3 ms·

Link to the section of the constitution that guarantees it?

• runamok 4y ago
  Here we go... Not a constitutional scholar but I could roughly extend the 13th and 19th amendment to cover this. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... The way I think about it is if I had a twin brother and he was dying and urgently needed a liver or a kidney and I could save his life by donating to him but it would clearly have lifelong consequences to me there would be no question that he had no right to my organs. To me it's a question of personhood. Until the fetus can survive on its own the mother's health and thus choice must take precedence. Furthermore, we as a society (in the US) are not even taking care of the children already living. If someday every kid in the Us is fed, educated and loved maybe we'll have discovered a safe and easy way to remove an unwanted fetus, grow it in an artificial womb find them a loving and supportive home and this whole controversy will go away. https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts Anyways this is clearly an argument that will change very few minds and that's fine.
  • s__s 4y ago
    The twin analogy is extremely weak. In this case the twin’s unfortunate circumstance is no fault of your own. You didn’t actively make any decision to put them in their situation of urgently needing you to survive. You need to alter your analogy such that you made some conscious decision that you knew could injure your twin brother, rendering him in need of one of your kidneys to live. At that point you have to show why it’s moral for you to withhold the organ donation.