Posted on 03/11/2002 12:20:49 PM PST by Quester
Is a baby (fetus) truly an intuder in the womb or is he/she an invited guest?
Hasn't the host acted to send out an invitation?
Would not it be the height of irresponsibility (or worse) for a host to send out invitations, but to hope that nobody shows up ... or even worse, to determine to evict any who respond to the invitation and show up, knowing that such an eviction means certain death for your guest(s)?
Place yourself as a non-Jew in Nazi occupied Europe. You know that the Jews are being hounded and herded by the Nazis, ultimately, to the death. You hear, through the grapevine, that some, in your community, have determined to discretely put the word out on the streets that their homes are available for use as sanctuaries to hide Jews from the Nazis. Those that have done this are quietly being considered 'heroes' in your community. You determine that you would like to be held in such high honor as these, and so, you let it be known that you are willing to take in Jews, as well. But, secretly, you have absolutely no intention of hiding any Jews ... after all, in reality, it would put you in danger and, infringe upon your societal freedoms (after all, Jews in hiding will have needs that only you will have the ability to meet). You hope that no one takes you up on your offer. But, your backup plan is that, if anyone does accept your invitation, you will, at your earliest convenience, discretely contact the Nazis and turn your 'guest(s)' over to them to be taken away to death. Once freed from your emcumbrance, you will put your 'invitation' (to death) back out on the street again.
Is this not immoral behaviour?
A Navy Vet is the most wonderful and precious [sort of] entity in our known universe. Whether its existance was invited or forced, A Navy Vet is never an intruder. And A Navy Vet certainly isn't a parasite by definition - n. 1. An often harmful organism that lives on or in a different organism.
If anything, A Navy Vet is the natural result of 2 biological components fullfilling their purpose - an extension of the organism, if you will. Besides, A Navy Vet didn't ask or attempt to nurture off the human body "host". The "host" was either forced or willingly accepted the missing component to create A Navy Vet.
Because, after all, a "fetus" is just a younger stage in A Navy Vet's life. From conception to death, there are many phases of development, but no magical Rubicon of development, unless it be arbitrarily manufactured out of thin air.
Dan
You don't know anything about biology do you.
The offspring is the only reason for the organism.
Far from being a parasite, biologically speaking, the parents are simply the progenitors for the offspring.
The creating offspring and transmitting the genetic material to the next generation is the only role for the mother and father.
The offspring is the reason.
An organism passes on its genes to the next generation. This is how it is done. The fetus is the focal point and most important aspect of an organisms life.
The fetus is not a guest, parasite or intruder but the first priority. The mother exists for the fetus, the fetus does not impinge on the mother.
I can agree with you there.
Dan
(c8
You're an idiot. That's a human being undergoing a natural life process. Parasite....please.
Of course, the child one moment subsequent to uterine implantation looks no more or less like a newborn child than one moment prior.
All in all, I would prefer to examine the road of punishing rapists far more severely than we're accustomed to punishing them.
The point I was trying to make is that the analogy seems appropriate for me because in the instance of a refugee, their choice is dictated by circumstance without any real ethical volition on their part.
Again, please accept my apology.
Yes he is. He also knows nothing about biology. The fetus is the reason for the organism. It isn't a parasite it is the goal of the organism's existence.
OK, sir, no problem. Thanks for clarifying it. Sorry if I jumped in with both feet on the rebuttal.
I think we're essentially in agreement on this. I focused more on the intruder-guest analogy and overlooked the refugee part.
It is true that establishing any kind of moral culpability in a situation that results from natural circumstances or happenstance is unsupportable. The unborn child makes no conscious decision as to whether or not to come into existence, and makes no decisions as to where and under what circumstances its initial development occurs. Thus, applying moral shading to the unborn's position is specious at best. The moral accountability must lie with those who undertake acts of their own choice in regard to the unborn. In that sense, there is a parallel between say, the actions of a host regarding an invited guest, or the actions against an intruder by someone being intruded upon. In those cases, use of lethal force can be ethically justified in a limited number of cases under very limited circumstances. And, offhand, I would say those would include the right to a legitimate defense of one's own existence, the well-being of loved ones, and a few others, but certainly not among them would be the destruction of innocent life for convenience (choice).
Oh indeed. And since when is being a parasite or not being a parasite, per se, a recognizable condition in law that deprives you of rights? The typhoid bacilli has been around a lot longer than a human fetus, and being infected with typhus is every bit as natural a biological fate as being fecund with a human fetus.
Suppose a woman chooses, because of her reduced circumstance, to live in a high crime neighborhood, and chooses to leave the doors open while cleaning house, and is subesquently raped. Does that make the rape and subsequent issue her fault? Or does it put the unwanted child in exactly the same situation as the person in my thought-experiment who was attached by his relatives to me?
...and, assuming you think rape victims are entitled to abort...how does that situation play against the idea that the fetus being related to you gives it the rights of a citizen to be defended against murder? I assert it does not. A fetus may be "human" or "aware" or "viable" or "natural" or anything else you care to conjure up in the rights game, but it is clearly NOT a full citizen, and not necessarily entitled to a citizen's full gamut of rights, unlike the mother. When was the last time a fetus was issued a driver's license?
It is just as reasonable to say the organism is the reason for the fetus. This is an imaginary causal chain you are trying to hang rights on. Banks are the reason for bank robbers--does that make bank robbers moral exemplars?
Has a case like this ever been brought before the court?
I take self-evident in this context to mean that you are not willing to provide a moral argument.
God said, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." I therefore take it as self-evident that old women without relatives to care for and vouch for them should be dismembered and burned in public.
This is, I aver, not a sound basis for making public policy decisions in a representative republic that eschews church involvement in the state's business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.