How Abortion is a Right (argument from analogy)

Read and understand the following before you debate:
Under current law an organ donation from a parent to a dying child (a known person with rights) requires the parent's consent.
Can we infer from this that, under the same legal code, donating your entire body to a zygote/embryo/fetus (not a known person with rights) for 9 months requires the pregnant lady's consent?

If you see any flaws in this analogy, feel free to offer an analogy of your own for the opposing point of view.

This should be fun.

 

No one (not a parent, no one) is obligated to use their body to sustain the life of another....that includes pregnant women.

 

Its a stretch. Taking parts without consent is a crime. The fetus is not taking any parts and its mere existence is the result of consent. That being said, there is no excuse for government interference in ones right to bodily autonomy.

 

The result of who's consent and to what?

 

Seems overly complicated. Either we have authority over other people's bodies, or we each have authority over our own bodies. Can't be both.

 

Abortion does have it's place in society but it needs to not be this flippant form of birth control because a person willfully did the one act that can create someone else and then decide that the results of their actions are now a inconvenience.

Don't do the thing, if the results of the thing are an inconvenience to you and the fix is killing someone you've created.

Morally that's just a ****ing mess.

 

Yes. But I for one prefer to keep the law out of my (and therefore everyone else's) morals.

 

Ok, let's clear this up. Which is it? Do we have a right to our own body or not? Yes or No?

 

Well where do you think our laws are derived from?

Murder
Theft
Arson
Kidnapping...

I mean...morals are exactly the building blocks of our laws that help create a functioning society.

 

Those preserve the order necessary for society to function. If laws were meant to preserve morality, it would be illegal to buy yourself a big screen TV until after there werent any children starving. Laws should preserve order, not morality.

 

I say yes. Abortion, vaccination, medication, suicide should all be personal individual choices void of govt interference.

 

This is strange. I'd think such a law would increase poverty and hunger since it would throw many out of work (you know, those who's job it is to manufacture and sell TVs)

 

Did you read the OP? What's the moral position being preserved in the first scenario (the organ donation scenario)?

 

That's the heart of the discussion for me. How can we consider women to be equal under the law and have the same liberty as men if the government can tell you what to do with your body?

 

It does both.

The big screen TV is ridiculous and unrealistic to suggest that someone shouldn't buy a big screen tv because there is a starving child somewhere in the United States.

That being said, if a father goes out and buys a big screen tv while his child is at home starving because there is no money for food.

What do you think is going to happen to the father once social services is called and the law finds out about this situation?

Hrmmm?

 

because the reality is the sexes are NOT equal. If they were equal. Men would be able to give birth as well. But they can't. Nature has placed a certain amount of responsibility on the female. That's just the way of it. There is a great power to being able to be pregnant. A weight of responsibility that needs to be exercised.

 

Unless it was rape, it was consensual.

 

That's consent to sex, not to pregnancy. That's like saying I consented to have my arm broken if I trip and fall.

 

I agree, but its not enough. It can also mean equal abuse of power, like vaccine mandates. The problem is that Americans are not standing together to oppose abuse of power.

 

Your example is far from reasonable. Did you know that a woman can get pregnant from something in the air?


(Her legs)

 

That's ridiculous. You go into the act knowing full well the possibility that pregnancy could be the outcome. You've consented to the act regardless.

 

Thats the problem. Morals are subjective. Legislating them demands they be democratically defined. It matters right now whether you think its right or wrong to buy a big screen tv instead of feeding starving children because you have the individual right to determine your own moral values. You want it to stay that way, right? I do.

 

And so you support government regulating the bodies of women? I can assure you if there was an equivalent for men, this wouldn't even be a discussion!

But while we're discussing it, why did the government declare women equal? Why were they granted the same liberties? Was that a mistake in your view?

 

No it's not subjective. I just explained that someone shouldn't be held responsible for the well being of someone not currently under their care. If a father was negligent in allowing their own child to starve, there would be a punishment.

You are going to need to come back with a better example.

 

The woman regulated her own body to put herself in the position of caring for a person she willfully created. That's all on her. I think it's incredibly ignorant to assume that men and women are equal with regards to nature. That it is an ignorance to the reality of how things actually are.

Now having said that. If I could chase down the father and make him equally culpable. I would. He should have a responsibility in assisting with the pregnancy through support financially or otherwise. He should not get a pass.