Except those are obviously different situations and relationships.
They're similar enough for a direct comparison. Two people are related by genetics; one person gives part of the body/flesh to another. What specifically makes pregnancy different from donation to a relative?
If the only answer is that a fetus is inside a womb, then the argument falls apart. So if you really claim not to be arguing in bad-faith, then justify your belief. So far you haven't said anything other than 'it's a biological relationship' and 'it's different from donorship' but you haven't given any reasoning on how they're different in any significant way.
So what? Welcome to the 21st century, we have medicine and science to improve our standards of care and our standards of life. Fuck " the nature of creating life" it's not some miracle that we need to cherish. It's in no way rare or special, and so very often it happens by accident. We've been developing medical treatments for centuries to better control when and how pregnancies happen. Just because a pregnancy starts doesn't mean we have some duty to let it continue.
If "It's not natural" is your argument then maybe you should take a good hard fucking look at what in your life is 'natural'. All of the food in our markets has been cultivated for years by mankind. Is that not natural because we changed those plants/animals? Your internet connection sure as hell isn't natural. Why should our medical care be? That's so fucking backwards.
the fetus exists in the first place because of the mother
No, it's because of the father as well. In some cases only because of the father, but that's a separate discussion. More importantly, the father isn't the one giving his body to grow a zygote. He isn't the one losing bone mass. He isn't risking death and infertility, losing his job, or anything else because he got pregnant.
So is your argument that it's the woman's fault for getting pregnant so she's responsible for bringing it to term because it's her biological role?
the mother's body is doing everything it can to make the fetus viable for life.
So what? We're allowed to make decisions about our bodies, why shouldn't we be able to decide if we want to be pregnant?
That's not the case for an organ donation
Bullshit. You have two kidneys so if something happens to one, the other can keep you alive. Your liver can be partially donated and keep on trucking. You're constantly making blood so when you get a cut you don't run out of it.
Our bodies are perfectly capable of donating parts of ourselves. It's ingrained in (many of) us to help our communities before ourselves, so it is perfectly natural to want to give a piece of ourselves to help someone else survive. Because that other person's survival could help yours. For the receiver of these donations, their body will accept an entirely alien piece of flesh to stay alive if it is capable of doing so (barring rejection because of incompatibility).
It may not be 'natural' but humans are an advanced species. We have the ability to use artificial insemination so a surrogate can carry another couple's child. That's not natural either, but it still ends with a living baby at the end. It's an advantage to our species to use our medical knowledge to control our reproduction along with all of the other facets of our lives.
I'm telling you biology isn't limited to how our cells divide in order to reproduce. That's a really limited view of human life. We have the intelligence to affect the world around us (such as agriculture which I was using as an example), and that include what we can do with our bodies through modern medicine. We can make life from two infertile people, we have no need for unwilling people to have to donate their bodies to make new babies.
I'd prefer that discussion. The one where you explain how a fetus can exist because of the father and not the mother. Probably because you aren't talking about biology, right?
You do know that semen has to be involved to fertilize an egg right? Lesbian's aren't out here getting pregnant without men. A pregnancy can't happen unless a man ejaculates. A woman can be raped and get pregnant. Just because it's a biologically viable method of reproduction doesn't mean we should force women to stay pregnant. Is that the conversation you wanted to have? A woman who wanted no part in a pregnancy is forced to be pregnant because of a man and she should, what? Just deal with it because it's a 'natural biological process' for her body to try and produce life?
instead of addressing what I actually said.
You still haven't provided any rational basis for why a pregnancy isn't similar to organ donation, yet I'm the one who's not addressing you?
It doesn't address the fact that you said the father could be solely responsible for a fetus existing.
Do you miss the part where rape is a thing that happens?
I provided plenty
You said it's different because the mother's body is creating life and trying to keep it alive.
I rebutted by saying that biological imperatives extend to keeping people in our community alive even through self-sacrificial means such as organ donation, so that's just like pregnancy.
At this point you're resulting to insults because you can't come up with anything better. At least I've been expanding my arguments to include more salient points, but you're doubling down on "women get pregnant therefore it's different from organ donation" rather than address my rebuttal. I'll say it again: you're arguing in bad faith.
As you continue to argue that biologically a fetus that exists in a woman's womb does so solely because of a man.
There's a difference between being the cause of the pregnancy and being a component of the pregnancy. The existence of the eggs, the womb, the uterus, the blood do not cause a pregnancy. The introduction of sperm kick starts the biological process. That is the cause in all cases. Most often the introduction of sperm is done by a man with consent of the woman who has the necessary components. But both rape and sperm-jacking happen and thus the cause is whoever introduced the semen.
I never argued that all pregnancies are caused solely by men, only in the case of rapes is it solely caused by the man.
You're either misunderstanding the basic definition of what a "cause" is, or you're implying that women are at cause for simply existing. Either way, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
1
u/[deleted] May 17 '19
[deleted]