View Single Post
  #515    
Old September 15th, 2012, 06:47 AM
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx
CoquettishCat
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
AH I'M A FEW DAYS LATE ON THIS BUT I CHANGED MY STANCE ON ABORTION JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO AND I WANT TO KNOW IF IT ACTUALLY HOLDS UP TO CRITICISM SO I'M SHARING.

This is how I see abortion:

Say a woman has a daughter that's about 5 years old. That daughter is well, well into the "I'm a real person" stage of her life. She has the right not to get murdered. Suddenly she falls deathly ill and the only thing that can save her is an immediate donation of part of her mother's liver. Her mother is completely healthy and the surgery poses no extra risk. She's financially stable and can afford the surgery easily. She's been taking care of this child since birth so she is responsible for the child's welfare.

Even assuming all this, she is not obligated to donate part of her liver to her daughter. Even with the knowledge that without that liver, her daughter will die.

Pregnancy is the equivalent of a massive organ donation for 9 months. Since having a child and taking care of it is not a contract that you'll donate organs if they get ill and need them, having sex is not a contract that you'll donate your body to a child if they are conceived and need it. Just like it's an unfortunate limitation of science that we don't have artificial organs for people that can't find donors, it's an unfortunate limitation of science that we don't have artificial incubators yet. However, that doesn't mean that a woman is obligated to become an organ donor to a child without her consent for 9 months.

Therefore to me whether or not the child is a person doesn't matter. Does that make sense? I haven't yet brought it up to anyone that might challenge it so idk if it's reasonable under criticism yet.
__________________


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Friend!

Your best friend, or your lover? Choose!

Lover!

Reply With Quote