- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 59,584
- Reaction score
- 51,597
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Please keep in mind I’m not saying what should be law (though it’s tied to law, certainly, and recent laws is what got me wanting to start this conversation). I’m trying to understand pro-choice stances and responses to pro-life stances.
So, I think in that situation I should give my kidney.
"Should you" is not the question being debated. The question being debated is "legally required to."
So I'm going to ask again: Should you be legally required to give up your kidney without any say in the matter?
I also think there’s some weakness in the analogy in that a pregnant woman is already providing life. To stop provision of life is more active than choosing not to give life.
I could have just as easily made the analogy one about your being connected to another person via IV for nine months, and if you cut the connection during that time, the other person would die. You'd no longer be "providing life." So your objection doesn't hold water.
@ analogy of something breaking into one’s house/eviction I think part of it is that a fetus didn’t choose to do so, so it’s not really an equivalent metaphor. If I shoot someone for entering my house, either as a robber or just some drunk guy who stumbled in the wrong door but I perceive him as a threat, that seems fair. If I shoot my someone who I know didn’t come there on purpose (say an elderly neighbor with dementia who wonders in but insists its their house—bad analogy but I’m grasping for something), that seems bad and like I’d get charged with some crime.
The fetus's lack of choice doesn't matter. The host woman's bodily autonomy is all that matters. Even if the fetus were a human being.