5 ms·

Not really, any mandated organ donation is always going be from dead donors. If you know of any forced donations from live donors in a democratic state, I'd be

Not really, any mandated organ donation is always going be from dead donors. If you know of any forced donations from live donors in a democratic state, I'd be interested to know.

tsimionescu 4y ago
There isn't any, but if we take pro-life to its logical conclusion, there should be, at the very least from parents to children, and at least in cases where it doesn't lead to your death. Also, mandatory organ donation after death should be obvious table stakes for a pro-life person, if they were logically consistent.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  I don't think this is true at all. Pregnancy ("creating a life that requires birth" since we're not debating "when does life begin" at this point in the thread) is a predictable consequence of (voluntary) sex. "Organ donation" is not a predictable consequence of sex. There's nothing inherent to the pro-life position that would require mandatory organ donation between parents and children or anyone else whether before or after death.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    To jump a few steps ahead in the dialogue, I'll posit that simply the medical reality of our ability to perform organ donations, and the consequence of donations saving lives makes have-ing organs a sufficient condition for forced donation. Medical realities currently play a role in viability calculus so it is a perfectly valid analogy in that medical advances in organ donation being a possibility are equally valid.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Rather than reiterating arguments, I'll just link people to the thread where you and I debated this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32142968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32142968
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    I'm not sure what sex has to do with it. The pro-life position is that human life is so precious that preserving the human life of the fetus it is more important than any right the mother may have. There is no logical reason this argument would stop after birth - the mother (and presumably father as well) should maintain this obligation of preserving the life of their child by any means that don't require them to give up their own life. Being legally required to, say, donate blood for their child should be a no-brainer, if you bleieve that the preservation of your child's life should be a legal requirement that trumps any other right you may have (except your own right to life). Donating their organs to their child after death should also be an obvious legal requirement.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Well, that's not "THE pro-life position", it's an extreme example of a pro-life position (nut-picking, effectively). A more moderate pro-life position argues that consensual sex constitutes a waiver of the right to forego birth (except in cases where birth puts the mother's life at great risk--for some value of "great").
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. Even less so among those who also oppose classes of contraceptives that immediately kill fertilized eggs, such as the Catholic Church. Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Edit to add: the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        > I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. It seems like you're conflating "pro-life" and "people who want to ban abortion entirely". The pro-life position includes people who want to ban abortion in the general case even while allowing abortion for exceptional cases. > Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Agreed, but that doesn't refute pro-life people having rape exceptions (multiple groups can allow for rape exceptions). > the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology Can you source this claim about the majority of pro-life campaigners (also, why does that seem indicative of pro-life people in general)? Also, even if it's accurate, I don't think it constitutes proof of much--in particular, they could hold that it's not the government's job to provide sex education or free contraception (I personally favor the government providing both of these, by the way). In any case, rather than arguing about ONE pro-life position, it seems like it would be better to acknowledge that there can be multiple specific positions within a movement. I'm certainly happy to concede that the pro-life movement includes many people with extreme positions, why can't we agree that it includes some more moderate positions as well?
kelseyfrog 4y ago
And that's really the point. The idea of forced organ donation is abhorrent. The same visceral reaction to the idea of forced organ donation extends to forced birth by way of bodily autonomy. No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you.
- Domenic_S 4y ago
  > No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you. The government already has rights over your bodily autonomy in many ways; just the right to incarcerate someone is controlling their body pretty dramatically. They regulate where your body can go, and to an extent what you can put into your body.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Yes I know. Doesn't it seem backwards though, to you, to make the argument that since the government has bodily authority over you in matters of imprisonment, that the government should also have authority over all aspects of your body? I'm over here trying to find a minimum amount of government authority over our bodies while others are basically saying, "let 'er rip!"
    - Domenic_S 4y ago
      > Doesn't it seem backwards though, to you, to make the argument that since the government has bodily authority [...] the government should also have authority over all aspects of your body? Yes it does seem backwards. However, nobody here is making that argument. > I'm over here trying to find a minimum amount of government authority over our bodies Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs at this point, but "No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you." is just such a broad brush that it's trivially refuted for certain scenarios. Maybe you're talking about medical authority? In any case the rule of law is very concerned with what happens when rights collide. It is possible -- perhaps common -- for individual's rights to be in conflict.

Not really, any mandated organ donation is always going be from dead donors. If you know of any forced donations from live donors in a democratic state, I'd be interested to know.

tsimionescu 4y ago

There isn't any, but if we take pro-life to its logical conclusion, there should be, at the very least from parents to children, and at least in cases where it doesn't lead to your death. Also, mandatory organ donation after death should be obvious table stakes for a pro-life person, if they were logically consistent.

throwaway894345 4y ago
I don't think this is true at all. Pregnancy ("creating a life that requires birth" since we're not debating "when does life begin" at this point in the thread) is a predictable consequence of (voluntary) sex. "Organ donation" is not a predictable consequence of sex. There's nothing inherent to the pro-life position that would require mandatory organ donation between parents and children or anyone else whether before or after death.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  To jump a few steps ahead in the dialogue, I'll posit that simply the medical reality of our ability to perform organ donations, and the consequence of donations saving lives makes have-ing organs a sufficient condition for forced donation. Medical realities currently play a role in viability calculus so it is a perfectly valid analogy in that medical advances in organ donation being a possibility are equally valid.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Rather than reiterating arguments, I'll just link people to the thread where you and I debated this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32142968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32142968
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I'm not sure what sex has to do with it. The pro-life position is that human life is so precious that preserving the human life of the fetus it is more important than any right the mother may have. There is no logical reason this argument would stop after birth - the mother (and presumably father as well) should maintain this obligation of preserving the life of their child by any means that don't require them to give up their own life. Being legally required to, say, donate blood for their child should be a no-brainer, if you bleieve that the preservation of your child's life should be a legal requirement that trumps any other right you may have (except your own right to life). Donating their organs to their child after death should also be an obvious legal requirement.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Well, that's not "THE pro-life position", it's an extreme example of a pro-life position (nut-picking, effectively). A more moderate pro-life position argues that consensual sex constitutes a waiver of the right to forego birth (except in cases where birth puts the mother's life at great risk--for some value of "great").
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. Even less so among those who also oppose classes of contraceptives that immediately kill fertilized eggs, such as the Catholic Church. Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Edit to add: the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        > I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. It seems like you're conflating "pro-life" and "people who want to ban abortion entirely". The pro-life position includes people who want to ban abortion in the general case even while allowing abortion for exceptional cases. > Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Agreed, but that doesn't refute pro-life people having rape exceptions (multiple groups can allow for rape exceptions). > the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology Can you source this claim about the majority of pro-life campaigners (also, why does that seem indicative of pro-life people in general)? Also, even if it's accurate, I don't think it constitutes proof of much--in particular, they could hold that it's not the government's job to provide sex education or free contraception (I personally favor the government providing both of these, by the way). In any case, rather than arguing about ONE pro-life position, it seems like it would be better to acknowledge that there can be multiple specific positions within a movement. I'm certainly happy to concede that the pro-life movement includes many people with extreme positions, why can't we agree that it includes some more moderate positions as well?

kelseyfrog 4y ago

And that's really the point. The idea of forced organ donation is abhorrent. The same visceral reaction to the idea of forced organ donation extends to forced birth by way of bodily autonomy. No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you.

Domenic_S 4y ago
> No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you. The government already has rights over your bodily autonomy in many ways; just the right to incarcerate someone is controlling their body pretty dramatically. They regulate where your body can go, and to an extent what you can put into your body.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Yes I know. Doesn't it seem backwards though, to you, to make the argument that since the government has bodily authority over you in matters of imprisonment, that the government should also have authority over all aspects of your body? I'm over here trying to find a minimum amount of government authority over our bodies while others are basically saying, "let 'er rip!"
  - Domenic_S 4y ago
    > Doesn't it seem backwards though, to you, to make the argument that since the government has bodily authority [...] the government should also have authority over all aspects of your body? Yes it does seem backwards. However, nobody here is making that argument. > I'm over here trying to find a minimum amount of government authority over our bodies Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs at this point, but "No one, not even the government, should have more authority over your body than you." is just such a broad brush that it's trivially refuted for certain scenarios. Maybe you're talking about medical authority? In any case the rule of law is very concerned with what happens when rights collide. It is possible -- perhaps common -- for individual's rights to be in conflict.