Question for 'pro-lifers'

Post Reply New Topic

I use parenthesis because i really believe 'pro life' in this context really means 'anti women'.... ...but I digress.

If every life is sacred, then for the sake of consistency you must support mandatory organ donations upon point of death.

If not, why not?

I think you can be pro-life and still support women.

Like I don't think people should be having an abortion if they accidentally get pregnant, but I'm not going to force that on anyone. I don't like the thought of abortion in that sense, but it's up to a woman in what she does with her body. I'm in the mindset of saying no to abortion unless it's rape, incest or the health of the mother.

I more interested in illiciting a reply to the point about organ donation.

If you believe that abortions should be prohibited because of the sanctity of life, should people be denied the right to refuse organs after death?

Abortion should be opposed because it is the destruction of a human life whereas organ donation while laudable is still a decision about one's own self. FWIW I am on organ donor.

I see, so the point about bodilly autonomy applies only the context of organ donation but not in unwanted pregnancies. Interesting paradox.

A corpse has less reason to object to organ donation than a woman has about an event that could drastically change for the worse, or even possibly end her life. Conversely on the other hand, there is no agreed theological, philosophical, medical or scientific consensus that a foetus by its own merits, constitutes a 'human life'. A foetus lacks the vestigal attributes of a human and has no legal status. The foetus cannot survive without the mother, and the mother is more than a mere incubator for the foetus while she is supplying it with oxygen and nutrients.


Its interesting how conservatives cry so much about foetuses but hate their fellow humans. Foetuses are the definitive freeloaders.

Last edited by thomas81 on 03 Nov 2014, 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The difference is that I believe the unborn are a human life entitled to same protections we all have which isn't analogous with organ donation in my opinion

That would be a misinterpretation of their arguments. But, that's not hard to do, since no one actually wants to address the real arguments.

The entire debate falls onto one small existential argument.
The entire debate is over what moment a clump of cells become a unique entity.
Once the fetus becomes an actual person, then it would be murder to kill them.
Some people think that they become a unique entity at conception (the formation of unique DNA), others believe that they become a unique entity at birth. Most people think it is somewhere in between. I think the most rational compromise is at the earliest moment the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Now, once that has been settled, the debate can move onto whether or not it is acceptable to kill the person once the fetus becomes a person and when that is acceptable. This would include endangerment of the mother's life or other scenarios. If we decide a person isn't a person until birth, then this discussion won't be of worth.

Now, the reason why prolifers can be against mandatory organ donation is that they still believe in personal integrity or a person's right to their own faculties. In other words, the person owns their organs and taking it from them after death would be similar to forcing a family to distribute a dead person's belongings or having the state seize and distribute the dead person's belongings without any compensation.
Similarly, prolifers believe that the fetus is it's own person and therefore it isn't the mother's choice to do something to that person as the person has rights. If we were to prove to them on an existential level that the fetus isn't a person, then many claim that they would be prochoice.
Do you understand now?

A foetus has no legal status and as i said, the mother is worth more than a mere fleshy incubator.

As the late George Carlin said


" If foetuses are people how come we don't include them on censuses?"

"If foetuses are people how come when you ask an expectant couple how many kids they have they say "we have one on the way" instead of including the foetus?"

You see not only do foetuses lack legal status they aren't even conceded to be human on a cultural level.

Where on God's green earth did you get the idea that being pro-life means being anti-woman? Do you honestly think Planned Parenthood gives a rat's rear end about women? No. All that group cares about is the almighty dollar they get from the abortions they perform. And no, do not tell me that they do mammograms or anything else like that.

I neither see the consistency there or in your comparison between "pro-life" and "anti-women". Aborted children are also often females. In all reality pro-lifers often argue that both partners should be fully responsible for the child.

Does that make them not human? Argumentum ad populum does not constitute a proof of concept. Plus interpreting a phrase like "we have one on the way" in the manner you have is intellectually dishonest. Clearly there are many people who say that who do view the fetus as a human child.

It's irrelevant if a fetus is human, it's not a person.



Anti-choicers would place a non-person's rights ahead of the woman's right. It's irrelevant what the gender of the non-person is.
Men don't have the same interest in pregnancy as women, pregnancy doesn't carry health risks for men since we don't carry them. Men should have the absolute right to terminate the unwanted pregnancies they carry too.



Because the truth isn't actually relevant to you?

They say they do. But if the woman miscarries at two or three months ? which is of course very common ? do they collect the speck, name it, give it a full funeral complete with tiny coffin? Because you'd certainly do all that in the case of a dead child. Enlighten me, I'm not hip to everybody's cultural customs.

actually quite a few people do. even more will name them and remember them. my grandma lost two over 70 years ago and she still remember the names.

some cultures don't think a baby is a person until they reach a year old. so is it ok to kill a 11 month baby? what about a toddler or a 5 year old.
if the babies body and brain has formed an you have to chop it up to get it out cause you can't pull it out in one piece then it's a person.

Since when are people entitled to have access to other people's bodies (at significant medical risk throughout the entire ordeal nonetheless) against their will?
Even actual people aren't given the rights many wish to insist a fetus has; why would we give a fetus rights that we wouldn't consider giving a person?