What is this 'see-saw' you refer to? My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
The woman is violating the body of the unborn TO KILL IT and without its consent.
So, if I am going to die without a kidney, I can take one of yours? OF course not. And if you want to argue responsibility, then my kidney was damaged by your actions...can I take one of yours? Of course not. By your reasoning you're killing me...but that's not true is it? You have a right to your body no matter what that control disallows to me. It's not about my consent, but yours since my needs overlaps with your bodily autonomy. There is no right to use the body of another without consent.
Your analogy falls on various points.
1) There is a difference between a kidney and a distinct living human being. Another problem: you disregard the bodily autonomy of the unborn entirely as a separate individual as you sacrifice it on the 'rights' of the woman's bodily autonomy. You try to work around the issue by causing doubt to exactly what the unborn is. You relegate it to 'a bunch of human cells,' not quite as human, instead of the unique entity/complete organism that it is.
2) The human being growing in the womb (its natural environment) should not be given the right to life if the woman chooses, per abortion advocates/pro-choice. Where else is the natural symbiotic relationship so casually tossed aside between a woman and her offspring? The person growing in her womb shares her very DNA so it is biologically connected in a special way.
3) The term of residency during pregnancy is only nine months. She can lend her body to her newborn for two years without complaint, but if she does not want to,, with this shorter period of time she can terminate the unborn's life. She can't terminate the life of the newborn if it is dependent on her milk, her body. This is a double-standard. A parent has an obligation to help their children until the child is able to look after themseves.
4) She decided to engage in sex,, knowing that the possibility of a child resulting. Thus, her consent to have sex brings with it a moral obligation, a responsibility to look after it once a life is formed and begins to grow. Where else can you neglect your moral responsibility to your family with no consequences for the death of the other?
5) I have a moral obligation to my family that exceeds my moral obligation to a stranger. An unborn human should have the right to be supported by its mother, not destroyed.
6) In the case of damage due to my negligence, the biblical rule during the OT was an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. I think it is sound. Equal justice would be given by such laws where careless negligence caused bodily harm.
7) It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being since the most fundamental human right is the right to life. Without that right, all other rights are forfeited and become meaningless. Therefore, it is a higher right than bodily autonomy since without it every other right is undermined. The woman is denying the unborn that right because she claims her body takes preference (forgetting the body of the unborn completely).
8) The percentage of women loosing their life to pregnancy is very small in our day and age. Thus, the analogy falls on this ground too. Whereas the kidney recipient will loose their life if one is not received the mother/woman will not in most pregnancies. Thus, the situations are not equally serious.
9) Your argument fails on moral grounds with my bodily rights as opposed to that of the violinist or kidney receipent. The violinist would not be allowed to "plug in" without my consent, but in around 95-99% of pregnancies, the woman gives consent knowing there is a possibility of conception.
10) You can't hold a human being, the unborn, accountable that is not aware of its moral duties yet. The woman is fully aware. A toddler who wonders onto your property that is clearly marked, "Tresspassers will be shot" cannot be held responsible for the act since it is unable to reason yet. Your killing it would be considered murder. It has no intention of tresspassing. That is the least of its worries or intentions. It is not held to the same moral obligations an adult is because it does not yet understand these obligations. Obligations at such a young age are impossible for the unborn, newborn, or toddler to carry out.
11) The type of deaths suffered by the unborn are egregious and cruel in comparison to the person facing kidney failure. The unborn can be poisoned, its limbs ripped apart by suction, sliced and diced, or burned by chemicals. And the unborn human being can be disposed of in a garbage can. The death of the unborn does not come about through natural means.
12) The forcable kidney argument could be used in a number of ways, such as harvesting other parts of a person's body unwillingly, whereas it should be a voluntary donation. Sex, in most cases, as mentioned before, is a voluntary consentual agreement. The woman is not giving up her organs by contrast to a kidney donor but allowing her organs to be used in a natural nine month process that the womb was designed for.
13) The right to control ones own body only goes so far. It does not include the right to kill another person unless that person is threating the right to life of the one in control.
14) Killing the unborn denies it the right to experience all of life's beauty and potential that the kidney recipient has already experience.
I've really lost interest in this thread and this argumentation. It is so often 'us vs them' and you consistently attempt to put your interlocutor into an 'enemy' role and pigeonhole them per your views (and not their own).
It is the competing of two opposing worldview, Chuck, each one viaing for control or a say in what should be the case. The issues are contentious issues. The problem with the one (atheism) is that it can't justify itself yet it pretends as though it can (the Emporor has no clothes but thinks he is splendedly arrayed). Whether you are aware of it or not, there is a cultural war going on for the battle of minds. Ideas have consequences and that is why it is important to justify what you believe as real. You want to reference 'the good' without sufficiently being able to explain why it is so. Not only this, you try to convince others that your thinking is correct.
I don't view you as an enemy, Peter, and I believe these conversation aren't helpful to either and simply polarize us from each other.
I thank you for that, Chuck! For me the conversations are very helpful. You continually show me the inability of your worldview to tackle life's ultimate questions, such as with value and existence.
Perhaps, we can eventually learn to talk to each other as friends. ;-) I'll be working on this on my end. I encourage you to do the same.
I do not hold contempt for you, Chuck. I care about your moral and spiritual well being. I admit I could be more tactful but I don't want to dampen the effect of being direct. I say what I think, and I have thought about many of these issues long and hard. I think you are greatly mislead by your subjectivism. I recognize something in you that perhaps you fail to see in yourself. You can't make sense of life's most important issues. Now, whether you want to discuss it with me is your choice. I am always willing to give my two-cents worth. And I go to great pain to answer every question directed at me. I do not find atheist's doing that. I understand it is probably due to time restraints.
