Sorry if I missed it, but did any of the anti-choice people explain why living women should have fewer rights than our society grants to corpses?
This has 3 resolutions:
- Take away rights from corpses and allow organs to be harvested regardless of what the person wanted when they were alive. Also, it should be possible to force people to give blood whether they want to or not.
- Give women as much rights as a corpse and let them decide if an abortion should happen.
- Admit that our society values women less than we value corpses.
And of course, out of the three, I expect anti-choice people to chose to use a
special pleading fallacy instead of anything on the above list that would actually resolve the contradiction.
Option 1 has more extreme consequences than mere involuntary blood transfusions ; under that option, a healthy person should be killed and their organs harvested so that a number of sick people can live. Your continued life denies survival to one heart transplant patient, between one and three liver transplant patients, two kidney transplant patients and several bone marrow transplant patients; while seriously reducing the quality of life of two people who need new corneas, and a huge number of people who need various grafts, tissues and other organs.
At least a woman who chooses an abortion is only denying life to one other person by her excercise of bodily autonomy.