Brainstorm

[Ravenshire]

Ok. Spelled out like that it makes sense. Thanks.

Earlier in the thread you made a statement that the right to life trumps all other rights. I offered a "what if" type scenario. How would you feel about that if you were forced to have a toddler in kidney failure attached to you for the purpose of using your kidneys? Or, alternatively, having one of your kidneys or part of your liver removed, by force, to give to someone else.

If the toddler was my child, and he was in that situation because of something I did  (which is the case in all pregnancies except rape), then yes, I would would say that child has the right to "use my kidneys" for a temporary amount of time.   

Regardless though, the fundamental difference between a fetus being inside his mother's womb and two people being hooked up to a machine in a hospital bed, is that a fetus is right where he should be. The second scenario represents unnatural and extraordinary measures, while the first represents something natural and ordinary. The fetus is exactly where nature intends it to be, and reproductive organs exist specifically for that purpose. Really, that is the only reason we have those parts of our bodies. So yes, all of us had the right to live in our mother's womb for the first 9 months of our existence, for that reason.  

Fair enough. We'll just have to disagree on that point. I believe in bodily autonomy in general and especially in case of rape and failed contraception. I don't know if the old saying that it takes all kinds is true, but we sure do have all kinds with a ton of differing beliefs, don't we?

P.S. Why can't you be ornry about it so I can cuss at you?!?