From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Personal Sanctity
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:32:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.165035.5992@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
            kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:

> Do any pro-lifers out there support ideas like mandatory donation of blood
> or of non-vital organs in order to save lives?  

No. (I am not pro-life, BTW). 

> In these cases, the government has no right to force you to do anything with
> your own body, even if it might save one life (in the case of donating an
> organ) or many (if you donate blood frequently).  Thus, I cannot understand
> why anyone thinks it has the right to force a woman to bear a child.  

You cannot compare mandatory organ donation to the principle behind  
the pro-life position because organ donation forces people to support 
other unrelated humans -- that is NOT the same principle as preventing 
one human from actively killing another. 

During most abortions, the fetus is killed by the abortionist, the mother 
does not simply refuse to support the fetus. Abortion is similar  
to killing a child because you do not wish to support them, as opposed
to allowing the child to live but refusing to support the child. 
You cannot justify killing a human life simply because it's more
convenient than not killing them.  

> But in no other case that I'm
> aware of does the government place the value of one life over the personal
> sanctity over another's own body.  

Are you aware of any situations where the government places a value
on a human life, other than abortion? 

> If one is going to rank a born person's right to life
> over that of a fetus, mandatory blood and organ donation seem more logical
> than restricting abortions.  

The right to life includes the right not to be killed by others, it does
not necessarily include the right to get support from others. Mandatory
organ donation affirms the right to extract support from others, it is
not necessarily an affirmation of the right to life.  

> And if not, it seems to me that outlawing abortion would amount to little 
> more than punishing people for having sex.  

Using your illogic, I could argue that child support and neglect laws amount 
to little more than punishing people for having sex.  

> The sanctity of your body cannot be violated by the state
> unless you do something that results in pregnancy.  

The fetus is not part of anyone else's body. It is a separate human life. 

> Interestingly enough, I have heard people say that abortion is okay in the
> case of rape or incest.  This reinforces the idea that anti-abortion law is
> punishment for having sex voluntarily.  

No, the exceptions behind rape and incest support the idea that people
should not be forced into pregnancy against their will. 

> It is as if to say "well, if you had
> sex on purpose, you have to take the consequences, but if it was 
> involuntary, then you don't have to."  What other reason could there 
> be for this distinction?

There's a valid reason which you would rather ignore, but that reason 
doesn't allow you to make these outrageous insinuations. You'd rather
make wild speculations than to debate the issue in an intelligent
fashion. 

> Most people seem to think that abortion is okay when the life of the mother
> is threatened, so I'm not going to extend my analogy; 

Good. I was getting tired of your insulting remarks.  Next time,
you should post a rational argument, instead of resorting to
these stupid insinuations about the motives of those who oppose 
abortion.