Other lives can most certainly be exclusively conditional on others, e.g. bone marrow donors.

In principle, I have no problem with viable fetuses being delivered rather than aborted if the mother wishes to terminate the pregnancy, but the abortion of viable fetuses is essentially a right wing bugaboo rather than a real thing that happens. Basically all of the abortions that late in the process are of non-viable pregnancies.

We have a process in place if parents don't want to raise their children anymore. If you can come up with a means to keep an embryo alive after being removed from an unwilling mother, then sure, you can mandate that means and outlaw abortion.

If a man lies about having had a vasectomy so that he doesn't have to wear a condom, is the woman on the hook? Also, having an abortion is taking responsibility. It's just taking responsibility in a way you don't like.

Your money is not your body, and it is not as sacrosanct. Besides, you still have outs, such as convincing her to put the child up for adoption.

Now this is a bad analogy.

Well, the nuns taught me that your minor premise is incorrect (from a Christian point of view of course).

In fact we all are guilty and all deserve eternal damnation.

To keep things in perspective, what's a little torture or murder compared to that ? Your question seems kind of trivial now that I'm thinking about it in those terms.

And there it is folks.

You seem to have no concept of responsibility or what it means to abort something in any sense. GL with that

Interesting. I'm dubious about the value of these analogies as well but it's clearly the case that we can assume moral responsibility for other people and that sometimes we will chose to back that with legal responsibility.

The relevance to abortion will always be slim because the real issue is whether there's anything to assume responsibility for. 'Souls' aside, for the abortion debate in practice, the answer is clearly not. As wookie observes, when there could theoretically be an issue, there just isn't in practice:

If I don't torture this kid by putting her in her playpen for a few minutes which will cause her to cry her face off, she might never calm down enough to take her already way delayed afternoon nap. Ok to do?

The blood donation is a constant process that starts at intercourse, and continues until the fetus/life is removed. To be clear, I'm speaking about the mother consensually donating to the fetus/life persistently, and medical intervention has to occur before child birth occurs to stop it, if for unnatural reasons.

I've said this before, but ultimately it comes down to whether a person thinks the fetus is a life that has rights, and if it does, consent, or the inability of the fetus to consent to a medical process becomes a whole 'nother ball of wax, especially if you take the position it has some rights, but not as much as a born human. If it's not a life, there is no moral question, i.e. it's the same any other medical procedure.

What is taking responsibility, then? And is it a principle you apply universally, or do you pick and choose when taking responsibility (according to your definition) is essential?

Uh, no it doesn't.

Well, there is a space of 6-10 days after conception before it's starts getting nutrients and oxygen via the mothers blood. I don't think we are talking about the first week of pregnancy, though.

We can talk about cervical mucus, if you want, as well.

Well, OK, so far you've come up with zero other scenarios where it's OK to violate the bodily autonomy of a person to save the life of another, so I'm not sure you're hung up on whether the fetus is alive.

What's interesting about this is, you don't seem to have an issue with the destruction of a life/fetus who can't consent. Your criticism is a double-edged sword, and further highlights the point I'm making.

We can talk about the harm to liberty for women...but your analogy implicitly acknowledges the fetus/life is a person, of some sort, and if that's the case, your claim at a violation works against you, as the woman has to suffer child birth/pregnancy, but the fetus/life dies. The woman gets to make the decision for the fetus, and that's a violation of bodily anatomy of a person, as well.

You are not concerned with the consent of the fetus to it's own destruction. The only way that's morally acceptable is if you don't think of it as a person, and that, once again, voids the analogies.

People needing organs don't get a say in an organ being made for their use. If none is found, or if none consent, they die, whether the consented to death or not.

Likewise, a man having sex with a woman becomes a rapist the instant she says no more and he doesn't agree. His feelings on the arrangement are irrelevant.

You are right, the woman has the right to consent, and withdraw consent, and at any point it is rape if consent was not given, or withdrawn. What do you call someone who kills someone with out their consent? The fetus does not have those same considerations/legal protections.

The fetus/life can't even vocalize their consent to having their existence terminated via a medical procedure, much less have any agency in the decision. So bizarre consent of the person being destroyed is irrelevant when it comes to the life's destruction.

A doctor?

not a person.

As I already stated I am for life and think human life is precious. I think no innocent human life should be ended. There is no line for that in this context, in my opinion. You could call me pro-life (not to be confused with anti-abortion-rights).

Keep up your anti-freedom rhetoric though. You don't even care. You just want women to behave properly according to some twisted concept. To obey.

I am pro abortion-rights.

deranged virtue signaling cuck

What if your saliva was the only one that would save a life.

That kid ain't viable 'till they can get a job imo.

If the gov can pick a prom night dumpster baby out of the trash that's fair game, but don't you dare question a womans right to choose.

Libertarians 4 choice!

i would think it would be quite easy to negotiate a price for said spit unless the seller was a total prick and played hard ball trying to squeeze the patient for every last dollar. if it came to that i think we could reasons apply eminent domain laws in some way or another.

It gets trickier when you're talking about something that represents a significant sacrifice for which some may not even have a 'price'.

The abortion analogy would be forcing a woman to undergo a pregnancy when it represents a non-trivial risk to her life or well being (ie: not just the discomfort of being pregnant and having to squeeze it out of her vag). In those cases i think most pro lifers are ok with it, though obviously there's some subjectivity as to what non-trivial risk is since every pregnancy carries risk.

Yeah this is about the response I thought I would get. You are pro life and pro abortion rights but can’t tell me when life begins. I guess life magically begins when it is convenient for you.

And it has nothing to do with freedom, We all agree no one should be free to kill innocent people. We just disagree on when life begins and when a person should actually be considered a person.

You are not on CNN right now, so these lame attacks about being sexist and anti freedom aren’t really working out for you.

How are your attacks about killing innocent people when talking about embryos and whatnot working out for you? (You must be pretty upset about trump's immigration policies. )

Human life begins sometime between conception and birth, in my opinion. But, I leave that medical **** to medical experts and I leave women's reproductive health decisions to the women facing them. It has everything to do with freedom, dude.

You fall into the same trap MrWookie falls into. It's not congruent to stand for freedom and think it's okay to violate the liberty of a life, because you value liberty for someone else. Some of you disregard the liberty of the fetus/life. I get that, but the only way that makes sense is if you adopt the position it's not a life until birth. Especially, when certain animals have more legal protections for their safety than a fetus.

The prochoice folks have to pick their poison. Either decide a fetus has no liberty, or right to protection, or simply say they value the liberty of the mother, more than the life and liberty of the life/fetus in her womb. Anytime one of pro-choice say it's all about liberty/freedom, and also indicate they think a fetus is a life, it just reeks of willful ignorance.

Wow you even managed to crowbar in Trump and immigration, so woke.

A lot of so-called pro-life people stop giving nearly as much of a **** about it after a child is born.