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?
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?
This is a matter of biological viewpoint, without much bearing on moral discrimination, lacking any more detailed argument. The fetus qualifies as a parasite in every appreciable biological way if it is unwanted.
The unborn child's existence is not the "act" that is being judged from an ethical standpoint. The invitation analogy is applicable because the ethical dilemma is not rooted in the guest’s choice, but in the conscious choice of the “host” who extended the invitation. The “rightness” or “wrongness” of the action comes when the host chooses to call the Nazis or to shelter the refugee. (Similarly, the primary ethical decision comes not from having sex or not, but should the women bear the child or kill it.)
In both of instance, the person moves from making a moral choice for themselves (having sex or disingenuously offering refuge) to having another human being killed. Your comments imply that a Jew seeking refuge made an ethical choice to seek shelter, when in fact, their plight places them in a position where they are not making anymore decisions than a baby in the womb. That is why abortion is so heinous — the innocents are completely vulnerable at the time of aggression.
Would you honestly hold a refugee responsible if someone duplicitously turned them into the SS? Would you hold a baby responsible for abortion simply because they exist?
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.
I don't see any difference in the moral enormity of either action - what inspires you to make this distinction?
Reproduction is a natural function inherent in a healthy individual. The human race would survive if the were no tapeworms - it would not survive if there were no children.
Your statement is morally grotesque.
This is a matter of biological viewpoint...
What an odd comment.
If you'd like to remain in the realm of science (i.e. biology) and not emotion (i.e. it's unwanted), it's a simple matter of definition. And once again, you'd find that a fetus is not a parasite. Nor are your swollen tonsils, whether you want them or not.
|
To find all articles tagged or indexed using |
||||
| click here >>> |
SASU™ |
<<< click here | ||
|
Master Bump List |
||||
Just goes to show actions have consequences we don't immediately see.
No other parasite shares DNA with the host. No other parasite exists because of the hosts actions. and no other parasite once it is born can instead be given over to someone who WILL cherish it if the host does not want it.
A wet match if ever there was one.
It shouldn't be too hard to see how the "human beings are parasites if they are unwanted" mentality is just one small goose step short of the Nazi mentality.
Why not just wait till the fetus is a 10 year old boy or girl, and then kill it. If the baby was unwanted while in the womb, it will probably be unwanted when he/she is older. How about if the baby is wanted, and then becomes unwanted after birth? Should the mother have the freedom to kill it then, like that idiot woman in Texas? I think maybe you can see what a slippery rope this could become.
If anything, a fetus is the natural result of 2 biological components fullfilling their purpose - an extension of the organism, if you will. Besides, the fetus 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 the fetus.
We'll have to agree to disagree; but if you ever want to get leverage in this debate, you can't go for all or nothing.
Your name seems appropriate.
Actually, it is, but not for the reasons you think.
The unborn child's existence is not the "act" that is being judged from an ethical standpoint.
But this is the problem I was trying to point out. Those who support abortion sometimes make this the crux of their argument. I have debated others (on the old =usenet= newsgroup related to this topic) who imply that it is somehow the "fault" of the child for implanting itself in the woman's womb against her will. I hold that this is absurd. The unborn child undertakes no proactive decision to come into being, but those who support abortion seem to argue that it does. I reject that argument for the reason that the guest/intruder analogy is inappropriate. There is no choice active on the part of the child.
The invitation analogy is applicable because the ethical dilemma is not rooted in the guest’s choice, but in the conscious choice of the “host” who extended the invitation.
This is what I was saying, and was an entirely plausible interpretation of the analogy as presented. The problem with unrestricted abortion is that it imposes a moral position upon the unborn child where none was possible or existent.
The “rightness” or “wrongness” of the action comes when the host chooses to call the Nazis or to shelter the refugee. (Similarly, the primary ethical decision comes not from having sex or not, but should the women bear the child or kill it.)
In both of instance, the person moves from making a moral choice for themselves (having sex or disingenuously offering refuge) to having another human being killed. Your comments imply that a Jew seeking refuge made an ethical choice to seek shelter, when in fact, their plight places them in a position where they are not making anymore decisions than a baby in the womb. That is why abortion is so heinous — the innocents are completely vulnerable at the time of aggression.
Would you honestly hold a refugee responsible if someone duplicitously turned them into the SS? Would you hold a baby responsible for abortion simply because they exist?
Again, you have badly misunderstood my position, and honestly, I don't see how my comments could be construed as suggesting that I would hold an unborn baby responsible for its own abortion. I would do no such thing. To place some kind of moral culpability upon an innocent person simply because of their natural circumstances is absurd, and I find it hard to believe that you would so badly misinterpret my position. Abortion requires a proactive decision by an entity capable of making such a decision, and thus possible to hold accountable for such an act. An unborn is clearly incapable of this, and it would be illogical to suggest otherwise.
There are many, many ethical arguments that support the pro-life position and oppose the pro-abortion position. My response was simply to point out that the analogy presented in the original post (for which comments were solicited), could have been reasonably understood as not capturing precisely or approximately the moral issues presented by abortion.
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.