DarraignTheSane

You're right, I do give up on "conservatives" and fascists. I don't hold it against you for trying, but I believe that the only way to win with fascists is to not play their game, and to simply oppose them wherever and whenever they crop up. No, ultimately I don't believe that you or anyone else who claims to have swayed a few opinions have ultimately made any difference in people with no regard for others, so I will continue to have no regard for them.

Yeah, I'm not even sure which option I'm in favor of. It's a shit situation all around.

"Corporate self governance" doesn't exist. Whatever fucks the consumer for more profit is the only rule they follow.

Brave users remind me of Joe Rogan bros. I wonder what that Venn diagram looks like.

It means that "my body, my choice" isn't the argument people pretend it is

On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is "government can't force people into organ donation slavery".

but it's very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it

Those people who have "changed their mind" on abortion haven't done so through rational discussion with those who know that forced organ donation slavery is wrong. Like any conservative, they had to see the results of their lack of concern for others have an impact on themselves or others that they care about, or at least others who look the same as they do.

Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand, some of the "centrists" (i.e. conservatives who want to pretend they're not) began to see the monsters they had become.

You realize there was a good decade between the first home PC games and the time when computer mice became ubiquitous, right? You're going to have to say something about the game other than "text based", because that's no more descriptive than "mouse based" or "gamepad based".

No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency

Yes, just like JAQing off. That's all that they want to do right? Just ask questions that point out logical inconsistencies? What's so wrong about that? Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn't always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?

If you want to push the vaccine angle, then yes, sometimes, nuance exists in life. Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.

No one who's in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind. The only way to fight fascism is to dismiss it out of hand. Giving it any amount of validity is letting it win.

A "hypothetical" in this case is no different than JAQing off, which is itself a modern version of playing devil's advocate, but in bad faith.

You began (as you said in your original comment) with a losing premise, in that every argument you can put out there to try to lend any validity to pro-life views can and will be dismissed as baseless drivel that ignores the rights of the women that would be forced into organ donation slavery.

I will agree with the one premise that every argument that isn't "the government can't force people into organ donation slavery" can also be dismissed out of hand as being irrelevant to the only aspect of this topic that matters.

You're right, I made the mistake of engaging your falsehoods instead of immediately dismissing them out of hand. No, now that I come to think of it, vaccinations and forced birth are not the same because vaccinations do not require you to remove blood and tissue from yourself and give them to another person. So, apologies that I gave your devil's advocate argument an ounce of credence.

I have not once defended anti-choice. I am pointing out that the arguments many people use to defend abortion-choice aren't well thought out

Yes, by using pro-life baseless arguments and assertions in a devil's advocate fashion to point out why you believe we shouldn't immediately dismiss them as the irrational drivel they are.

I'm not playing devil's advocate

Yes, you are. If you don't believe you are, you need to look up the definition of the term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

In common language, the phrase 'playing devil's advocate' describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid.

I'm pointing out that this is not an objective truth

Then you're a little hazy on the topic of government-mandated organ donation slavery. Okay.

This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment

I'm not going to debate for or against capital punishment, but the two situations are not comparable unless you believe that pregnancy is a capital crime deserving of the punishment of forced organ donation slavery.

Does this apply to vaccines?

Unfortunately, yes. While it would have been nice and would have saved many more lives if everyone had been forced to get vaccinated, the government cannot force that on anyone. They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.

Now, is there anything else you'd like to throw out as devil's advocate?

No I get it, you're playing devil's advocate in 1,000 words, but it's all for naught. That's all it comes down to - if someone is "pro life", their opinion is that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. And yes, their opinion can then absolutely be dismissed out of hand, because it is irrational and does not respect the rights of the human they are forcing into organ donor slavery.

I'm not even here to debate the personhood status of a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, etc.. No human (or potential human) has the right to take blood and tissue from another human by government force.

There's no real conflict of rights, unless you believe that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. That "future person" has no more rights to a woman's uterus than I do as an adult to my mother's blood & organs if I get into a car accident.