[zaccusl]

This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life. It doesn't matter if a person is a fully grown adult that can cure cancer and world hunger, or a 1 year child. That person does not have the right to use another person to sustain their own life under any circumstances.

You are arguing a strawman. The question is not if the fetus is "human" or "life".

[rayiner]

> This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life.

Says who? By that logic, abortion should be legal until birth, and even the most liberal countries in Europe reject that position.

Virtually everyone, including the Roe itself, recognizes that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy has a limit. The question everyone grapples with is where to draw the line.

[random314]

Do you also support mandatory kidney transplants? It would help save another humans life. 99% of people need only one kidney. If your kidney is found to be a match for another kidney patient- you should be compelled to donate your spare kidney.

I agree you have a right to bodily autonomy, but there has got to be a limit!

[dahfizz]

> This is a fallacious argument until you grapple with the reality that no HUMAN has the right to use another HUMAN to sustain life.

Then why do I pay so much for welfare and Medicare? You're clearly okay forcing people to sustain other people on some level.