Re: Death By Pregnancy
It is not that someone will, only that someone can. At the very least, in this society, the government will, to a degree. Even prolife people will state giving the baby up for adoption is an option indicating that others can take on the burden after birth. Only a pregnant woman can take on the burden of the pregnancy, along with the risks.
In no other situation can another step in if you do not want to spend your resources, risk your life, even to a small degree, only pregnancy.
Plus, what does it show about the hypocrisy level of those claiming to be prolife if they would say a woman must carry a pregnancy to term because the life of the baby is important and only she can do it, but then those same people would not be willing to take on the burden and/or risk of caring for any people you mentioned or others who could be a burden? To me, it would show extreme hypocrisy or lying about their position. It would show that any person who argues that the life of an unborn is precious but then would refuse to help a born person live, even if it caused burden, hardship to them doesnt really care about the life of others, only forcing punishment or their sense of responsibility on others.
Great. So to summarize: infants, the infirm, etc.
would be disposable in the same way as unborn children
except that they can be offloaded onto pro-lifers (or possibly the government), which is sufficient reason not to dispose of them.
If the world runs out of compassionate pro-lifers and governments run out of money, well then the infants, the infirm, and the unloved are in the dip along with unborn children. We've certainly no use for antiquated notions such as inalienable parental and familial responsibility.
And no, being pregnant is not a passive act. Especially not if you want the child to have the healthiest start. Plus being pregnant comes with an increased risk of death, medical problems, and/or financial/personal hardships.
Carrying to term is, in fact, a passive act. Call it the "default" if you prefer. In the vast majority of cases, it is the inevitable result of pregnancy absent extraordinary medical intervention such as abortion. Choosing to continue in a pregnancy is an act of
permissive will, as opposed to abortion or organ transplantation, which are both clearly acts of
commissive will.
You may ask: why does permissive versus commissive matter? The answer is that many people (and possibly yourself) consider
commissive but not
permissive acts that sacrifice some lives to save other lives to be inherently immoral. For any such person, the analogy is invalidated by this distinction. This becomes all the more important when we note that harvesting organs is as commissive and unnatural as medical intervention gets, and I imagine quite a few people would reject it as an option on this basis alone.
Whether you convince the second child or not, it is still his/her choice, even if that means the first child dies. The fact that we allow this choice shows that we recognize bodily autonomy is more important than the right to life of another.
Agreed. Which is why I would never advocate for a program of compulsory organ donation. Donors should be persuaded, not forced, to undertake the risk because it's the right and moral thing to do.
Now, before you read the following, please note once again I am
not arguing to criminalize abortion.
However, for pro-lifers who would argue to criminalize it, your appeal to an organ donation analogy here will fail for two reasons. The first is the issue of permissive versus commissive acts already mentioned. The second is that virtually all pro-lifers (myself included) regard conceiving a child as the signing of an unbreakable contract obligating parental responsibilities to that child. By engaging in procreative sexual intercourse, both male and female parties are signing a sacred contract stating, "I do hereby swear to care for any offspring of this sexual union and fulfill the responsibilities of my role as parent." There is no analog to this in organ donation. Or, for that matter, in caring for other people's children.
You can argue there is no such contract, the state has no right to enforce such a contract, etc., and so be it. I'm not going to butt heads with you over it. My point is that virtually all pro-lifers consider such a contract to be extant and enforceable by law, and can reasonably reject organ donation / foster care analogies on this basis alone. This is also why some pro-lifers tolerate abortion in the case of rape--because a woman subjected to rape has not signed this contract by consenting to procreative sex.
The tit-for-tat back and forth, looks as though it's stopped. Do not start up again.
