I don't think that's true? Unless you limit yourself to situation and extremely limited applications of metabolism. So maybe like not true at all.
In some coutries, mine included, you are legally obligated to provide basic help for someone that's hurt or dying. Like, if you have ability to get water and a phone, give water and call an ambulance.
You're not obligated to donate blood or provide help through your organs, regardless of how much of a person the sufferer is.
Maybe bernie has issue with the latter and wants enforced blood donations and such. We don't usually need our two kidneys either, maybe that's fine for him too. But I presume that is not the case, that bernie does not want to be forcefully hospitalized and be a forced donor while alive. In the case of the latter, there could be a specific group where he thinks enforced donorship is completely ok to do, where stripping this bodily autonomy is a-ok. Women.
And the fact that he engages with a quite well-known thought experiment with bad faith and immediately jumps at the absurdity of the construction doesn't make him smart. There's of course absurdity in the thought experiment, like why is someone forced against their will to provide life through bloodstream to a fully grown adult. There is little consideration here that a) the adult is giving anti-abortionists the benefit of the doubt and treating a clump of cells as a full person, b) the point of the person being a world-class violinist is to make the case as good as possible for the possible life, c) this kind of medical procedure while nonsensical in practice is literally
less than what is required of a pregnant woman, d) it is unreasonable to force the donor to be in this state for seven days, let alone nine months, and e) there is a real equivalency between being kidnapped & enforced such a procedure and being enforced pregnant (ie rape - the only real difference is that the violinist example is
milder).
The point of the article is that
even if you treat the fetus as a full person, if we presume a neo-Mozart is to emerge from the womb, even if pregnancy was less demanding than it actually is, even if it only lasted for seven days, even if it was much less violent than rape, it would still be a grotesque abuse of an individual's rights to bodily autonomy.
bernie could pick up on the point of the article, that
men in general cannot relate to this loss of bodily autonomy so getting it spelled out in this way may help you have something click in your brain. The situation is absurd, but if you can't at some level get a sense of what it feels like here, you lack empathy. You react with "this is crazy", but don't take a step beyond that to have a sense of how crazy it indeed is. Yes, it's insane to enforce donorship on people. It's insane to enforce pregnancy, a real world thing that is worse to the body than the absurd thought experiment. Especially when there are medical options.
And the usual response is "eh, it's a woman, I believe
she's just supposed to do that in spite of her individual rights, and I'm gonna let the government help me punish her if she doesn't abide by my wishes." But Angst, it's biology. So is literally any ailment, which medicine unnaturally intrudes against. Pregnancy is really demanding of a body, and can be mortal.
This is why people say abortion is about bodily autonomy, whether the fetus is a person or not. And it's why abortion is legal in Denmark.
But I guess being naturally against having other people force that kind of **** on me is kool-aid, so bernie should be out there championing forced donations for everyone. I guess Danes are insane. So goes for a number of other countries. Ready your guns and lawsuits people, let's disallow women medical care. Otherwise the world'll go crazy.