3 ms·
Same way that you should probably be restricted from using me as a personal blood bank for nine months. I understand that you'll die without transfusions, but t
by vkou 4y ago
Same way that you should probably be restricted from using me as a personal blood bank for nine months. I understand that you'll die without transfusions, but that's your problem, not mine.
It's not murder to not support you, just like it's not murder when the grocery store refuses to feed me for free, or when you refuse to open your house to me as a place I can live in, or when a doctor refuses to treat me, or when a prospective organ donor doesn't want to give up a kidney.
There are a few situations where this support can be compelled in our society, but we place an incredibly high bar on doing so, and an even higher one when it comes to questions of body autonomy.
- paxcoder 4y agoIf a child is conceived, it is not a usurper, it is the most innocent party involved. When people have sex, they risk conceiving a child. This new human being is created in the woman's body, the place designed to host it. So unlike my hooking up to your bloodstream, the baby's dependence on you is perfectly natural. The two things aren't equivalent. I have no claim to you (plus you probably aren't responsible for my condition - not that the child is dying, nota bene). Besides, can you kill an infant in your home so that you don't have to feed them before foster care can take them? I support your choice to abstain from sex. I do not support your choice to end the life of your child just so that you don't have to provide for them. To deliberately cause death of an innocent human being is not a right. Unless the child acts with an intention to kill the parent, the parent may not use deadly means against them (Disclaimer: Even in self defense, one must not act with the intention to kill - see the principle of double effect)