The blood transfusion analogy is striking, yet the situation in pregnancy is more distinct. In a blood transfusion, the person requiring the transfusion is not located within the person being asked to give their bodily resource. In pregnancy, this is the case... another living human being is within another person's body.
Mere location is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is the property of the pregnant woman.
Consider this situation (related to the blood transfusion analogy):
1. The fetus is located outside its mother's body--i.e. she has already given birth to it--but it is still attached to its mother via the umbilical cord
2. The mother's blood is still flowing to the fetus via the cord--thus she is effectively giving it a continuous blood transfusion
3. The doctor does not wish to sever the cord, because he believes that the fetus will die if the cord is cut (e.g. the fetus is extremely premature)
(I don't know how likely this scenario is in real life; this is just a hypothetical situation.) I ask the question: Does the mother have the right to cut the umbilical cord, even if it would mean the death of the fetus? I believe that she does, as it is
her blood upon which the fetus is dependent, and no one else--neither you nor me nor the doctor nor the fetus nor anyone else--has the right to determine how the blood is spent.
And their removal literally involves the violent violation of that person's (the fetuses) bodily integrity. Refusing to give a blood transfusion, however, does not result in violence against the person requesting the transfusion, nor does such refusal violate their bodily integrity. In fact, the person requesting the blood transfusion may find someone else who is willing to give, whereas in abortion you cannot find another who is willing to host the child. The child inevitably dies, and oft it dies a violent death with their body's integrity torn to shreds and removed.
What would happen if the woman were to terminate the blood transfusion without removing the fetus from her body? The fetus would die, and there is an enormous pile of health problems that could result from the presence of a dead fetus inside the body of a pregnant woman.
Of course the body of the fetus should be removed from the woman once she has decided that she no longer wishes to sustain its life! And once the fetus is dead, what does it matter what happens to its "body's integrity"?
Now, you raise an interesting point when you write, "in abortion you cannot find another who is willing to host the child," and when you continue to write,
In the blood transfusion scenario, the person's choice not to give may or may not contribute to the death of the prospective recipient, but either way the prospective recipient does not have their body violated by the person being asked to give. In abortion, however, the fetus has no choice but to die. It is not given a choice. It can ask no other to be its mother.
If it were possible to transplant a fetus from the uterus of one woman to the uterus of another, and the woman who would receive the body of the fetus is fully willing to carry the developing fetus to term (as well as fund the transplant operation), then you could make the case that the fetus must not die--it should merely be transplanted. I very seriously do not know whether we can then say, "The original mother has the right to deny the willing mother the privilege of finishing the development of the fetus; i.e. the original mother has a right to terminate the fetus, even if there are other women who are willing to carry the fetus." I will need to devote more thought to this issue.
It is also important to recognize that the fetus is not the only separate organism that would reside in a person's body. Various forms of bacteria, some that help others that hinder, also take residence in our bodies and rely on our bodily structures for nourishment. They are 'separate' from us in the sense that they have their own genotype and respective phenotype. Some are natural flora which assist us to combat infection. We can remove some of them using broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, not all can we remove, and we can't resist them forever. They are simply naturally occurring.
I submit that the woman (or indeed any person) has a right to keep or remove those organisms as he or she sees fit. It may not be possible to remove them
now, but it almost certainly will become possible in the future. It's entirely possible that removing them would be detrimental to the health of the person, but a person has a right to perform actions that are detrimental to his health, if he so chooses (as long as he doesn't harm anyone else in the process).
Now, you hear all this talk about controlling our own fertility and reproductive functions, literally controlling our own bodies. For one, we simply cannot control all aspects, structures and functions of our bodies. We cannot control these organisms that reside in our bodies, even though they are our own bodies. We cannot control natural functions relating to circulation, digestion Etc. These functions are beyond our artificial control and within the realm of natural control.
Again, the only reason why we can't control those things, is technological. There is no reason
in principle why we can't control them.
You hear the term 'reproductive choice,' and controlling one's own fertility. How about circulatory choice, controlling one's own circulation? As is clear, certain functions are beyond the scope of artificial control, perhaps even for a reason.
"For a reason"? What reason would that be? Because God doesn't want us to?
I understand that, in this Christian forum, one can always call upon God to come to the aid of those who advocate the pro-life position in the abortion debate. I understand that such an argument is perfectly legitimate in a Christian forum. But please understand such an argument destroys all room for debate: There is no room for debate once someone says, "God hates abortion, end of story." Please don't use that argument, unless you simply wish for the debate to end (without potentially learning something from the people with whom you debate, which is why I participate in these debates).
)
