betterthanabortion #fundie betterthanabortion.tumblr.com

[On comparing forced pregnancy to forced organ and blood donation]


Blood and plasma donations may not cost you an organ, but they are still as permanent as organ donation in the sense that you never get back what you donated. To me, the distinction between the temporary and permanent sharing of resources is that which is between what all parents can reasonably be expected to give, and what they can’t. This is why I drew the distinction between safe and life-threatening pregnancies, which I’ll address in a minute.

I’m curious, what do you mean by saying that the pregnant person would no longer have the right to choose what their body is being used for? Of course, pregnancy can be associated with some physical restrictions, but consider this: does the fact that the existence of my child restricts my ability to achieve certain physical feats, give me the right to intentionally end their life? This takes us back to the question of what can reasonably be expected of me as a parent to provide for my child. At the very least, I have the obligation to obstain from intentionally causing them harm (which in the case of pregnancy would default to simply leaving them alone till they’re born). This should be the case regardless of their current environment.

I don’t agree with abortion as a solution to pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. Are they more demanding on the mother, at least emotionally? Yes. Are they a physically unreasonable feat of provision, like donating a vital organ? No. To say that rape and incest are justifiable cases to abort is to say that born people who were conceived under those circumstances are less human than those who were conceived consensually. Circumstances of conception can no more determine human worth than viability can.

My opinion of what constitutes an unreasonable feat of provision would be the mother’s life ending if she should she continue the pregnancy. Even in these cases, I think any and all measures should be taken to save both her AND the child. But in the event that they should have to be separated in order to save her life, I submit that it would still be unethical to use any procedure which dismembers and/or intentionally ends the life of the child. They should be removed intact (induced labor or cesarean section) and given the opportunity to live or die on their own terms. And yes, when abortions become illegal, I believe these life-saving procedures should still be legal to perform under the given circumstances.

8 comments

Confused?

So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register. Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.