RE: Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it
April 13, 2019 at 2:30 pm
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2019 at 2:31 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 11, 2019 at 10:24 am)tackattack Wrote:(April 10, 2019 at 5:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Here's a hypothetical for you.
Let's say that there is a newborn baby whose mother died, that for some medical reason, needs to have a further 7 months of life support from an adult. The infant could be connected to this person's body, who would then be their life support.
Let's further say, that you are a perfect genetic match, and are the only person available to keep this baby alive for 7 months, so it could then live a full and normal life. Without you, the baby will not survive.
Would you be okay with the government mandating, by law, that you be connected to this infant for 7 months? Why, or why not?
No I would not be ok with being compelled to do something, I am however a donor and after I'm dead they can have the parts. Reason stated above.
So then, it must be true that you don't also want women to be compelled to be a life support systems for their fetus for 7+ months.
After all, your not wanting to be a life support system for a baby, is completely understandable. But it would mean (in this scenario) certain death for that baby.
It's a simple bodily autonomy issue. Why is it ok for you to want the rights to keep your bodily autonomy in the hypothetical I poste, but not ok for a women to not have the same rights to her bodily autonomy?
And thank you very much for being a donor!
I received a kidney transplant back in 1989, that is certainly responsible for my continuing survival.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
