Response to Pro-life Argument "Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Care"

Prolife argument:
"The womb is designed precisely to keep the fetus alive. When there's a fetus inside the womb, the womb is serving its bodily function."

Response:
Sure. And the vagina is "designed" to be a sheath for a penis.

You are violating it if the person to whom the vagina belongs does not wish for a penis to be inside it.

Likewise with a uterus.

The "Ordinary vs Extraordinary Care" argument is not only faulty, but repulsive. It perpetuates the notion that the female body was meant to be used by others. That parts of her were "designed" for someone else & that that somehow makes it that "someone else's" property. 

Her body was meant for her utilization for when she sees fit. When she wishes for a penis to be in her vagina, she then utilizes her vagina's function by allowing someone inside it. When she wishes for a fetus to be in her womb, she then utilizes her womb's function by allowing for someone to gestate within it.

Both organs are meant for her utilization and her utilization alone. Nothing should be occupying those spaces unless she intends for such, which is defined by her desire for them to be there.

And it's a gross misunderstanding that simply because the organ can be shared with another person, that it somehow makes it that other person's. It doesn't. All it tells us is that that organ can be enjoyed with another human. It does not therefore make it that other human's property.

On another note, the fact that you can transplant a kidney into someone else and it will function for them basically tells you that the idea that "my kidneys were meant to filter my blood" is false. Your kidney will work for multiple other people. What defines your kidney as yours, is your desire for your kidney to be within you and your right to bodily autonomy.