I read with interest Dr. Amy’s take on how distasteful it is for a doc to do an abortion.   No argument there.  And m.a.h’s rebuttal.  Good points all.  But I think we have been going about this abortion debate all wrong for too many years.

Years ago I heard a news story about a boy who needed a kidney.  He was going to die if he didn’t get one.  He’d been on dialysis for quite some time.  Here was the deal:  His dad was a perfect match.  Dad was Mom’s Ex, and he didn’t live anywhere near little kidney guy.  And he was not about to offer a kidney.  Wanted ‘em both.  Period.

Everyone reporting and discussing the case agreed that, while Dad was clearly a selfish bastard, he had every right to his kidneys and all other body parts for use as he saw fit.  Period.  No one could make him give the kid a kidney.  They were his kidneys free and clear.

We couldn’t even have forced Dad to give up blood or bone marrow – both of which are replaced over time so he wouldn’t be out any critical body substances permanently.  Even if his son – or anyone else – would die without his blood or bone marrow, they were his to give.  Or not.

So let’s bring abortion to the courts not as a specific medical procedure issue, but as a “donor consent” issue.  I don’t know what pregnancy is if it’s not giving your organs over to a fetus for nine months.  That little life form can’t make it without Mom’s organs – several of them –  to sustain it and allow it to reach maturity.  No one would have to argue whether this was a life.  Or even whether it was a “deserving” life.  Only whether the woman had the right to consent to sign her organs over – even temporarily – to the fetus.  If we asked to borrow men’s organs (just a few) for, oh, say, nine months or so, I have a feeling the courts would have a different take on it. 

The doc would say, “Ralphie boy, your Future Son needs your heart, your kidneys, your liver, your digestive system and your circulatory system.  It’s just for nine months, and then you can have them back.  No, Ralphie, you don’t have a choice about this, you have to turn them over.  We’ll just strap this little porta-uterus on your tummy, and hook up the youngster.  As soon as he can breathe on his own, you’re off the hook.”

You can bet there would suddenly be a whole collection of case law confirming that Ralphie’s entitled to say, “no thanks.”  No one would argue that Future Son certainly deserved a shot, but I’m guessing court decisions would favor Ralphie’s right to say, “Not with MY organs you don’t.”

 Let's force the issue by suing "perfect donor" dads (or moms, or neighbors) and try to force them to donate organs, blood, bone marrow, hair follicles, whatever, to needy offspring.  We know the courts will find in favor of dear old dad.  (or grandma, cousin, sibling, whomever.)  Once that is established, we bring a late term pregnancy to the court as an organ donor case.

I think it’s worth a shot.  (If I still had a uterus I might even be willing to be the first organ-donor test case.)  All I'm suggesting is that all people have the right to say, “Sorry, little blastocyst.  Not with MY organs you don’t.”