Pro-lifers: how much can we hurt one person to save another?

Question

So we accepr that in order to to save a life of her child it is moral to require a woman to undergo pregnancy, birth, nursing (every 2 hours for 3 months), costs of bringing up a child or pain and depression of giving the child up.

Then, shouldn't it be moral to require that healthy people to donate blood? I mean what is blood donation compared to pain of childbirth?

Or how about bone marrow transplants, critical for treatment of leukemia? It is madantory that they come from ther nearest relative. Bone marrow grows back over time, so there is no long term effect. Surely a person who refuses to donate is a criminal!

Or how about we require suitable young people to donate a kidney whenever one is needed to save a life? Surgery is not that invasive, and single kidney can handle the load quite well. Sure they can't drink too much, but how wonderful it is to know that you saved a life!

So please say Yes/No to three suggestions (blood, marrow, kidney). If you say No, explain how that donation decision is different from abortion one.

Decision to save a life is same at to killing. Some argue that transplants are against God's will.

If pregnancy is punishment for immorality, should we deny blood transfusion to drunk drivers? or kidney transplants to alcoholics?

http://www.kidney.org/atoz/atozItem.cfm?id=114
says kidney donation from a sibling has a much better chance of success. So this pretty close to a mother making a decision on her embryo.

Answer 1

In first instance, you are requiring someone to do something in order to avoid killing someone.

In the other instances you are saying that someone should do something to SAVE someone.

There is a difference.

In the first case, a woman has two choice, murder her child, or bring it to term. She is the ONLY person who can make the action one way or another.

In the other cases, for example, if I chose to give blood or not, the person who receives the transfer will not LIVE or DIE bases solely on my decision to give blood or to not give blood. There are other people who can make that decision as well and save the person's life. But in the case of the mother, she is the only one and is therefore solely responsible for her actions (killing the child or bringing it to term.)

I am a Christian and pro-life and I have never heard another Christian argue that transplant surgery is against God's Will. Perhaps you are thinking of Christian Scientists?

Secondly, you mention the issue of pain. Giving blood is a little painful (I do it quite often) and I've heard that donating bone marrow is EXTREMELY painful. As for kidney donation, with any surgery there is a risk for fatality and recovery time is slow and painful.

Now, onto pregnancy, having been pregnant and delivered the child, I will tell you that pregnancy can at times, but uncomfortable, but you are not in a constant state of pain. In addition, giving birth is a natural thing, meaning that a woman's body has been designed to give birth, whereas we are not designed to give blood and/or kidneys and marrow.

Lastly, depression. Post-birth depression has been highly trumped up in the media and it does not occur as often as one would think. I speak from experience when I say that giving a baby to another couple that you have just given birth to is a HELL of a lot easier than trying to deal with the guilt and pain over murdering it.

Pregnancy is not punishment for sin, pregnancy is a natural consequence of having sex, one in which "safe sex" does not protect against (check your facts, if birth control were 100% effective we wouldn't have an abortion issue).
Rather the sin is that the woman, having done the action that resulted in said consequences, choses instead to murder another life in order to hide her guilt and pain.

Answer 2

You have a bit of a circular problem here. Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a gift. You said "in order to to save a life of her child it is moral to require a woman to undergo pregnancy". The life doesn't need to be "saved", it just needs to be allowed to grow. Women are not required to "undergo" pregnancy, they can choose to become pregnant or not. As far as the rest of it, the fascists had the same ideas. If you want to the state to make all your choices for you, including when you can KEEP your baby, keep thinking along these lines.

Answer 3

So, enable me see what you're saying: If one is professional-existence, then one might decide to deny the the terrific option to abortion because of the fact it kills the unborn newborn. as a effect, if one desires those unborn infants to be born, then one might desire to fund the lives of those infants. i'm assuming it is because of the fact many abortions are for women human beings who're too undesirable to correctly take care of their infants? ok, so on the inspiration that human beings might or won't have get admission to to birth control, that human beings won't abstain, and that some pregnancies are the tip results of rape... If i'm asking somebody to have a newborn, then I might desire to furnish the components to help it. valid argument. From my standpoint, i assume I already try this by my tax money that I pay to the government... yet that purely facilitates teenagers in Australia. i might somewhat that the female in contact had the choice to terminate the being pregnant (specific, kill the foetus, i know what it is composed of) via lawful, sanitary skill than to be compelled to the two circulate to finished term and unload the newborn in an orphanage or to circulate to a backstreet abortion medical institution and finally end up ineffective (the two mom and foetus). Abortion isn't something that would desire to be taken gently, yet then neither might desire to the the terrific option to elect. till a newborn is born, that's a factor of the mother's physique - earlier 20 weeks or so, without the mother it does not stay. So for this reason, that's the mother's selection. and that i've got not yet met a woman that has had an abortion who took the determination gently.... I donate to scientific care charities, yet have been questioning approximately sponsoring an foreign places orphan, so as a expert-choicer, i will inspect your hyperlinks, even in spite of the undeniable fact that your call replace into for expert-lifers to undertake!

Answer 4

true, but those other things you mention cannot be weilded as a punishment for sexuality the way the abortion issue can.

edit: I'M not advocating it's use as a punishment, but when you hear the statements made by some (not all) pro-lifers: "she should just keep her legs closed" or worse, it's clear that such is their agenda.

Answer 5

I'm not a pro-lifer but I think that you have some good ideas there. Why don't we make it mandatory to donate blood????

Answer 6

If it's controversy you crave, become a politician.