The "right to life" doesn't exist.
Find a Conversation
|Sun, 06-08-2008 - 10:53pm|
I would like to see some pro-lifers tackle this fact.
The right to life..does not exist...for any person born or unborn...if said life requires the support of another persons body. Let me clarify. I as a person...with basic human rights to autonomy over my own body, the basic rights to make my own health choices, life choices, and refuse any risks upon my body at any time for any reason...can make a choice to give or refuse consent of the use of my body for any reason. No born person has the RIGHT to LIFE...if that life requires my body. I am under zero legal obligation to provide blood, marrow, or organs...even if my refusing to provide them means someone else may die. No person has the right to use my body AGAINST MY WILL and WITH OUT MY CONSENT to survive. No person can attach themselves to me, draw my blood, or take my organs with out my approval. This is a basic fact.
Why should a fetus have this right...when no born person does or can. Why should pregnant women be DENIED basic human rights to control of their bodily functions...and not others? Simply because they are pregnant?
This issue has been posted numerous times on numerous boards and I have yet to see any pro-lifer even attempt to respond. Why is that? If a born person does NOT have these rights...why do some suggest that a fetus does or should?