Dempublicents1 wrote:Mortshnefran wrote:it's not the same, as the fetus has an existing reliance on the uterus, while an individual who needs a kidney does not. it would be more akin to compare it to conjoined twins that share a vital organ. can one twin make the decision to kill the other for his own convenience? it's not a perfect analogy but it's the closest i could think of.
Actually, it's a ridiculous analogy, since both of them have the same claim to the organ. The same is not true for my body and anyone else who seeks to lay claim to it.
Here's a better example. Suppose I give blood regularly with a directed donation (a specific patient who needs it). I decide not to give blood anymore. Can they tie me down and drain it out of me because they have an existing reliance on my blood?
And you're shifting the goalposts. If one person's right to life trumps another person's right to bodily integrity, the preexisting reliance thing really shouldn't matter.
i was not comparing the twins to the kidney patient, but the twins to mother and fetus. and no you cant be forced to give organs or blood, and i do believe in a woman's right to have an abortion. i'm simply playing devils advocate as to why it is internally consistent to be a libertarian and pro-life.
Grave_n_idle wrote:Actually, the foetus is attached to the placenta - not the uterus. It is enclosed in the uterus, but that doesn't make it part OF the foetus any more than your bladder is part of your urine.
what is the placenta attached to? the uterus through a molecular bond
and damn it ron paul is a republican not a libertarian!