Abortion is evil
- Thread starter Mary Contrary 999
- Start date
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
Down goes the strawman! You are an amazing destroyer of the strawman you've made!
Oh yes they could, as long as the airplane is your property. Just like evicting a trespasser off your property. What's the difference?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
News is that Joe the Rapist is planning to defy any judgment banning it
Lon
Well-known member
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.
You can't make this stuff up. I realized a few weeks back she means change who is paying the bill. Just order it that Patrick Mahomes has to pay child support when it isn't his child.
Warning: GRAPHIC CONTENT!
My heart hurts from seeing this.
www.instagram.com
My heart hurts from seeing this.
OperationSaveAmerica on Instagram: "Obfuscating child killing is bigotry of the highest degree. If you were a shareholder in the abortion industry, "He Gets Us" is how you would want to create the evangelical culture surrounding unborn children. W
548 likes, 89 comments - operationsaveamerica on February 12, 2024: "Obfuscating child killing is bigotry of the highest degree. If you were a shareholder in the abortion industry, "He Gets Us" is how you..."
www.instagram.com