Alright. The Pro-LIfe stance pretty much says that the right to life supercedes all other rights. This means that the pregnant persons’ right to bodily domain is superceded by the fetus’ right to be alive.
And yet, we never hear a peep out of them in situations in which the right to bodily domain supercedes the right to life.
If abortion is to be made illegal and the right to life is to be considered more important than the right to bodily domain, then the right to life must over come ALL OTHER RIGHTS. This means that:
-MANDATORY BLOOD DONATION REGARDLESS OF AGE, SITUATION, ETC:
If the right to life is to be considered the top right, then blood donations MUST be mandatory for ALL. This means that children as young as 5 (and younger) MUST be required to donate blood as well- because their right to their blood is less important than the countless human lives that could be saved, regardless of their age (since we would not allow abortions even for age. ). Old individuasl must give blood. Everyone. Because the lives of the people in hospitals in need of blood donations supercede the right to your own blood. ON THIS SAME NOTE, EVEN THOSE IN NEED OF BLOOD MUST GIVE BLOOD. EVEN IF it will kill them. (Since Pro-Lifers say you can not choose one life over another, and are against abortion to save a person’s life.) You can not choose to allow a person to keep their blood by choosing htem in favor of a person who needs that blood (who then must also give blood, and etc.). The only time you wouldn’t be required would be if you had a contagious disease that could be spread. Otherwise, everyone of every age must give blood.
-MANDATORY MARROW AND ORGAN DONATIONS
You only need one kidney. You only need a portion of your liver. Every individual must be required to donate these things to a person whose life depends on it if called upon to do so. EVERYONE. Of every age. (Again, if we are going to foce 10 year old rape victims to give birth , then we must force 10 year old children to give up a portion of their liver to some one who will die without it [and yes, even if the child in question will die if this is performed. again, you can not choose one life over another according to pro lifers, and since abortion would not be permitted in the case of a mothers health, some one who would be put in danger can not be exempt). And yes, chilren must give marrow and organs as well. Even though donating bone marrow is excruciatingly painful. Their pain is inconsequential to the life of some one who needs their bone marrow.
Furthermore, we must make organ donation upon death mandatory. This will conflict with the right to freedom of religion, but again, the right to life supercedes all else. Upon death, all useful organs (and all blood) must be harvested. Regardless of what the person’s wishes during life were. This includes even new borns who died as little as 15 hours after birth. Their blood may still be useful. And again, their age is irrelevant to the right to life of some one who needs that blood. This means that parents will have to hand over the body of their newborn child to the proper specialists so that it’s blood and organs may be harvested. Yes, this is horrific. Yes, this is gruesome. But it must be done if the right to life is to be considred the top right that supercedes all others.
-No killing another human being under any possible circumstances
If some one is trying to rape you, kill some one you love, or inflict other bodily damage to you or some one else, you are not allowed to kill them, even if it is literally the only way to save yourself or some one else. This again falls in line with the right to your potential rapists life being more valuable than your own right to bodily domain. Furthermore, if some one is about to kill some one else right in front of you, you are not allowed to kill that person to save the other. Once again, you can not choose on life over another, according to pro lifers. This means that both of these lives are of equal value in this stiuation, and since you personally are NOT the one who'se right to life is in danger, you can not harm the murderer. The right to life of both victim and perptrator are equal, and regardless of the situation, you can not choose one over the other. This means that if there is a man who has a gun to your childs head, and the only way to save your child would be to shoot the man, you would not be allowed to do this. The life of your child is not more important than the life of the man. You’re just going to have to pray that the bullets are all duds.
Now,THIS philsophy gets tricky when its your OWN life in danger. This may be the only possible time when killing the perosn in front of you may be permissible…..actually, no. It still wouldn’t be. Remember, a pregnant person would still be considered a murderer if they aborted a pregancy that was threatning their life. This meanst hat if some one is threatning your life, you still can not kill them. FURTHEMORE, if you even suggest that you THOUGHT about killling them, or harm them in a way that may be construed to have lead to their death, this must be investigated. This is because under pro life laws, since a fetus and embyro, and feritlized egg are all people, all miscarriages must be investiaged. After all, if a living breahting child suddenly died under a parents care, there would be an investigation. If pregnant people are going to be made to undergo investigation to see if they had a hand in their fetus’ “death”, then so must every person who may have done something to lead to the death of osme one else, as is customary (even if their life was in danger by said person).
-OBVIOUSLY, birth control must be made illegal.
Ok, obviosuly, since a fertilized egg is a human being under a pro-life nation, then any activity or substance or drug that would at all hinder a fertilized egg’s ability to implant on the uterus wall must be made illegal. This has already been discussed before, though.
-INVESTIGATION OF ALL MENSTRAUL BLOOD FOR BODIES, AND IF FOUND, PROPER ACTION BE TAKEN
When a Uterus’ bearers period begins, then from that point on (even if it is a 9 year old child), the period blood must be collected and sent away to check for deceased indivduals (meaning fertilized eggs). If a fertilized egg is found, then an investigation MUST be held to determine if it didn’t ipmlant naturally, or if the beuterused indivdual may have done any form of activity or taken any type of substance that would have indered this eggs ability to implant. If it is found that they have, then a trial must be held. This sounds ridiculous at the moment, but if the conclusion is that a fertilized egg is the exact same thing as a born human indivudal, than this course of action is only logical. Furthermore, if one ceases to send in their menstraul blood, they must be charged with conspiracy or something along these lines; if you walk into a bathroom and see a bloodied pad in a waste bin and fail to report it, you too must be charged. After all, if some one walks past the dead body of a child, they most certainly would be required to report it. If you saw the body of your dead child in a bed and instead threw the body out rather than reporting it, you most certainly would be charged with covering up evidence.
-ILLEGALIZATION OF ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION -OR- MANDATORY PREGNANCY SIGN-UP:
The problem with artificial insemination is that many times, there will be left over fertilized eggs. Now, since these eggs are individuals, we can NOT simply just toss them out; this would be murder. Therefore, in order to see to it that these eggs get a proper life, then we must make it mandatory that a person give up their body for 9 months in order to gestate this egg to term-assuming, of course, no volunteers step up to do the job. It would cost way to much in funds to keep the eggs perpetually “alive” (though in a frozen state). Though I surmise that if the eggs were to be frozen for 18 years, they should be given all the rights of a legal adult. Again, if our lives begin at conception, than naturally this should be considred the ‘start" of our lives, not birth. Which brings to the next point
-RECORDING “DATE OF CONCEPTION” AND NOT “DATE OF BIRTH”
Already adressed some what above. Basically, as it stands, we typically use our dates of birth for official government documents and business. If we are to surmise that we are human beings from conception, than logically we must use THIS as our date. The trouble here is of course dictating what day that a person is conceived. A good way to do this would be to make it mandatory that all rapes and intercourse must be recorded. If a pregnancy occurs, then we can simply refer to these dates. It’s a rather simple record keeping maneuver, but it is incredibly intrusive and no doubt a violation of our right to privacy.
-ISSUEING “DEATH CERTIFICATES” TO ALL MISCARRIAGES OR EGGS THAT HAVE NOT IMPLANTED
Again, this is simple. If life begins at conception, than death certificates must be issues to all lives ended after this moment, regardless of stage. This is self explanatory.
All of the things listed above MUST be done. We can NOT single out a group of people and say that “ONLY -YOUR- rights to bodily domain are inferior. and ONLY TO THIS group of people’s right to life”. Our laws MUST have consistency. If we are going to tell those with uteri that their right to bodily domain is inferior to a fetus’ right to life, than we MUST uphold the standard of “right to life>all other rights” across the board. No exceptions. With other rights, exceptions can obviously be made depending on circumstances. But since we are defining right here that the right to life supercedes all, this means to 0 exceptions can be allowed. Every individual, from conception onwards, must sacrifice their rights in favor of the right to life to another. If rights to life are conflicting, no interference is to be allowed, whether it be a pregnant woman who will die if she carries a pregnancy to term, or a little girl who will die from being shot if a gunman isn’t killed. You must simply try to preserve both lives, even if it seems impossible. Naturally, the things I mentioned all seem outrageous, horrific, and unfair. Forcing parents to give away the corpse of their newborn infant so that it’s blood and organs can be harvested to be used to save the life of those in need of organs and blood. Forcing a young child to go through a horrificly painful procedure in order to obtain bone marrow from them to save the life of some one in need of bone marrow. Prosecuting some one for failing to report that they saw a bloody pad in the garbage. Not being allowed to shoot some one who is about to kill your child. These all seem horrific and immoral. But their rights are superceded by the right to life. And if you do not advocate for these changes to be made alongside making abortion illegal, than you are singling out a group of people and giving them less rights than others (those with uteri), while singling out ANOTHER group of people and giving them MORE rights than others (fetus/eggs/embryos). You can not do this. This can not be done. It is inconsistent and unfair. It must be applied to ALL individuals. Otherwise, legally and morally, it can not be implicated. There must be equal rights across the board. If you are not willing to accept the terms above, than you have 0 ground to stand on for arguing that abortion be made illegal.