I don't agree with this - you can win the argument even if you admit the premise that it is a person.
The government can't force you to give blood, even if it would save a life, right? It can't arrest you and harvest your second kidney or your bone marrow to keep someone else alive even though you could absolutely survive the process, and it would be terrible if they could, everyone agrees with that. Hell, they can't even take it out of your corpse without your expressed permission. This is because your right to bodily autonomy supercedes someone else's right to life. So if you can't be forced to let another human being use your blood, you can't be forced to let another human being use your uterus either.
I think there's an obvious unavoidable difference here however in that conception (outside of assault and other things) is a known and directly caused outcome of intercourse. This isn't a person across the street that you had no impact on, but one whose reliance on you was generated by you.
Of course, this particular problem isn't even a major point for many anti abortion people because they also refuse to provide birth control/condoms/etc that would prevent this direct cause but assuming a hypothetical person with rational and consistent moral beliefs on abortion by itself, they could easily hold a distinction between the two scenarios.
Ironically such a principled stance could end up where removing the 6 year old (assuming it occured through no fault of your own) is fine but abortion would not be.
Not really because your need of a kidney doesn't exist because of them. However it would create an interesting situation where if you crash into someone, you would be obligated to donate your organs to them.
your right to bodily autonomy supercedes someone else’s right to life
I think /u/SerLava's point about the 6 year old child was meant to illustrate that most people are not absolutists about this. It's easy to construct scenarios where most people would choose one person's life over another's bodily autonomy.
My example is pretty good- if someone, especially you yourself, attached an actual person to your body, you're SOL and have to deal with it.
Interestingly enough, it actually becomes a murkier question if someone else forces that super glue situation on you. That's basically equivalent to the "sexual assault exception".
I don't think it's a very good analogy because the super-glued person is not dependent on you to continue their vital functions. A better analogy would be whether you are responsible for the survival of the person behind you in the human centipede.
I don't agree with this - you can win the argument even if you admit the premise that it is a person.
The government can't force you to give blood, even if it would save a life, right? It can't arrest you and harvest your second kidney or your bone marrow to keep someone else alive even though you could absolutely survive the process, and it would be terrible if they could, everyone agrees with that. Hell, they can't even take it out of your corpse without your expressed permission. This is because your right to bodily autonomy supercedes someone else's right to life. So if you can't be forced to let another human being use your blood, you can't be forced to let another human being use your uterus either.
I think there's an obvious unavoidable difference here however in that conception (outside of assault and other things) is a known and directly caused outcome of intercourse. This isn't a person across the street that you had no impact on, but one whose reliance on you was generated by you.
Of course, this particular problem isn't even a major point for many anti abortion people because they also refuse to provide birth control/condoms/etc that would prevent this direct cause but assuming a hypothetical person with rational and consistent moral beliefs on abortion by itself, they could easily hold a distinction between the two scenarios.
Ironically such a principled stance could end up where removing the 6 year old (assuming it occured through no fault of your own) is fine but abortion would not be.
By this reasoning if an EMT saves your life then they're obligated to give you a kidney if you need it
Not really because your need of a kidney doesn't exist because of them. However it would create an interesting situation where if you crash into someone, you would be obligated to donate your organs to them.
deleted by creator
But that's a lot different from "you wouldn't need the kidney if they didn't steal your kidney"
Most legal remedies involve someone losing some right due to their actions, so that another person can have their rights restored
I think /u/SerLava's point about the 6 year old child was meant to illustrate that most people are not absolutists about this. It's easy to construct scenarios where most people would choose one person's life over another's bodily autonomy.
My example is pretty good- if someone, especially you yourself, attached an actual person to your body, you're SOL and have to deal with it.
Interestingly enough, it actually becomes a murkier question if someone else forces that super glue situation on you. That's basically equivalent to the "sexual assault exception".
I don't think it's a very good analogy because the super-glued person is not dependent on you to continue their vital functions. A better analogy would be whether you are responsible for the survival of the person behind you in the human centipede.
They depend on you not ripping them off. Doesn't really matter if that's internal or external biology.