If the mother had a two year old in need of an organ transplant and she is the only person who matches, should it be legal to force her to donate that organ?
The two year old is a child by definition, so we have taken the term out of relevancy. Also if that same two year old is capable of using someone's body without their consent, I wouldn't declare them as innocent - so we have also taken innocence out of relevancy. So if the two year old cannot use his/her mother's body for an organ, then the fetus does not have that right either in regards for the pregnant person's ENTIRE body being used.
@Srij Kark None of that is relevant to the point I am making. Did you forget that there is a thing called consent? Just because the vagina is "designed" for a penis, no man should go around penetrating women without their consent. What a terrible appeal to nature and it sets a dangerous precedent where a person's bodily autonomy can be disrespected and therefore violated using that same logic. No one is owed a body and no one should dictate others on making bodily decisions against their wishes, that's the idea behind slavery. Any form of bodily donation, whether it be a kidney or the entire body for nine months, must be met with the donor's ongoing consent. This is why you don't have hospitals forcing their patients to donate their bodies of any form, because that is illegal.
If the mother had a two year old in need of an organ transplant and she is the only person who matches, should it be legal to force her to donate that organ?
The two year old is a child by definition, so we have taken the term out of relevancy. Also if that same two year old is capable of using someone's body without their consent, I wouldn't declare them as innocent - so we have also taken innocence out of relevancy. So if the two year old cannot use his/her mother's body for an organ, then the fetus does not have that right either in regards for the pregnant person's ENTIRE body being used.