Yay! Another discussion about abortion!

I just added my two-cents to a discussion happening on Facebook about whether or not abortion is morally right, and where does life begin, etc etc... and I realized there is hypocrisy in this idea that a woman is obligated to carry a fetus if she becomes pregnant with it.

So, instead of launching into why or why not abortion itself is permissible, and under what circumstances, let's debate about something entirely different with this in the back of our minds: if a woman is obligated to sacrifice her body because the fetus has a right to life, it follows we should all be obligated blood-and-organ donors because others have a right to life as well. And I'm serious. I know I'm introducing this first as an abortion issue, I want you all to form an opinion about something else.

Don't you feel good about yourself when you donate blood? Wouldn't you feel proud if you were able to save a family member's life by giving them one of your kidneys? Gosh, your blood type was a perfect match to that poor little girl with leukemia and so you want to give bone marrow! How about some plasma? Just think of all the things you could give and live without to save another life... ~warm fuzzies~

Now imagine the government coming in and demanding you donate all those things you can live without. Sure, that kidney might come in handy when you are diagnosed with cancer, but let's worry about that later. People are dying! They need your body to survive! Literally, the government wants you to give it your lifeblood. Not just once, either. However many times you can give in a year, you're required to check in and give it up... you know, for those people that have a right to live, nevermind it's at your expense.

So think about that. It's for the greater good. You don't need any of that to live. Well, and hopefully you'd get it back when you were in a similar state of need. Do you think the government should be able to force people to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of "the greater good", whatever that really means?

Does saving another life justify the pillaging of another's body?

Stay on topic, kiddos! No rabbit trails about why you think abortion is right or wrong, just stick to the issue about being forced to donate organs/blood, etc. :D

----

This just in: someone on Twitter submitted a link to the Vatican's thoughts on bodily autonomy. I thought it was ironic and wonder why people don't make this connection.

Tags: abortion, bodily autonomy, government control, greater good, right to life

Views: 832

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Even if you redefine the parameters of the definition of "fetus" to include "person" it becomes a matter of worth. It's kind of moot, because the question of killing something that's fully developed, cognizant, jam-packed with nerves, and able to breath on its own is just as much of a no-brainer, but at the end of the day these scenarios are black and white, and deep down we all know it-- because the answer is obvious.

RE: "the answer is obvious" - again, opinion, not fact, which is fine, as long as you're stating it as such, but I've seen no such statement.

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com

Guilty. I'm coming from a place of objectivity, so it's harder to call it opinion. Arrogance is my sin. But that doesn't change the fact that you have to measure worth objectively when you're talking about establishing a standard that applies to more than the individual, and when you measure that worth objectively, there is no opinion. The outcome is what it is.

Sorry, C., as soon as I hear the words, "killing something," you lose me --

Oh, and actually, I think you're coming from a place of SUBjectivity, rather than OBjectivity, and I don't think we're just talking semantics here.

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com

And when you speak of "the individual" did you mean the one who is about to be killed, or the one who chose not to avail themselves of contraception, due to the inconvenience, despite the fact that it is available for members of both sexes?

Just want to be sure we define our terms --

BTW - Have you ever considered that being killed is more than a bit of inconvenience --?

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com

Alright Archi... if you're going to talk about fact vs opinion, do not assume the woman did not use contraception, or that her pregnancy is a convenience issue rather than a matter of life or death for herself. Most people tend to think abortions are all about how slutty, irresponsible, and selfish the woman is. You cannot jump to that conclusion while lecturing C. about not stating opinions as facts.

P.S. the fetus doesn't know it's alive, so it won't feel inconvenienced; for all intents and purposes, it's in a vegetative state.

@Cara - RE: "abortions are all about how slutty, irresponsible, and selfish the woman is"

To this, I can only direct your attention to my post above, in which I said, "it is available for members of both sexes"

As for, "it won't feel inconvenienced," I can have opinions about what a fetus feels or doesn't, as can you, but the fact is that neither of us really knows.

Even still, you're assuming irresponsibility. Birth control fails; condoms get punctured, antibiotics render pills ineffective, sometimes the BC just doesn't work...Y

ou're missing my point, however. You're inserting your opinion after having just lectured someone for doing the same.

And yes, we can know whether someone/something is unconscious based on brain activity/development. That's why science is so lovely. That's why abortion is discouraged after 20 weeks.

"Women are people. Fetuses aren't people."

Hallelujah!

So rarely do I hear someone who is pro abortion rights actually come right out and say this, and it needs to be said, it needs to be said repeatedly, it needs to be said loudly.

Without saying this, it becomes a bumper sticker war between "Keep your laws off my body" and "It is not a choice it is a child"

If you do not challenge the premise that the fetus is a person, you end up (implicitly) asserting the right to kill someone due to great, life-altering inconvenience.  And the other side knows it, and exploits it.  Guess what?  When it's an issue of "it's murder" versus "it's a great life-altering inconvenience" or "it's none of your business what I do with my body" the murder side will win the argument, no matter how huge the inconvenience or the invasion of privacy, because it IS the government's business to punish murder and murder cannot be justified by inconvenience, no matter how great, and murder is not a private matter--the government is entirely justified in invading privacy and using force to punish murder.

We dare not allow the perception that abortion is murder to take hold in society.  But you cannot combat that perception by asserting inconvenience or privacy.  The personhood premise must be attacked directly or the other side will look more principled than we do.

No more weasel-arguing that personhood amendments "go too far" (which is the argument that anti-personhood campaigns use here in Colorado)--that implies they are right in principle and that you just don't want them pushing it to absurd lengths.  But absurd is in the eye of the beholder, and it will eventually occur to that beholder that fighting murder might require some extreme measures.

Personhood is wrong in fact and must be forcefully identified as such or we will ultimately lose this war.

RSS

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 0 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 4 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service