|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2005 : 02:13:32
|
Here's something I have been thinking about lately, what with all the heated debate about abortion and the "culture of life". Before Roe v. Wade, organ donation was in its infancy. Few organs were even candidates for transplant, and survival was very iffy.
Since abortion has been legal, organ transplant tech has exploded.
Now, my question: If abortion is re-criminalized, would it not set a legal precident that one human can demand the bodily support of another? I mean, pregnancy is not forever, it's 9 months. Recovery from organ donation surgery is not as long as that. Would we begin to see people suing for half a lung, a bit of liver, or your "extra" kidney?
I think the fact that this hasn't come up as an issue in general discourse demonstrates that, on a very deep level, we understand that giving another the support of one's own bodily resources may be heroic, but it is not required.
I also notice that many hardliners on the issue still allow for the "rape/incest" exception, which I think indicates what the real motive is for abortion bans: punishing females who enjoy sex. Those who have been raped are presumed to not have nejoyed it, therefore they are excempt form the squalling, diapered punishment.
|
trish |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2005 : 05:43:24 [Permalink]
|
Well that first part is one very odd position Trish. I doubt many would see the analogy, though I do understand what you mean.
As to the "squalling, diapered punishment", kids really aren't that bad. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/27/2005 05:46:22 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2005 : 06:34:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Well that first part is one very odd position Trish. I doubt many would see the analogy, though I do understand what you mean.
As to the "squalling, diapered punishment", kids really aren't that bad.
Heh, obviously you've never been a single father with 2 daughters.... All of my sins, past, present, future, and some I'll never get to commit have been paid for, with no outstanding interest. 
quote:
Now, my question: If abortion is re-criminalized, would it not set a legal precident that one human can demand the bodily support of another? I mean, pregnancy is not forever, it's 9 months. Recovery from organ donation surgery is not as long as that. Would we begin to see people suing for half a lung, a bit of liver, or your "extra" kidney?
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you putting forth the possibility that, as a woman would be legally responsible for the survival of her fetus, so, hypothetically, would everyone else be legally required to aid in the survival of everyone else?
Please elaborate..
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2005 : 06:48:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
Now, my question: If abortion is re-criminalized, would it not set a legal precident that one human can demand the bodily support of another? I mean, pregnancy is not forever, it's 9 months. Recovery from organ donation surgery is not as long as that. Would we begin to see people suing for half a lung, a bit of liver, or your "extra" kidney?
I don't think so.
There would have to be cause - legal cause - for it to be your particular lung, kidney (etc), and not someone else's. Anything less than that could be considered a due-process violation of the 5th and 14th amendments (though IANACS). Your organs are, after all, yours.
The "pro-life" argument, on the other hand, is that a growing foetus is not "yours" to do with as you please, but an independent life with its own Constitutional rights beginning at conception. And technically (in the general case), all it's taking from the mother is some food, it's not actually appropriating any organs or tissues on a permanent basis (well, the one egg). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2005 : 14:58:15 [Permalink]
|
But Dave, in that case, if a woman don't want her foetus, she should be able to sue it for stealing food (nutrition), and invading of privacy. Indeed, for trespassing.
And then for sexual assault for the pain she will experience in her vagina during delivery. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 01:16:44 [Permalink]
|
| So can I take the placenta out and leave the fetus????? |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 01:50:39 [Permalink]
|
Just so you all know, I don't think babies are a punishment, I was presenting the idea that antiabortion forces see babies as a punishment for sex.
What I am thinking is that if you give a fetus the right to use of a woman's body that trumps the woman's choice not to, what would stop people from using that as a precident for suing for organs from living donors? If my twin has two healthy kidneys and i have none, and I'll die without the kidney, an anti-abortion law that permits the fetus to use the woman's whole body could be a precident for asking for a much smaller piece of it. |
trish |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 07:56:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If my twin has two healthy kidneys and i have none, and I'll die without the kidney, an anti-abortion law that permits the fetus to use the woman's whole body could be a precident for asking for a much smaller piece of it.
This is what we call a "slippery slope". A percieved chain of events which do not, necessicarily, follow. By your thinking here, it would somehow also follow that poor people coule sue rich people because they had more money and stuff.
As Dave_W has pointed out, the basis for the anti-abortion argument is that the fetus is a seperate entity with it's own legal rights.
It does not, in any way, follow that the granting of legal rights to a fetus as a seperate entity from the mother will somehow grant one individual the right to sue to obtain the property of another just because they don't have the same property.
You will find that most of the people here are firmly in the pro-choice side of this issue. However, as we will contest the faulty reasoning of the opposition, we will do the same for the fallacious arguments put forth in support of choice. The pro-choice position can only be strengthened by rigorous examination of the supporting arguments. Leave the logical fallacies to the opposition.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 09:27:32 [Permalink]
|
Let's say the government passes a law which states that any food vegetable growing on your property must be allowed to ripen, and must be harvested, since these vegetables have some sort of intrinsic value. Doesn't matter if the property owner is an incompetent farmer or hates vegetables, the important thing is the vegetables.
Would such a law set a precedent which states that if you've got home-grown vegetables, your starving neighbor can sue to take some of your harvest from you if you've got extra? No, because the law doesn't state that the vegetables become communal property.
The sharing of resources between a mother and foetus is intimate and private. Twins do not have such a relationship when arguing over an "extra" kidney. It clearly belongs to only one of them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 16:34:25 [Permalink]
|
Dave posted: "The "pro-life" argument, on the other hand, is that a growing foetus is not "yours" to do with as you please, but an independent life with its own Constitutional rights beginning at conception. And technically (in the general case), all it's taking from the mother is some food, it's not actually appropriating any organs or tissues on a permanent basis (well, the one egg)."
Actually, the fetus gets a lot more from the mother than just a single egg, the fetus gets 9 months of food, shelter, and antibodies. Plus, there's the placenta, an organ a woman grows just for the purpose of supporting the fetus. This was the point that made me think that if a society could demand that a woman give up the nutrition and "energy" [for lack of a better term - pregnancy is exhausting] in favor of the fetus, why wouldn't an adult human be able to ask for a similar difficult, but temporary, gift of bodily support?
I was actually thinking that if we can't sue our siblings for a kidney, the lack of that right would be a legal precident that would allow a woman to have the absolute right to refuse to gestate. |
trish |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 16:38:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I was actually thinking that if we can't sue our siblings for a kidney, the lack of that right would be a legal precident that would allow a woman to have the absolute right to refuse to gestate.
They are not the same issue.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 18:48:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
This was the point that made me think that if a society could demand that a woman give up the nutrition and "energy" [for lack of a better term - pregnancy is exhausting] in favor of the fetus, why wouldn't an adult human be able to ask for a similar difficult, but temporary, gift of bodily support?
You've got it backwards: pregnancy is temporary. The gift of a kidney or lung is permanent. You can't get them back. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 21:25:32 [Permalink]
|
| Well, pregnancy may be temporary, but the effects on the wiman's body are not always temporary - ruptured uterus, changes in organ shape and function, abcesses, infections, post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis. |
trish |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2005 : 21:52:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The gift of a kidney or lung is permanent. You can't get them back.
Oh, you can get them back, they just might not be of any use to you any more.  |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 06:45:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
Well, pregnancy may be temporary, but the effects on the wiman's body are not always temporary - ruptured uterus, changes in organ shape and function, abcesses, infections, post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis.
If we're going to have a good discussion about this, we'd better stick with the average case(s), and not the extremes, until we have a good grasp on them and reach an understanding. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 13:44:38 [Permalink]
|
| Well, ruptures are extreme, but not quite as uncommon as one might thinki. Also, I have never met a woman who has given birth who has not felt that her body was never the same. |
trish |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
