[mn12]

This reminds me of a college course I took a few years ago, called "Contemporary Ethical Problems". Abortion was a major topic. As would be expected, we studied a wide array of pro-abortion essays by femi-nazis, and almost nothing against abortion.

One particularly disturbing article considered a fetus to be a "wild animal in a cage", the cage being the woman. The essay discussed how unless abortion was permitted, the woman would not be allowed to defend herself from the "wild animal" that is her baby. It was quite disheartening to read this lunatic's distribe comparing a human baby to something like a rabid dog.

When I asked the (liberal, black, female) teacher why the essay did address how the woman's actions put this "wild animal" in her in the first place, I was blown off and she rapidly changed the subject.

[donh]

Then lets pose a more relevant moral dilemma:

Suppose a rich person in a coma is discovered to be kept alive only if he can have a constant supply of a rare blood factor only you can supply. Now suppose the relatives of the rich person arrange to have him attached by a blood exchange imbellical to you, and ask for a court order to restrain you from removing the embellical. Is this morally justified? Is it murder if you choose not to spend the next 20 years tied to this person in a coma?