comment: >
  
  The problem with a mandate is that some people would really be harmed by having to donate. Mostly for medical reasons, but in the case of surgery some would have other reasons as well, like not being able to afford to take time off while they recover or to pay for doctor visits for any potential complications. We could -- we would -- have ways for people to appeal it if they were called to donate. But donations like these are time sensitive, and there's not always enough time for people to go through the process of proving they would be unduly harmed.
  A mandate would hurt people. And the people it would hurt would be the people who are already struggling, with disabilities or financial instability. It's not fair.
context: /u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  The analogy that was most convincing to me was this:
  There are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.
  Now, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?
  If you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception. >
  
  
  Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?
  
  I think this would be a wonderful thing. I realize it would never happen, and won't push for it, beacuse I realize it will upset a lot of people and be too unpopular due to how many people view death/the dead. But I wish we could do this. Dead people don't need their organs, they're dead. They don't need anything and they also have no feelings. Dead bodies are intimate objects like chairs or stuffed animals. Dead bodies are not capable of experiencing any sort of harm. 
  The only reason "respecting" dead bodies matters is beacuse it hurts the feelings of living people when they find out a dead body was "mistreated". I say this as someone who is an organ donor and would be 100% cool with leaving my body to science. (It's something I've thought about recently but I haven't gotten around to researching where as my odds of dying soon are low so it's not high on my to-do list.) I genuinely don't care what happens to my flesh after I'm gone. It's really a shame to waste it when we could help actual living people who can still be helped. Assuming you consider saving lives a good thing, I suppose. >
  
  
  The only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?
  
  This analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves "magical" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.
  But regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove. >
  
  
  or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.
  
  ok sure, say the living baby is strapped to your back by a tube for 9 months.
  
  yes, of course.
  
  but why?
  For instance, we decided that we are going to make sure people who don't get a COVID vaccine are basically shunned from many aspects of society. That is violating bodily autonomy in order to prevent them from hurting others. How is this any different? >
  
  
  we decided that we are going to make sure people who don't get a COVID vaccine are basically shunned from many aspects of society.
  
  We do? I think it's important to specify what aspects and what culture you're talking about here. Because, as someone from California, the most liberal state in the country, there isn't anything I can think of that requires a COVID vaccine.
  What, exactly, are the unvaccinated being shunned from where they are required to reveal their vaccination status and then ridiculed? >
  
  well, just going to school requires a whole host of vaccines. and some government jobs too.
  but !delta for ig showing me that vaccine mandates aren't that stringent.
  But the thing is, I personally believe vaccine mandates SHOULD be more stringent. You haven't changed my view. I still believe that in cases like vaccines, prioritizing people's lives matters more than bodily autonomy. and hence for my analogy as well. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Moldy_But_Whole (4∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Do you believe the government should have the right to force someone to donate a kidney if it will save the life of another? >
  
  did you even read the post? >
  
  I think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood? >
  
  If a fetus were actually a fully-fledged person, the woman it's assaulting could legally remove it in self-defense. >
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman... the woman is the one who literally made the fetus and put the bullet inside herself, even if she did it unintentionally.
  and pregnancy is really not as dangerous as some guy trying to shoot u. that's also why I made an exception for when the mother's life is in danger (as determined by a doctor) >
  
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  "Yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes? >
  
  Yes or no question: If a siam twin is really annoyed at the other and really doesn't want to live with him/her, does he/she have the right to cut the other's head off? >
  
  No
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  2nd time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes? >
  
  The question you are posing is irrelevant, and is probably no at least for the first x weeks (first time I hear about digit and have a hard time translating it, but I'm guessing at limbs). Do you then by the same token believe that it is immoral to remove embryo?
  Did fetus have the agency to insert itself inside a woman's body?
  Edit: I'm retarded. Ignore the no to your question. >
  
  
  Do you then by the same token believe that it is immoral to remove embryo?
  
  No
  
  Did fetus have the agency to insert itself inside a woman's body?
  
  No
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  3rd time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes?
  (please reply with either a yes or a no) >
  
  It's a yes, but this yes does not mean anything... If you are at the gynecologist and he puts fingers in your vagina, do you have the right to shoot him if you withdraw consent mid examination?
  Ok, so fetus did not have the agency, which is very important when you are talking about killing another person. Actually it was your actions, that caused the fetus to end up where it is. >
  
  
  If you are at the gynecologist and he puts fingers in your vagina, do you have the right to shoot him if you withdraw consent mid examination?
  
  No
  
  Actually it was your actions, that caused the fetus to end up where it is.
  
  I deny your accusation. Provide proof that I impregnated someone.
  
  It's a yes, but this yes does not mean anything...
  
  Then it's a yes to somebody else's question.  A yes to my question means something: it means that this person currently has one or more of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes.
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  4th time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes?
  (please reply with either a yes or a no) >
  
  If my Auntie had wheels she’d be a bicycle. >
  
  and that is a true statement. same as the post. >
  
  If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
  Also, NO, it wouldn't, because if you take up unwanted residence in someone else's abdomen, pretty sure it's not "immoral" to get rid of you. >
  
  you did not address the post. >
  
  I said -- 
  
  NO, it wouldn't, because if you take up unwanted residence in someone else's abdomen, pretty sure it's not "immoral" to get rid of you. >
  
  I know you said that. That does not address the premise, nor the analogical argument I made, in any capacity. >
  
  
  I know you said that. That does not address the premise, nor the analogical argument I made, in any capacity.
  
  It does address the premise. 
  It doesn't delve into impossible things, no. >
  
  
  It does address the premise.
  
  no it doesn't. here's why:
  
  you take up unwanted residence
  
  "you" (as in the fetus) did not take up residence. You were forced to reside without consent.
  
  It doesn't delve into impossible things
  
  well it has to in order to engage with the thought experiment.... why are you here if not to discuss the philosophical thought experiment? >
  
  I think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does "if the fetus was a fully fledged person" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as "fully fledged"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even "fully fledged people"?
  I guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define "fully fledged person" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything. >
  
  hmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say "fully-fledged" should mean "equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth"
  
  But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section
  
  but since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. 
  This is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb. >
  
  Others have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.
  Legally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's "fault" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.
  But what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.
  So you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say "cold blooded murder is wrong" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion. >
  
  Why do you have a special obligation to your own children? Let's say instead of your child getting leukemia, it is some random person in the world. Are you obliged to spend 9 months giving blood transfusions in that case? >
  
  If we accept the premise of your hypothetical for the sake of the discussion, you have to also accept that you are actively valuing one life above another (the fetus above the pregnant person). You are saying that it is LESS immoral to force catastrophic and potentially life-ruining experiences on the pregnant person (nevermind the fact that birth does not necessarily equate a positive quality of life for the fetus either!) than it would be to terminate the pregnancy. It becomes a battle of morals (i.e. whose life is more valuable?). In this hypothetical, I would throw my lot in with pregnant people as having more intrinsic value than the fetuses, by virtue of their established ties to existence and thus their greater impact. The fetuses, pre-birth, can only have THEORETICAL impacts, and therefore have a lesser value at the time of the abortion. 
  I'm not always great with words, so allow me to explain with my lived experience:
  When I was pregnant with my (very much wanted) second baby, there was a risk of a uterine rupture. Uterine ruptures can be fatal to the mother and/or the baby, and incredibly time sensitive surgical interventions are needed (as in minutes can change the outcome from life to death). I had to have a very scary and very real conversation with my husband about who to save if God forbid it came down to it, and at this point I was 37 weeks along so I had a fully formed baby in me, not just a clump of cells. The fact of the matter is that had it come down to me or my baby, my loss would have created a direct, measurable and guaranteed impact on those around me. In our case, our biggest concern was what would happen to our existing child who was still a toddler and needed me. Was it immoral to choose myself over my baby if it came down to it? Tragic, yes, but immoral? I don't think it was. 
  (Full disclosure, baby was born healthy and all is good, so I'm grateful that our scary scenario was only ever a hypothetical for us because for some people it isn't!) >
  
  Let's say a woman consented to sex, but took every legal possible way to prevent pregnancy that was available to her. She becomes pregnant. Are you saying that forcing her to carry and bear a child she does not want, that is feeding off of her without her consent, and medically affecting her body should be allowed because it got past all security measures to do so?
  
  u should bite the bullet.
  
  Why? Why would you force someone to give birth, knowing that the child is not wanted, and would probably be hated/not given a proper life? Our foster care system is already overloaded, and adoption is inherently traumatic. Why force the child to suffer? >
  
  Now, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.
  Now, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our "what is intuitively moral" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)
  Deontology says that you do "what is right in the moment". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that "no rights are absolute", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.
  (Act) Utilitarianism says that you should "maximise satisfaction (or happiness)" of everyone (or more commonly known as "the end justifies the means"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.
  But act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.
  Now, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be  valid to different people.
  From my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.
  The pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.
  I cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.
  I can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and "being shunned for being unvaccinated" is also a consequence of that. >
  
  damn... I have dabbled slightly in philosophy before bc I used to do debate, but thank you for laying it all out on the table. I should really get back into Kant. I feel like this is an issue with no easy answers, and hence, people should really have more empathy for the other side of the aisle. !delta for helping me frame this issue from a deontological/rule util perspective. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dernbu (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  There's a step you jumped, I think, which is worth pointing out. It sounds like you're equating moral badness with illegality when you make the kidney comparison, but they're not one-to-one. There's things that are immoral which are still important for us to protect legally.
  You say the government shouldn't force kidney donations. But morally, do you think a person should donate their kidney if they're the only viable match? What about donating their bone marrow, which is much less invasive? Would you feel guilty if you didn't donate? The truth is that someone will die and you could have stopped it. That would weigh on me. I would feel like I did a bad thing. >
  
  hmmm !delta I actually do think I would feel guilty. Maybe logically the law should mandate that sort of thing. But really, there's just something icky about a mandate like that. I guess that's just my intuition speaking.