Of course, none of the examples I gave were the permanent loss of an entire organ. That was on purpose. You’d still have the rest of your bone marrow, the other kidney, the rest of your liver, the rest of your blood. I chose “donations” that would be analogous. And of course, pregnancy does indeed include the risk of entire organs, or their function, permanently as well. But my examples didn’t ask you to understand that far. You might argue that one kidney is an entire organ, but it does not leave your body without function, still you can take that one out if you’re not able to see the analogy.
You are hinting that you are a woman who is the “in group” and that you understand this. My apologies for misgendering you all this time, I did not realize this, I will correct that going forward. But your words do not appear to understand this impact on a woman’s organs in pregnancy, so I don’t know what to make of that, but it is not trivial.
As Toni points out - the purpose of the analogy is in part to try to engender some scrap of empathy from men on the magnitude of the effect of pregnancy on a human body. It is also in part to say, “if we decide women’s body’s are vessels without autonomy that can be compelled to donate the use of their organs, including permanent change to the function of those organs and risk of loss of function, then we need to rightly decide that ALL people’s bodies can be similarly coopted by the state whenever another human needs it.”
And yet you’ve made poor arguments for “abortion rights” and have not demonstrated how a “harm” to “abortion rights” leads to “harm the rights of anyone who wants to protect their own body.” The poor analogies of organ donation isn’t persuasive and to properly support what you’ve said requires an understanding of the law regarding “abortion rights.”
My argument may never be pursuasive to you. It would certainly never be pursuasive to the men who would seek to coerce me to donate the use of my organs. Many arguments for civil rights in history were not pursuasive to the people who sought to deny them.
But my argument has logic and the analogy is sound. If the law would force my body to be used to provide life-preserving function to another human, then any body should be available to be forced to provide life preserving function to another human. To say that only women can be forced is a violation of civil rights.
Second, I never denied “organs are at risk of loss.” As a matter of fact, I accounted for it at the top of page 13 (on my iPhone) when I said, “doesn’t permit the potential mother to lose a body organ, or greatly risk doing so…”
Every pregnancy presents that risk, and again it doesn’t have to be to *lose* an organ, it can damage the function of the organ.
Whereas your posts are consistent with someone who hasn’t read or studied the opinion. Do I need to illuminate for you the Holding and reasoning of the case? Or can you be bothered to read what it is you want to defend? Otherwise, I can explain how overturning Roe doesn’t lead to your implications but you aren’t going to understand unless you actually know what the Court held in Roe and its reasoning.
Since Roe limits the coercion of the woman to donate the use and function of her organs to the third trimester, overturning will remove that limit and enable the coercion at earlier points in the pregnancy. Some states are tryign to make that point be when the pregnancy does not even include a functioning person; before it has a working brain, indeed - when it is merely 2 cells.
That is why I entered the dscussion with this post:
Remember when the “centrists” said that progressives were being hysterical about the “unfounded fear” that the right to abortion would ever be at risk?
Oh, you thought I was just mimicking the reasoning used by male justices in 1973.
Why on earth would I limit myself to that?
Oh gee, why would any rational person think that? Oh, maybe because you referenced a specific opinion, Roe v Wade, and then opined of the implications to follow, by example, if the decision is reversed.
And that means my objections about the harm its reversal would cause are limited to the harms those justices could envision? Again, why would I limit my understanding of the harm to their limited understanding of the harm?
I envision much more harm than they did. That was my point in the discussion, that I addressed with this post:
It’s my opinion that if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned, stating that a woman’s body can be coerced to have her organs operate for the sake of another being, that it is now legal for ANY human to have the use of thier body coerced for any other human who needs it.
If someone needs a kidney, and Newt Gingrich s a match, he **MUST** donate his kidney.
If someone needs bone marrow to live and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a match, she MUST donate, whether the timing is conveninet or not, and as many times as is necessary.
It doesn’t matter if it leaves the donor in a compromised physical state, it does not matter if it will harm your career or your family, or your education. You MUST ALWAYS be a donor whenever another person’s life rides on your donation. Or you are charged with murder.
Donating marrow does not result in the “loss of an organ”
You may argue that having one of your two kidneys removed constitutes a “loss of an organ,” I’ll withdraw that from the list (even though women with undiagnosed kidney disease can go into complete renal failure due to pregnancy)
Replace it, if you like, with forced blood donation.
