My objection is perfectly valid - your argument is based on a false dichotomy. You’re taking the slim possibility of bodily harm and stretching it to an inevitability in order to make a point. There is precedent for the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency, that always has the potential of negatively affecting their health. It has never been equated to organ theft because that’s ridiculous. You’re pretending that the only two options are abortion or doing harm when that’s not the case.We had this conversation a long time ago where you refused to acknowledge that a pregnancy can cause irreparable change, harm, or even death, and you refused to acknowledge how that made it comparable to organ donation. Frankly, I'm not interested in reading the same disingenuous points again.
Lol, we could also make the hypothetical use of the kidney temporary, and your objections would fall apart regardless.
It’d be both, as a false dichotomy is a fallacy which erroneously limits options (either the state allows abortion *or* it’s doing quantifiable harm to the body - in reality there’s another option, doing neither and just waiting until the problem solves itself), but I suppose you are correct - a false analogy is more appropriate since I’m taking strictly about your example. Well-spotted.This also isn't the fallacy you meant to say. Whether or not you're right about the problems with my analogy (you aren't right), it wouldn't be a false dichotomy. It'd be a false analogy.