What people in this thread have said is that property rights in one's own body extend to destruction but not sale. Hence, one can destroy one's own organs but not sell them (as you recognize, the analogy with fetuses is flawed at best). Property rights, people are saying, are not unlimited. Owning something does not mean you can do whatever you want with that thing.
I suppose you will respond to this with 'That's not what property rights mean to me!'. I suppose this because I have seen you do it in the past. I would urge you, before trying this response, to also prepare a defence for your interpretation of property rights. It is clearly not the only interpretation of property rights, as evidenced by what has been said in this thread. Indeed, it is an interpretation to which very few people ascribe. To give an example of this, I doubt I am wrong in predicting that most people would say that, even if you owned the last pair of breeding tigers in the world, you shouldn't be allowed to kill them (change this to 'cure for cancer' and 'destroy' if you find yourself in need of more drama). Property rights, it is generally accepted, come with a host of limits. I suggest before you talk about how you think one should interpret property rights, think of at least one reason for us to take your view seriously.
