3 ms·

> The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby. So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus

by verall 4y ago

> The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby. So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I'm sorry if I'm not reading this charitably, but I find this argument to be abhorrent. > Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back. Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation[1]. > The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter. Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime. I guess this is fine though, because those uteruses are for babys after all... [0] https://utsystem.edu/offices/population-health/overview/severe-maternal-morbidity-texas https://utsystem.edu/offices/population-health/overview/seve... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089229/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089229/

_-david-_ 4y ago
>So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I am saying the purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. I wouldn't use this argument to argue against abortion, strictly against your comparison of forced organ donation. >Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation As far as I know if there is a complication they don't remove the kidney after transplant and return it to the person donating the organ. Correct me if I am wrong? If you donate your kidney it is gone forever. If a fetus uses the uterus it will be gone in less than a year. I'm confused what the percentages are for? I think you are reading into what I am saying more than you should. >Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. You are required to either provide directly or find somebody else who can. What you cannot do is leave your born baby outside to die or stab it to death or whatever. When it comes to pregnancy with the current technology you cannot find somebody else to care for the baby and as such you must provide the care yourself. This is the same situation as born children. As far as I know every state allows you to drop a baby at a fire station, but imagine a scenario where you couldn't. There are no orphanages and nobody will take your child. Are you allowed to kill the child? Of course not. If you are unable to get anybody to help provide for your child you have no right to kill it. In a few years artificial wombs will be available and it will change things. People could choose to remove the baby and have it grow in the womb. Somebody else could then be responsible. Until that time comes you have an obligation to provide for your children until an alternative provider can be found.

by verall 4y ago

_-david-_ 4y ago

>So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I am saying the purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. I wouldn't use this argument to argue against abortion, strictly against your comparison of forced organ donation. >Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation As far as I know if there is a complication they don't remove the kidney after transplant and return it to the person donating the organ. Correct me if I am wrong? If you donate your kidney it is gone forever. If a fetus uses the uterus it will be gone in less than a year. I'm confused what the percentages are for? I think you are reading into what I am saying more than you should. >Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. You are required to either provide directly or find somebody else who can. What you cannot do is leave your born baby outside to die or stab it to death or whatever. When it comes to pregnancy with the current technology you cannot find somebody else to care for the baby and as such you must provide the care yourself. This is the same situation as born children. As far as I know every state allows you to drop a baby at a fire station, but imagine a scenario where you couldn't. There are no orphanages and nobody will take your child. Are you allowed to kill the child? Of course not. If you are unable to get anybody to help provide for your child you have no right to kill it. In a few years artificial wombs will be available and it will change things. People could choose to remove the baby and have it grow in the womb. Somebody else could then be responsible. Until that time comes you have an obligation to provide for your children until an alternative provider can be found.