A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Bells]

No one stops seeing her as a person. That is a strawman. The argument Is that after a certain period of time, the life Inside of her is a viable person, and deserves rights as well. And its right to life--except in certain situations--should be given priority.

Why should it be given a priority? You don't think the mother's rights should be given priority, so why give it to the foetus? Why do you elevate the rights of the unborn above that of the mother's?

The only way you could possibly conceive this argument is if you think the mother is less of a person than the foetus and thus, the foetus right to life is given more priority. The only way you would give more priority to life over the other is if you think one is less of a person.

You can't even say it has equal rights to life. You openly say that it has a priority, as such, more rights to life than the mother's. This is why you not only stop seeing her as a person, but you also strip her of her rights in the process. So don't lie and claim that no one stops seeing her as a person. You just did..

When you give her unborn child priority to life over her, when you openly question why her life and her rights should have priority because you know, it's just her body and all.. then you automatically lessen her personhood.. Because a person has rights to life, full stop. No if's or buts. Yet you openly say the unborn child has rights to life and is a person while asking why should the mother's rights be paramount and then you say that her unborn child has priority. That, Balerion, is stopping seeing her as a person.

You can try to deny it, you can try to lie to cover what you just said. But that is the reality of what you said.

 

[PhysBang]

No one stops seeing her as a person. That is a strawman.

You might tell yourself this, but you are not willing to grant women the same rights you grant to others.

You don't want to force men to have to donate their organs to others. Yet you are willing to force women to use their organs and risk their lives to continue a pregnancy they do not wish to continue. That's a significant difference between men and women that you support.

The argument Is that after a certain period of time, the life Inside of her is a viable person, and deserves rights as well. And its right to life--except in certain situations--should be given priority.

You are arguing that the right to life of a fetus is greater than the rights of a woman. You presumably do not support that the right to life of someone who needs a kidney transplant outweighs the rights of a man to keep both his kidneys. You presumably do not support the right to life of people who need blood transfusions over the right of men to not give blood.

The only people that you want to be forced to sacrifice their bodily integrity are women. That is not a straw man.

 

[Kittamaru]

The only way you could possibly conceive this argument is if you think the mother is less of a person than the foetus and thus, the foetus right to life is given more priority. The only way you would give more priority to life over the other is if you think one is less of a person.

Does... this mean you consider the unborn child less of a person than the mother?

 

[Balerion]

Why should it be given a priority? You don't think the mother's rights should be given priority, so why give it to the foetus? Why do you elevate the rights of the unborn above that of the mother's?

The only way you could possibly conceive this argument is if you think the mother is less of a person than the foetus and thus, the foetus right to life is given more priority. The only way you would give more priority to life over the other is if you think one is less of a person.

Not at all. If the mother's life Is at risk, she is given priority. If there's the potential for severe emotional trauma, she is given priority. Up until the fetus is a viable child, she is given priority regardless of circumstance. However, once that child can feel, and has at least some awareness, the mother can't just terminate the pregnancy because the father won't be involved, or because she can't financially support a child. There are alternatives that don't involve killing.

You can't even say it has equal rights to life. You openly say that it has a priority, as such, more rights to life than the mother's. This is why you not only stop seeing her as a person, but you also strip her of her rights in the process. So don't lie and claim that no one stops seeing her as a person. You just did..

When you give her unborn child priority to life over her, when you openly question why her life and her rights should have priority because you know, it's just her body and all.. then you automatically lessen her personhood.. Because a person has rights to life, full stop. No if's or buts. Yet you openly say the unborn child has rights to life and is a person while asking why should the mother's rights be paramount and then you say that her unborn child has priority. That, Balerion, is stopping seeing her as a person.

You can try to deny it, you can try to lie to cover what you just said. But that is the reality of what you said.

No, that's you being unable to comprehend a complex issue.

 

[Bells]

Does... this mean you consider the unborn child less of a person than the mother?

Ultimately yes I do. The doctors who struggled to save my life as I nearly lay dying in childbirth certainly thought so, no matter how much I begged them to save my son first. My son was secondary as far as they were concerned. My rights and my survival was paramount. I'd gone into shock from the blood loss, I was lapsing in and out of consciousness and each time I came too as they worked on me to try to stem the bleeding long enough to get me on the operating table because by that point, they had to go in to stop the bleeding, I begged them to save my son. I was told they would do the best they could do but that they had to save me first. Those were the last words I heard before I was put under. This is in Australia at least. In Australia, the mother's life and her safety has priority, not the unborn she is carrying. So if a pregnant woman is involved in an accident, they treat and save her first and then see if she has lost the baby. In the US, it appears as though in some states, I'd have gotten my wish and probably would not be here to talk about it. I'm sure many of you wish I was in one of those regions right now..

If your wife is pregnant and falls sick. You are asked to choose. Which is more of a "person" to you? Which one is more of a "person" and deserves saving more? Your wife or your unborn child? I would assume you would pick your wife and not your unborn child. Because your wife is more of a "person" to you.

 

[Balerion]

You might tell yourself this, but you are not willing to grant women the same rights you grant to others.

You don't want to force men to have to donate their organs to others. Yet you are willing to force women to use their organs and risk their lives to continue a pregnancy they do not wish to continue. That's a significant difference between men and women that you support.

Ah, a graduate of Bells' School of Ridiculous Hyperbole. Welcome.

Pregnancy is not organ donation. There is no workable analogy, except perhaps parenthood, at least in the late stages.

You are arguing that the right to life of a fetus is greater than the rights of a woman

Which rights of a woman? It seems that you think those rights should include unconditionally ending a life. I don't agree with that.

You presumably do not support that the right to life of someone who needs a kidney transplant outweighs the rights of a man to keep both his kidneys. You presumably do not support the right to life of people who need blood transfusions over the right of men to not give blood.

Again, apples and oranges. In neither case is the person who does not donate a kidney or donate bloos wilfully ending the life of another human being.

The only people that you want to be forced to sacrifice their bodily integrity are women. That is not a straw man.

Women are the only ones who can get pregnant. And like I said to Bells, I am in favor of a woman's right to choice up to a certain point. And so are you, for that matter. Once a child is born, you don't believe a woman has the right to kill it. I simply believe the cut-off point begins a bit earlier than you do. And, I as I said before, there are always exceptions.

 

[billvon]

You don't want to force men to have to donate their organs to others. Yet you are willing to force women to use their organs and risk their lives to continue a pregnancy they do not wish to continue. That's a significant difference between men and women that you support.

This is the stupidest argument I have seen so far. No one is asking women to donate organs against their will; no one is asking men to donate organs against their will. If a woman goes to some doctors they will refuse to remove a fetus without a good medical reason, even if her other organs are supporting it. If a man goes to a doctor they will refuse to remove a kidney without a good medical reason, even if his other organs are supporting it. So not much difference there. Indeed, women have MORE rights than men in this regard, because there are places where they can go where a doctor WILL remove and discard a fetus without a medical reason, but men cannot go anywhere and ask a doctor to remove and discard a kidney without a medical reason.

 

[Balerion]

Ultimately yes I do. The doctors who struggled to save my life as I nearly lay dying in childbirth certainly thought so, no matter how much I begged them to save my son first. My son was secondary as far as they were concerned. My rights and my survival was paramount. I'd gone into shock from the blood loss, I was lapsing in and out of consciousness and each time I came too as they worked on me to try to stem the bleeding long enough to get me on the operating table because by that point, they had to go in to stop the bleeding, I begged them to save my son. I was told they would do the best they could do but that they had to save me first. Those were the last words I heard before I was put under. This is in Australia at least. In Australia, the mother's life and her safety has priority, not the unborn she is carrying. So if a pregnant woman is involved in an accident, they treat and save her first and then see if she has lost the baby. In the US, it appears as though in some states, I'd have gotten my wish and probably would not be here to talk about it. I'm sure many of you wish I was in one of those regions right now..

If your wife is pregnant and falls sick. You are asked to choose. Which is more of a "person" to you? Which one is more of a "person" and deserves saving more? Your wife or your unborn child? I would assume you would pick your wife and not your unborn child. Because your wife is more of a "person" to you.

As we've all said, the mother's life takes priority.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by Bells
Thankfully there are still 4 doctors who provide the service to women around the US and who do so with far more compassion and understanding the people in this thread are capable of.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Whoa... im in this thred

She doesn't mean you clueluss.

Ok good... cause nobody is more compassionate an understandin than me about a womans right to choose.!!!

 

[GeoffP]

Randwolf - I hope you get this, as the Reply function isn't working hideously well.

I'd like to comment on your point about the woman not wanting an abortion the day of birth: no, I can't imagine any potential mother choosing that either. I would ask about how the contrast of the choice of abortion develops over time: what about the day before? The week before? And then how does that fit with the defense of DF abortion (DFA)?

The socio-economic basis of the choice is changing too, over time: earlier than the day of or the week of delivery, the potential economic troubles may seem insurmountable. Later on, approaching B-day, not so much. All right, so which interpretation is correct? In marginal cases, at least, it turns into a perceptional issue; no, I can't make it versus yes we can later in pregnancy. Without the aspects of health, or deformity, or other such exclusionary side-cases, how does the economic imperative exist over the entire 9-month period? And which stance is right? I realise that the entire issue is heterogenenous: what are the economic prospects? what are the present ones? what in the situation is transient and what is not? - but there's a clear perceptional change over the term. Should we attribute that to hormones, viewing the carrier not as a vessel of reproduction, but a bag of irrational chemicals? Or, having made the later-term decision to retain, are mothers with unwanted newborns able to effectively use adoption mechanisms? What mechanisms exist? Are they functional? And so forth.

Beyond that 27-week boundary, we're presented as you note with an embryo that is - with medical support, which is admittedly expensive - viable. (This is a side-element of why the 'bright line' characterisation beyond the DFA is, frankly, completely fallacious.) And the fact of this viability is already in place, although, again, with extensive and expensive medical support. Avoiding the minefield being presented by the other side about abortion from 20-27 weeks, we're already presented with this choice. I suspect this 'other side' will see this as 'chipping away at abortion rights', except that the deadline is already far more liberal than any of the current deadlines. (In fact, it would probably be untenable for political reasons, which is another issue.) What one of the extreme pro-choicers on SF meant by the false assertion that this takes away the rights of women by using a biological definition to bypass law is: This biological definition removes, ad infinitum, my side's chances of overturning existing law in favour of a DFA policy that I would rather see instituted. I wish to remove the present, more conservative limitations in favour of no limitations whatsoever, and this biological concept is founded a little too well for my liking. It represents a logical - and probably more ethical - barrier that I cannot overcome, and it frightens me on behalf of my ethos. It's part and parcel of the intellectual disjunction that is going on through this issue on the thread: the shrill cry of 'reason' as a shield for politics.

My comments on economics essentially dovetail into the above. Thanks for the well-thought-out and balanced post. :thumbsup:

 

[GeoffP]

Sorry if some of this is in the past. I'm in the process of thread catchup.

There is nothing wrong with labels that allow people to make informed choices, is there? Or do you want to make all the choices for women?

One would require labels not selected for reasons of rhetoric.

So I look forward to hearing your plan for forced organ donation. Or do men have the right to refuse the use of their organs to people who need them?

Oh, I positively support such a thing, barring religious restrictions etc.

Ah, not extraction, but eviction.

This is a fascinating concept - thanks for introducing this. I guess, as a position, it's the one that makes sense: neither one nor the other but balanced in terms of protection and rights. I mean, it would go without saying that it's the common sense position, but even that apparently needs reinforcement. A lot of this is an exercise in belief: am I meant to really, really conclude that you, the extremist, are too stupid to understand the rationale for such a proposal; furthermore, should I pretend you don't know where things already stand? Really? And so it bears repeating, refining and re-presentation. It's not unlike the educational process.

Why? Why do you see "extraction" as a "wonderful option"? Wonderful for whom?

What, precisely, are you referring to as "it" here? The right to carry the foetus to term opposed to some sort of state enforced "extraction"? Or the right to choose between this potential "extraction" or the assured death of the foetus she's carrying? Or both?

Under the hypothetical (not so very far fetched) that I am setting up, the foetus can be "evicted / extracted" (foetus lives) or "aborted" (foetus dies) at an arbitrarily early age - who chooses? And why? Remember, "extraction" is an equal health risk to the mother as abortion.

If I understood you correctly clueluss, the choice of extraction / eviction vs traditional abortion should still be the woman's prerogative, even under the conditions of my Gedanken, right? Regardless of who is paying for sustaining the life of said "extracted" foetus?

Maybe so, I invite participants to argue such...

As to you Timmy, sounds like more BS you're trying to stir. Try to clarify your position a little though, and let's hear you justify the one I inferred. Or renounce my inference, it sounds clueluss to me...

I think what he's arguing for is a perspective on the relative responsibilities and rights in accordance with a middle ground away from the extremes of opinion that some of our neighbours are adhering to. The definition of extractionism appears to be really a reconstituting of all the points you make above; but formal definition is useful, I think, if we want to discuss the reasons for deviation from this stance. Similarly, I think DFA can be dismissed at this point as just being ridiculously absurd. It's of more value to discuss the middle ground, where the reality of choice really exists. I think - and maybe this is my bias as a biologist - that the first point of order is a biological standpoint: when is it 'sentient'? When is the embryo sufficiently like us that we cannot ethically propose termination? And then, what is the most reasonable and fairest safety period that should be used? Concurrently, are the current deadlines too conservative? Presumably a 27-week deadline would mean that they were; if so, what then is the solution to the inevitable political problem that would arise?

You realize Bells and him are making basically the same argument, right? She evej defends him in her latest post.

Open your eyes, dude.

Actually I think Kitta's more in the middle ground here: a reasoned deadline.

Literally no one has said that. Not one person. The reason people want late-term abortion banned is that they (we) feel that after a certain stage in the pregnancy, we're dealing with a living person, and that person deserves to be protected. And no, I'm not willing to pretend that the mother is soverign over the life that is inside of her. That's not how this thing works.

I don't think either of those things are going to go down well with our neighbour over there: my experience is that no statement that does not fit into the preselected narrative is going to be recognised. For example:

Do you think these women do not take the lives of their child into consideration? Do you think they have not weighed the morality of their decision at all? This isn't a case of a simple D&C. This is up to or more than 4 days of intensive physical discomfort and pain and quite literally giving birth. This isn't something that women decide to do lightly, nor do they take it lightly.

...

My biggest issue with a ban on behalf of the 'person' they are carrying is that it brings with it inherent risks that even women who fall within the 1% of exceptions who get abortions in the 3rd trimester, will be denied the ability to do so. And then they will obtain it illegally and risk their lives in the process. If they have complications, they will be scared and won't seek help as they will face arrest and face possible murder charges. As Quinnsong stated, if they have an abortion illegally in the 3rd trimester, then they can just be arrested and prosecuted.. This will mean that women will just not seek help if something goes wrong. I don't think this is an acceptable measure.

But no one has argued that. No one is suggesting that all 3rd trimester abortions should be banned. The only person making that argument - and then trying to stick it in our mouths - is you. Do you not understand the mitigating factors that the rest of us are discussing, or do you just not give a shit? I think it's the latter, really. How else should I see it? We make these points again and again and when we do, you drop back into the other disharmony: oh well any restriction will be just the same thing! You can't restrict women's rights to abortion. You can't possibly be ignorant of these aspects of the discussion; it's just not possible, unless you haven't really been reading any of the comments. Is that it? If so, just say so.

As we've all said, the mother's life takes priority.

Exactly; case in point, match, game, series. Done.

 

[PhysBang]

Does... this mean you consider the unborn child less of a person than the mother?

It need not be the case. If we accept that no person has the right to force another person to give up the use of their organs, then it follows that it doesn't matter what is in the womb of a mother, the mother has the right to end that pregnancy.

 

[Trooper]

I'd like to comment on your point about the woman not wanting an abortion the day of birth: no, I can't imagine any potential mother choosing that either.

Well, we can’t pretend that infanticide doesn't exist now, can we? And we can't pretend or trust that all women will make the right choice.

Zero Restrictions-Dry Foot Policy; nope, I’m definitely not a fan. In fact, Gremmie's argument wasn't all that unusual. Peter Singer put forth the same argument.

Do any of you, have any recollection, of your time in the womb? Of course you don't. You were a non-being.

Yikes! My earliest memory was around the age of 3.

Bioethicist Peter Singer, comments that defenders of abortion attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer finds this argument flawed in that human development is a gradual process, and it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion, then; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is necessarily wrong to take innocent human life.

The argument that a fetus is not alive is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.

"Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, who is critical of Singer, wrote "if he and his co-believers eventually convince society that moral value comes from possessing personhood—rather than simply in being human—and that full personhood isn’t achieved until after two years, the euthanasia of very ill and disabled babies, and even toddlers, could one day be practiced as openly as abortion is now."

It seems that most everyone agrees that a woman need not sacrifice her life for a late-term fetus, but with this 'dry foot policy', once the umbilical cord is cut the fetus becomes an infant. Who comes first, you or your infant? Does society expect us to protect our children, even sacrificing our own lives to do so? If so, when? At what point are they worth dying for? Does their value increase over time? Would you sacrifice your life to save your day-old newborn? When do their rights become greater than ours, a day, a week, a month, or perhaps, 4 months? :shrug:

He left his 4 month old baby behind in that situation, along with his partner and 4 year old girl, because he did not want to die. In fact, he didn't want to die so much that he got in his car and escaped completely and his partner had to call him from someone else's phone. He didn't have the god damn decency to wait outside and see if they got out.

It was a complete stranger who saved his injured partner and his children.

Temporary insanity? He knowingly walked out and drove off, even after he said "I should go back in there and get them, but I don't want to die".. He didn't even bother to hide the baby under a seat. He just left him in plain sight right by the steps..

It takes a cold person do something like that.

 

[PhysBang]

Ah, a graduate of Bells' School of Ridiculous Hyperbole. Welcome.

I am merely explaining your position. That you are ignoring it is of no help.

Pregnancy is not organ donation. There is no workable analogy, except perhaps parenthood, at least in the late stages.

Pregnancy is nothing but organ donation. It is a situation in which the organs of one being are being used by another. You should be able to understand that.

Which rights of a woman? It seems that you think those rights should include unconditionally ending a life. I don't agree with that.

But you do think that women should be forced to hand over the use of their organs so that others can use them. You probably think that a man is allowed to defend himself if someone tried to force him to give up control of his organs, even temporarily. That is your double standard.

Again, apples and oranges. In neither case is the person who does not donate a kidney or donate bloos wilfully ending the life of another human being.

On the contrary, many people die because of lack of organs for donation. You seem happy to allow this to happen for men, but not in the case of women.

Women are the only ones who can get pregnant. And like I said to Bells, I am in favor of a woman's right to choice up to a certain point. And so are you, for that matter. Once a child is born, you don't believe a woman has the right to kill it. I simply believe the cut-off point begins a bit earlier than you do. And, I as I said before, there are always exceptions.

Once a child is born, it is no longer using the body of its mother. This is the key, and indeed only, fact about pregnancy that you are ignoring. You are ignoring it because you don't believe that women should control their bodies or for some other reason. The result is a misogynist position for whatever reason.

 

[Kittamaru]

Ultimately yes I do. The doctors who struggled to save my life as I nearly lay dying in childbirth certainly thought so, no matter how much I begged them to save my son first. My son was secondary as far as they were concerned. My rights and my survival was paramount. I'd gone into shock from the blood loss, I was lapsing in and out of consciousness and each time I came too as they worked on me to try to stem the bleeding long enough to get me on the operating table because by that point, they had to go in to stop the bleeding, I begged them to save my son. I was told they would do the best they could do but that they had to save me first. Those were the last words I heard before I was put under. This is in Australia at least. In Australia, the mother's life and her safety has priority, not the unborn she is carrying. So if a pregnant woman is involved in an accident, they treat and save her first and then see if she has lost the baby. In the US, it appears as though in some states, I'd have gotten my wish and probably would not be here to talk about it. I'm sure many of you wish I was in one of those regions right now..

If your wife is pregnant and falls sick. You are asked to choose. Which is more of a "person" to you? Which one is more of a "person" and deserves saving more? Your wife or your unborn child? I would assume you would pick your wife and not your unborn child. Because your wife is more of a "person" to you.

Except here we are again - you are talking about an unusual situation, one that is far from the norm, where it is an "either or" choice.
I'm saying third trimester abortion should not be allowed when those kinds of situations are not present - ergo, in a perfectly healthy pregnancy with no complications, what reason is there to abort that late?

In the event of actual risk to the mother, obviously she must be saved first - not just because she is the "wife", but because if SHE dies giving birth, there is a good chance the child will die with her.

As for what happened with you - while I am sorry to hear about that, I do not understand - what happened to cause such a situation? It sounds like you carried "to term" and were in labor when something went wrong... they tried to save you while another team worked to save the child... right? Or did they simply put your child on a nearby shelf and ignore it while they worked on you?

I don't see the connection between what happened with you and the choice for a late term abortion... I don't know, since you didn't specify, but it sounds like they had cut the umbilical cord and everything... so at that point the baby was "delivered". If he did not survive (which is what it sounds like), I am very sorry to hear that... but it wasn't because he was any less important...

 

[Kittamaru]

It need not be the case. If we accept that no person has the right to force another person to give up the use of their organs, then it follows that it doesn't matter what is in the womb of a mother, the mother has the right to end that pregnancy.

Irrelevant posturing... you are claiming the life of the child is worthless in this scenario... in a healthy pregnancy especially, i cannot see how anyone could think that.

 

[PhysBang]

This is the stupidest argument I have seen so far. No one is asking women to donate organs against their will;

You are. You are asking women to donate all their organs, if only temporarily, to their fetus. That you ignore this part of your own position is your moral failing.

no one is asking men to donate organs against their will.

Exactly.

If a woman goes to some doctors they will refuse to remove a fetus without a good medical reason, even if her other organs are supporting it.

That is a shame. It seems that these doctors too do not recognize the right of a woman to control her own body,

If a man goes to a doctor they will refuse to remove a kidney without a good medical reason, even if his other organs are supporting it.

Yet the kidney's of a man are his own. You are ignoring that in this case you want to identify a separate being that you are forcing a woman to support with her organs. Something that you won't force a man to do.

So not much difference there. Indeed, women have MORE rights than men in this regard, because there are places where they can go where a doctor WILL remove and discard a fetus without a medical reason, but men cannot go anywhere and ask a doctor to remove and discard a kidney without a medical reason.

That doctors will not accept the rights of a person to control their own body is a shame. That you want to accept this in order to prevent women from control over their own body and grant it to another being is also a shame.

 

[PhysBang]

Irrelevant posturing... you are claiming the life of the child is worthless in this scenario... in a healthy pregnancy especially, i cannot see how anyone could think that.

The life of the child is irrelevant; nobody has the right to force someone to give up control of their organs. If I needed a kidney, I would not have the right to force someone to give up their kidney. I would not have the right to force someone into a temporary connection with me so that their kidneys could filter my blood.

Unless you are willing to demand of adult male human beings that they sacrifice their organs in order to save the lives of those who will die without them then you are merely taking a position against women.

 

[Kittamaru]

The life of the child is irrelevant; nobody has the right to force someone to give up control of their organs. If I needed a kidney, I would not have the right to force someone to give up their kidney. I would not have the right to force someone into a temporary connection with me so that their kidneys could filter my blood.

Unless you are willing to demand of adult male human beings that they sacrifice their organs in order to save the lives of those who will die without them then you are merely taking a position against women.

Your comparison is, again, irrelevant - asking someone to give up an organ (something entirely unnatural) is not the same as asking someone to finish carrying their six or seven month old fetus to term and deliver (a totally natural sequence of events).

However, the fact that you deem the life of anyone, be it the child, mother, or otherwise, irrelevant says a LOT about your moral character... and is honestly quite terrifying.

Tell me PhysBang... what is your price? If a human life is irrelevant, then I would conclude there is a material price point at which you would probably commit murder for. Oh, sure, it would likely change depending on who it is - i would hope you would charge more to extinguish the life of your own mother than the life of a total stranger... but then again, sociopathic tendencies are something that have rarely been fully understood.

 

[GeoffP]

The life of the child is irrelevant; nobody has the right to force someone to give up control of their organs. If I needed a kidney, I would not have the right to force someone to give up their kidney. I would not have the right to force someone into a temporary connection with me so that their kidneys could filter my blood.

Unless you are willing to demand of adult male human beings that they sacrifice their organs in order to save the lives of those who will die without them then you are merely taking a position against women.

Oh, I see what you're saying now: no, that doesn't appear to be any kind of parallel.