It seems that pro lifers dont understand the car crash/organ donation analogy so allow me to explain.
The car crash is the sex. That is the physical activity you've taken part in to create the situation.
The injured driver who needs an organ transplant to live is the fetus. They, in this scenario, are relying on you to give up part of your body to keep them alive.
The decision to donate that organ to the injured driver is the pregnancy.
If you choose to give the driver your organ, they live. That would be childbirth.
If you refuse, and the driver dies, that would be the abortion.
A further explanation: in order for a conceived embryo to survive, it requires the use of your organs for nine months. This is a requirement. The embryo will not survive without this.
Which is analogous to giving an injured person one of your organs to save their life. You allow them the use of your organ, and they live.
What happens after the surgery, in this analogy, beyond the life or death of the injured driver, is irrelevant. That is where the analogy ends. Similar to how the medical procedures for both childbirth and abortion are completed once the goal has been met: the goal being to end the pregnancy.
So when pro lifers say the car crash analogy doesn't represent the argument correctly, what they're actually saying is that they've misinterpreted the analogy. Perhaps deliberately.
And of course, its not a perfect 1:1 example, but that's sort of the point of an analogy. By any measure, its better than their "you wake up attached to a celebrity" routine.
I hope this makes sense. Now will you stop claiming it isn't a fair analogy?
























