Trigger warning: Prolife with exceptions? Abortion debate.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW, @columbus - you didn't really answer my question, but I take it from your response that the answer is "yes - you only support injustice for pregant people":

Does your position on this issue lead you to support any policies that might impose injustice on yourself some day, or do you only support ones that would impose injustice on pregnant people?

 

[columbus]

BTW, @columbus - you didn't really answer my question, but I take it from your response that the answer is "yes - you only support injustice for pregant people":

No.
I don't think that requiring competent adults to take responsibility for the predictable outcome of their Choices, when those outcomes involve another human being, to be injustice.
Any more than requiring a motorist to take responsibility for hitting a pedestrian with their car is an injustice.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No.
I don't think that requiring competent adults to take responsibility for the predictable outcome of their Choices, when those outcomes involve another human being, to be injustice.
Any more than requiring a motorist to take responsibility for hitting a pedestrian with their car is an injustice.
Tom

You would compel a woman to provide her body for another "person" during pregnancy on the grounds that a "life" is at stake and that the woman is responsible for the situation, but once the child is born, you would not compel the father to provide, say, bone marrow or a kidney, despite the fact that the father is no less responsible and a life is no less at stake.

This is hypocritical.

At least, it's hypocritical if you value the man and the woman equally.

 

[columbus]

You would compel a woman to provide her body for another "person" during pregnancy on the grounds that a "life" is at stake and that the woman is responsible for the situation, but once the child is born, you would not compel the father to provide, say, bone marrow or a kidney, despite the fact that the father is no less responsible and a life is no less at stake.

This is hypocritical.

At least, it's hypocritical if you value the man and the woman equally.

You are misrepresenting me, as you generally do.
If the father made a Choice resulting in the need for a bone marrow transplant, and nobody else could provide one, I would require it.
It just doesn't happen often enough to become a legal issue.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are misrepresenting me, as you generally do.
If the father made a Choice resulting in the need for a bone marrow transplant, and nobody else could provide one, I would require it.

He made the same choice that the mother made: to have sex.

Just as pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of having sex, having kids with health issues is a foreseeable consequence of having sex.

He knew that there was a chance that he could end up a parent of someone who needed some of his tissue to live and he chose to roll those dice. Now he should live with the consequences, regardless of how he feels about it... no?

 

[columbus]

He knew that there was a chance that he could end up a parent of someone who needed some of his tissue to live and he chose to roll those dice. Now he should live with the consequences, regardless of how he feels about it... no?

As usual, you misrepresent my opinions.
Pregnancy is the extremely predictable outcome of certain forms of sex. Some freakishly rare bone disease is not.
I would agree that he should deliver the bone marrow. He did father a kid. Most of the real dads I know would do it.
But that isn't the same as writing a law.
If such bone disease were an ordinary occurrence I would probably support such a legal requirement. But it isn't, so it's a total strawman argument.
Tom