Pro-Choice argument targeted at Pro-Life atheists

[energiewende]

1. Most forced organ donations would kill the donor which is not a distributional trade-off that is generally accepted. I think forced blood donations and organ donation after death would be quite easy to morally defend extending the basic logic of other redistributional property transfer policies.

Err, not so much thinking about a heart or something like that
What I am arguing though is that forcing people to donate skin grafts, bone marrow, and blood are not life threatening in the vast majority of cases. Bone marrow I understand is especially painful however. If you argue that life is above all, these should be mandatory.

And, why not? US redistributes money to pay for peoples' telephone bills, so why shouldn't people be forced to give up blood which has a much lower financial value and much greater utility to the recipient?

[phred]

What I am trying to figure out is what exactly will be non religious anti-abortion arguments against this be.

A woman gets knocked up. At some point in the 9ish months between sperm meeting egg, and said baby popping out, it becomes a human. The anti-abortionist in me asks 'at what point does it stop being a growth and start being a person'?

I don't think any atheist is going to have a problem with the idea of, say a morning-after pill, but most would draw the line before 8 and a half months. It's that ambiguity in the time between that causes a lot of people to err on the side of caution.