Alethea & Athena (double_dear) wrote,
Alethea & Athena
double_dear

  • Mood:

Controversial Topic

Work did not progress as hoped today, so normally we would probably keep working, but Page has been pestering us all day, so we figure we should stop for her benefit. We've been working overtime and disappearing (to Disneyland) for the past several days, and I think she wants to hang out, so we're going to! But first, a LiveJournal post.

I mentioned on Tuesday that I had been thinking about a Controversial Topic for a while and wanting to post something about it to get it off my chest, so I figure I might as well do that now. See, occasionally we'll see a thing going around on Facebook, using the concept of bodily autonomy to justify abortion. Without doing any research, I'm guessing that "bodily autonomy" means you have to have signed a donor's card in order for your organs to be harvested for other purposes after you die. The Facebook thingie explains that you have the right to determine if somebody else, not you, gets to use your body or any part of it. In this case, that part of the body would be a woman's uterus. So far, I agree with this concept; it makes sense that a woman has the right to decide whether or not somebody gets to live inside her.

Now here's where the whole thing differs from the bodily autonomy argument. Let's say somebody needed a kidney, and you were a match. You have the right to choose whether or not to donate the kidney. That's reasonable. And if the kidney was needed by a complete stranger, you wouldn't even necessarily be considered a jerk for letting that person die without your kidney. But you're also not actively killing that person, unless you somehow gave the dying person the kidney infection. In that case, you're the one who caused the need for the kidney to begin with, and I'm pretty sure the infected party would win the lawsuit against you, and you would at least have to pay their medical expenses, and possibly for emotional damage...but you may not be forced to give up the kidney, at least.

With abortion, except in the case of rape, which definitely deserves special consideration, the pregnant party definitely did something to cause the other person to need her uterus. So if she created a need for another person and didn't supply that need, maybe she is within her legal rights, but it just doesn't feel sound morally or ethically.


Today I'm thankful for a cat who cares about us not overworking ourselves, getting some pretty new books from UPS, getting to work on a fun translation today, having a lovely chat with Mom last night, and getting to try root beer Poptarts.
Tags: politics
Subscribe

  • Politics again

    Originally I was planning to talk about Dionysus today, but then we were watching internet videos last night, and I have another topic. If it turns…

  • The dangerous pastime

    I thought I could maybe take the weekend to think some thinky thoughts about the election outcome and post stuff about it, but not surprisingly, the…

  • First Love Monster, volume 5

    We woke up to the news about the election, and pretty much our reaction was surprise and maybe a little confusion. I had some nice coherent thoughts…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 7 comments