentage of the population agrees, based on the number of states that have or are in the process of implementing abortions or at least late term abortions.

By your argument a significant percentage of the population also disagrees. My comment was based on legal protections for bodily autonomy, not the morality of the decision.

Gallup found that 69 percent of Americans — an all-time high for the poll — say abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, up to about 12 weeks. Support declines after that period, with 37 percent saying abortion should be allowed in the second trimester of pregnancy, and 22 percent supporting abortion in the third trimester. Those numbers are record highs in Gallup’s history of abortion public opinion research.

 

[Rthur]

This is a terrible medium to explain the bodily autonomy argument. But YouTube has many good examples.

In a nutshell, no person can legally be required to donate a portion of their body to keep another person alive. You can create, for example, children that will inherit a disease that will kill them, and not be obligated to donate a kidney to save the child's life. It's a LEGAL argument of bodily autonomy. The morality of this is of course deciding to donate the kidney or not. Certain religions would find it immoral to donate the kidney. Others wouldn't. The legal argument protects both viewpoints as the LEGAL DECISION of the donor. Same argument for "remaining pregnant".

Your example isn’t relevant.
Donating a kidney is a false equivalent.
They weren’t forced to partake in sex, IE the leading cause of pregnancy.
If we must rely on the legal profession to instruct morality/proper life choices it would
explain the state we are in.
One can’t remove this argument from morality.
Those that would have tried and only the blind have been swayed.

R

 

[Mike Islander]

He was talking to religious conservatives, not you. He is stating to them what they consider to be obvious. And evidently a significant percentage of the population agrees, based on the number of states that have or are in the process of implementing abortions or at least late term abortions.

And he couched it as religious human (child) sacrifice, which is ludicrous. "Political debate" in this case means legal debate, as it really makes no difference what any legislator believes if they don't apply that belief to legal rights.

It's a legal debate about bodily autonomy.

 

[W54/XM-388]

This is a terrible medium to explain the bodily autonomy argument. But YouTube has many good examples.

In a nutshell, no person can legally be required to donate a portion of their body to keep another person alive. You can create, for example, children that will inherit a disease that will kill them, and not be obligated to donate a kidney to save the child's life. It's a LEGAL argument of bodily autonomy. The morality of this is of course deciding to donate the kidney or not. Certain religions would find it immoral to donate the kidney. Others wouldn't. The legal argument protects both viewpoints as the LEGAL DECISION of the donor. Same argument for "remaining pregnant".

NOT in any way the same.

But thanks for being brainwashed...

 

[lariat]

House approves bill striking down Biden's crackdown on hunting and archery in overwhelmingly bipartisan vote

The House voted on a massive bipartisan basis in favor of legislation reversing the Biden administration's interpretation of a 2022 law to defund school shooting sports programs.

www.foxnews.com

 

[lariat]

And he couched it as religious human (child) sacrifice, which is ludicrous. "Political debate" in this case means legal debate, as it really makes no difference what any legislator believes if they don't apply that belief to legal rights.

It's a legal debate about bodily autonomy.

So what do you do with the representatives that vote in politics about proposed laws using their religious beliefs? If it becomes law, what do YOU do? What do you do with representatives that have the backing of their religious constituents for the banning of abortion? Because that's what's happening with this issue.

I'm curious, you stepped out there to voice your strong opinions on this matter. What past experience has brought you to this conclusion?

 

[theLBC]

i don't know if this is legit

 

[Dead Eye Dick]

A bit off the subject but some comic relief to the issues of the day

 

[Dead Eye Dick]

Something we need to consider as a people in every endeavor (especially our national government)

 

[Beefmanne]

And he couched it as religious human (child) sacrifice, which is ludicrous. "Political debate" in this case means legal debate, as it really makes no difference what any legislator believes if they don't apply that belief to legal rights.

It's a legal debate about bodily autonomy.

So making it an economical sacrifice justifies it?

 

[Mike Islander]

So what do you do with the representatives that vote in politics about proposed laws using their religious beliefs? If it becomes law, what do YOU do? What do you do with representatives that have the backing of their religious constituents for the banning of abortion? Because that's what's happening with this issue.

I'm curious, you stepped out there to voice your strong opinions on this matter. What past experience has brought you to this conclusion?

Past experience is simply living and thinking about this for over 60 years. I've been fully on both sides of this fence. My current opinion is one based on individual rights of bodily autonomy. This is a position I was argued into by good arguments that I could not refute. Many examples on YouTube.

I believe religious belief has no place in decision-making if it violates constitutional rights. That's my belief. A great example is Christian sects that refuse to give or receive blood transfusions for themselves or their children. If legally prohibited that would violate the rights of those who don't share that belief to bodily autonomy.

What do I do? I express my beliefs when asked. I think there is a huge difference in aborting a 3-day old zygote versus a viable fetus. I believe killing the a viable fetus is wrong. Removing it upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, but killing it violates the autonomy of the then child. Removing it before it is viable upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, at the expense of the fetus. Just as not requiring a parent to donate a kidney to a living, breathing child with friends and life experiences upholds bodily autonomy at the expense of a living, breathing human being. I believe the moral question is not a legal question, nor should it be. I believe the moral DECISION rests within the PERSON making the decision.

This is not a simple topic, though some will impose a simplistic solution.

 

[Mike Islander]

So making it an economical sacrifice justifies it?

Wrong quote, as I literally said absolutely nothing about economics. If you mean something deeper, you'll have to expand beyond a short sentence for me to offer any reasonable reply.

 

[Hobo Hilton]

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Passes Amendment on House Floor to FIRE Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin​

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Passes Amendment on House Floor to FIRE Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin

greene.house.gov

 

[quietmike]

Fuck this moron. Abortion is about legal rights. Whether to do so or not is a moral (and sometimes medical) decision to exercise this basic human right of not being required to use your body to sustain another body. If men could get pregnant, we could get an abortion in 7/11.

66% of the entire federal budget goes to sustaining other bodies. Bodies who are ostensibly adults, but can't figure out how to run their own lives.

 

[Beefmanne]

Wrong quote, as I literally said absolutely nothing about economics. If you mean something deeper, you'll have to expand beyond a short sentence for me to offer any reasonable reply.

You said “religious human (child) sacrifice is ludicrous,” I’m just trying to see what form of child sacrifice is acceptable.

 

[quietmike]

Past experience is simply living and thinking about this for over 60 years. I've been fully on both sides of this fence. My current opinion is one based on individual rights of bodily autonomy. This is a position I was argued into by good arguments that I could not refute. Many examples on YouTube.

I believe religious belief has no place in decision-making if it violates constitutional rights. That's my belief. A great example is Christian sects that refuse to give or receive blood transfusions for themselves or their children. If legally prohibited that would violate the rights of those who don't share that belief to bodily autonomy.

What do I do? I express my beliefs when asked. I think there is a huge difference in aborting a 3-day old zygote versus a viable fetus. I believe killing the a viable fetus is wrong. Removing it upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, but killing it violates the autonomy of the then child. Removing it before it is viable upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, at the expense of the fetus. Just as not requiring a parent to donate a kidney to a living, breathing child with friends and life experiences upholds bodily autonomy at the expense of a living, breathing human being. I believe the moral question is not a legal question, nor should it be. I believe the moral DECISION rests within the PERSON making the decision.

This is not a simple topic, though some will impose a simplistic solution.

If viability is the metric, able to sustain oneself, then open season at the welfare office and public housing?

 

[lariat]

Past experience is simply living and thinking about this for over 60 years. I've been fully on both sides of this fence. My current opinion is one based on individual rights of bodily autonomy. This is a position I was argued into by good arguments that I could not refute. Many examples on YouTube.

I believe religious belief has no place in decision-making if it violates constitutional rights. That's my belief. A great example is Christian sects that refuse to give or receive blood transfusions for themselves or their children. If legally prohibited that would violate the rights of those who don't share that belief to bodily autonomy.

What do I do? I express my beliefs when asked. I think there is a huge difference in aborting a 3-day old zygote versus a viable fetus. I believe killing the a viable fetus is wrong. Removing it upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, but killing it violates the autonomy of the then child. Removing it before it is viable upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, at the expense of the fetus. Just as not requiring a parent to donate a kidney to a living, breathing child with friends and life experiences upholds bodily autonomy at the expense of a living, breathing human being. I believe the moral question is not a legal question, nor should it be. I believe the moral DECISION rests within the PERSON making the decision.

This is not a simple topic, though some will impose a simplistic solution.

Although I wholeheartedly do not agree with you, I found this to be a reply that gave reasons and was void of insults and emotions and I can respect a reply that does that. Thank you.

 

[Mike Islander]

If viability is the metric, able to sustain oneself, then open season at the welfare office and public housing?

I meant what I wrote. I don't think I left anything out.

 

[Mike Islander]

You said “religious human (child) sacrifice is ludicrous,” I’m just trying to see what form of child sacrifice is acceptable.

To couch a woman's decision to end pregnancy as somehow being an actual religious ceremony (i.e. "religious rite"; note the spelling) is obtuse and demonstrably wrong (i.e. bullshit used to incite a response). Women who make that difficult decision aren't thinking "I'm going to offer a child sacrifice in this religious ceremony". Tucker can pretend, for the benefit of his audience, that one has anything to do with the other, but it's a grossly formed simile and metaphor at best.

 

[Beefmanne]

To couch a woman's decision to end pregnancy as somehow being an actual religious ceremony (i.e. "religious rite"; note the spelling) is obtuse and demonstrably wrong (i.e. bullshit used to incite a response). Women who make that difficult decision aren't thinking "I'm going to offer a child sacrifice in this religious ceremony". Tucker can pretend, for the benefit of his audience, that one has anything to do with the other, but it's a grossly formed simile and metaphor at best.

The simple fact is that it is sacrificing the child’s life, wether it is religious, economic, or selfishness, it’s still a sacrifice. You can justify it any way you wish, the result is the same.

 

[Mike Islander]

The simple fact is that it is sacrificing the child’s life, wether it is religious, economic, or selfishness, it’s still a sacrifice. You can justify it any way you wish, the result is the same.

It's not a religious sacrifice as characterized by Tucker. He was careful to add that it's basically a Satanic ritual and that anyone who advocates for bodily autonomy is "our enemy". That's divisive and damaging to the country, of which, BTW, 69% support at least some legal access to abortion.

Sacrifice carries with it some implicit baggage that does not cover the full story. And language matters. A zygote with 16 cells in not a "child". It has the potential to become a child. But "God" will abort 75% of all zygotes. Is God aborting children? Language matters, and Tucker's language is device and self-serving. IMO

 

[Hobo Hilton]

LOL.... Another gimmick by Costco to get memberships renewed.... Costco has no shame

Costco is selling gold bars and they are selling out within a few hours

The retail warehousing giant is your one-stop shop for one-ounce gold bars, handsomely detailed and ready for purchase.

www.cnbc.com

 

[quietmike]

I meant what I wrote. I don't think I left anything out.

I'm looking for clarification. Why is it ok to kill non-viable babies, but not adults who can't sustain themselves?

 

[Mike Islander]

I'm looking for clarification. Why is it ok to kill non-viable babies, but not adults who can't sustain themselves?

I reject the construction of your question. But I'll address is "as-is". Why is it okay to not legally require a parent to donate a kidney to a child who will die without it?

Before we continue, are you familiar with the bodily autonomy argument? It is legally absolute in the US, and it's not a Political football or even on the radar of the political debate or news media. Somehow an undeveloped human is more of an issue than a living, breathing person.

 

[Mwalex]

Past experience is simply living and thinking about this for over 60 years. I've been fully on both sides of this fence. My current opinion is one based on individual rights of bodily autonomy. This is a position I was argued into by good arguments that I could not refute. Many examples on YouTube.

I believe religious belief has no place in decision-making if it violates constitutional rights. That's my belief. A great example is Christian sects that refuse to give or receive blood transfusions for themselves or their children. If legally prohibited that would violate the rights of those who don't share that belief to bodily autonomy.

What do I do? I express my beliefs when asked. I think there is a huge difference in aborting a 3-day old zygote versus a viable fetus. I believe killing the a viable fetus is wrong. Removing it upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, but killing it violates the autonomy of the then child. Removing it before it is viable upholds bodily autonomy of the mother, at the expense of the fetus. Just as not requiring a parent to donate a kidney to a living, breathing child with friends and life experiences upholds bodily autonomy at the expense of a living, breathing human being. I believe the moral question is not a legal question, nor should it be. I believe the moral DECISION rests within the PERSON making the decision.

This is not a simple topic, though some will impose a simplistic solution.

Do you understand that the current crop of Democrats pushed for late term abortions? I am assuming that you are tying "viable" to the twelve week number you cited in an earlier post. There are many democrats that have pushed for abortions up to time of birth and states that have followed suit. While your position might be logical it is completely irrelevant in the current abortion landscape. I believe that if democrats would have stopped at 12 weeks this discussion would not have happened, yet here we are.

Body autonomy cannot be used as a shield against murder or lack of responsibility/accountability. Abortion cannot be an acceptable form of abortion when it is nothing more than murder due to lack of responsibility.

If you were "argued" into agreeing with this concept I would have to question the quality of your convictions before that.

 

[theLBC]

Biden Bombshell: President's brother told FBI family tried to help Chinese firm buy US energy assets

President's brother told agents Hunter Biden believed CEFC company was tied to China's president

justthenews.com

 

[Mwalex]

I reject the construction of your question. But I'll address is "as-is". Why is it okay to not legally require a parent to donate a kidney to a child who will die without it?

Before we continue, are you familiar with the bodily autonomy argument? It is legally absolute in the US, and it's not a Political football or even on the radar of the political debate or news media. Somehow an undeveloped human is more of an issue than a living, breathing person.

Because organ size in a factor in compatibility

 

[Mike Islander]

Your example isn’t relevant.
Donating a kidney is a false equivalent.
They weren’t forced to partake in sex, IE the leading cause of pregnancy.
If we must rely on the legal profession to instruct morality/proper life choices it would
explain the state we are in.
One can’t remove this argument from morality.
Those that would have tried and only the blind have been swayed.

R

What if they were forced to participate in sex? Then it's okay?

Parents of children who will die without their kidneys aren't forced to partake in sex. And there is no political issue in the mainstream discussion when those same parents don't donate a kidney to save a living, breathing child or even young adult, with friends and a life.

It's a legal issue. It's the application of the same LEGAL right to bodily autonomy respected for those who are not forced to give a kidney, applied to a pregnant woman to decide whether to stay pregnant or not.

As soon as you bring in a moral argument, we're no longer talking about the same thing. My argument is for the legal right of bodily autonomy. Violating this for a fetus or zygote is awarding special rights, not afforded living, breathing people, to a zygote or fetus. How do you justify special rights.

 

[rtB]

Sheesh. Quit arguing about abortion In the portajohn.

Go to Huffpo and bitch about "bodily autonomy" there. Fuck.

That is all.

 

[quietmike]

I reject the construction of your question. But I'll address is "as-is". Why is it okay to not legally require a parent to donate a kidney to a child who will die without it?

Before we continue, are you familiar with the bodily autonomy argument? It is legally absolute in the US, and it's not a Political football or even on the radar of the political debate or news media. Somehow an undeveloped human is more of an issue than a living, breathing person.

What about my bodily autonomy in that I'm being forced to support welfare deadbeats?
No different than spending 9 months letting a child grow until birth. I can guarantee I've spent WAY more than 9 months working to support freeloaders.

What about the bodily autonomy of the baby.
If getting pregnant was just something that happened at random times by unexplained events, your argument "might" be valid. But since everyone except ugly 3rd graders know where babies come from it's absurd and childish to think anyone should be able to partake of adult responsibilities then push the consequences onto someone else when it goes bad

 

[Mike Islander]

What about my bodily autonomy in that I'm being forced to support welfare deadbeats?
No different than spending 9 months letting a child grow until birth. I can guarantee I've spent WAY more than 9 months working to support freeloaders.

What about the bodily autonomy of the baby.
If getting pregnant was just something that happened at random times by unexplained events, your argument "might" be valid. But since everyone except ugly 3rd graders know where babies come from it's absurd and childish to think anyone should be able to partake of adult responsibilities then push the consequences onto someone else when it goes bad

Utterly off-topic from anything I am addressing. I have no interest in that discussion. I'm simply convince a woman should have a legal right to decide whether to stay pregnant or not. Full stop. As I said, why is it so obvious that a person has no legal obligation to save anyone else with a body part, but before that person is fully formed or even viable, suddenly that zygote or fetus has special rights not awarded to living, breathing people?

I'm on the side of the fence that says "I don't have the right to force anyone to use their body to save a life, whether of a living, breathing person that has friends, a beautiful smile, a lovely voice, and a joyful continence or a zygote, or a fetus, viable or not. It's a right in my opinion, which means it's absolute.

The moral question is separate. I'm 100% for more counselling, information on consequences, better funding for programs that would encourage pregnant women to carry to term and get help raising their children, or with the adoption process.

 

[quietmike]

Utterly off-topic from anything I am addressing. I have no interest in that discussion. I'm simply convince a woman should have a legal right to decide whether to stay pregnant or not. Full stop. As I said, why is it so obvious that a person has no legal obligation to save anyone else with a body part, but before that person is fully formed or even viable, suddenly that zygote or fetus has special rights not awarded to living, breathing people.

I'm pointing out your logical inconsistency.
Living breathing welfare bums force others to support them, so your "special rights" argument is bunk.

 

[Mwalex]

Utterly off-topic from anything I am addressing. I have no interest in that discussion. I'm simply convince a woman should have a legal right to decide whether to stay pregnant or not. Full stop. As I said, why is it so obvious that a person has no legal obligation to save anyone else with a body part, but before that person is fully formed or even viable, suddenly that zygote or fetus has special rights not awarded to living, breathing people.

The how does your argument apply to those without a voice? Autonomy cannot be had without a voice.

 

[Mike Islander]

The how does your argument apply to those without a voice? Autonomy cannot be had without a voice.

The woman has bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't somehow get special rights that we don't afford to living, breathing people, to use the women's body against her will. People often don't choose to get pregnant, or don't choose to stay pregnant. That's their right, IMO. We extend that right to not saving living, breathing people. What justification for special rights to zygotes, fetuses, or viable fetuses, none of which have ever had any real interaction with society, have never had friends, aspirations, etc.?

 

[Mike Islander]

I'm pointing out your logical inconsistency.
Living breathing welfare bums force others to support them, so your "special rights" argument is bunk.

Now I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. No law requires any citizen to literally use their body for life support for welfare bums.

Taxes for welfare are not equivalent with cutting out a kidney. You can argue that you shouldn't have to pay for that, but that's a different argument, and there is no way I'm going to agree to be pulled off topic. I'm arguing for one thing and hope you can stick to that subject as well. Try again.

 

[Mwalex]

The woman has bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't somehow get special rights that we don't afford to living, breathing people, to use the women's body against her will. People often don't choose to get pregnant, or don't choose to stay pregnant. That's their right, IMO. We extend that right to not saving living, breathing people. What justification for special rights to zygotes, fetuses, or viable fetuses, none of which have ever had any real interaction with society, have never had friends, aspirations, etc.?

You did not answer my question. How does you argument apply to those without a voice?

 

[Mwalex]

The woman has bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't somehow get special rights that we don't afford to living, breathing people, to use the women's body against her will. People often don't choose to get pregnant, or don't choose to stay pregnant. That's their right, IMO. We extend that right to not saving living, breathing people. What justification for special rights to zygotes, fetuses, or viable fetuses, none of which have ever had any real interaction with society, have never had friends, aspirations, etc.?

Do most people know how the process to get pregnant works?

 

[quietmike]

Now I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. No law requires any citizen to literally use their body for life support for welfare bums.

Taxes for welfare are not equivalent with cutting out a kidney. You can argue that you shouldn't have to pay for that, but that's a different argument, and there is no way I'm going to agree to be pulled off topic. I'm arguing for one thing and hope you can stick to that subject as well. Try again.

My body has to show up to work to pay the taxes to support welfare bums. I strongly oppose supporting welfare bums, hence they're using my body against my will.

 

[Mike Islander]

You did not answer my question. How does you argument apply to those without a voice?

Voice or not is not a variable in the argument. Retarded, zygote, fetus, outgoing beauty queen, deaf mute microcephalic; none rate the right to use anyone's body without their consent. The individual with the body is the only party whose voice matters.

Unless...you are asking about harvesting organs from a person who is in a coma or some other "no voice" situation. Then you have to default to the person with the body has to consent, and if they have no voice, they cannot consent. That's my belief. The law can be a bit more unclear.

 

[quietmike]

What it really boils down to....

 

[Mike Islander]

What it really boils down to....

View attachment 8236816

That's the MORAL argument. I'm only addressing the legal argument.

Off the topic I am addressing, I'm totally in favor of working very hard on the moral side, training people to take responsibility for their actions, doing the right thing, being the best people we can be. But I'm not about to violate a basic right that is inherent in another person.

 

[quietmike]

That's the MORAL argument. I'm only addressing the legal argument.

It used to be legal to horse whip a lazy slave or hang a rebellious one. It used to be legal to sterilize and/or lobotomize the mentally ill.
Hell, there's only been a 9 year period in the history of the democrat party they weren't claiming some segment of the population didn't really count as people, so it was legal to kill them.

 

[Lawless]

 

[Rthur]

What if they were forced to participate in sex? Then it's okay?

Parents of children who will die without their kidneys aren't forced to partake in sex. And there is no political issue in the mainstream discussion when those same parents don't donate a kidney to save a living, breathing child or even young adult, with friends and a life.

It's a legal issue. It's the application of the same LEGAL right to bodily autonomy respected for those who are not forced to give a kidney, applied to a pregnant woman to decide whether to stay pregnant or not.

As soon as you bring in a moral argument, we're no longer talking about the same thing. My argument is for the legal right of bodily autonomy. Violating this for a fetus or zygote is awarding special rights, not afforded living, breathing people, to a zygote or fetus. How do you justify special rights.

Rape represents a miniscule portion of unwanted pregnancies.
I'll repeat myself: This argument can't be had without the moral implications of killing.
Those folks are born with a kidney.
How about the zygote of a bald eagle?
If one is to believe the BOR this individual, whether they pass through the magic pussy or not(thereby making them a baby to some) are INHEIRENTLY endowed with INALIENABLE rights.
Seems I've heard those two capitalized words somewhere before...

R

 

[Mwalex]

Voice or not is not a variable in the argument. Retarded, zygote, fetus, outgoing beauty queen, deaf mute microcephalic; none rate the right to use anyone's body without their consent. The individual with the body is the only party whose voice matters.

Unless...you are asking about harvesting organs from a person who is in a coma or some other "no voice" situation. Then you have to default to the person with the body has to consent, and if they have no voice, they cannot consent. That's my belief. The law can be a bit more unclear.

Voice is relevant regardless of your opinion. How else would the examples you provided be able to express their autonomy? People in comas have no voice hence no autonomy. Voice also means the cognitive ability to think and act as well as speak. In your example there is no difference between the deaf, mute microcephalic and a person in a coma because they have very similar brain activities.

By your own argument the microcephalic has body autonomy but why not a fetus, especially after 12 weeks of gestation? You cannot have it both ways and you have been incongruent with your argument - "I believe killing a viable fetus is wrong" while droning on about female bodily autonomy at all costs. You cannot have both.