5 ms·

>From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Why would this situation

by sauwan 4y ago

>From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Why would this situation differ from requiring people donate kidneys or a living liver donation when another humans life is at stake? Why don't I have a right to your kidney if you can go on living just fine after the procedure?

JohnTHaller 4y ago
It's deeper than that. The courts have ruled that others can't have your organs to survive even if you're dead. Hence why we have thousands dying every year on waiting lists and tons of useful organs, blood, and tissue being incinerated and buried.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  So what you're saying is that per the leaked opinion, a dead woman has more rights than a living one?
meragrin_ 4y ago
The situation is more like someone who has donated their organ demanding it back. The donation has already occurred. The recipient is already dependent on the donation. The donor is demanding a reversal. Do you think a donor has the right to their organ back after it has been donated?
- anonporridge 4y ago
  This isn't really a very good analogy, because an organ donation is a one time event with no continuous, parasitic relationship between donor and receiver. A much better analogy might be where you have a special blood type, and there's a person somewhere who needs regular transfusions of your blood in particular to continue living. No other blood will do, only yours. In this analogy, we can first agree that the healthy person has no obligation to begin donating to the sick person, and this is strongly supported by legal precedent in the US at least. If there exists a frozen embryo, it is not legally justifiable to force some healthy woman to have it implanted. We could also probably agree that if the healthy person is kidnapped and their blood taken against their will, they have no obligation to continue. This would give us an abortion exception for the cases rape and incest. But the open question might be, if the healthy person consents to start donating, do they have the right to rescind their consent at anytime, say after 3 months of consistently donating blood? Do they have the right if they learn that donating blood so regularly is rapidly destroying their own health and is putting their own life at risk? Do they have the right revoke consent if the doctors are quite certain that the sick person will die in 3 months? Do they have a right to revoke consent just because they don't want to do it anymore, even though the sick person will die?
- simonh 4y ago
  It's much more like someone agreeing to be hooked up to someone else to use their kidney, while it's still in their own body, and then deciding they don't want to be hooked up like that anymore.
edflsafoiewq 4y ago
If your kid is starving and you don't feed them and they die, you go to jail. But if it is a stranger you met in the street, you don't go to jail. Why?
- sauwan 4y ago
  Because a parent has either implicitly or explicitly agreed to take a legal guardianship of the child. This is clearly not the case where mothers have decided to have an abortion.

by sauwan 4y ago

JohnTHaller 4y ago

It's deeper than that. The courts have ruled that others can't have your organs to survive even if you're dead. Hence why we have thousands dying every year on waiting lists and tons of useful organs, blood, and tissue being incinerated and buried.

ModernMech 4y ago
So what you're saying is that per the leaked opinion, a dead woman has more rights than a living one?

meragrin_ 4y ago

The situation is more like someone who has donated their organ demanding it back. The donation has already occurred. The recipient is already dependent on the donation. The donor is demanding a reversal. Do you think a donor has the right to their organ back after it has been donated?

anonporridge 4y ago
This isn't really a very good analogy, because an organ donation is a one time event with no continuous, parasitic relationship between donor and receiver. A much better analogy might be where you have a special blood type, and there's a person somewhere who needs regular transfusions of your blood in particular to continue living. No other blood will do, only yours. In this analogy, we can first agree that the healthy person has no obligation to begin donating to the sick person, and this is strongly supported by legal precedent in the US at least. If there exists a frozen embryo, it is not legally justifiable to force some healthy woman to have it implanted. We could also probably agree that if the healthy person is kidnapped and their blood taken against their will, they have no obligation to continue. This would give us an abortion exception for the cases rape and incest. But the open question might be, if the healthy person consents to start donating, do they have the right to rescind their consent at anytime, say after 3 months of consistently donating blood? Do they have the right if they learn that donating blood so regularly is rapidly destroying their own health and is putting their own life at risk? Do they have the right revoke consent if the doctors are quite certain that the sick person will die in 3 months? Do they have a right to revoke consent just because they don't want to do it anymore, even though the sick person will die?
simonh 4y ago
It's much more like someone agreeing to be hooked up to someone else to use their kidney, while it's still in their own body, and then deciding they don't want to be hooked up like that anymore.

edflsafoiewq 4y ago

If your kid is starving and you don't feed them and they die, you go to jail. But if it is a stranger you met in the street, you don't go to jail. Why?

sauwan 4y ago
Because a parent has either implicitly or explicitly agreed to take a legal guardianship of the child. This is clearly not the case where mothers have decided to have an abortion.