>


I say this because, I know if I was a woman and had to choose...

There's your issue, right there: you're not a woman. You can't say you know what you would do because if you were a woman your life would have been incredibly different. You think the way you think now because you've grown up with every precise experience you have, and some of those experiences are because you are male. Had you grown up as a woman, you would have experienced different hormones, different friends, different parenting... And with all those different experiences, odds are, your would have different opinions.
There's not to say you're guaranteed to feel different about this particular topic... You may have still grown up to be anti-choice, but your view and approach would be slightly different. Especially the "being iffy if mom's life is in danger", because that could literally be you some day. But it never will be. You're never in danger of ending up pregnant. You'll never be the first to know that anybody is pregnant, because it won't be you wondering, worrying, potentially giving up your career and being primary caretaker. All you have to do is stick it in, have a minute of fun, and you're done. You can attempt to be supportive, but that's still not experiencing it.
You are in no position to make decisions for others on a topic you literally have no chance of ever facing.
/u/GlobalKamikaze (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

“If i was a woman and I was pregnant, I’d die for my child.”
And that’s your choice.
Why do you think you get to choose for everyone else?
And by your rationale, nobody should ever be allowed to kill in self defense. >

Do you support mandatory organ donation?
And, like, yes, I imagine it is a lot easier to claim that you would totally die for your child if you know for a fact you will never have to back up your words. >

If someone dies and their organs can be donated, yes I think that should be done. The dead person cannot take them with them after all. I know that is also a consent issue, but I think in that specific scenario, it's ultimately better for society if organs are harvested and donated to those in need to continue their life. >

What about the people who are alive? You can donate a bunch of stuff while living. >

I would say no then unless it's the choice of the person >

Why, then? What makes forcing someone to donate their body to an embryo fine, but forcing someone to donate part of their body to another person is beyond the pale? >

Because in one scenario you most likely chose to create said embryo. >

So then should biological parents be legally required to give survivable organ donations to their children ?
Even estranged children ? 
Hypothetical: Your child hated you, ditched you as soon as they turned 18, and hasn't spoken to you in 20 years. Now they need a half lung donation. Should you be legally forced to go provide that half lung, even against your will ? >

No the child now has to live with the consequences of their actions >

What about adopted children ? Are they entitled to their bio mothers organs ? >

Well I think to start, organ donation is different than supporting a child in the womb, in one scenario, you lose a functional organ (or part of one) in order to aid someone in need, in pregnancy, the body diverts some resources to provide some nutrients to the growing fetus.
I would say they can't be legally compelled to donate an organ to their child. You are however legally compelled to care for your child and if you are negligent, the child is removed from your custody. Pregnancy seems more inline with providing care (food and shelter) than permanent loss of organs >

I have a child. If I was pregnant again and it was life threatening, I would choose to live for my child. She needs a mother more than a sibling and a grieving father. >

The murder argument is often a non starter, because there is no agreement that the fetus is living or even a human being. It's  a clumb of cells, it has the potential for life. But so does a bunch of other stuff. >

There's not agreement because pro abortion people know that if they agree it's alive they'll have to justify murder. It's alive >

"Alive" does not equal "human".
An embryo is clearly alive. It is not a human in any moral sense of the word. >

Paradoxical as it sounds. Every study done proves that legal and safe access to abortion reduces the overall occurrence of abortion in a population.
If your goal is to reduce abortions you should be fighting for to make abortion safe, legal and accessible to anyone that wants it. >

The inconvenient truth underlying all these debates. >

So don't have an abortion.

I'm very iffy on whether or not someone pregnant should be able to abort the baby if carrying the baby to term means her death or extreme risk to her body. I say this because, I know if I was a woman and had to choose between my unborn baby's life and mine, I'd choose theirs. 

You're not. Thus it's not your decision to male. Your choices are your choices. You don't get to impose your choices on someone else. 
If you were in that situation would you be ok with someone else coming in and saying you weren't allowed to choose? >

I find it weird that abortion is the thing where people have to be tied to the consequences. In any other walk of life we take risks and, if something goes wrong, we have things in place to help. Someone hikes out into nowhere and gets stranded then we still send mountain rescue out to save them. Maybe we caution them a little about taking the right preparations in future but we don't typically go "No, no more sending paramedics in the hills. They knew what they were getting into".
Sex comes with a risk of pregnancy, some people will get unlucky or be plain careless, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to refuse help afterwards. So that first side of things always feels really weak as an argument to me and I think people only try it to attempt to rationalise their other feelings about the issue.
The bit that does need seriously addressing, and what it all comes down to for me, is what value we assign to a foetus. I'm assuming we all place some value on human life in general. We're all opposed to post-birth killing. And I'm also assuming we don't all think it's wrong to kill things. We're probably all on board that it's okay to harvest wheat even though the plant is very much "alive".
So what do you value about the foetus? Do you see it as a "human life"? Is it about future potential? What is it?
To give my view, when I look at what characteristics I value, I don't think a foetus has them. Definitely not in the early stages of pregnancy. Maybe it gets harder in the end stages. Maybe I can't pinpoint the moment it changes. But it's very hard for me to reconcile that a cluster of cells with no consciousness has some value such that a woman can't have them removed if she so wants. >

or even that that fetus has MORE value than the woman harboring it, so much so that she can't legally make her own medical decisions about it.