4 ms·
>On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was. The point was that since carrying a pregnancy to term has a higher risk profile than having an orga
by ABCLAW 4y ago
>On a closer reread I can’t tel what your actual point was.
The point was that since carrying a pregnancy to term has a higher risk profile than having an organ removed, a pregnancy should be voluntary in the same way we wouldn't coerce someone into giving up their kidney for someone else.
- oneoff786 4y agoA bit of a weak argument. The biggest dangerous part of removing a kidney isn’t the act of removal, it’s the long term lack of having it. That being said, I think it is perhaps noteworthy to say if women lose the bodily autonomy for carrying children, it is outrageous that dead people should retain the bodily autonomy to not be organ donors.
- ABCLAW 4y ago>The biggest dangerous part of removing a kidney isn’t the act of removal, it’s the long term lack of having it. So? You wouldn't mandate mandatory kidney removals if we could mitigate the long term risk of not having one because that risk isn't the reason we don't unilaterally harvest organs from people against their will. Regardless of where the risk is clustered (at the event or in the long tail following it), it is the harm to an individual via a non-consensually driven medical event.
- oneoff786 4y agoI think mandatory blood donations might be closer to the argument you’re trying to make here