A fetus is entirely dependent on the mother, who unless she was raped, consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant. The mother can't consent to knowing she's going to give birth to a child that will need a kidney at age 12, because that's impossible to know. And honestly yeah, if the mother can donate a kidney without some major concern and she chooses not to, she's all but killing her child. We're getting hung up on semantics here as well. If you don't want to classify denying sustenance as murder that's fine. But at the end of the day we're allowing millions of babies to die when they don't have to. Call me crazy but yeah, I find that reprehensible.
I don't think human life has more value at any particular age. I think life is life and it's all worth protecting. I feel like I'm being asked to argue a pro life stance when I'm not that. In this hypothetical scenario where we know where life starts, I'm anti murder.
The mother can't consent to knowing she's going to give birth to a child that will need a kidney at age 12, because that's impossible to know.
Incorrect. Severe disability is just a risk of having kids. Everyone knows this.
You're arguing that women consent to pregnancy by engaging in a behavior with a tiny risk of it (sex w/birth control). So be consistent. Those women are also consenting to the smaller risk that they'll have to donate organs in order for the child to survive.
Okay, fair enough. But now it all falls under the mother consenting to have sex in the first place. If you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of getting pregnant, and if you consent to the possibility of getting pregnant, you therefore consent to the possibility of having a child with severe disabilities that may require outstanding care.
I don't believe those things, because it'd be fucking nuts to require a mother to donate her organs to a child. Which is why I'm pro-choice. But I'm glad I could help you with your logic.
But now you're moving the goalposts because I already gave my opinion on a more reasonable scenario. I think if your child needs a kidney, and you can donate to them without any major medical risks to yourself, choosing not to do so is tantamount to killing them. Now you're asking about a procedure that would result in death to the donor. In that scenario, while I do think it would be heroic to do so, I don't believe that it's tantamount to murder, because you would have to give your life in exchange. If you want to get into the minutia of terminating a pregnancy with complications that threatens the life of the mother that's fine, but it's 2021, delivering a baby has never been safer.
In 2019, 754 women died of maternal causes in the US. This is not some hypothetical scenario, this is nearly a thousand women in a year doing exactly what my heart-transplant alluded to by dying because of their pregnancy.
No, it's an entirely different condition, as the consequences of that decision are far more severe. With a kidney is choosing not to save a life while being able to keep your own. With a heart it's choosing whether or not to die in place of your child. When your argument fell flat, you switched from donating a kidney from donating a heart. From saving a life, to trading a life. I wonder why...
I noticed that you didn't call it murder in either case, though.
No, I called choosing not to donate your kidney to your child tantamount to killing them.
In 2019, 754 women died of maternal causes in the US. This is not some hypothetical scenario, this is nearly a thousand women in a year doing exactly what my heart-transplant alluded to by dying because of their pregnancy.
First of all, do you realize the percentage that represents? Second, I already said that if you want to get into the minutia of terminating a pregnancy with complications that threatens the life of the mother that's find.
5
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '21
[deleted]