K-Rants Bodily Autonomy

[kay_gmd]

We have a shortage of organs for transplants. Yet no one suggests that we should register our blood type etc and be responsible for donating organs as needed. Not even ones we could lose with minimal negative effect. No, in fact we don't even use organs that are clearly no use any more because someone has died. In order to use someone's organs the person with the organs has to volunteer and if the organs are to be removed while the person is alive they have to demonstrate that they're not volunteering under duress.

I'm an organ donor by the way. Please use anything I haven't used up once I'm done with it.

If I died without ID or someone who knows me nearby they couldn't use my organs.

It doesn't matter who needs those organs it could be the President, the Pope, a drug addict, a rock star, or a young adult with all the potential in the world or all of the above. None of them get the organs unless they can verify that I chose to be a donor.

No individual has more rights to my body than me, even if I'm dead.

There isn't massive disagreement on this issue until I get pregnant. Then even though I could not be required to give up one organ to sustain the life of another or multiple other people I am required to give up my body.

(Not currently in California. Here I could have the potential that might become a child removed, but if those who oppose abortion get there way that might change. )

I've been pregnant. My understanding is that my pregnancy was more or less middle of the road. It ended almost 6 years ago.

While I was pregnant I lost lung capacity, my digestive system went wonky, my feet expanded, I lost endurance on my bike, my memory became less reliable, and my hormones shifted (I used to very rarely cry, during pregnancy books and commercials could make me cry, I've mellowed some but not back to where I was).

I plan to remind my sweet child of this as needed through the years, but it was okay because it was something I had chosen.

When someone says that abortion kills that is no more accurate than saying that not donating organs does. If that's the case and one still opposes abortion then I expect them to also require everyone to register to donate organs. I could use an ear, I know people who could use several other organs.

If one is claiming that the problem is just that the government pays for it:

First yes it is a medical procedure any state that covers medical care should cover all medical care. Otherwise treatment is based on something other than medical need.

Second in the US sadly it doesn't, some states do including California.

Third governments nearly by definition gather your money to do something you don't want them to. The government is also going to use it to do a bunch of other stuff you do want.

Fourth considering the relevant cost in relation to the population for the vast majority of us if we're contributing to it at all it's likely less than a penny.

So either get everyone signed up for an organ registry, and answer when the collectors call, or stop trying to keep people from choosing who they donate their wombs to.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/aneska_/]

I completely agree with you. :) Maybe you can give me some perspective on something I have been wondering about. If the people who object to abortion on religious grounds believe in an all knowing all powerful god. Then why would god put a soul into a fetus that was not going to be born or if they did why would they not move that soul into another fetus that was going to be born... Also if god is a believer in free will which I think most people say god is why would they want to take the choice to act on their free will away from women? It would be interesting to hear your feedback on this. :)

[kay-gmd.livejournal.com]

Honestly I've got nothing. I don't know that I'd thought of the soul issue that specifically, but I do sort of assume that the individual, or soul, gets moved.

My brother honestly believes many innocent lives are lost to abortion, and he wants a pro-life candidate because of that, and it is because of his faith. I don't get it.

My general impression is that this branch of Christianity basically considers free will the chance to prove that you will follow all the rules even though you don't have to, so one should behave like one did not have free will. I'm suspect that's not how the group would describe it, but that's the best I could come up with.

[http://users.livejournal.com/aneska_/]

Thank you. :)

[butterflydreaming]

That's a sound argument, one that could -- I think -- sway someone undecided who isn't having a purely "omg don't kill babies" knee jerk response.

I don't think this is an argument we can win ideologically, generally speaking. (Because pro life vs pro choice is not two sides of the *same* argument) I think we are going to have to keep fighting to make sure that laws protect out body rights, and built those laws solidly so that they apply beyond pregnancy related issues.

[kay_gmd]

Yeah, this was as much me ranting and working it out in my head as anything. I'm not sure what a good argument would be to convince the anti-choice folks.