[adjectivenoun]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It remains a parasite, as many pro-abortion folks like to say. It has a legal claim to her body. If pro-abortion philosophers were consistent, they'd have to say that she has a right to abort the kid, because her right to her body supersedes the child's right to live.

Again, I'm getting the impression that your analogy is distracting people from the moral inconsistency you want to discuss.

It would be nice if someone who does equate a fetus with a parasite would step up to the plate and explain the difference between prenatal and postpartum extermination of the very same organism, rather than just testing the limits of the analogy you presented. I'm not clear on how pro-choice individuals of this particular variety justify their stance.

Maybe there aren't many people who find late-term abortion acceptable while finding desert-island-scenario infanticide unacceptable?

	Originally Posted by Vincent601 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd be interested to see the direction the abortion argument would take if artificial wombs existed in a way in which the mother could just give up her baby from the moment of conception.

I'd be interested as well. Of course, the expense would probably be cited as a reason to abort rather than transfer. Along with the philosophical objection to adoption, which seems to be growing more popular.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You've manipulated the argument to make it inconsistent. Pro-choice argues that human life is defined at birth, Pro-life argues human life is defined at the moment of conception. You suppose the latter then try to apply it to the former's arguments. In other words you've constructed a straw man.

Not at all. I've embraced the pro-abortion stance that a woman has a right to her body, and that anything that is dependent upon her body may be aborted. I've said nothing about the child, born or unborn, other than to describe it in terms of its violation of the mother's rights.

Certainly if a mother's rights are violated before birth, then they continue to be violated afterwards in this circumstance... or is that OK?

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(For that matter, why doesn't this argument fly when we're talking about an unborn child?)

It does. It's just that with present technology, leaving a pre-viable fetus on the doorstep of a fire station is messy and pointless.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, you support this woman's right to abort her 6 month old, then?

The entire point of this scenario is to cut off all the avenues of retreat that would be available to any actual human beings who live in a community with other human beings (as opposed to hypothetical human beings who are trapped in a hell dimension surrounded by automatons who do arbitrary things for no other reason than to cause her suffering). This is, in absolutely all honesty, the sort of situation that the ancients invented exposure for.

Therefore, this woman may absolutely abort her six-month-old child. She may also have the right to abort her husband with a shotgun, take his car, and drive through her town Grand Theft Auto style in search of old ladies to run over because they make amusing crunching noises, but that is not the ethical question you asked.

Now, is this rule likely to apply to any actual women with actual six-month-old infants? Well, probably not. But that isn't really the point of this exercise, is it?

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not at all. I've embraced the pro-abortion stance that a woman has a right to her body, and that anything that is dependent upon her body may be aborted. I've said nothing about the child, born or unborn, other than to describe it in terms of its violation of the mother's rights.

women in the united states have the right to abortion. they also have the right to put unwanted babies up for adoption.

these rights do not take into account whether the mother has the facts straight: whether she knows anything of the emotions involved, the outcomes of her actions, or of any of the lies being told to her by people close to her that having a baby will "ruin her life." everyone has their own beliefs and has the right to follow them in accordance with the laws that allow for actions that can be taken as a result of those beliefs, or despite any beliefs.

in your hypothetical you've made the woman ignorant about avenues that would help her raise her child, and apparently ignorant of her husband's feelings by default.

it does not matter what the woman thinks, what her reasoning is. she has a right to legal abortion. she does not need to justify her reasons to you, or to anyone else. once the child is born, she has the right to give it up for adoption, for any reason, which also need not be justified to you or anyone else.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now, is this rule likely to apply to any actual women with actual six-month-old infants? Well, probably not. But that isn't really the point of this exercise, is it?

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the right of a woman to her body isn't absolute; that given the choice of killing an infant or forcing a mother to give up her right to her body so that it can be used to sustain another human being, the pro-abortion folks generally choose the latter. (Except you, apparently.)

Which reduces the pro-abortion position to one that either assigns no intrinsic value to any human being, and that somehow humans must earn the right to have extrinsic value, or must attempt to make the argument that what emerges from the birth canal is ontologically distinct from what was growing the womb an hour before.

Neither of which should be palatable to anyone.

---------- Post added 11-06-2009 at 04:12 PM ----------

Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

women in the united states have the right to abortion. they also have the right to put unwanted babies up for adoption. these rights do not take into account whether the mother has the facts straight: whether she knows anything of the emotions involved, the outcomes of her actions, or of any of the lies being told to her by people close to her that having a baby will "ruin her life." everyone has their own beliefs and has the right to follow them in accordance with the laws that allow for actions that can be taken as a result of those beliefs, or despite any beliefs. in your hypothetical you've made the woman ignorant about avenues that would help her raise her child, and apparently ignorant of her husband's feelings by default. it does not matter what the woman thinks, what her reasoning is. she has a right to legal abortion. she does not need to justify her reasons to you, or to anyone else. once the child is born, she has the right to give it up for adoption, for any reason, which also need not be justified to you or anyone else.

So, she may morally abort the child now? You think laws should allow that?

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, she may morally abort the child now? You think laws should allow that?

maybe i missed it, please define "now" - while she is pregnant and abortion is legal? or after that window? after birth?

yes i think she should be able to abort the child while it is legal to do so.

yes i think it's ridiculous to be talking about it in any other timeframe.

yes i think she should be able to give her child up for adoption - making the arrangements before the birth if she wants to, or at any point after.

morals have nothing to do with it. the law stands. i approve of the law, and i have not seen sufficient evidence of its abuse to want to change it.

my morality does not include judging a stranger's morality, only their actions, and right now, abortion and adoption are legal. by the same token, i couldn't judge someone as morally right or wrong for stealing, but i could agree that he/she broke the law by stealing, if indeed they stole.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the right of a woman to her body isn't absolute; that given the choice of killing an infant or forcing a mother to give up her right to her body so that it can be used to sustain another human being, the pro-abortion folks generally choose the latter. (Except you, apparently.)

According to the words that you have put into their mouths.

When you build a strawman, don't cry when someone comes and sets it on fire.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Which reduces the pro-abortion position to one that either assigns no intrinsic value to any human being, and that somehow humans must earn the right to have extrinsic value, or must attempt to make the argument that what emerges from the birth canal is ontologically distinct from what was growing the womb an hour before.

Hence the simple resolution of the conflict by the means that I described. Are you going to allow this poor woman a shotgun, or is she going to have to conduct the necessary killing spree without the aid of technological enhancement?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Neither of which should be palatable to anyone.

The situation that you have proposed is intrinsically impalatable -- it should surprise you exactly none that the solutions proposed are not aesthetically appealing. In any case, I fail to see you providing any particular reason why I should credit your opinion regarding what I should or should not find palatable (for reference: I find natto palatable, as well as shrimp -- but for me the latter is an example of why it is not necessarily wise to eat everything that you find pleasing to your palate).

[cannotseethe]

The aim of this hypothetical is to set up an insoluble soritical argument that leads to equating abortion with murder. The OP wants you to say that since you believe in abortion, you also have to believe in killing a six month old child in order to be consistent. The story is meant to force you to say that, and anything you say to pick apart the hypothetical or burn the straw man is going to be met with a predictable response.

Earlier I posted something about turning the slippery slope in the other direction. Let's ask the OP what they think about masturbation. If it's not OK to abort a fetus, why is it OK for a man to masturbate and kill millions of sperm? And also, menstruation without pregnancy. If it's not OK to abort a fetus, why is it OK for a woman to have a menstrual cycle without becoming pregnant, since she is thereby killing an egg?

I think this discussion would be much more fruitful if the OP started answering these questions.

[RedIrish]

Let's set the parameters of the pro choice debate.

How is this woman's decision to have an abortion any of your business?

This is a question which the woman should decide in private with her husband and her doctor. The why's and how's of her decision are not yours to interfere with. And her choices about how her body will be used are hers and hers alone.

My answer always has been and always will be: It's none of your business. Butt out.

[NoOne]

"I don't want this child. It is a parasite. It uses my body for its food. It is dependent upon my body for its existence. I want to abort it."

First of all, how about dealing with all the lies this woman is actually perpetrating?

Secondly, no you cannot allow her to or permit her not to, it is, as stated her body. Do you think enslaving her to even what is true is somehow your god given right, or mystical moral duty?

A child is crafted by both parents, and I believe as the ancient Romans did, they have no rights until they are a finished product.

One does not solve a wrong by multiplication of more wrongs. With ideas like that, you might creat another "free" country like this one.

[ElstonGunn]

If we're going to set up perfect hypothetical situations that are meant to paint anyone who disagrees with us into a corner, then let's try it from the other angle.

If a woman gets pregnant, and for a variety of reasons, carrying the fetus to term and giving birth will kill the mother and the child-- and hell, since it's an unrestricted hypothetical, let's say that it will also kill everyone else in the world but not before first turning them all into homosexual, flag-burning socialists-- doesn't "pro-life philosophy" insist that the mother should go ahead and destroy everything in the world, including the fetus, rather than have an abortion?

Wow, debating is so much easier when your arguments don't have to make sense. And here we all were dicking around with stupid wastes of time like logical consistency and realistic situations. My stars, how we did waste so much time. Thank you for helping us elevate discussion to the lofty level of Mad Libs.

[DanteFalling]

I occasionally use a similar conjoined twin argument. I think we place far too much emphasis on birth as a dividing line for socially acceptable abortion.

I'm not talking about legal or moral definitions here, just what our society finds palatable.

Children can be viewed as not-yet-formed parasites. It's just the fact that we can see them (out of sight, out of mind), and our social conditioning that keeps us from offing them as the Romans did.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by RedIrish To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My answer always has been and always will be: It's none of your business. Butt out.

The welfare state killed that argument but good. Unfortunately. Now it's everyone's business.

However, she said that she's two hours away from a social service, so I guess it really is none of my business. *phew* Yay!

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we're going to set up perfect hypothetical situations that are meant to paint anyone who disagrees with us into a corner, then let's try it from the other angle.

Why use another angle when the one we've got works perfectly well... if we just back up fifteen months?

Let's have a look at this young couple before Junior comes along. They're married -- a failure of imagination here, since the hypothetical would have been so much more satisfying if she were a wanton whore, but I am not about to complain about this. They are living in the middle of nowhere, in a place that has no police, no fire service, no EMS, no access to child protective services, no hospitals, no doctors, and no phone with which to call the closest example of any of the above. They are in a town of about fifty people, none of whom are willing to lift a finger to help them, and they are members of a church who will shun them if they ask for assistance even of the most petty sort.

The only employment available for her husband is the sort of job where you work for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and cannot take time off for any reason up to and including "my wife will otherwise take a brick to the head of our infant child". They have only one car, which the husband must use in the course of his aforementioned hellish job (he's probably pushing boulders up hills with it, I guess), and cannot expect to get transportation through public means (because there is none) or from any other person in the community.

Is it at all wise for people in these circumstances to have children?

Now, in the case where one comes to the conclusion that it is not wise for these people to have children, let us examine the situation further. Marriage does not exclude a person from the general rule regarding sexual intercourse, namely that when this activity is conducted between a man and a woman, there is some nonzero chance that the woman will become pregnant. Even if she has somehow managed to have a "Do-It-Yourself Vasectomy Kit" air-dropped in (I'm guessing that UPS doesn't deliver to Hell) and has used it on her husband. If she has sex, she could get pregnant, and if she gets pregnant she will in the course of time be delivered of a child. Probably in the middle of the living room floor.

So, presuming we have already determined that it is unwise to have a baby, and given that sex leads to babies, should this woman be having sex with her husband at all?

[Freedom Geek]

No I would not stop her, in fact I would encourage an abortion.

[Amphorian]

Umm... abortion deals with being pregnant, not with already having a child. That'd be called abandonment. O_o

[Storm]

Take any form of "logic" to its extreme and you will find absurd results.

Here, you have delightedly decided that conception = full grown baby. Either one must believe that a single zygote is a fully functioning human, or one must be for killing infants. This kind of extreme "logic" is often called a "straw man."

Let's try this same logic on something else. Running 2 miles everyday is healthy for you. It grows strong bones and muscles and will increase your life span. Therefore, running 5 miles everyday must be even healthier and might increase your life span even more than the mere 2 miles. Thus, obviously, the answer to immortality is to never stop running. It's so simple, why didn't I think of it before?

Oh! And I want a crack at the woman-on-an-island-with-an-infant. As I understand it, a woman is on an island with only enough resources to properly nourish either herself or the baby. Obviously, then, she could kill the baby and eat it. If she chooses to nourish the baby, she'll die and then the baby will die, and then where will we be?

This is sort of fun. But, let's try a more realistic scenario. It is possible (not even rare), for a pregnancy to start in Fallopian tubes. If the pregnancy is allowed to progress, the developing fetus will grow big enough to burst the tube - the fetus will die almost immediately whereas the mother will die a short while later. Would you not "allow" this woman to get an abortion since it necessarily requires "murdering" a baby?

Or, another realistic scenario. It is possible for a fetus to develop only a cerebellum and not any other part of the brain. Such a child will live for a few dies before inevitable dying. Should a woman be forced to go through an entire pregnancy and then let the brainless child die naturally?

A real discussion about abortion where sides aren't painted as caricatures is quite interesting; try that next time. (Of course, these kind of arguments are extremely rare and instead get filled with straw *sigh*)

[Googamanga]

Do what you want, and be prepared for the consequences.

Morals Shmorlas!!

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Would you not "allow" this woman to get an abortion since it necessarily requires "murdering" a baby?

While we're at it, how about we talk about this "allow" business?

There is a certain beautiful phrase called "no more coathangers". Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, you can get said phrase and associated icon (a picture of a wire coathanger) emblazoned on the clothing article of your choice, from hats to bikini underwear (just to avoid any confusion, once one arrives at the "being able to read underwear" part of the date). What does this mean? It's not at all a question of whether one has the choice to put one's pants in the closet or throw them on the floor (an adult may, of course, choose either). Rather, the point is that the process of removing a fetus from the body of a woman is a much more complicated process than, say, the woman setting her infant down and walking away from it once it is born.

Only a fairly desperate person -- and mind, history has known a great many desperate people -- would endeavor to perform an abortion on themselves without proper medical assistance. The same is not true for our hypothetical woman-trapped-in-cruel-hell-dimension. She is alone with this child for huge stretches of time during the day, in a house that must by necessity contain many implements suitable for "aborting" infants with no physical risk to herself. Andrea Yates is quite sufficient proof of that.

The question is not whether we will "allow" her to kill her child. Under these circumstances, she is fully capable of doing the deed with or without our permission. Rather, the question is "What will we do when the child's father comes home to find 'All work and no play makes Jill a dull girl' fingerpainted on the walls in baby blood?" And in that case, given that this hypothetical woman cannot get help from her society, cannot get help from her community, and cannot get help even from her own husband who married her and fathered the child...? In that case, I'm thinking that the people who did not give a flying fuck about the fate of the child when it was alive do not get all that much room to whinebitch about the fate of the child once it is dead.

And, you know what? There are actually young families out there in fairly desperate circumstances -- who may have children who they can't support financially, who may be unprepared for parenthood, who may even be breaking down under the physical, psychological, and practical pressure of raising children. Where's the love for them, hmm, once they've safely given birth? If we actually do care about the lives of children once they are born -- rather than making sure that whorish women who have sex with their husbands get the full measure of what is coming to them -- maybe we ought to put a tiny bit of resources into making sure that fellow members of our community do not end in situations similar to the one described above?

We might also want to consider funding hypothetical search and rescue efforts so that if a woman becomes stranded on a hypothetical desert island with her nursing infant, we can send a hypothetical helicopter with a hypothetical rescue swimmer who will then perform a hypothetical daring rescue, so that the woman can eventually find herself next to a hypothetical warm fire with some hypothetical hot chocolate while a hypothetical babysitter looks after her kid.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But why does pro-abortion philosophy not apply to this woman? Why would the pro-abortion advocate be exclaiming that this woman should be allowed to abort, and that the laws in this nation are denying this woman the right to her own body? I mean, isn't calling it murder just emotive language designed to disguise the fact that this woman is being denied her rights?

I have often wondered about this myself. I'm opposed to abortion because I can't square being for abortion and against murder. As I understand pro-choice arguements, a person becomes a person at birth, yet there is no reason to think it occurs at this arbitrary point. Frankly, I don't know if a person becomes a person at conception, birth, or when they turn 50 years old. I choose to take the more conservative route in this case, since we're potentially killing a someone.

[Lucid]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why does a woman lose her right to her body once the baby is born?

Actually, I agree with you. If she and her husband don't make enough to afford formula then she should be allowed to smash the baby's head on a rock or something and eat it for food herself.

Frankly, your hypothetical is a little unrealistic. A parent who wanted a baby would sell their car before killing it because they couldn't afford formula. No sane parent would willingly kill their child unless there was absolutely no way to provide for the baby. Such a situation would require some kind of utter collapse of society.

Lets take that hypothetical then. Utter collapse of society. This woman is starving. Her husband was killed by rabid scientolotists. Food is scarce. Do we allow her to kill the baby then?

My answer is the same: Kill the baby and eat it.

A better solution to starving families would be social welfare programs. A better solution to unwanted pregnancies would be birth control used correctly and consistently. However, we don't live in a perfect world. And sometimes the social welfare programs are removed. And sometimes birth control fails. In each situation, the solution is obvious. Kill the baby. Eat it.

While we're at it, how about we look at your argument for what it is:

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Here, you have delightedly decided that conception = full grown baby. Either one must believe that a single zygote is a fully functioning human, or one must be for killing infants. This kind of extreme "logic" is often called a "straw man."

Fetus /= baby.

( Show Spoiler )

Babies are much easier to rotisserie.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If she and her husband don't make enough to afford formula then she should be allowed to smash the baby's head on a rock or something and eat it for food herself.

Would you object to her selling the baby's nutritious carcass to some other hungry person instead?

[Lucid]

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Would you object to her selling the baby's nutritious carcass to some other hungry person instead?

No, I would not find that objectionable. However, since the baby is the result of her labor she should be able to ask whatever price she chooses and of course, she should have the first choice at the nutritious carcass if she chooses it eat it herself. Any agreement she enters into with others regarding the sale of the nutritious carcass should be done of her own free will. She should not be obligated to provide the baby carcass or any parts of it to those who are worse off than she is.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have often wondered about this myself. I'm opposed to abortion because I can't square being for abortion and against murder. As I understand pro-choice arguements, a person becomes a person at birth, yet there is no reason to think it occurs at this arbitrary point. Frankly, I don't know if a person becomes a person at conception, birth, or when they turn 50 years old. I choose to take the more conservative route in this case, since we're potentially killing a someone.

Here's an interesting question for you. And really, I'd like to hear your response.

Suppose we assume that a fertlized egg is a human. Let's call her Lilith. Lilith's body begins to multiple into more stem cells and she grows bigger. But, then, a mishape happens and the clump of Lilith splits into two clumps and begin to develop separately into what would commonly be called "twins." What happened here? Did Lillith die in the split and create Eva and Adamina? Are there two Liliths? Is one of the clumps still Lilith and the other one is someone else?

You can also the inverse. Where we start off with two clumps, but then one "eats" the other one.

[TheLastMohican]

Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, I would not find that objectionable. However, since the baby is the result of her labor she should be able to ask whatever price she chooses and of course, she should have the first choice at the nutritious carcass if she chooses it eat it herself. Any agreement she enters into with others regarding the sale of the nutritious carcass should be done of her own free will. She should not be obligated to provide the baby carcass or any parts of it to those who are worse off than she is.

Do you have an opinion on the age at which the child would become no longer such expendable property of the mother?