My ethics class has an argument re: Abortion that I've never heard before

[Larry]

1. As already mentioned, in 99% of cases, pregnancy involves the complicity and responsibility of the mother. She has reason to believe that pregnancy might be the result of her actions, yet she takes the action anyway. There's no reasonable expectation of being kidnapped and surgically attached to a violinist when one wakes up.

Actually, in 100% of cases.

After all, that rape victim wouldn't have gotten pregnant if she'd had a hysterectomy before it happened. Or if she'd never left her locked room withoug armed police escort.

But on a less artificially contrived level, do you really want to claim that, say, a woman who's taking birth control, who's at the "right time of the month" (whenever that is), having sex with a guy with a condom, has actively consented to providing a lifetime of support to another?

Just out of curiosity, have you never had sex, when you didn't intend to create a baby?

2. More tellingly, the argument ignores the very real difference between positive rights, which are the rights to goods or services, and negative rights, which are the rights to noninterference.

Let's suppose I have bad kidneys, and I'm going to die, and you have a perfect match (no surgical attachment to cloud the issue). Very few would argue that I have the positive right to one of your kidneys. If you refuse to give one to me, I will die, but you have not murdered me. I have no positive right to your kidney.

Now imagine, on the other hand, that you also need a kidney, and you take the one that I was about to legally receive, for yourself. You have murdered me, because you have violated my negative right not to be interfered with.

I suspect I'm having trouble understanding your analogy.

Sticking to the violinist and the fetus, neither of them can survive without a human body serving as a life support system. Neither of them has done anything to cause their condition. Both are completely innocent.

In the situation proposed by the analogy, you didn't cause the musician's condition, and witholding your services as spare kidney isn't what kills him... it's his disease.

In an abortion, however, the fetus is not sick. If left uninterefered with, it will be born, and live.

Only if your definition of "left uninterfered with" is "society forces an unwilling person do donate their body to service as it's life support system".

Abortion, through poison or cutting or other physical attack, actively kills the fetus. It's not like an abortion involves delivering the fetus and then leaving it to die on its own, which would be the true parallel, and brings me to point 3 in a moment, and neither do we see that in the analogy, where we should cut up the violinist into shards or actively poison him, to make the parallel to abortion a true one.

Actually, as I pointed out previously, the author did respond to that argument. She pointed out that if I am disconnected from the violinist, and by some miracle the violinist survives, then no one would claim that I have the right to slit his throat.

The question isn't "should it be legal to murder violinists?"

It's "Should it be legal for me to chose not to serve as a life support system? (Even when that choice will result in someone else's death.)"

3. Most importantly, as hinted by the difference above (leaving a fetus to die on the table), this analogy takes us to a place we really don't want to go, because the "chains" on a mother (or father) don't cease to exist when the fetus is born, legally or morally.

When a mother has a baby, she becomes legally responsible for the child's welfare until he turns 18, no matter how inconvenient this might be. If she wants to go out of town for a few days, but can't find appropriate child care, she doesn't get to leave her 2 year old son at home to fend for himself.

However, if the two year old needs to be surgically attached to her, does society have the right to compel Mom to donate her body for her daughter?

I could go on, but I think the point is made. The analogy asks us to agree that the mother has the right to avoid inconvenience, even if it ends the life of another, . . .

Utter horsecrap. It asks no such thing.

It asks whether a person's right to life gives them the right to demand another person's body. Which is an entirely different thing from "inconvenience".

Don't believe me? I have two words for you.

Susan Smith.

I've seen the name "Smith" on the reading list. I suppose there could be more than one, ( )but I suspect I'm going to be reading it in the next day or two.

[twa]

You mean we allow mothers Prosperity....Dad is still on the hook

[Larry]

In this situation neither person has any right to kill the other, unless one of them caused the parasitic situation... then I think it gets a bit murkier

it's not a very good analogy, but it gets a point across.

So in your opinion, if another person needs my kidney in order to survive, society is authorized to compel me to loan it to him, whether I want to or not?

Same question I asked twa: If someone needs $100 of your money to live, does his right to life give him the right to that money? (Not "would society think less of you if you refused to give him $100, and he dies?" Does he have the right to it?)

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 06:49 PM ----------

Yes, if they find an alternate, equally safe situation for the child, they can do that.

The analogy specifically sidesteps this option by asserting that you are the only person in the entire world that is a genetic match, so you can't take an equivalent action, such as finding another person that's willing to be surgically attached to the violinist for 9 months.

Adoption has little relevance here.

Agreed that it's not really relevant to the question of the mother who wants this out of her body right now.

I also think that somebody pointed out the numbers in a different abortion thread. I think that if we could somehow turn every abortion into an adoption, it would mean increasing the numbers of adoptions tenfold. And I think we all agree that isn't going to happen any time soon.

I don't think adoption is going to replace abortions any time soon.

[twa]

So in your opinion, if another person needs my kidney in order to survive, society is authorized to compel me to loan it to him, whether I want to or not?

Same question I asked twa: If someone needs $100 of your money to live, does his right to life give him the right to that money? (Not "would society think less of you if you refused to give him $100, and he dies?" Does he have the right to it?)

Are you not compelled to provide for others?...that is the basis for free emergency care

What you overlook is societies role is separate from the two parties involved..the 3rd party intervention

Should WE cut the violinist off

[Larry]

Interesting trick you played here. This argument is most relevant to cases of insest (with a minor) or rape as he "woke up" with a surprise that was not his own doing. You've transferred the argument to abortion as birth control to avoid the moral parallels. Smart move but I'm not letting you do it. The example constitutes a invasion of the body and we should stay in that area for this particular argument.

Actually, the author's response to the "rape victims don't consent" argument is that it's irrelevant.

If a fetus has a right to life, and if that right to life is so compelling that it entitles society to compel someone to function as a life support system for it, then that holds true whether the fetus is the product of rape or not.

Surely you cannot argue that an embryo produced via rape has any less right to live than any other embryo. The embryo didn't rape anybody.

The author's contention is that if a "right to life" includes the right to compel someone else to donate their body to supporting you, then that's true for all persons, not just embryos.

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 07:15 PM ----------

Are you not compelled to provide for others?...that is the basis for free emergency care

There is a teensy bit of a difference between paying taxes and donating my body.

But I observe that you still haven't answered the question. (I wonder why.) I will die if I don't have $100 of your money. Does my right to life give me the right to that money?

What you overlook is societies role is separate from the two parties involved..the 3rd party intervention

Should WE cut the violinist off

If it's moral for me to discontinue supporting the violinist, then it's moral for me to hire assistance.

Further, I'll point out that society is obligated to cut him off. I have a right to the integrity of my body. Society has an obligation to defend that right. For the same reason why society has the obligation to punish rapists.

[Destino]

Actually, the author's response to the "rape victims don't consent" argument is that it's irrelevant.

If a fetus has a right to life, and if that right to life is so compelling that it entitles society to compel someone to function as a life support system for it, then that holds true whether the fetus is the product of rape or not.

Surely you cannot argue that an embryo produced via rape has any less right to live than any other embryo. The embryo didn't rape anybody.

The author's contention is that if a "right to life" includes the right to compel someone else to donate their body to supporting you, then that's true for all persons, not just embryos.

This strikes me as a naive argument as it presumes life has value on it's own when in practice it clearly doesn't. It also seeks to paint engaging in behavior that results in pregnancy equates to being forced to "donate" your body. If you're actions caused it, it's not a donation it's a consequence.

[techboy]

Interesting trick you played here. This argument is most relevant to cases of insest (with a minor) or rape as he "woke up" with a surprise that was not his own doing.

And yet, the argument is intended to support abortion in general, not those relatively rare cases of rape or incest, as the author herself notes, so the trick is played by the person that attempts to focus on the extreme rather than the general.

It's generally a bad idea to argue an idea based on its extremes.

The real problem here, of course, is that the entire violinist analogy is an argument from emotion, which is why it tries to shift the debate to rape by proposing an unwilling, completely free of responsibility, surprised "victim".

There's no rational argument, just an attempt to make the person who thinks about it feel "icky", or perhaps hypocritical. That can be flipped around, though, as I will show in a separate post (this one's going to be long enough as it is).

In the case of rape or incest the pregnant female would have had her negative rights violated first creating the situation.

This is yet another appeal to emotion. It's sad, but irrelevant to abortion.

Let's suppose a mugger stabs me in the back, and I lose both kidneys. My negative rights have been violated, and I will die without a transplant. Do I then have the right to simply take a kidney from a third, innocent party (suppose my attacker's kidney is not a match)?

The violation of one person's negative rights does not give that person the right to violate the negative rights of another person (and remember, the analogy grants the personhood of the fetus for the sake of argument).

Funny how what is effectively the exact same argument suddenly cuts against abortion when the emotional element of rape is removed, huh? (For the record, this is not the reversal I was referring to).

Unless of course you put the baby up for adoption or take advantage of safe haven laws that allows people to abandon their babies legally and break those chains.

The analogy specifically prevents you from passsing your duty safely onto another, so this is irrelevant. The conclusion we are forced to draw, if we accept the thrust of the argument, is that we should be able to kill innocent parties which we have responsibility for, if we find that responsibility inconvenient or troublesome.

But on a less artificially contrived level,

Good.

do you really want to claim that, say, a woman who's taking birth control, who's at the "right time of the month" (whenever that is), having sex with a guy with a condom, has actively consented to providing a lifetime of support to another?

Yes.

Actions have consequences, birth control has published failure rates, and people that have sex are making an informed choice.

There are lots of guys that have sex with no intention of having a child, but that doesn't get them off the hook for child support. "I was using a condom, your honor" is not a defense.

I suspect I'm having trouble understanding your analogy.

Then try my "stabbed in the eye" analogy shared with Destino above.

Actually, as I pointed out previously, the author did respond to that argument. She pointed out that if I am disconnected from the violinist, and by some miracle the violinist survives, then no one would claim that I have the right to slit his throat.

That response doesn't really cover the point.

Again, in abortion, we don't simply "disconnect the violinist". We hack the violinist to bits, or poison him, then toss away whatever's left. It has nothing at all to do with what we can or cannot do to the violinist after he is disconnected.

However, if the two year old needs to be surgically attached to her, does society have the right to compel Mom to donate her body for her daughter?

By the time the decision needs to be made, the two year old is already attached. Even the violinist is already attached.

I've seen the name "Smith" on the reading list. I suppose there could be more than one, ( )but I suspect I'm going to be reading it in the next day or two.

Wrong Smith.

So in your opinion, if another person needs my kidney in order to survive, society is authorized to compel me to loan it to him, whether I want to or not?

As already mentioned, this is a totally different situation. It's the difference between positive rights and negative rights.

Put another way, it's the difference between not sending $30 to hunger relief in Africa, and going to Africa and posioning the food supply so it can't be used.

I also think that somebody pointed out the numbers in a different abortion thread. I think that if we could somehow turn every abortion into an adoption, it would mean increasing the numbers of adoptions tenfold. And I think we all agree that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Which has no bearing at all on the moral component of abortion. I doubt that there are many people that consider abortion to be morally murder, yet support it because there aren't enough adoptions in this country.

[Larry]

This strikes me as a naive argument as it presumes life has value on it's own when in practice it clearly doesn't.

Funny. I could have sworn that there was a bunch of people calling themselves "The Right to Life Movement".

That they were running around the country, passing laws and Constitutional Amendments, attempting to claim that a fertilized egg is a person*, attempting to define harming it as murder, granting it rights to self defense, . . . all so that they can then use it's "right to life" to justify why someone else should be compelled to finction as it's life support system.

* (I'll mention in passing that this essay also made the claim that claiming that a fertilized egg is a person is analogous to claiming that an acorn is an oak tree. But that her argument was deliberately designed to ignore the debate about the "personhood" of the fetus, by creating a scenario in which the "fetus" absolutely positively was a person, and that person still doesn't have the right to demand that someone else dedicate their body to keeping it alive.)

It also seeks to paint engaging in behavior that results in pregnancy equates to being forced to "donate" your body. If you're actions caused it, it's not a donation it's a consequence.

Nope. It paints being compelled to function as a life support device as being compelled to function as a life support device.

[Teller]

Thing is, you don't just "wake up pregnant." You make a conscious decision to have sex, and not to use the all-but-fail-safe methods of contraception that are out there.

So if I CHOOSE to have the violinist strapped to my back, then I would say no, I don't have the right to cut him off and let him die.

[techboy]

Actually, the author's response to the "rape victims don't consent" argument is that it's irrelevant.

If a fetus has a right to life, and if that right to life is so compelling that it entitles society to compel someone to function as a life support system for it, then that holds true whether the fetus is the product of rape or not.

Surely you cannot argue that an embryo produced via rape has any less right to live than any other embryo. The embryo didn't rape anybody.

I didn't cover this in my original response, but that argument is especially weak, and actually contradictory.

The entire point of the "violinist" argument is that even if the fetus is a living person, we can balance those rights against the rights of the mother, and effectively outweigh them.

How can she then turn around and make abortion an absolute "yes or no"? If we're balancing rights, why wouldn't it be possible that rape is enough to tip the balance to the mother, when it doesn't for abortion in general?

Horrible reasoning.

[Larry]

I didn't cover this in my original response, but that argument is especially weak, and actually contradictory.

The entire point of the "violinist" argument is that even if the fetus is a living person, we can balance those rights against the rights of the mother, and effectively outweigh them.

How can she then turn around and make abortion an absolute "yes or no"? If we're balancing rights, why wouldn't it be possible that rape is enough to tip the balance to the mother, when it doesn't for abortion in general?

Horrible reasoning.

Another analogy she uses is that the mother and the fetus aren't exactly in the situation of two people who both wound up simultaneously renting a house. That the mother owns the house. The right of ownership doesn't tip the scales?

And as to rape, I'll point out that the rape already happened. Again, you want to argue that the fetus' rights change, depending on the circumstances of his conception?

[Teller]

If the owner of the house doesn't want someone in there, keep them out. Don't welcome them in, then throw them out on their ear. But here again, I'm asking for some level of personal responsibility, which is pretty unreasonable in this day and age.

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 07:53 PM ----------

Oh, and as to the house analogy. If two people move their stuff into a home, and then one decides to move out. The other person retains the rights to the property they brought in. So really, I love the house analogy. It definitely creates an avenue toward something resembling father's rights. (Which right now are akin to the tooth fairy and/or Bigfoot.)

[techboy]

I mentioned earlier in my reply to Destino that this entire argument is just an appeal to emotion (though philosophers would call it an "appeal to moral intuition" ), and moreover, it's one that is carefully composed to trigger a certain response. We can see that in an equivalent scenario, drawn from A New Objection to Thompson's Violinist Argument, which proposes this, and flips the whole thing around 180 degrees in gut response:

You are making a solo trip across the Atlantic in your yacht, and halfway there you hear the muddled sounds of a person coming out of a coma. It turns out that this person was conked on the head and tossed into your boat by gangsters, the day you left port. Now your engine breaks so it will take 9 months for you to get back. You have enough food stored to either feed yourself in comfort for 9 moths or to barely keep both you and the involuntary-stow-away alive. Are you morally obliged to share your food with the involuntary stow away?

Exact same scenario, really... innocent party with a life on the line through no fault of his own, and you have a choice between comfort and severe inconvenience to yourself and your body (nearly starving), and yet how many of us would answer that it would be okay not to feed the stowaway?

Here's how she puts it:

Intuitively (and perhaps legally) you are. It would not be morally permissible to let the person accidentally trapped on your yacht starve to death rather than share your food with them. But how does this case differ from the violinist example? The amount of sacrifice required, the fact that you are blameless in creating the situation of dependence, the fact that the space and resources which the person requires belong to you (you bought the food, and the yacht) are all the same.

I see a lot of focus being put on the fact that the woman's body is involved, but remember, your near starvation affects your body, should you decide to feed the accidental stowaway. If that doesn't satisfy you, though, she proposes another scenario:

Second, even if you can suitably specify the kind of relationship the violinist needs to be in to your body, this doesn't seem sucient to drive the intuition that it's permissible to refuse aid. For example, the violinist needs to cling onto your body for a certain period of time, but intuitively this fact along isn't sufficient to make it permissible to refuse aid. For example, if you are naturally buoyant person in a shipwreck and a smaller person will drown if they don't cling onto your shoulder for an hour, are you obliged to let them?

Note: I edited the last two words, there, because it would appear the author included a typo.

The author's conclusion, therefore, is that given our very different reaction to a morally equivalent scenario, either our immediate moral intuition about the violinist scenario is wrong (since we have the exact opposite response to the stowaway question), or we can't trust our moral intuitions as a guide in these cases (perhaps because the scenarios are rigged to evoke certain emotions, my thought, not the author's), and either way the argument fails.

[Teller]

And as to rape, I'll point out that the rape already happened. Again, you want to argue that the fetus' rights change, depending on the circumstances of his conception?

They already change, based solely on the mother's opinion, and who kills a fetus. If the end is variable, why not the beginning?

[Larry]

Again, in abortion, we don't simply "disconnect the violinist". We hack the violinist to bits, or poison him, then toss away whatever's left. It has nothing at all to do with what we can or cannot do to the violinist after he is disconnected.

And if someone were arguing for the right to machate violinists, I'd be right there with you, condemning it.

However, this thread is about whether society can compel someone to function as a life support device, because someone else will die if they don't.

Wrong Smith.

Wow, I'll have to remember to save that link, in case I'm ever in a thread where someone is advocating that women murder their children and blame big, scary, black men.

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 08:14 PM ----------

I mentioned earlier in my reply to Destino that this entire argument is just an appeal to emotion (though philosophers would call it an "appeal to moral intuition" ),

And it was wrong, then, too.

and moreover, it's one that is carefully composed to trigger a certain response.

Absolutely agreed. I'm quite certain that the author would freely admit that it's an artificially contrived scenario, manufactured for the sole purpose of making a point.

We can see that in an equivalent scenario, drawn from A New Objection to Thompson's Violinist Argument, which proposes this, and flips the whole thing around 180 degrees in gut response:

Exact same scenario, really... innocent party with a life on the line through no fault of his own, and you have a choice between comfort and severe inconvenience to yourself and your body (nearly starving), and yet how many of us would answer that it would be okay not to feed the stowaway?

Completely different scenario really. Because the stowaway isn't demanding your body.

But keep referring to a person's body as "convenience". Makes you look so very rational and logical and non-agenda-driven.

(And thanks for the link. I suspect I'm about to do some extra-credit reading.)

----------

Regarding the later quotes you provided:

The author actually dealt with some alternative scenarios. For example, she speculated on the moral situation if the violinist only needed to be attached to you for an hour, and if after that hour, you would have absolutely no complications.

The author asserts (and I agree), that in that case, society would consider you to be a very bad person if you refused to allow the violinist to borrow your kidney for an hour. (And, IMO, they would be justified.) But that the violinist still doesn't have the right to demand it. That it is your choice whether to donate an hour of your inconvenience to save another's life. And that society certainly doesn't have the right to compel you to provide it.

I keep asking the question: If I will die without $100 of your money, Do I have the right to that money?

Frankly, I think I know why people keep ignoring the question. It's because they all know that the answer is "no". But if they answer, then they'll be in the position of saying that a person with a life-or-death need has the right to your body for nine months, but doesn't have the right to $100.

[techboy]

Another analogy she uses is that the mother and the fetus aren't exactly in the situation of two people who both wound up simultaneously renting a house. That the mother owns the house. The right of ownership doesn't tip the scales?

See the stowaway analogy above.

And as to rape, I'll point out that the rape already happened. Again, you want to argue that the fetus' rights change, depending on the circumstances of his conception?

Larry, the entire premise of the violinist argument is even if a fetus is a person (and we must presume, with the general rights not to be murdered all other people have), that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. It's a balance.

Why, then, must abortion be absolute? Wouldn't rape be a circumstance that would add to the scale? Isn't it at least possible that we could end up deciding that the fetus' rights generally prevail over the mother, but not in the even worse to the mother case of rape?

She doesn't address that possibility, which is opened up by her own reasoning about weighing rights.

Part of the problem, of course, is that it's not really reasoning, as I have said. It's an appeal to emotion, so there are a lot of unexamined assumptions.

At least in the way you've presented it.

And if someone were arguing for the right to machate violinists, I'd be right there with you, condemning it.

In an abortion, the fetus is macheted. Or poisoned. If you want the analogy to be accurate, the violinist would be too.

Of course, that doesn't have the same emotional impact, does it?

Wow, I'll have to remember to save that link, in case I'm ever in a thread where someone is advocating that women murder their children and blame big, scary, black men.

Cute.

You will recall, though, that my reference to Susan Smith was because I was pointing out that we are rightly appalled when somebody kills her children because they are inconvenient (Susan Smith wanted to be with a man that didn't want kids).

That's the danger of reasoning that a mother can kill a (granted for the sake of argument) person because it is inconvenient for her to carry it to term.

This is not a problem in the larger abortion debate, but if you're going to grant that a fetus is a person with rights, it certainly is.

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 08:28 PM ----------

Completely different scenario really. Because the stowaway isn't demanding your body.

Oh yes he is. "Your body" is going to suffer the effects of near starvation if you feed him most of your food.

I keep asking the question: If I will die without $100 of your money, Do I have the right to that money?

Frankly, I think I know why people keep ignoring the question.

I've answered this question at least twice, if you're paying attention.

As I just pointed out, it's the difference between me not sending $30 a month to Children's relief (children will probably starve because of my inaction, but I did not murder them), and going over to Rwanda and ruining a grain silo so that it cannot be used to feed the children (children will starve, and I did murder them).

The $100 dollar bill question is like the first, and abortion is like the second.

Abortion is not a withholding of life support, as you seem to think. It is a deliberate, active action, that kills a fetus (you machete the violinist to get him off your back).

As I already pointed out, it's not like abortion is a situation where the doctor removes the living fetus from the womb without killing it, then leaves it to survive on its own (though just stop and think about how you'd feel about that).

So, the answer is no (I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess I can spell it out for you), but it's also irrelevant to abortion.

[Thiebear]

Actually, the author's response to the "rape victims don't consent" argument is that it's irrelevant.

If a fetus has a right to life, and if that right to life is so compelling that it entitles society to compel someone to function as a life support system for it, then that holds true whether the fetus is the product of rape or not.

Surely you cannot argue that an embryo produced via rape has any less right to live than any other embryo. The embryo didn't rape anybody.

The author's contention is that if a "right to life" includes the right to compel someone else to donate their body to supporting you, then that's true for all persons, not just embryos.

---------- Post added February-27th-2011 at 07:15 PM ----------

There is a teensy bit of a difference between paying taxes and donating my body.

But I observe that you still haven't answered the question. (I wonder why.) I will die if I don't have $100 of your money. Does my right to life give me the right to that money?

If it's moral for me to discontinue supporting the violinist, then it's moral for me to hire assistance.

Further, I'll point out that society is obligated to cut him off. I have a right to the integrity of my body. Society has an obligation to defend that right. For the same reason why society has the obligation to punish rapists.

Everyone ignores that which they don't want to talk about: It was a bad first choice.

Then they go straight to the rape and say see, they deserve to live so all life is precious. Your argument is crap.

I would agree, but being someone that doesn't wan't women to all suffer another zero tolerance rule, we make allowances for the extreme.

Stop using the extreme to try and prove the point. Try and stay on topic and show why those that did have sex without the condom on that ovulating second shouldn't pay for their mistake. without the option of another mistake.

[Larry]

See the stowaway analogy above.

See response above. (Wow the posts are flying back and forth, huh?)

Larry, the entire premise of the violinist argument is even if a fetus is a person (and we must presume, with the general rights not to be murdered all other people have), that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. It's a balance.

Why, then, must abortion be absolute? Wouldn't rape be a circumstance that would add to the scale? Isn't it at least possible that we could end up deciding that the fetus' rights generally prevail over the mother, but not in the even worse to the mother case of rape?

Actually the premise of the essay (as near as I can tell) is to ask the question: "Does a person's right to life give society the right to mandate that some other person donate their body to providing life support for that person?"

And your response is "Well, that depends. Was the first person (the one that needs the life support) the product of rape or incest?"

Does it matter if the violinist's mother was related to his father?

In an abortion, the fetus is macheted. Or poisoned. If you want the analogy to be accurate, the violinist would be too.

Of course, that doesn't have the same emotional impact, does it?

Probably not.

Which, I assume, is why you keep trying to bring it in, even though it has nothing to do with (what I believe is) the author's point.

[Thiebear]

And again with the violinist: To make it match a woman carrying a child.

The Person had to have volunteered at some point to have a 'payout' with a bit of risk: The people that got the violinist attached were hit with the lil bit of risk.

People are arguing that it just 'happened'. This is not how it happens in 99.8% of the time. Jesus is the only one I know of where the mother wasn't involved.

The rest are just extremist examples.

[Larry]

Everyone ignores that which they don't want to talk about: It was a bad first choice.

Then they go straight to the rape and say see, they deserve to live so all life is precious. Your argument is crap.

I would agree, but being someone that doesn't wan't women to all suffer another zero tolerance rule, we make allowances for the extreme.

Stop using the extreme to try and prove the point. Try and stay on topic and show why those that did have sex without the condom on that ovulating second shouldn't pay for their mistake. without the option of another mistake.

Have to confess that I can't figure out what you're saying in the first paragraph.

As to the second, I'll point out that I started the topic, and have never deviated from it.

Does a person's Right to Life, give society the power to compel a second person to donate their body to serving as a life support system for the first?

If you want to start a thread about how people who have sex you don't approve of should get stuck with children they don't want, because that'll teach 'em, feel free to do so.

[Thiebear]

Have to confess that I can't figure out what you're saying in the first paragraph.

As to the second, I'll point out that I started the topic, and have never deviated from it.

Does a person's Right to Life, give society the power to compel a second person to donate their body to serving as a life support system for the first?

If you want to start a thread about how people who have sex you don't approve of should get stuck with children they don't want, because that'll teach 'em, feel free to do so.

it ignores chance. This Violinist thing was attached for no apparent reason.

In reality there is always a reason: You chose to have sex. You chose to get pregnant.

Your second choice was to remove it.

Society isn't asking to you take care of anything you didn't create. And i also stated from the beginning if Adoption/Foster care wasn't a debacle we could probably do more. Are you saying society cant put you in jail for robbing a bank or make you pay for taxes? You fail anything and there are normally consequences.

[techboy]

See response above. (Wow the posts are flying back and forth, huh?)

Yes, and so fast, you missed the point. Your response was about my connection of the stowaway to the body, which I have shown is a valid connection, but not what I'm talking about here.

In this case, I was pointing out that the stowaway example has the same issues of ownership you refer to in the house analogy. You own the food, and the boat.

Actually the premise of the essay (as near as I can tell) is to ask the question: "Does a person's right to life give society the right to mandate that some other person donate their body to providing life support for that person?"

No, that's the (flawed) analogy, but the attempted point is deeper. How are you going to answer that question unless you weigh rights?

And your response is "Well, that depends. Was the first person (the one that needs the life support) the product of rape or incest?"

Actually,. that's not my response, but it is a valid response given the author's attempt to weigh the various rights, and one that is not answered successfully, in my view.

Probably not.

And yet, in abortion, that is exactly what happens. How can the analogy be analogous with such an important difference?

[twa]

I keep asking the question: If I will die without $100 of your money, Do I have the right to that money?

Frankly, I think I know why people keep ignoring the question. It's because they all know that the answer is "no". But if they answer, then they'll be in the position of saying that a person with a life-or-death need has the right to your body for nine months, but doesn't have the right to $100.

If you dropped a $100 and a homeless person picked it up can you kill him?

Jury says?

[techboy]

For the record, Larry, I want a citation on the paper you eventually write, since I know you're just testing out the arguments here first.

By the way... the new forum software has appended another post to my second to last one (speaking of fast and furious), so don't miss it (unless you're sick of my essays )

If you dropped a $100 and a homeless person picked it up can you kill him?

Jury says?

I don't see the connection.

[Thiebear]

For the 100$ scenario you have to put it in context:

Homeless people die because i don't give them ea. 100$ everyday.

But taxes pay for homeless shelters they could go to and eat/sleep, get help

My 100$ at work. He lives if he choses to spend the night there vs. a grate in Feb.