Poll: Contraception, abortion, infanticide

[vz71]

This is why I like constructive debates.

So yes, directly murdering a human is immoral. However, I do not see allowing a human to die to be immoral.

Now you need to address something.
Unless directly acted against, a pregnency (most of them) will result in a live delivery. It would only be through direct action that the abortion could take place.

 

[Shredderbeam]

vz71:

Now you need to address something.
Unless directly acted against, a pregnency (most of them) will result in a live delivery. It would only be through direct action that the abortion could take place.

I suppose the train analogy is limited. Perhaps a better one would be casting people out of your home into the cold.

 

[vz71]

I suppose the train analogy is limited. Perhaps a better one would be casting people out of your home into the cold.

No analogy at all.
Unless action is taken directly, the pregnancy will continue and a child will be delivered (with some infrequent exceptions).

Thus, any action taken to stop this process is an action directly taken to murder.
This is not a passive thing that you seem to believe, it is an active murder.

 

[Shredderbeam]

vz71:

No analogy at all.
Unless action is taken directly, the pregnancy will continue and a child will be delivered (with some infrequent exceptions).

Thus, any action taken to stop this process is an action directly taken to murder.
This is not a passive thing that you seem to believe, it is an active murder.

It’s not really a direct killing, though, it’s just the removal of the life support, which comes from the mother’s body. In the case of your house, your heat, which you pay for, is what keeps the person alive. In the case of your body, your nutrients, which you provide, are what keep the fetus alive.

 

[vz71]

Yes, it is. Really.One must take action to end the pregnancy.That is not the passive thing you would have us believe.It is an action designed to bring about the death of another human being. Murder.And even in the feeble analogy you place in your response, we are talking about a resident that cannot live elsewhere.A resident, that is human and alive.A resident that you take specific action to kill.No matter how many times you look at it, it is still murder, and still evil.

 

[Feste_1242]

It’s not really a direct killing, though, it’s just the removal of the life support, which comes from the mother’s body. In the case of your house, your heat, which you pay for, is what keeps the person alive. In the case of your body, your nutrients, which you provide, are what keep the fetus alive.

I think this accurately depicts the general feeling right now: http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/villagers.gif http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/fluch.gif


Shredderbeam, you’re being ridiculous. vz71 is correct; abortion is an action designed to bring about the death of another human being. In simpler words, IT IS A DIRECT KILLING. Perhaps you just don’t understand how abortion works. What they do is murder the child, then remove it. This is not a “removal of life support”, this is a removal of life, and an infringement of an “inalienable right”. Purposefully putting a person in a situation that will lead to their death is the same thing as killing them. Capice?

 

[mapleoak]

I think this accurately depicts the general feeling right now: http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/villagers.gif http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/images/smilies/fluch.gif


Shredderbeam, you’re being ridiculous. vz71 is correct; abortion is an action designed to bring about the death of another human being. In simpler words, IT IS A DIRECT KILLING. Perhaps you just don’t understand how abortion works. What they do is murder the child, then remove it. This is not a “removal of life support”, this is a removal of life, and an infringement of an “inalienable right”. Purposefully putting a person in a situation that will lead to their death is the same thing as killing them. Capice?

Rehash of post 121:

Further, this is a strawman argument because the reality of abortion is not the mother removing her child and killing it through neglect. Rather abortion is the hands of a butcher mutilating, dismembering alive, scalding, stabbing the brain of, and sucking out a living baby.

 

[mdr]

Where is the option that says ‘abortion should be illegal in all instances?’
I would think that would be a popular choice here…

If I remember correctly, there are rare cases in which it is morally licit to indirectly cause the death of an unborn babe. An example would be an ectopic pregnancy with ruptured Fallopian tube: there is no way to save the baby’s life, and only quick surgery can save the mother’s life. The primary effect of the surgery is repair of damaged tissue to save a life; the undesired secondary effect may hasten the end of the unborn baby’s life; the surgery itself is then licit under the principle of “double effect.”

(Expert bioethicists, of whom I am not one, please feel free to correct any errors in the above. I’m working from memory, and we know that that can be faulty.)

I would not want elective abortions, which certainly should be illegal, lumped into the same category as emergency surgery. Perhaps that is why the strongest option read “most,” not “all.”

Peace-
-mdr

 

[mdr]

I’m going to say the point at which the child is physically separated from the mother, which would be when the cord is cut.

Shredderbeam, what is your rationale for this definition? You do know, do you not, that from about the 5th month onward, the developing human is able to perceive and respond to light and sound?

That he or she can form memories? (In the study I read, pregnant women read a given book aloud daily for some weeks before they delivered. After their babies were born, they were observed while listening to variations of story and voice: same story with different voice, same story and same voice, different story with same voice, etc. Responses were measured - I think it was the speed of sucking but don’t quote me, it’s been a while - and by far the most pronounced responses were to the familiar story in the familiar voice, with gradations down to ignoring the unfamiliar story in the unfamiliar voice.)

Physical separation involves a change in the source of food and oxygen but not a change of being. I do not understand your position. Would you be willing to clarify it in light of empirical evidence that consciousness is present before birth?

If you do, I will try to read your answer as objectively as possible, since we obviously disagree.

Peace-
-mdr

 

[mdr]

To address the issue here, the reason I hold physical separation to be so important is due to the self-ownership principle. The mother, being the full master of her own body, has every right to do to it what she wishes.

I am not morally responsible for anybody else other than myself, unless I enter into a contract with them. If I do not wish to supply nutrients for a fetus, I cannot be required to.

OK, it seems you have two criteria for the awarding of legal rights: rationality and physical separation. Is that accurate?

I would like to draw a connection between your two statements, above. A woman is full master of her own body. This woman knows the practical aspects of anat & phys of human reproduction. She has been informed of the statistical effectiveness of various methods of contraception. Knowing that none of them is 100% effective, this master of her own body still chooses to participate in the reproductive act. Therefore, she is fully aware that she “risks” producing a “fetus.” It is irresponsible, then, for this woman to engage in reproductive acts unless she is willing to “supply nutrients for a fetus,” because she willingly and knowingly made it possible for said fetus to be conceived. The willful destruction of the fetus thus conceived is indefensible because the woman’s own actions brought the fetus into being.

You probably disagree with the conclusion I just drew. If so, why? Find the flaw, and I will examine it as objectively as possible.

Peace-
-mdr

 

[mdr]

Now, allow me to explain. A non-rational, but physically separated human (such as a newborn baby) is not a normal human. **A normal human is around 20-30 years old, and rational. ** Now, as they are not yet of the species proper, they should be preserved until they become rational (note that it is not harmful anyway to allow them to survive as they can hardly act aggressively against you).

Guess that leaves me out of “normal”: I’m 43 and am in the middle of some nasty PMS, so neither your age definition nor your cognitive definition qualify me!

Peace-
-mdr

 

[mdr]

I don’t see how the murder of a non-rational being is really a bad thing. I’m not sure I’d even call it murder - during a fairly large chunk of the pregnancy, there’s nobody home.

A woman’s rights to her own body naturally would supersede another’s right to life, unless you can demonstrate how the woman is morally responsible for the child?

The child came into being as a direct result of the woman’s actions. (And her partner’s actions, of course, but we were discussing the woman’s body.) Responsible adults do not have sexual relations unless they are prepared to live with the potential results of their actions.

This is no different from any other human activity: responsibility dictates that people make informed choices before they act and that they face the consequences which arise from their actions without shirking.

Informed citizens know that contraception is not 100% effective, therefore they know that sexual activity carries the potential for pregnancy. The human being thus conceived is the responsibility of the human beings who brought him or her into being through their actions.

Peace-
-mdr

 

[mdr]

Now, allow me to explain. A non-rational, but physically separated human (such as a newborn baby) is not a normal human. A normal human is around 20-30 years old, and rational. Now, as they are not yet of the species proper, they should be preserved until they become rational (note that it is not harmful anyway to allow them to survive as they can hardly act aggressively against you).

Please define “species proper,” as your concept of it appears to differ from that which is stated in biology textbooks.

Peace-
-mdr

 

[mdr]

Lifeboat ethics apply.
I spend most of my life making a beautiful, graceful lifeboat that is just right for me, with elegant hooks on which to hang tiny water stills and grain buoys, fill the buoys and stock it with a watertight first-aid kit and a few basic tools, strap waist packs to myself filled with all my jewelry and money in the world, family photos and other things I wouldn’t want to lose, and go on a cruise.
The ship sinks. Rather than use one of their boats, I use my beautiful lifeboat, of course.
A newborn infant somehow winds up on my boat, weighing it down, needing my food and water, taking up space I can’t easily spare. The boat is mine, part of who I am. The child is damaging it.
The child has nowhere else to go. I cannot tell this child not to get on my boat. I didn’t pay attention and now she is there and we are at sea alone. I have no means of signaling for help and won’t for seven months at least.
The only way to regain my lifeboat and get the baby off it is to kill the baby. I can throw the baby overboard, drowning her in salt water, which will burn and suffocate her. I can kill her in another way first and then get rid of the body. But if she goes she dies and if she stays I give something up.
I maintain that there is no circumstance in which I have the right to throw the baby overboard. None at all.
Even if she arrived as a result of a crime in which I was the victim, I would have no business killing her. If pirates surrounded my boat, beat me, took my packs of jewelry and other precious things, stole most of the food and water and accidentally left a kidnapped infant on the boat as they sped off, I would have no right to drown her. She didn’t do anything.
Even if I had very little to eat, I would have no right to starve her. She would need me and I would be her only hope, and it would not be her fault she was there.

***Right on!!! ***

 

[mdr]

Let me explain something about rights and responsibilities in the contractual slanguage you seem to be playing with. My parents concieved me prior to securing a contract with me. Therefore,their behavior directly resulted in locating me in my mothers womb without my expressed consent, and also caused my condition to be temporarily dependant upon the continuation of that arrangement for a set period of time after which I would have the ability to vacate my mother’s womb. If your actions cause someone to be incapacitated and displaced onto you own property against their will or without their consent, you do not retain the right to use lethal force to remove them from your property.

Furthermore, if someone is made to be unable to care for themself as a direct result of your actions, intentional or not, you have an obligation to make restitution to them by providing the means for them to recover from the condition you caused. Therefore, the mother may not want the child in her womb, but as her actions were partly to blame (the other part being the father) she must make restitution in a manner acceptable to the injured party, the fetus.

It makes no sense to say you could justifiably relocate someone to your property without their consent, cause them to depend upon you as their only possible source of food, water, and oygen without their consent, and then claaim to have the right to remove these conditions, resulting in their death, on the basis that you do not consent to their continued presence in your property.

 

[mdr]

Also, I think it is quite inappropriate to couple infanticide and euthanasia in the same question. They are vastly different things. An infant does not have the ability to make decisions for itself under any circumstances, and unless it is incapable of surviving without life-support, I don’t believe it is right for the parents to decide that it should die. On the other hand, a terminally-ill adult may choose euthanasia for themselves, if they are of sound mind. My feeling is that if a person makes a rational choice to end their life in such circumstances, it ought to be legally acceptable.

What you have defined is assisted suicide. Euthanasia is when someone other than the patient makes that choice to end that patient’s life. See how that has played out in the Netherlands before you make up your mind on that one.

Peace-
-mdr

 

[mdr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shredderbeam
However, if all human life is equal, then wouldn’t the moral thing for me to do right now be to drop everything, brush up on my first aid training, and go out to Africa, helping to save lives over there?

No. It would be “a” moral thing to do but would not be “the,” as in “the only,” moral thing to do.

Peace-
-mdr

 

[mdr]

The adult who was murdered has the right to exist where they are. The fetus does not have the right to exist in the mother’s womb without her permission.

sigh

Here’s your sign, shredderbeam.

You’ve lost all credibility and semblance of logic or reason.

I don’t think I can engage in any debate with you after all. About all I can do is to post rebuttals to your more outrageous assertions so that people reading them will not assume that they have been accepted as reasonable.

Have a nice life. I do hope that you regain your senses before you do serious harm.

Peace-
-mdr

 

[vz71]

If I remember correctly, there are rare cases in which it is morally licit to indirectly cause the death of an unborn babe. An example would be an ectopic pregnancy with ruptured Fallopian tube: there is no way to save the baby’s life, and only quick surgery can save the mother’s life. The primary effect of the surgery is repair of damaged tissue to save a life; the undesired secondary effect may hasten the end of the unborn baby’s life; the surgery itself is then licit under the principle of “double effect.”
Peace-
-mdr

Agreed.
But such a surgery is not (and is not referred to as) abortion.

 

[mapleoak]

Guess that leaves me out of “normal”: I’m 43 and am in the middle of some nasty PMS, so neither your age definition nor your cognitive definition qualify me!

Peace-
-mdr

You do realize the arguments you are refuting are ridiculous enough to embarass even the most avid pro-death supporters?