Right To Life

The argument that all people have a right to life and that right is held above all others is simply not supported by any situation in our society. A great example is organ donation. If the right to life actually outweighed all other rights, then organ donation would be compulsory – yet it is not. In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum someone needs for continued life is something he/she has no right at all to be given? The fact that for continued life a person needs the continual use of your kidneys does not establish that he has a right to be given the use of your kidneys. Nobody has any right to use your kidneys unless you give him such right. If you allow such use, this is simply a kindness on your part, and not something he/she can claim from you as his/her due. Nobody is morally or legally required to make large sacrifices of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments for one second let alone nine months, in order to keep someone alive. Aren't all forms of self-defense against a "life"? If one's reasoning has solely to do with the fetus being a "life", then why would it not apply to other forms of self-defense, or any harm against other "life", for that matter? Being a "life" doesn't grant you the right to use another person's body for any reason, even to sustain your own life. This is precisely why organ donation is not compulsory. To clarify, self-defense is simply defending yourself from unwanted use of your body in some way. The defense can be anything from hitting someone, leaving the room, to killing. As long as it is necessary force, it is self-defense. It is self-defense if you hit me and I hit you to get away (no killing necessary for it to be self defense).