Skip to main content

Response to Pro-life Argument "Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Care"

Prolife argument:
"The womb is designed precisely to keep the fetus alive. When there's a fetus inside the womb, the womb is serving its bodily function."

Response:
Sure. And the vagina is "designed" to be a sheath for a penis.

You are violating it if the person to whom the vagina belongs does not wish for a penis to be inside it.

Likewise with a uterus.

The "Ordinary vs Extraordinary Care" argument is not only faulty, but repulsive. It perpetuates the notion that the female body was meant to be used by others. That parts of her were "designed" for someone else & that that somehow makes it that "someone else's" property. 

Her body was meant for her utilization for when she sees fit. When she wishes for a penis to be in her vagina, she then utilizes her vagina's function by allowing someone inside it. When she wishes for a fetus to be in her womb, she then utilizes her womb's function by allowing for someone to gestate within it.

Both organs are meant for her utilization and her utilization alone. Nothing should be occupying those spaces unless she intends for such, which is defined by her desire for them to be there.

And it's a gross misunderstanding that simply because the organ can be shared with another person, that it somehow makes it that other person's. It doesn't. All it tells us is that that organ can be enjoyed with another human. It does not therefore make it that other human's property.

On another note, the fact that you can transplant a kidney into someone else and it will function for them basically tells you that the idea that "my kidneys were meant to filter my blood" is false. Your kidney will work for multiple other people. What defines your kidney as yours, is your desire for your kidney to be within you and your right to bodily autonomy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fetal Awareness

  Fetal Pain This topic is being included in our wiki because it is one of the bigger considerations for those on the fence about where they stand on the issue. The ability for a fetus to feel pain is inconclusive at this point in time. One thing, however, is clear - a pregnant person will also feel pain at the time of onset of labor and delivery. Drugs can only be used so much, and they can wear off prior to or during delivery. She will also experience pain after birth, while she heals and especially if she has a c-section. She will be unable to take narcotic pain meds if she plans on breastfeeding as it can be passed through breastmilk. And breastfeeding itself, can be painful, especially in the beginning. And that is nothing to say of the pains felt throughout pregnancy, including the emotional impact it has on a person who is unable to access abortion and is compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Likewise, the pain of having to give up the child, who by the time of delive...
Post a Comment
Read more

''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' & a rebuttal as to why they actually do

My rebuttal is to this Federalist article: ''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' This prolife article argues that prenatal humans have to belong somewhere. If not the womb, then where? ''For most pro-choice advocates, the right to abortion hinges on affirming that a pregnant woman has the right to refuse her child residence in her body. But then the question may be asked, if a prenatal human being does not belong in her mother’s womb, where does she belong? The answer? Nowhere.'' You can ask that if you wish. My answer would be that it is irrelevant to the very first statement. ''It is implausible to claim a child does not belong in the place she began to exist and the only place she can survive: in the nurture and care her mother’s body naturally provides. This has been the case for virtually all of humanity since our history began. The mother’s womb is the rightful place of a child in t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Parthood view of pregnancy makes more sense than the containment view

  This will be a summary of a journal called Were you a part of your mother? that discusses two different views on the relationship between a pregnant person and a fetus. This journal entry refers to the pregnant person as the gravida and the fetus as the foster, so I will be referring to them with those terms as well. One view is the containment view and the other is the parthood view. The containment view seems to be a fairly commonly held view, one that I have seen both sides of the argument hold, so I will be focusing on the parthood view. I believe that the parthood view has a stronger logical standing. I will be summarizing it below by following the four criteria presented for what makes something a whole organism and what is a part of that whole organism. Following that will be the objections and how they can be addressed. I will not address every piece of criteria presented, but will do my best to condense down key points of this 55 minute read. Here is a mini table of co...
Post a Comment
Read more