No, because when one is conceived they're body isn't their own , it's the woman's until birth...then it's their own....
What about during the moment of birth, when the baby is half inside the woman, half outside? What does your theory tell you is the case then?
There is no theory, a fetus is part of a woman's body, she owns it and her own body. YOU only own your own body , no one else's. AND if you think "birth" ONLY consists of the fetus being inside or outside the woman then you have no idea of the physiology/biology/science of what pregnancy and birth entail...and haven't bothered to find out ...
Awesome, well I bet there are a lot of people who need your second kidney a lot more than you do and since your body doesn't belong to you lets drag you into that surgery room for the greater good.
Although you can draw a comparison between the two, donation of organs is not the same as pregnancy. The woman's not really giving up anything that's permanently part of her body, and she is not being cut into, except in the case of a C-section (which is a procedure that is unnecessary in the vast majority of cases it is used in the U.S., but that's another story).
They ARE the same in the context of this: "I'm just questioning the fact that it's "her" body automatically equates to the concept that she should then have complete and total right over that body." Which is probably the most ignorant thing I have heard yet.
Oh, and did I mention pregnancy is the most natural thing in the world? Yep, I'm not sure I'm buying into the whole organ donation analogy.
I think it is important for people who hold convictions like this to lead by example. I look forward to the OP officially relinquishing control over his own body. Obviously he doesn't get to choose who to or what they might do to the body he no longer controls, but principles always come with a price. I am sure he can find some way to legally facilitate this. Perhaps someone else at PF can be one of the people who participates in this new experiment. Keep us updated. Should be amusing.
That's because you refuse to understand it. Organ DONATION has NOTHING to do with it...see, you're already confused.... NO one is allowed to use another's body to sustain their life....NO one. That means that no one can be FORCED to have their kidneys, heart, blood, taken out and transferred to someone else. NO one can be forced to die to save someone else's life.... the word "donate" has NOTHING to do with it.. BUT Anti-Choicers want to take that right away from pregnant women and FORCE them to use their bodies to sustain the life of another.... You have had that pointed out many times but I think I know why you are told to keep bringing it up And your meaningless ""Oh, and did I mention pregnancy is the most natural thing in the world?"" Oh, did I mention SO WHAT? Oh, did I mention so is dying? Oh, did I mention so are miscarriages. Did I mention so is permanent physical damage from pregnancy? That has nothing to do with a woman's right to abortion.....
Anti-Choicers are only interested in women losing the right to their own bodies , they fight like hell if someone tried to do the same to them...
Yes, being forced to have an organ taken is an apt comparison to being forced to gestate. The other poster is confused and thinks it's "donating" an organ and the comparison does not deal with "donating" it deals with "forcing".
We are NOT talking about organ DONATION.... YES, forced gestation, FORCING someone to use their body to sustain the life of another is EXACTLY like forcing a person to have a body part cut out to sustain the life of another. They are BOTH being FORCED to use their body to sustain the life of another. What a load of crap.....YES, pregnancy permanently affects a woman's body forever. It can even kill her....and that's Really Permanent. Pregnancy is one person USING THEIR BODY TO SUSTAIN THE LIFE OF ANOTHER...something YOU will not ever be forced to do. "Cutting" or not, that has nothing to do with anything....the fetus is USING her body to sustain it's life ....NO one else has that right...
How does giving something up make a difference or the simple act of cutting? In the case of the pregnancy she is donating her belly for the use of the baby and unlike an organ donation she has to give up her body for months and then have a large baby ripped through her vagina with months needed for recovery. She will also have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for the pregnancy and risk serious complications like c-sections, temporary diabetes, death, major weight gain, birth injury, and many more. Sure the medical effects of pregnancy and birth are different than an organ donation but that doesn't make it any less. If your kidney doesn't belong to you then why should you keep it if there are millions of people who live in misery without one?
Of course, but its amusing watching them twist & turn trying to pretend there is some 'general principle' they are trying to apply.
What if we just agree with your premise and become the Borg. Just because there is not complete freedom does not mean we should have no freedom. Of course you have the right to your opinion that we should have no respect for individual liberty ... I just do not share it. The "beings sharing the same body" is laughable given that for every one human cell in your body there are 9 bacterial cells ...all beings and all sharing the same body.
So by that logic you'd be against abortion if it was nonuplets? But seriously though, let's look at the case of twins. Even if you think each fetus is worth less than the life of the mother, two of them have got to count for something.
Huh ? How does stating that other beings (bacteria) occupy the human body make me against abortion ? Last I checked we do not put much value on the life of a bacteria. When you get serious though you get very close to hitting the nail on the head. Regardless of what one things of Abortion on a moral basis, if we are talking Law - the use of physical violence to force a belief on others ... that is a different thing. If one claims that the entity in the woman during pregnancy is worth something we then have a case of conflicting rights ... rights of the entity vs rights of the mother. We then have to weigh those rights on the scales of Justice. The rights of the woman are highly valued - at least in this society whose founding principle is respect for individual liberty. The problem is when it comes to valuing the rights of this entity. If its a human then it has equal rights.. if it is not then it doesn't. What further complicates this issue is terms like "Fetus". Some claim the Fetus exists at conception while others say at the end of the first trimester. Until we get to roughly 22 weeks (when significant brain function becomes a reality) the glaring fact is that "Experts Disagree". To simplify things lets start at the zygote stage ... the single cell at conception. Anti aborts in congress have put forward bills declaring that the zygote is a human - a Homo Sapiens. Without getting into the arguments for and against .. the verifiable fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree". For example - there are 5 main scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" Metabolic, Genetic, Ecological, Neurological, Embryological. Only one puts the "beginning" at conception. We should also bear in mind that saying "human life begins" makes that entity "human - descriptive adjective" but it does not make that entity "A human" - noun. Regardless - "Experts disagree". We have a value for the woman on on side of the scale ... how do we value "Experts Disagree" on the other side. This is essentially saying "We don't know". How can we attribute a weight to this. This is no contest and obviously you default then to the woman. "We don't know/we don't know otherwise" is a horrible justification for law. It is the road to totalitarianism.
This should be quite simple to resolve, anyone who feels the mother should be subject to their opinion must be the one to tell her and sign documentation that they agree to be responsible for the results of their insistence. It will be interesting to see how many have the resolve to approach a total stranger and demand in person that they do as commanded with their lives and bodies.
Exactly. It is way to common (mostly out of ignorance) that people try to get the Gov't to do what they themselves could not. When having this debate - person to person- I have often made an argument similar to the one you give above. I ask the person, "would you be willing to put a gun to the head some woman to force her not to have an abortion ?" Almost every time they respond ... "What are you talking about". to which I respond well ... if you would not be willing to do this yourself then you should not be getting someone else to do your dirty work because that is exactly what you are doing. The whole point of making something law is to give the "heavy hand of the State" the power to punish - through physical violence, coercion, imprisonment or even death should the person refuse to comply. If would not be willing to participate in physical violence to prevent some woman from having an abortion yourself, then you should not be getting others to do your dirty work.
Well, I guess that would make a 22-week cut-off point for me. Though I might resort to forceful coercion down to 18 weeks. Seriously though, if we only had laws condoning the use of physical force/violence when we ourselves would be willing to personally carry them out, that would eliminate more than half the laws. Should we do a run-through of all the laws and start eliminating them? Have I turned Pro-Choicers into radical Libertarians?
