It’s time that we pass a law forcing pro-life Americans to life of another human in need – whether they want to or not.
Choice should not be an issue. This is the pro-life thing to do. We were all born with two kidneys, while we can get along just fine with one. Thousands of people annually spend the end of their days fruitlessly hoping for an organ to become available. Even my sister Ellen waited for an elusive donor for a time until my mother donated her kidney, way back in 1970. As Ellen’s end-stage renal disease occurred in the dawn of the transplant era, it seems likely that without my mother’s donation she would have died waiting like so many others. Yet more than 50 years later, people still die every day waiting for a kidney transplant.
It’s unacceptable.
Ok, so this is a tongue-in-cheek suggestion. Sort of. I know there is no way such a law would ever be passed. And to be clear, this idea did not originate with me. Scholars and ethicists have for decades probed the morality and ethical dilemmas posed by organ donation and the parallels that organ donation decisions have with abortion. Yet let’s consider the possibilities. If abortion opponents - and men are by far the majority making decisions about women’s bodies - are sincere in their beliefs, and insist upon governing women’s health care decisions in the name of being pro-life, it’s only right that they put their own bodies on the line. More men than women, by the way, consider themselves to be pro-life, according to the latest Gallup poll, which reveals this particular gender gap to be 47 percent of men versus 33 percent of women. (The same poll shows that 48 percent of men are pro-choice while 61 percent of women are pro-choice).
The root of this contentious issue is control over women.
Honestly, giving up a kidney, an operation that requires only a few nights stay in a hospital, is very least the opponents of abortion could do. And in fact, it would be far kinder than what these same people, (again, mostly men) are doing in the name of controlling women.
Because that is at the root of this contentious issue: Control over women.
Many who oppose abortion appear willing to sacrifice women’s choices and potentially even their lives in the name of “life,” even if that life amounts to a handful of dividing cells.
The pro-life movement and the increasingly cruel and misogynist belief of some that women are mere vessels to produce the next generation have gotten full abortion bans passed in 14 states. Oklahoma’s law bans abortion at the point of conception, months before a woman has the foggiest idea she is pregnant. Nine states ban abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest and so gives rapists the right to force women to bear their children. Mississippi bans abortion in cases of rape, but oddly, not incest. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott defended his state’s lack of exceptions for abortions after six weeks - again, before most women know they are pregnant - by saying he would “eliminate all rapists from the streets.” I nominate Abbott to be the first to donate a kidney.
The reality is that this kind of political chicanery isn’t funny, least of all for victims of sexual assault. I was attacked and raped when I was 12, and when my Catholic mother took me to a hospital afterwards, she made certain that the doctors injected a spermicide to prevent pregnancy. She wasn’t about to sacrifice my future in the name of theological abstractions.
That was in 1969. It is an outrage that victims in certain states might not have the basic right that I had more than 50 years ago - the right not to become pregnant after an assault.
So at least by forcing kidney donations we may be able to save thousands of lives of those who die waiting for organs. It’s not a fair trade, because women who make up half the population have seen their rights to control their own bodies taken away, depending, of course, on the state in which one lives. But as we wait for the revolution of my dreams when women everywhere will use their ballots to begin the long road toward restorative justice, making more kidneys available would be a start.
Vermont is ahead of the rest of the country, amending its constitution to protect reproductive freedom. Read VtDigger. Or listen to the local parish pastor for reasons that defy logic. I do both and I know where I stand when I get my ballot!
A kidney is not a separate human being with the 100% distinct genetic makeup of a standalone human being. A child is not a kidney. The argument that only a woman’s body is at stake doesn’t work: from conception, a pregnancy involves at least distinct bodies — that of the fertilized egg which contains a distinct and new blend of DNA (from mother and father), all that is needed to become a baby, and that of the mother. It is dangerous when a society ignores the rights of the young and innocent. A more useful analogy (though imperfect) to illustrate the distinction in the abortion debate would juxtapose it against an end-of-life conversation for a vulnerable, elderly parent who is on life support. An elderly, sick parent with very limited chance of viability, (as well as death penalty cases) are far removed from cases of a healthy preborn infant with her or his whole life ahead, and yet end-of-life decisions for elderly parents are generally made with great care and deliberation. And death-penalty cases take years to litigate. But we generally don’t see similar caution in the widespread normalization of abortion. The problem with leaders like Bill Clinton and others operating under the mantra of “safe, legal and rare” is that abortion has become anything but rare in America. Yes, conservatives can and should do more to support women’s and men’s access to birth control for prevention of unwanted pregnancies, but the left must also do more to avoid termination.