View Single Post
September 15th, 2012 (8:26 PM).
Hug bear wants hugs
Originally Posted by
AH I'M A FEW DAYS LATE ON THIS BUT I CHANGED MY STANCE ON ABORTION JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO AND I WANT TO KNOW IF IT ACTUALLY HOLDS UP TO CRITICISM SO I'M SHARING.
This is how I see abortion:
Say a woman has a daughter that's about 5 years old. That daughter is well, well into the "I'm a real person" stage of her life. She has the right not to get murdered. Suddenly she falls deathly ill and the only thing that can save her is an immediate donation of part of her mother's liver. Her mother is completely healthy and the surgery poses no extra risk. She's financially stable and can afford the surgery easily. She's been taking care of this child since birth so she is responsible for the child's welfare.
Even assuming all this, she is not obligated to donate part of her liver to her daughter. Even with the knowledge that without that liver, her daughter will die.
Pregnancy is the equivalent of a massive organ donation for 9 months. Since having a child and taking care of it is not a contract that you'll donate organs if they get ill and need them, having sex is not a contract that you'll donate your body to a child if they are conceived and need it. Just like it's an unfortunate limitation of science that we don't have artificial organs for people that can't find donors, it's an unfortunate limitation of science that we don't have artificial incubators yet. However, that doesn't mean that a woman is obligated to become an organ donor to a child without her consent for 9 months.
Therefore to me whether or not the child is a person doesn't matter. Does that make sense? I haven't yet brought it up to anyone that might challenge it so idk if it's reasonable under criticism yet.
I agree with and see the logic of this argument. But, for the sake of argument, which I hope you don't mind, let's say I disagree.
If I did disagree I might say, for instance, that your stance is partially based on a legal argument. Legally a mother would not be forced to give up her liver (or anything else of her body) to save another life, even of her own daughter. Of course, one might say that a mother still has a
obligation, especially if she is the only person who could conceivable save the girl's life. (Let's imagine that all other possible donors aren't close enough and it's gotta be immediate or the girl dies. The mother is literally the only person who can save the girl's life.) On top of that there are certain laws that say bystanders must help people in emergencies. Could there not be an argument for something like this in liver-girl's case? And then by extension to pregnancy?
And, side note, I'm pretty pissed at all the violence that's spread across the Muslim world. People angered that their religion is attacked with accusations that it's full of bad things including violence acting out with violence. Hypocritical? I know a lot of this violence is being organized specifically by anti-American groups who are themselves using religion to push people, but the people being pushed don't seem to have to be pushed really hard to accept the argument that insulting Islam means it's okay to use violence and attack people who have nothing to do with the offending statements.
Joined Jun 2009
Also Known As:
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Esper
Find all posts by Esper
Find threads started by Esper
Ignore Posts by Esper