Replies

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?

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?

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I feel like jumping in today. The person isn't your child. You hold no assumed, personally required, or socially required responsability for that person. However, if you chose to hook up to this person, then it would be wrong if you then chose later to break away, since that person is your responsability, by choice. A simular event would be some form of organ transplant.

-The Hajman-

Who among us has a gestational period of 20 years?

Was that an arbitrary figure, or are you referring to adulthood?

It seems irrelevant, regardless, since at the end of the gestational period, the child can be put up for adoption, and need never darken the enlightened parent's doorstep again. Moreover, who among us, with children, would cut them off at 20 if they needed us? I submit the 9 month figure makes for a better comparison.

Along those lines...

Suppose, in addition to your previous conditions, that the very reason this person needed that attachment to you was that your own actions created his condition. Having thus rendered a life dependent on you, through no fault of that person, how could you, in good conscience, destroy them?

Further, let us bring the comparison closer to reality by qualifying the 'umbilical' attachment with this: for the first one to two thirds of your 'attachment' period, you, the responsible party, will suffer few if any detrimental effects.

Half a year for an entire lifetime. You must be a verrrry important person.

Is this morally justified? Is it murder if you choose not to spend the next 20 years tied to this person in a coma?

By your story, it sounds as if this person would be hauled off against their will to supply blood to the rich person. That is not morally justifiable by any means.

Let's make this scenario a little more analogous to pregnancy/abortion. This person volunteers to supply blood to the rich guy for a period of 9 months, not 20 years. They are totally aware that they must fulfill this commitment or else the rich person will die. This person then arbitrarily decides to terminate this blood supply thus killing the other person. I certainly consider that an act of murder.