Abortion is evil


I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Hall of Fame
To be clear this other member had her account locked for making two socks that were disruptive.


Well-known member
Well, no, you can't, not forcibly anyway in regards to relatives. You can't automatically expect a grandparent/brother/sister/cousin etc to suddenly become a responsible parent/guardian of a child for all manner of reasons, nor should they be legally obligated to. If a family relative is willing to become so then hey, absolutely fine but a relative is hardly responsible for their family shortcomings or deaths are they? Nor are they always in a position where they're able to take on the mantle of responsibility where it comes to looking after a child.
Children are expensive. The cost of raising children in terms of money and commitment has been a leading cause driving the murder of children at any age for thousands of years.


Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Why on earth are you trying to discuss the analogy vaguely referencing how it is usually couched and how it is usually responded to instead of just using the analogy? You haven't kept the question that narrow as you just stated here.
My references to the analogies in question have been rather specific. So let's go over the two analogies in question.

The first analogy is explained here in detail. And the analogy is as follows: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

The second analogy was first referenced here. It is retold generally like this: You are flying on an airplane over the Pacific when you discover an unconscious stowaway. Are you allowed to throw the stowaway out of the plane since you are allowed to kick someone uninvited off your property?

These analogies are almost the same in principle. They both discuss bodily autonomy upon which you are primarily basing your compromise.

The hook up analogy is better because it puts bodily autonomy against the life of a developing human. The plane trip does not involve this.
The plane analogy is better because if you can kick someone off your airplane, how much more should you be able to kick someone out of your body?

This most important problem with the hook up analogy is that it contains a hidden scare tactic. That of being bed ridden and restricted in that bed by tubes and medical equipment for 9 months. The vast majority of pregnancies carry an inconvenience and a change in lifestyle, but generally you can go about your daily life carrying a baby. In fact there is a TV show talking about woman who go about their lives and don't know they are pregnant until the baby is born. This is actually an important factor when discussing this topic. If a doctor tells a woman she will miscarry if she goes about a normal life, and she does go about living a normal life, she is not held accountable for the baby's death from miscarriage because the doctor can't actually know.

At length I described how it fits. You do not explain how it doesn't.
You still aren't understanding the problem with your compromise. It isn't that a woman has to affirm her commitment to keep her baby alive in order to be liable if she doesn't support her pregnancy, it's the number "16" or "6" or "20" or whatever number you come up with. Saying a woman has bodily autonomy doesn't lead to a number (or even a small range of numbers). So I guess the first question we can ask to get to bottom of this is to find out what are you basing your compromise on? Is one of the main supports bodily autonomy? And then since bodily autonomy doesn't lead to your arbitrary number, what are the other main arguments you are including to make your compromise?

The stow away could be innocent but crazy. If jeopardizing the safe completion of the journey, he could be ejected in self defense. True even if unintentionally dangerous like deliriously trying to open the hatch and pilot cannot leave duties long enough to effectively restrain.
I'd like to point out that this is an egregious case of creating a strawman. The analogy, like any good analogy, attempts to address a single principle.
So, the life of the mother exception holds in this weak analogy.
Down goes the strawman! You are an amazing destroyer of the strawman you've made!
An unconscious stow away placed on the plane against his will and posing no serious risk, could not simply be ejected.
Oh yes they could, as long as the airplane is your property. Just like evicting a trespasser off your property. What's the difference?
This says very little about pregnancy and abortion.
It says a lot about the argument you are using - bodily autonomy. If you aren't using bodily autonomy to support your compromise, then please tell us what your new argument is.
The scenarios lack major features in common. A plane and a person are different domains. The stowaway is taking up some energy during the flight. The pregnancy poses some health risk to the mother and majorly alters her capacities in the final trimester. Her biology is being robustly exploited.

You have to add so much to this analogy that it becomes ludicrous.
Yes, continue setting up strawmen. Everyone is soooo impressed when you knock them down.

The plane, same as your body, are your property. You can always evict an uninvited person off your property.

Understand that the baby is a human starting at a single cell. The baby is innocent.
And to this you replied, "Stem cells are babies too, then."

So when does a human begin? Why do biologists say a human starts at the single cell stage?

Stopping development at an early stage is less egregious than later.
This is where your compromise should live. Instead of arguing primarily on bodily autonomy, your personal comfort with a certain number of weeks, or that evil kids come from rape - you should argue that, yes, it is killing an innocent person to intentionally abort a pregnancy within the first 16 weeks but it's less egregious than killing an innocent baby after 16 weeks... and then tell us the principle that makes "less egregious" morally acceptable.

Yorzhik said:
A rapist, despite the poor justice system not doing its job, would prefer not getting caught. Especially in the case a female knows her rapist.
Why is this relevant?
Because a rapist normally wants the baby killed, especially if the person they are raping is familiar with them. Why do they want this? Because you can hide forensic evidence, but hiding a growing child is much harder.

Okay now you added over the Pacific. Why is using a full grow individual in one scenario a great way to elucidate wisdom in a scenario with a developing human?
The Pacific was mentioned when I first brought up the analogy but I don't attribute to malice what can be adequately attributed to miscommunication. That being said, one of the challenges to your compromise is the arbitrary number of weeks that has no bearing on the bodily autonomy argument. It is an aspect or your compromise that you have to answer in order for society to even consider it. This arbitrary number of weeks has been added from your compromise, not the analogies. In fact, the analogies do not include a timeframe wherein disconnecting or kicking out the person to their mortal detriment would be morally permissible or morally wrong for good reason. Actually Dr. Walter Block who wrote a paper on the body autonomy argument does say the child cannot be evicted to it's death after medical assistance would be able to keep the child alive, i.e. the viability argument, which has a general timeframe of 24 weeks. But that isn't what your compromise is saying.

Yet, when this is pointed out to you, you answered: "The analogy becomes worthless when you have to force things with arbitrary restrictions." To which I can most graciously answer that you are the one adding the time restriction, not the analogies.


Abortion is wrong always. No matter what. My thinking has evolved through the years. I think there should be exceptions for rape, when the baby will definitely not survive, or the mother's life is truly specifically threatened. Otherwise, the woman chose the situation, and must face the consequence and responsibility of gestation.

When abortion is allowed it should be solemn. The woman should experience some shame, but not always devastating life altering shame.

In regard to rape, the woman should have the right to expell what the nasty rapist put there, but it must be in the first 16 weeks. The baby does not deserve that punishment at all but it's the violent father's fault, not the woman's. We all have an extra say over what goes on in own bodies even when someone else is involved.

Well that's a start. I know how well moderate views do around her, but let me know your thoughts on this compromise.

Well, the title sounded great, and the first couple of sentences sounded good, but then it went downhill

When people make an exception for rape, they have totally missed the entire point of the entire issue. If you cannot kill an innocent human being, which is what abortion is, then you certainly cannot kill an innocent human being because some other person committed a crime. It just does not make sense. The child in the womb is not guilty of the crime of the rapist. If you want to put the rapist to death, if that will sooth your pain, then I am okay with that. But you cannot murder a child because of the sins of the father.


Well-known member
Then you support abortion.
Which is mind boggling and surreal in a thread entitled "Abortion is Evil!" If it were retitled it'd have to be 'Abortion isn't evil, until...' Or "Partial birth Abortion is Evil!" Reading the thread, ever with the title in mind, there is a profound, bewildering, disconnect.


Staff member
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

My heart hurts from seeing this.