Yes, it can. We do it all the time. Self defense laws allow for it. Organ and blood donation being wholly voluntary allows for it.
And I’m incredibly not ok with the government putting into place any law that says they can legally violate my body in any way if they think its justifiable.
Abortion is not comparable to organ donation. That has been debunked countless times. Find a new argument please
It has not been “debunked.” Just because you don’t accept the argument doesn’t mean it has been factually proven false.
Organ donation has many clear and obvious parallels with abortion, and the reason for organ donation being voluntary hinges on the same principle of respecting bodily autonomy even if it means the loss of life for another person.
Also, I had 2 comparisons in that post. The other was self defense laws.
I’ll put so you can understand. Donating organs is not an obligation or a responsibility. Taking care of a kid that you made is an obligation and a responsibility. There is no good comparison to pregnancy because it’s a unique thing that stands on its own.
You are not obligated for your children to use your body against your will.
If your child needs an organ to live, there is no obligation to donate your organ to keep them alive. No one is obligated to access to your body against your will.
Pregnancy is only unique if you refuse to see the similarities it has to other issues.
You’re obligated to take care of that child that you made. It’s parental obligation to take care of the one that you created. No one is obligated to donate organs, but you have the responsibility and the obligation to take care of the the product of your actions. Otherwise you’re saying that a woman has special privileges to revoke her parental obligation that no one else has.
And no, organ donations does not compare to pregnancy. Nothing does or will. It’s reaching at best.
That parental obligation does not include entitlements to your body and organs. Bodily autonomy is paramount.
I think organ donation is a very clear comparison, and I’ve explained why. You havent explained why not.
It does, because they don’t start once the kid is born. There is a whole developmental process before birth that requires taking care of the kid. And part of that process is the obligation for a woman to be a parent and take care of the kid in her body. Again, you’re saying that a woman has special privileges to revoke those parental obligations and responsibilities that no one else has.
To add to boldly anatomy and since you belive that she can do whatever-
Let’s say a pregnant woman has intractable nausea and vomiting and has a drug called thalidomide, that will help her relive those symptoms. She knows that if she takes it, chances are her child will end up being disabled. But she feels that her vomiting and nausea is more important than the possible result of this drug. Since bodily anatomy is paramount- should she have the ability to take that drug and, highly possibly make her child be born with a disability, because she feels that her nausea and vomiting relief is more important?
NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO THE USE OF YOUR BODY AGAINST YOUR WILL.
No one. No one has an entitlement to your body against and without your consent.
Would any other person be allowed to use someone’s body against their will, or are you giving a fetus more rights than any other person on Earth?
And honestly the fact that a pregnancy can restrict a person’s ability to take medicine because medicine in your body can impact the fetus is a pretty good illustration of the fetus not being autonomous.
You didn’t answer my question
I actually did. No one is entitled to the use of your body against your will. So, no, I don’t think that the government should be able to punish someone for taking medicine while they are pregnant, even if that medicine has risk factors.
Now, my question- would any other person be allowed to use your body against your will to save their own life? Or are you giving a fetus more rights than any other human being?
So you’re saying that you support her taking that medication even though it will cripple another human being as a result?
To answer you queston- like i said before, there is nothing like pregnancy, nothing comparable. It’s not giving a fetus more rights, it’s giving it equal rights. The natural right to life that everyone has. Giving the mother right to kill a human, revokes her parental responsibility, which is a luxury that no one has. So you are giving women special rights and privileges that no one else has, which is also giving her the power over another human being and their rights. If anyone is giving more rights to anyone, is you to women over someone else and their life.
Again, not more rights, EQUAL rights.
No other human gets to:
- Use another person’s body against their will.
- Dictate whether or not a person gets to take medicine.
So it kinda sounds like you’re giving a fetus more rights than other people. And uh, that ain’t cool.
(And for the record, people DO have the right to revoke parental responsibility. What the fuck do you think adoption does? Lol.)
So the answer is yes. You are ok with a woman crippling her child so she can help her nausea and vomiting.
Sounds like you’re giving women rights that no else has, especially the rights over someone else.
And you think that a pregnant person should have to endure crippling nausea for 40 weeks because they can neither get an abortion or take medicine. Kinda sounds unethical to me. Kiiiinda sounds like stripping people of their right to their own health decisions and suffering because of YOUR morality being forced on them.
Thanka for refusing to really respond to my point though. But, hey, we can talk in circles all day if you’re having fun.
Yeah the the horror of pain for 9 months of your life is so, much worse than death and being crippled because your mama was selfish.
By supporting what you support, you end up having human beings who are treated like second class citizens and giving someone else rights over them and their bodies. You support their crippling and killing because in your mind no equal rights for them. You absolutely do not have some kind of moral high ground over me. Do you support eugenics as well? Should babies with down syndrome be killed before they’re born because the mother doesn’t want them? To which extent does the woman have their right to do whatever she wants with that human body that is not hers?
A person as the right to decide how and when and by whom their body is used.
If another human is trying to use your body against your wishes, you have the right to stop that, and all the moralizing and emotional pleas and calling people selfish doesnt change that.
You made up a horrible hypothetical where a pregnant person has to choose between suffering and being ill for 40 weeks, take medicine that could damage the fetus inside her, or, presumably, get an abortion. What your hypothetical didnt include was- does this person want to be pregnant, are there other medicines they can take and have they tried them, is abortion available to them?
You boiled it down to “this person must suffer for months and months and months or they are a monster” and I think that says a lot more about you than me.
It is dangerous to argue that some people can violate the bodies of others for their own benefit. It is dangerous ground to build a moral foundation on, that some bodies are ok to be used against a person’s will.
No one is entitled to your body but you.
I'm just finishing up my first year of residency now.
The first person I ever saw die was in a young woman in her thirties. She'd had multiple children, and after each pregnancy her heart became weaker and weaker. A doctor had told her at some point to see a cardiologist, but hadn't explained to her what was wrong- she had dilated cardiomyopathy of pregnancy. Not only should she have stopped after the first kid, she should have been on a regimen for heart failure. Instead she had a few more, and gradually became more short of breath, until she arrived in the hospital. Her lungs filled up with fluid because her heart wasn't pumping blood forward, effectively drowning her. Her last words- whispered on panicked, choked breaths- "I can't breathe."
I've had pregnant women who come into the hospital who've been vomiting for so long that they're starving. When we're finally able to control their nausea, we have to be ready for them to get refeeding syndrome. We poke them four times a day to check their electrolytes so that they don't drop too low. So that they're hearts don't stop or their diaphragms keep moving.
I've had women come into my office thinking that the high blood pressure or diabetes they acquired during pregnancy was gone now, because it usually goes away, only to find that they've gone years without taking the blood pressure pills or insulin they've needed and now have complications from these illnesses.
I see a lot of thinkpieces about how it's not cool that hospitals do pregnancy tests on every woman of child bearing age who comes through our doors. But then I remember that pregnancy is one of the most dangerous things a young person can do. And I think it's not only cruel, but inhumane to put someone through it because your fundamental belief in what makes a human a person is different. (I don't think a fetus is a person yet the same way I don't think an egg is a chicken. You might disagree, but you don't get to tell me what to do with my body cuz of it.)
I'm for Medicare for All, because I actually believe human life is sacred, and I see too many people slowly die in the United States because of lack of healthcare. I don't see the same people who are anti-abortion fighting for that or anything close. So what is this really about? Cuz it seems to be about controlling women. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
