darth_ender said:
I see. It seems still over the top. Maybe to improve it, the organ loaned would not be so critical as the heart (which unlike the uterus [which is designed exclusively for pregnancy, btw, and therefore is fulfilling its design, while a heart transplant does not], is absolutely essential for human life to continue). Perhaps a kidney would be best. A person can live without it, but the potential for death from the surgery or future loss of the other kidney probably better matches the risk. And in a finite period of time, the person would get the kidney back.
Yes, the kidney analogy is far more appropriate.
Twister, you exaggerate the risk involved in pregnancy by a hundredfold, and you are forgetting that both ender and I share the belief that abortion is justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger.
Your concerns about C-Section are exaggerated as well, as the procedure carries less risk than you seem to imply. That's how I was born, and my mother had six kids after me, and I know other women who have had C-Sections.
You also ignore the risk of abortion, and in your analogies, don't portray that option as having side-effects. Some women, who have had abortions are not incapable of having children, because their uterus was damaged in the operation. Not to mention the emotional and psychological effects it can have, and the loss of a life and a person (not that you consider it a person, but it at least has the potential to become a happy, intelligent, and productive human being.
[...]
Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival. My children take a toll on my health and billfold. But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives. As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.
Exactly. The drain on resources all comes down to convenience in the end. If someone had to kill another person in order to steal that person's money so they could afford to pay the rent, would the murder be justified? Let's say that the murdered person was a quadriplegic, and was mentally impaired so that they were barely aware of their surroundings anymore. One would think that that would be far more forgivable than the deprivation of a human being's life, before it even has a chance to properly start, yet most people would probably protest against the action and press murder charges against him. Our society has a bit of a double standard that way.