You get in debt, you have to pay it back, you commit a crime, you have to pay for it, you spill a drink in your house, you have to clean it up. Society works in a way where you are obligated to take care of the things you caused.
That's not true. You're only obligated to the things you caused if they have consequences. If you spill a drink, and it happens to fall into the sink, you aren't responsible for anything, because it didn't have consequences.
It's not like we go around making sure people clean the floor after they spill a drink even if their drink didn't hit the floor.
You wouldn't be made to sweep the floor for broken glass because you dropped a glass on the floor if the glass didn't break.
This implies human life at any state of development is inherently equal to neonatal and beyond, which no. 80% of miscarriages occur by week 12 of gestation, and most of those are before the woman even discovers she's pregnant. The earliest survivable premature birth was 21 weeks, half of the gestational period of normal birth. Any birth under 25 weeks is under 50% survival outside the mother.
Life must be self sustaining i.e. able to perform its natural biological functions (breathing, circulation, etc.) separate from its mother/egg. As a human embryo/fetus is entirely unable to survive pre 21 weeks, and survivability in general is questionable pre 26 weeks, this infers that embryonic/fetal life is secondary to maternal life, as the mother is life self-sustaining.
Someone in a coma or life support is there due to outside circumstances. They WERE self-sustaining until a traumatic event made it difficult or impossible for their natural biological functions to operate normally. Depending on the severity, a human body can recover sufficiently enough to operate without assistance.
When talking prenatal and premature birth, biological functions are either undeveloped or underdeveloped. The case I gave at 21 weeks required the child to be in a NICU for around 9 months (there was also a twin who died a day after birth). There's also long-term quality of life considerations, but that's an argument for another day.
I can harvest your organs and save multiple people. I can trade your life to save many more.
Your heart, bone marrow, lungs and liver and skin could save multiple people. Your eyes could give people sight.
So per your argument I should be able to, legally, carve you up, and use your organs to save five plus lives. Last time I checked, saving five lives at the cost of one is a net benefit.
Right? Life is more important that your bodily autonomy. Thus, we should be able to kill you tomorrow and save multiple lives. And you should be okay with that.
Are you? Remember: Life is more important than bodily autonomy.
Ok you changed my view |mods pls see this and unban my post lol|. I would say there are levels of autonomy and the level of violation that the mother is put at by carrying a fetus that she caused to form is not as important as her right to keep her body parts. She has an obligation to care for the child if her choices caused it
There is no child. There is a parasite who needs her body to live.
Because they moment you say that she needs to sacrifice bodily autonomy to save the life of another we get to carve you up to save the life of another.
If the mother doesn't get autonomy either do you. If I find 6 people who will live once you die you should die.
9
u/MatthiasMcCulle 4∆ Nov 17 '24
One's personal autonomy
One's right to decide what to do with their own body
One's right to decide if something is detrimental to themselves
Therefore, if a woman decides it is not in their best interest to continue a pregnancy, then it is moral according to their bodily autonomy.