Anti-abortionists: Should we have the right to force others to use their bodies to provide life-support?

Question

If you insist that a fetus has a human right to use his/her mother's body for life-support, then it becomes a "human right".

Where does it stop?

Should I be able to force you to give me your body for life support?

If all humans are entitled by right to use other humans for life support, do we also force people to give blood, a kidney, bone marrow, etc?

If you are willing to force a mother to provide life-support for a fetus, what other circumstances exist where you are willing to consider forcing a human to provide another human the use of their body?

I can't believe someone who has just denied the existence of rape has 8 thumbs-up.

If anyone needs testimony that some anti-abortionists are irrational ...

Answer 1

Not according to the US Supreme Court!

For the holier than thou's here:
The Bible shows that God does NOT consider human life to be precious. He kills OVER 2 million people, including babies, and that isn't counting fetuses or the number of men, women, children, and fetuses killed during the Flood or the Slaughter of the Firstborns, when we are not told how many people he killed.

The Bible clearly shows that God approves of abortion, and in many cases commands it:

The Bible approves of killing pregnant women: Genesis 38:24, Numbers 31:17

The Bible approves of abortion: 2 Kings 15:16

God approves of abortion: Hosea 13:15-16

People are not counted as persons until they are a month old: Numbers 3:15

The Bible contains directions on how to abort any pregnancy caused by adultery: Numbers 5:12-31

The Bible says that being aborted is better than living a bad life: Ecclesiastes 6:3-5, Matthew 26:24

The Bible says that a person becomes a living soul when he BREATHES the BREATH of life into his nostril (fetuses don't breathe): Genesis 2:7

Answer 2

Many people will refuse to accept God's word as a standard by which they should live and make decisions. That is their right to reject it. Nevertheless, I offer the following as reasons for not having abortions.

What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
Even one-celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.
The nature of the life in the woman is human.
It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human.
Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.
Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.
A person born without arms and legs is still human.
A person who cannot speak is still human.
A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.
What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature.
If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?
If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human?
If so, then from where did it get this different nature since the only sources of its nature are human egg and and human sperm?
Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it is okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus.
Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But, the fertilized egg of a human is by nature that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing.
A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.
To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her?
A question for those who believe in abortion and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?

If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right?
If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.
If you say it is alright, why is it okay?

abortion, no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.
This is simply begging the question. You assume it isn't human, even though it is alive and has human DNA, and then pass judgment that it is not a person.
You must define what makes a person before you can attempt to make such a claim.
Is being a person limited to attributes of thought, walking, awareness, etc., or is it ontological; that is, is it an issue of the nature and essence of the life?
A person is still a person even if he cannot think, walk, or be self aware, as someone in a coma.
Personhood is not defined by function alone, but also by essence and nature. To divorce the two, function and essence, is to improperly define what a person is.
Saying that the fetus is not a person, does not make it so.
The fetus has the nature of a human and is injured by killing.
Then does that mean the mother should have no feelings about the life that has been removed from her womb? If it isn't a person, then there should be absolutely no guilt at all with killing the life in the womb, correct?
If you affirm that no guilt at all is necessary, then why do so many women have the feeling of guilt after an abortion?
Does this abortion really leave the woman uninjured? Countless women are psychologically harmed when they kill the child in their womb.

Answer 3

Your suggestion is ludicrous and not even in the same realm as the womb in which a baby is nurtured and grows.

A child is innocent in it's conception. A mother's actions (father's too) created the life that needs her for support. So...in that, yes it has a right to demand that it be given that which it needs.

If your actions caused me to "exist" and then yes, you would be responsible for my life support.

The child you carry inside your body is flesh of your flesh...it is not some strange parasite living off of you. It's only 9 months and then you can allow a loving couple to take over the support and you can go on your merry way.

If you do not want a child, the "choice" is before conception. Your choice is to not have sex.

Answer 4

All of our pro-abortion, pro-life arguments like this are faulty when they involve circular logic, and that's regardless of which side you are on.

Yours takes a popular pro-life arguement and applies it to another circumstance. Clever.

Does anyone else find it hauntingly ironic that the argument "Where does it stop" is effectively used here, as it is for the pro-life side?

A system of laws must have some cohesive sense of relativity, they must be based on some accepted set of right/wrong or acceptable/unacceptable standards. I think that's proven by both sides of this issue each time we open our mouths, we say to each other, "Well, if this is ok, then that is ok."

The termination of a human life for the convenience of another does not fit within existing principles of our society. I see the whole issue of "choice" as sexist and unbalanced because fathers do not get to choose whether to become parents after the unwanted pregnancy begins.

Answer 5

No, you wouldn't be able to force me to give you my body for life support, because you don't come from me so i have no moral duties with you whatsoever. And humans are not parasites.

Come on. Give me a real argument. I don't believe in abortion but i'm not gonna go bomb an abortion clinic or "force" anyone into doing anything. If you come up to me to tell me you've had 10000 abortions i wouldn't have a problem with that. It's your life and your body. It all comes down to respect. I'm a mother and I have learned to protect my children because they are unable to defend themselves.

A fetus is not going to cry out or beg for life. If that's your only reason for stating they are not alive or human, and therefore it is enough evidence to support an abortion, (and i am excluding rapes, incest, health risks, poverty and lack of education) then it's fine. Ultimately, it will only be your blood your playing with, not mine.

Answer 6

Wow. Did you really think that you are making a valid point with this post? How sad. Last time I checked a baby did not force themselves anywhere. The mother did an act that brought on the conception of this child. And I know "What about rape victims?"...That baby is still innocent. This post is a waste of time and is completely idiotic. I would like to force some life support for your brain... but looks like it already died.

Answer 7

Get real, the mother conceived the baby and it has the right to be born. Her obligations are over then if she wants. You can leave a newborn at a hospital or fire department in the first couple days, no questions asked. The mother can choose to place the baby up for adoption or let another family member raise the child. Its not the babies fault that it was conceived.

Answer 8

Humans are kept alive sometimes by OTHER sources. Recently there was a man who woke up from a coma, being kept on life support, for 20 years, and he woke up with ALL his mental faculties in full affect. So because he was supported by a source outside of HIMSELF should he have been pulled off life support 20 years ago? When you see non viable as non human, it warrants a question on where do YOU draw the line. Why is it OK in one case and not in another?

***NON of us were here if we didn't go through developing in our mother's womb = pregnancy, being nurtured off her. That's LIFE. Using words like "parasite" takes away from the HUMAN that is developing.

Answer 9

yes, we have rights, but you cannot force me to give yo life support because you did not concieve me, i did not come to be because of a careless action you took and i never lived inside of you. you carry a baby who is dependent on you to keep it alive, it is alive because of something stupid you decided to do. abortion is just wrong, it should be illegal. my mother had me when she was 18 years old. she and my father married but i was concieved before that, i don't see how anyone like me could be for abortion, what if my mom had been given the choice to take my life away, what if she had? think about the life you are denying, what if that fetus you carry knows the cure to cancer? what if once they born, and have grown they can cure aids. what if the one person who could cure all diseases and bring world peace, was aborted, doesn't that make you resposible for terminally ill patient and every war that happens. why dont you think about that.

Answer 10

I am not responsible for your life or anybody else's fetus's life or anybody else's life. I am responsible for my 3 yr old son's life and well being. If I ignore him or do not feed him or take care of his needs of life, I am a criminal and there are laws to punish me. This responsibility gradually decrease as my son grows up. So when he becomes a teenager, and has a sun stroke as a result of not getting out of a parked car, I am not held responsible. My responsibility cease when my son become an adult.

In the case of abortion, the person who is carrying the fetus is biologically responsible for it along with her partner. Her partner has no legal ways to opt out of child support. SO why should she? Though a female has additional biological responsibilities related to child birth, she has the primary control over conception.

Abortions may be allowed on Medical and Ethical grounds in a similar way as we allow collateral damages to life in a war or capital punishment, killing of a person as a self defense etc. It is obvious that in this case, abortion can be performed a defense against threat to mother’s life due to pregnancy or when it is proven that mother is ethically not responsible for the creation of life due to rape etc. Ethically it is wrong to deny responsibility for the creation of life when it is known that birth control measures can fail.

Answer 11

Are you for or against Embryonic Stem Cell research?

I expect every person to support that which they created. Mom and Dad. If they cannot do that there are ways to find others that can. 9 months is not a long time. How about a little selflessness?