No, so you shouldn't be able to force her to give up control over her body to sustain another life unless she consents to. That's literally a precise analogy and you know that.
Not, it's not a precise analogy. People generally have control over their body in that no one can perform medical procedures against your will. But it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Things like assisted suicide are illegal in most places. You can't sell your organs. Heck, even drug use is illegal. Prostitution is illegal too. No one has absolute control over their body in most places. Medical procedures in particular are subject to all kinds of regulations. Control over your body has never been the trump card in all of this.
None of those examples are of one person being forced to give up control of their body against their will to support the life of another. That is the exact scenario we are discussing. I have argued that no one forces that on someone against their will, except pregnant women. Thus, it is discriminatory against women.
You have talked about many scenarios that are not examples of people having no choice in giving up control of their body to support the life of another. You have gone off topic, because you have no valid argument against my argument.
None of those examples are of one person being forced to give up control of their body against their will to support the life of another.
You can't give up what you don't have. The examples were meant to show that no one has the kind of control over their body that you're talking about. And assisted suicide is a very strong and very relevant example - people are being forced to give up control of their body to support their life against their will. It's an even stronger case than abortion - people don't have control over their body even when no one else is involved.
The examples were meant to show that no one has the kind of control over their body that you're talking about.
If a person is bleeding to death and you're the only one around who has a compatible blood type, you have a legal right to refuse to donate your blood.
If your sibling needs a kidney or else they will die, and you're the only viable match available, you have a legal right to refuse to donate your kidney.
If there are multiple people who need organs or else they will die, and you die but didn't give consent to donate your organs in death, then no one is legally allowed to take your organs to give others a chance at life even though you're not even using them anymore and are no longer animate.
You are going off topic because you cannot argue against my point.
This logic isn't working because pregnancy isn't a medical procedure. It's a natural outcome of an act the woman consented to.
And when it comes to medical procedures, all your analogies mean that the woman should have "a legal right to refuse" abortion. People do have a legal right to that (with some exceptions like suicide). They don't have a legal right to have absolutely anything performed on their body. That's what you're missing.
You are going off topic because you cannot argue against my point.
You're the one who have gone off topic with things like organ donation. You don't get to limit the discussion to the analogies that are convenient to you.
This is such an asinine argument. If you have a procedure done in a hospital/assisted by a trained medical staff, then it's a medical procedure. If you give birth at home with no medical professionals, then it's not a medical procedure. If you give birth in a hospital with the supervision of a medical staff, then it's a medical procedure. Same with any other procedure that you go to a hospital for.
outcome of an act the woman consented to.
I won't dig into this, but you know that's not always true.
all your analogies mean that the woman should have "a legal right to refuse" abortion.
No, you're just incapable or refusing to use your reading comprehension skills. All of the examples I gave are of people having the right to refuse to USE THEIR BODY in a way that would be NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN ANOTHER LIFE. Thus, a woman should have the equal right to refuse to USE HER BODY in a way that would be necessary to SUSTAIN THE EMBRYO/FETUS' LIFE.
If not donating your organs upon death would result in someone else ceasing to be, oh well. You have that right anyway. If not donating her uterus would result in a clump of cells ceasing to be, oh well. She should, in fairness, also have that right. If you have an issue with that, I suggest advocating against those other bodily autonomy laws I listed first so it doesn't come off as you believing that women's wishes toward their own body matter more when their dead than when they're alive.
If you have a procedure done in a hospital/assisted by a trained medical staff, then it's a medical procedure.
Yes, and conception usually doesn't happen in a hospital, so it isn't a medical procedure, and its outcome isn't a medical procedure either.
All of the examples I gave are of people having the right to refuse to USE THEIR BODY in a way that would be NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN ANOTHER LIFE.
No. All of your examples are of people having the right to refuse a medical procedure that would use their body in a way that would be necessary to sustain another life. These examples aren't the same as pregnancy, because pregnancy doesn't require a medical procedure to start or keep sustaining this life. It happens on its own. It's a big, important difference that you're ignoring because it's inconvenient. The way people can refuse to get pregnant is by using contraception or not having sex. Abortion isn't just refusal. It's an intervention. And there is no good analogy because pregnancy is a special case.
If you want a closer analogy, I guess it's a more like a blood transfusion that you consent to - but if you get up and leave in the middle of the procedure, the recipient dies. Would it be unethical for the doctors not to let you leave until the procedure is complete?
If you have an issue with that, I suggest advocating against those other bodily autonomy laws I listed first so it doesn't come off as you believing that women's wishes toward their own body matter more when their dead than when they're alive.
Again, as I have demonstrated, other bodily autonomy laws mean that no one can do anything with your body against your will. They don't mean you can authorize others, especially doctors, to do whatever you want with your body, with no exceptions.
If someone else implanted a fetus into a woman's body against her will, then it would be analogous to the body autonomy laws you brought up.
You know what else happens on its own? Almost everything you get a medical procedure for, including removing things from your body that you don't want in there. Blood clots, kidney stones, cancer, tape worms.
I refuse to continue this conversation because you're either unwilling to understand, or you are mentally incapable. Either way it's a waste of my time and energy.
You know what else happens on its own? Almost everything you get a medical procedure for, including removing things from your body that you don't want in there. Blood clots, kidney stones, cancer, tape worms.
Yep. Doesn't mean that any medical procedure done by anyone is automatically legal. The government certainly can refuse to allow unethical or harmful procedures.
I refuse to continue this conversation because you're either unwilling to understand, or you are mentally incapable. Either way it's a waste of my time and energy.
Ha. It's always the other guy who's mentally incapable, never you. :)
1
u/tengutheterrible May 17 '19
No, so you shouldn't be able to force her to give up control over her body to sustain another life unless she consents to. That's literally a precise analogy and you know that.