No, a woman has several options for her pregnancy. She can abort, that’s 100% bodily autonomy. She can have the baby and put it up for adoption, or leave the baby at a safe surrender location which means she’s elected to give up bodily autonomy but is rejecting parenthood and this is the closest analog to what a male DNA contributor should also be granted, minus the bodily autonomy part. Or she can have the baby and parent it, with or without a coparent simply by refusing to name a father or allow a DNA test–of course once the kid is out in the world she can’t keep refusing on her own say-so, if the father decides to sue for parental rights she can be ordered to allow DNA testing of the baby to establish paternity and the father can assert parental rights at that point.
Basically, I’m just saying that either genetics donor should have roughly equivalent say in what happens with the baby–after, of course, the mother has exercised her absolute right to bodily autonomy by declining an abortion. Seems fair to me.
If we’re going to relate this to abortion, the risks should be similar, or the argument is invalid. I gave blood from the moment I turned 18 until they wouldn’t take me any longer, and it is nothing like what my wife and daughters went through when they were pregnant - even the daughter who breezed through it.
If we could beam the fetus out of the womb and have the state take care of it, I doubt many would object to that alternative. But lets not compare pricking your finger with carrying a child for 9 months.
If an unborn fetus is a person, then logically an undead person is a corpse. Or they are only potential - a fetus is potentially a person after being born, and a live human is potentially a corpse after they discorporate. Is almost-born equal to almost-dead?
If a fetus is a person, shouldn’t it be taxed? Does an obviously pregnant woman on a bus or elevator count as one passenger or more? (Extra fares for unborn triplets.)
But what if not obvious? How can a fetus be legally protected if we don’t know it exists? Solution: implant each human female of child-bearing age (now ~6-80) with a pregnancy monitor. If an anti-choicer truly wants to protect embryos, they MUST support mandatory pregnancy monitoring and intensive prenatal care. Any other position is hypocrisy.
That’s not correct. I don’t think either sentence represents my views accurately, but I’m not sure what I said that you’re interpreting in this way. Maybe you left out the word “not”?
I said I don’t agree with violating bodily autonomy on a constant, weekly basis to save 1 person. I know I phrased it bluntly as " forced blood donation is beyond the pale to me" but that was within the context of your hypothetical of a weekly violation of autonomy.
A one-time draw to save all humanity? Strap that sucker down. I’m not an absolutist, I just draw the line different to you.
For instance, if you’d phrased your hypothetical as a *one-time *draw to save the kid, I’d be OK with that as well, just like I’m OK with mandatory blood alcohol testing if you fail a breathalyzer test.
I oppose torturing babies, without exception. At the same time, if aliens ever come to Earth with the Death Star, and tell me I must torture babies or the Earth will be destroyed, then I’d probably consider violating my opposition to baby-torture.
Strong principles don’t require exceptions to be brought up for absurd hypotheticals. I endorse MrDibble’s views on bodily autonomy. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t consider violating my ideals if all-powerful aliens came to Earth with absurd and sadistic demands.
A Jehovah’s Witness gets pregnant via rape. The church hierarchy tell her she cannot have an abortion. She gives birth, but the baby needs a blood transfusion to stay alive. The church hierarchy tells her the baby cannot have a transfusion and it dies.
Let’s see, a parallel view on the male’s position would be to say, “He got the clap but chose to have sex, so he should leave it untreated and eventually die because it was a consequence of his choice. He shouldn’t have control over his own body and choose to treat the unwanted condition because his first choice gave him the unwanted condition.”
Not buying it. Our position is clear. “Our bodies, our choice.”
He chose to rape her, she got pregnant, so he should have paternal rights because the baby didn’t do anything wrong and needs a father.
It amazes me that the pro-life crowd does not see anything wrong with typing a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life. I guess they think SHE cause the rape by walking alone, wearing provocative clothing, or sending out signals.
I’ve found this is a really common reason to oppose legal abortion: when I explain that I don’t consider an embryo to be a “person,” because it lacks any of the salient attributes of a person (self-awareness, ability to feel pleasure/pain, memory, preferences, intentionality, etc.), over and over I hear from pro-lifers, “But if nobody interferes, that embryo will BECOME a person by your definition!” They may even use “potential” to describe that dynamic.
I 100% don’t find it a compelling argument, any more than I think a fertilized chicken egg must be coddled lest I run afoul of anti-cruelty laws.
Compromising on rights is fairly routine. I have a right to keep and bear arms. Sure there are some absolutists who think that the RTKBA cannot be infringed at all and there are about as many pro-choicers who think the right to an abortion is absolute.
But if we are talking about murder the instances where we make exceptions is much narrower. Self defense being the primary exception. And this is analogous to the exception that almost every pro-lifer has for abortions that are required to protect the life of the mother.
All you are doing is calling people names, it doesn’t convince anyone that isn’t already convinced and it doesn’t make you right.
The term “pro-life” was specifically chosen to by implication call persons who oppose it “pro-death”. Anyone who has a problem calling people names would avoid using it, and instead use an honest term for their position like “anti-choice” or even “anti-abortion”.
(Note that “anti-abortion” isn’t really an accurate term either - one can be opposed to abortions on principle but believe that it’s not anyone’s right to prevent other people from choosing to have one. But it’s far more accurate than the slanderous bullshit lying term “pro-choice”.)
Even if you’re right, those are obviously stupid and dishonest terms.
Fetuses, like all non-persons, have never made a choice and lack the capacity to make a choice. Saying something is “a choice” for a fetus is gibberish.