3 ms·

I don't concede that fetuses are human beings, but let's set that aside for a moment. Should it be mandatory for mothers to donate blood and organs to their dyi

I don't concede that fetuses are human beings, but let's set that aside for a moment. Should it be mandatory for mothers to donate blood and organs to their dying children after they've been born, as well? Or does this only apply while in utero?

kobalsky 4y ago
I'm pro choice but that point is ridiculous. If you have a dying kid and a blood transfusion or transplant saves them you are beyond saving if you run away from your responsibility.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  We're not talking about whether it's a moral responsibility to do it voluntarily. The question is whether you should be forced, under threat of prison, to donate your body to save them.
  - kobalsky 4y ago
    I fully support abortion rights but once the kid is alive there's no gray area. This isn't a good analogy, it just derails the discussion. If you have a dying kid that has some kind of disease and can only survive if the parents donate blood and bone marrow at some risk of their health. Yes, I would force them to donate some blood and bone marrow.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      It is a good analogy, because they're both cases in which someone would be forced by the state to risk injury or death and undergo a medical procedure. You might think there are good reasons to require people to do so in one case, but that doesn't mean the analogy is bad.
- spacedcowboy 4y ago
  Hmm, even if this is the kid you’ve been forced to carry to term, after being raped ? The kid that through no fault of their own makes you reluctant be that horror, danger in, day out ? Not every kid is wanted. The issue here is not “should you”, it is “should you be forced to”.
credit_guy 4y ago
> Should it be mandatory for mothers to donate blood and organs to their dying children after they've been born Should it be mandatory to feed them? Well, if you let a baby starve, you go to prison, so society seems to have already decided on this.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Just to be clear — you’re saying that yes, mothers should be forced, under threat of prison, to undergo dangerous surgery if it will save their child’s life? That’s what you’re advocating here, right?
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    I'm not saying that. I'm saying the mother has to do the things reasonably expected from her to keep the baby alive. Like feeding the baby, either using her own breast milk or a formula. Or like taking the baby to the doctor if the baby is sick. If she does not do these things and the baby dies, then there is a lawsuit, and many times the mother (or care giver) goes to prison. There are situations when the mother has to first take care of herself, like the famous airplane instructions "secure your mask first, then assist the other person". Society does not expect mothers to endanger themselves in order to save the life of their babies. It only expects mothers to do the reasonable things to keep the baby alive. Some people think that not aborting a baby is such a thing. Most pregnancies do not endanger the mother. Keeping a baby to term is not comparable with undergoing a dangerous surgery to keep a baby alive. If the life of the pregnant mother is in danger, then sure, it is reasonable to advise an abortion. But the idea that abortion is simply a matter of "personal freedom" is just too simplistic. There is another human being involved, a human being who cannot protect themselves any more than a one year old baby can protect themselves. Society has a right (and a duty) to step in and enact these protections. Let me turn the question back to you: are you saying it is ok for a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion 2 weeks before term? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? I don't know for sure, but I can appreciate that this is not an easy problem to solve. Certainly not by simply waving a banner "My body, my choice", or labeling the issue "personal freedoms".

kobalsky 4y ago

I'm pro choice but that point is ridiculous. If you have a dying kid and a blood transfusion or transplant saves them you are beyond saving if you run away from your responsibility.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
We're not talking about whether it's a moral responsibility to do it voluntarily. The question is whether you should be forced, under threat of prison, to donate your body to save them.
- kobalsky 4y ago
  I fully support abortion rights but once the kid is alive there's no gray area. This isn't a good analogy, it just derails the discussion. If you have a dying kid that has some kind of disease and can only survive if the parents donate blood and bone marrow at some risk of their health. Yes, I would force them to donate some blood and bone marrow.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    It is a good analogy, because they're both cases in which someone would be forced by the state to risk injury or death and undergo a medical procedure. You might think there are good reasons to require people to do so in one case, but that doesn't mean the analogy is bad.
spacedcowboy 4y ago
Hmm, even if this is the kid you’ve been forced to carry to term, after being raped ? The kid that through no fault of their own makes you reluctant be that horror, danger in, day out ? Not every kid is wanted. The issue here is not “should you”, it is “should you be forced to”.

credit_guy 4y ago

> Should it be mandatory for mothers to donate blood and organs to their dying children after they've been born Should it be mandatory to feed them? Well, if you let a baby starve, you go to prison, so society seems to have already decided on this.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Just to be clear — you’re saying that yes, mothers should be forced, under threat of prison, to undergo dangerous surgery if it will save their child’s life? That’s what you’re advocating here, right?
- credit_guy 4y ago
  I'm not saying that. I'm saying the mother has to do the things reasonably expected from her to keep the baby alive. Like feeding the baby, either using her own breast milk or a formula. Or like taking the baby to the doctor if the baby is sick. If she does not do these things and the baby dies, then there is a lawsuit, and many times the mother (or care giver) goes to prison. There are situations when the mother has to first take care of herself, like the famous airplane instructions "secure your mask first, then assist the other person". Society does not expect mothers to endanger themselves in order to save the life of their babies. It only expects mothers to do the reasonable things to keep the baby alive. Some people think that not aborting a baby is such a thing. Most pregnancies do not endanger the mother. Keeping a baby to term is not comparable with undergoing a dangerous surgery to keep a baby alive. If the life of the pregnant mother is in danger, then sure, it is reasonable to advise an abortion. But the idea that abortion is simply a matter of "personal freedom" is just too simplistic. There is another human being involved, a human being who cannot protect themselves any more than a one year old baby can protect themselves. Society has a right (and a duty) to step in and enact these protections. Let me turn the question back to you: are you saying it is ok for a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion 2 weeks before term? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? I don't know for sure, but I can appreciate that this is not an easy problem to solve. Certainly not by simply waving a banner "My body, my choice", or labeling the issue "personal freedoms".