it scares me to think of a woman oborting her child, that baby is going to grow up into an adult, its destiny already been written... and its just deprived of life like that? it doesnt matter if its a fetus or not its alive and a part of the mother. i cant really accept this idea in my head and heart, it creeps me out >_<

and i'm not aiding those clincs cause some people (mostly the young and foolish) might result to it for unethical abortions, i agree that if its a health thing the mother is more important than the fetus but that doesnt mean people should go have irresponsible sex and abort the kids, that's very wicked and heartless.

  i dont know if i'm seeing this the right way, its just how i feel about it..... although i'm confused about abortion being merciful for deformities, i think the abortion topic is a tough one. this should really be in the marble thread.

Nah, it's more so about another thread that was in marble way back. I suppose this has 2 components to it; the "abortion itself" component and the "irony of seeing arguments I don't particularily like for perspective I'm otherwise more inclined to agree with" component.

And the point raised in my response to Ultra still applies; if you don't trust their reason for getting an abortion, how could you expect them to properly nuture the fetus if forced to go through with the pregnancy?

it scares me to think of a woman oborting her child, that baby is going to grow up into an adult, its destiny already been written... and its just deprived of life like that? it doesnt matter if its a fetus or not its alive and a part of the mother. i cant really accept this idea in my head and heart, it creeps me out >_<

and i'm not aiding those clincs cause some people (mostly the young and foolish) might result to it for unethical abortions, i agree that if its a health thing the mother is more important than the fetus but that doesnt mean people should go have irresponsible sex and abort the kids, that's very wicked and heartless.

  i dont know if i'm seeing this the right way, its just how i feel about it..... although i'm confused about abortion being merciful for deformities, i think the abortion topic is a tough one. this should really be in the marble thread.

Nah, it's more so about another thread that was in marble way back. I suppose this has 2 components to it; the "abortion itself" component and the "irony of seeing arguments I don't particularily like for perspective I'm otherwise more inclined to agree with" component.

And the point raised in my response to Ultra still applies; if you don't trust their reason for getting an abortion, how could you expect them to properly nuture the fetus if forced to go through with the pregnancy?

i think that would be less of a problem than making abortion an easy access.

abortion is a matter of "ethics" "compassion" "control":
ethics: fetuses are alive and killing a life is wrong espacially that its a life that will be a human in a short time with a life waiting for it, taking that away just cause its helpless is unfair.
compassion:  you cant help but question the woman that's willing to kill her baby, and you'd think she shouldnt have kids ever if she had the heart to kill that one. where's the motherly love?
control: if we start allowing easy abortion, a large number of people might stop using safe sex methods and that will spread disease.

i could also reason that abortion is going to be hard on the woman herself, its not like pulling a tooth out. waaaaaaaaa  how is she gonna feel knowing she killed her kid, no matter how better we all can make it sound, that's the truth and what will go through her head.

i think that would be less of a problem than making abortion an easy access.

abortion is a matter of "ethics" "compassion" "control":
ethics: fetuses are alive and killing a life is wrong espacially that its a life that will be a human in a short time with a life waiting for it, taking that away just cause its helpless is unfair.
compassion:  you cant help but question the woman that's willing to kill her baby, and you'd think she shouldnt have kids ever if she had the heart to kill that one. where's the motherly love?
control: if we start allowing easy abortion, a large number of people might stop using safe sex methods and that will spread disease.

i could also reason that abortion is going to be hard on the woman herself, its not like pulling a tooth out. waaaaaaaaa  how is she gonna feel knowing she killed her kid, no matter how better we all can make it sound, that's the truth and what will go through her head.

If it is unacceptable to you, Ultra, please consider having surgery.

The rest of this post will speak of sex as of it were consensual between both partners (there are different circumstances to consider when sex is forced, i.e. rape).

Here's what gets me: it was consensual sex that resulted in the creation of this new life. One of the possibilities of consensual sex is conception of a new human being (one that we are made aware of in sex education). Ergo, if a new human life is conceived, then it is the responsibility of the man and woman involved.

If the man and woman don't want that responsibility, then it is not their prerogative to terminate that life. Killing a human being that you are responsible for simply because you no longer want that responsibility is galling and reprehensible. You seek other alternatives if you still do not desire that responsibility, but the man and woman must BOTH take responsibility for their actions.

And the point raised in my response to Ultra still applies; if you don't
trust their reason for getting an abortion, how could you expect them
to properly nuture the fetus if forced to go through with the pregnancy?

This is, admittedly, where the calculus gets murky. Humans react in different ways to this situation (some will rise to the challenge, some don't); in particular, for teenagers and young adults, there is still a stigma related to becoming pregnant (accusations of being a 'whore', demonized by family members, etc.). The need for a support network is enormous during such a strenuous time; quite frankly, influencing the people involved to believe that their only CHOICE is to have an abortion is also problematic, and that needs to be addressed.

Ultimately, it's not a matter of not trusting their reason for getting an abortion (they might think it's perfectly legitimate); it's the matter of having them understand that their action will kill the life that they are responsible for (which then gets into the matter of when humans should be considered 'persons', which is related but tangential to the current discussion). In that context, their reason - more often than not - will be insufficient to kill a human being (as stated, there is a difference when the sex is not consensual; likewise, there are issues when the birth of the child has a high probability of killing the mother, in which you have the child's right to life competing with the mother's, and so on).

If it is unacceptable to you, Ultra, please consider having surgery.

The rest of this post will speak of sex as of it were consensual between both partners (there are different circumstances to consider when sex is forced, i.e. rape).

Here's what gets me: it was consensual sex that resulted in the creation of this new life. One of the possibilities of consensual sex is conception of a new human being (one that we are made aware of in sex education). Ergo, if a new human life is conceived, then it is the responsibility of the man and woman involved.

If the man and woman don't want that responsibility, then it is not their prerogative to terminate that life. Killing a human being that you are responsible for simply because you no longer want that responsibility is galling and reprehensible. You seek other alternatives if you still do not desire that responsibility, but the man and woman must BOTH take responsibility for their actions.

And the point raised in my response to Ultra still applies; if you don't
trust their reason for getting an abortion, how could you expect them
to properly nuture the fetus if forced to go through with the pregnancy?

This is, admittedly, where the calculus gets murky. Humans react in different ways to this situation (some will rise to the challenge, some don't); in particular, for teenagers and young adults, there is still a stigma related to becoming pregnant (accusations of being a 'whore', demonized by family members, etc.). The need for a support network is enormous during such a strenuous time; quite frankly, influencing the people involved to believe that their only CHOICE is to have an abortion is also problematic, and that needs to be addressed.

Ultimately, it's not a matter of not trusting their reason for getting an abortion (they might think it's perfectly legitimate); it's the matter of having them understand that their action will kill the life that they are responsible for (which then gets into the matter of when humans should be considered 'persons', which is related but tangential to the current discussion). In that context, their reason - more often than not - will be insufficient to kill a human being (as stated, there is a difference when the sex is not consensual; likewise, there are issues when the birth of the child has a high probability of killing the mother, in which you have the child's right to life competing with the mother's, and so on).

ethics: fetuses are alive and killing a life is wrong espacially that its a life that will be a human in a short time with a life waiting for it, taking that away just cause its helpless is unfair.

Who says it's because it's helpless? I figured it would have more to do with the fetus being insentient. This life will not be "human in a short time" if the abortion actually happens; it would, from a consciousness-centric perspective, be as if the "life" (as in, the accumulation of experiences, feelings, etc...) would have been stopped before it began.

compassion:  you cant help but question the woman that's willing to kill her baby, and you'd think she shouldnt have kids ever if she had the heart to kill that one. where's the motherly love?

... that, if anything, might be more of a reason for requiring tubal litigation to go with abortion than for preventing said abortion in the first place. (Even then, I wouldn't rule out that she would have changed a fair bit between the abortion and whatever time she actually wanted to have a child.) Like I said earlier, if you don't trust her reasons, how can you expect her to nurture the fetus for 9 months?

control: if we start allowing easy abortion, a large number of people might stop using safe sex methods and that will spread disease....

... making access to a means of getting rid of unwanted pregnancies harder... doesn't exactly sound like the best way of making people use safe sex methods. For one thing, there are some methods that apply to birth control but not STD prevention, (such as the birth control pill) and there are some methods that apply to STD prevention but not birth control. (Such as two partners without STDs having frequent sex in the context of a monogamous relationship, without using birth control.)

But even aside from that... the very notion of making people with unwanted pregnancies go through with them, never minding the harm to fetuses that could tend to result from that as implied from my previous points... just doesn't seem like a good way of making people practice safe sex in the first place. You're suggesting using unwanted pregnancies as a deterrent here?

ethics: fetuses are alive and killing a life is wrong espacially that its a life that will be a human in a short time with a life waiting for it, taking that away just cause its helpless is unfair.

Who says it's because it's helpless? I figured it would have more to do with the fetus being insentient. This life will not be "human in a short time" if the abortion actually happens; it would, from a consciousness-centric perspective, be as if the "life" (as in, the accumulation of experiences, feelings, etc...) would have been stopped before it began.

compassion:  you cant help but question the woman that's willing to kill her baby, and you'd think she shouldnt have kids ever if she had the heart to kill that one. where's the motherly love?

... that, if anything, might be more of a reason for requiring tubal litigation to go with abortion than for preventing said abortion in the first place. (Even then, I wouldn't rule out that she would have changed a fair bit between the abortion and whatever time she actually wanted to have a child.) Like I said earlier, if you don't trust her reasons, how can you expect her to nurture the fetus for 9 months?

control: if we start allowing easy abortion, a large number of people might stop using safe sex methods and that will spread disease....

... making access to a means of getting rid of unwanted pregnancies harder... doesn't exactly sound like the best way of making people use safe sex methods. For one thing, there are some methods that apply to birth control but not STD prevention, (such as the birth control pill) and there are some methods that apply to STD prevention but not birth control. (Such as two partners without STDs having frequent sex in the context of a monogamous relationship, without using birth control.)

But even aside from that... the very notion of making people with unwanted pregnancies go through with them, never minding the harm to fetuses that could tend to result from that as implied from my previous points... just doesn't seem like a good way of making people practice safe sex in the first place. You're suggesting using unwanted pregnancies as a deterrent here?

Who says it's because it's helpless? I figured it would have more to do with the fetus being insentient. This life will not be "human in a short time" if the abortion actually happens; it would, from a consciousness-centric perspective, be as if the "life" (as in, the accumulation of experiences, feelings, etc...) would have been stopped before it began.

I disagree with the idea of human life being defined in relation to conscious, since that ultimately implies various tiers to what is considered alive or not (you're 'less alive' or 'more alive' dependent upon your mental faculties, and so on).

The underlying premise in the argument against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons: that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here; if the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life.

This means that if we are persons later in life, we are persons even at conception.

Who says it's because it's helpless? I figured it would have more to do with the fetus being insentient. This life will not be "human in a short time" if the abortion actually happens; it would, from a consciousness-centric perspective, be as if the "life" (as in, the accumulation of experiences, feelings, etc...) would have been stopped before it began.

I disagree with the idea of human life being defined in relation to conscious, since that ultimately implies various tiers to what is considered alive or not (you're 'less alive' or 'more alive' dependent upon your mental faculties, and so on).

The underlying premise in the argument against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons: that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here; if the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life.

This means that if we are persons later in life, we are persons even at conception.

This thread actually went somewhere. I'm going to duck in, bring my controversial opinion on the matter to the table, remind everyone that on this matter my mind is made up, and move right on. 😀

I have no problem with murdering a parasite, same with murdering grass or those spiders that wander into the house at this time of year.

The moment it can survive under its own power is the moment it ceases to be a parasite. That is when abortion should be (and is) illegal. Otherwise, go right ahead if you don't want a leech running around in you for a few months.

If you focus on the "what ifs" all the time you'll drive yourself insane pretty quickly. It's best not to get too bogged down in what could be and focus on what is, and what you want in life right now.

This thread actually went somewhere. I'm going to duck in, bring my controversial opinion on the matter to the table, remind everyone that on this matter my mind is made up, and move right on. 😀

I have no problem with murdering a parasite, same with murdering grass or those spiders that wander into the house at this time of year.

The moment it can survive under its own power is the moment it ceases to be a parasite. That is when abortion should be (and is) illegal. Otherwise, go right ahead if you don't want a leech running around in you for a few months.

If you focus on the "what ifs" all the time you'll drive yourself insane pretty quickly. It's best not to get too bogged down in what could be and focus on what is, and what you want in life right now.

Most of the arguments to support abortion are embarrassingly bad, as seen with that debate back then, especially attempting to call opposition misogyny or claiming the fetus is not alive or saying that if you oppose it you should carry it (yeah try to make that apply to any other legal question and it quickly becomes ridiculous).

The rest of this post will speak of sex as of it were consensual between both partners (there are different circumstances to consider when sex is forced, i.e. rape).

What does that have to do with anything? If you believe it is murder, how does murder become OK because of rape?

Who says it's because it's helpless? I figured it would have more to do with the fetus being insentient. This life will not be "human in a short time" if the abortion actually happens; it would, from a consciousness-centric perspective, be as if the "life" (as in, the accumulation of experiences, feelings, etc...) would have been stopped before it began.

And how would you know at what point the brain develops enough to be called sentient, especially since use of that term is extremely inconsistent?

What does it mean and does it include animals, mentally handicapped, babies, plants, people who are less than genius status, or fetuses?

It's a cop out term that just comes to mean whatever arbitrary classification the person uses to grant or deny rights. Most moral systems are not equipped to deal with questions of sentience and thus they are not equipped to deal with abortion, thus the mass dumb surrounding the subject.

Ultimately I have to go with a practicality vs. rights vs. other rights sort of compromise.

There's no practical reason to stop abortion legally. Unlike murder laws, which impede mass violence, the person who decides to do the kill is quite specific and there is no risk of any born people getting hit by it. The killing may even be in the interests of the fetus in some cases. Another dimension is that laws are supposed to protect rights and wellness of the people, so how can you just let people kill others? Yet the right to freedom of thought and autonomy is important, and any sort of law about abortion would impose a subjective sentience definition upon everybody. Any law would have to be as open and permissive as possible because otherwise you are letting the government simply decide a ridiculously subjective question.

The best compromise I can think of is no legal answer to early trimester abortion, but requiring very permissive health reasons at late trimesters, due to potentially greater capacity of the fetus to understand suffering. The reason I say very permissive is that this is NOT a subject that should involve courts or lawyers or police or technicalities, especially if the earlier it is done the better. I wonder if those who want government involved have thought through the consequences and what those police, jail, and court scenes would be like.

Most of the arguments to support abortion are embarrassingly bad, as seen with that debate back then, especially attempting to call opposition misogyny or claiming the fetus is not alive or saying that if you oppose it you should carry it (yeah try to make that apply to any other legal question and it quickly becomes ridiculous).

The rest of this post will speak of sex as of it were consensual between both partners (there are different circumstances to consider when sex is forced, i.e. rape).

What does that have to do with anything? If you believe it is murder, how does murder become OK because of rape?

Who says it's because it's helpless? I figured it would have more to do with the fetus being insentient. This life will not be "human in a short time" if the abortion actually happens; it would, from a consciousness-centric perspective, be as if the "life" (as in, the accumulation of experiences, feelings, etc...) would have been stopped before it began.

And how would you know at what point the brain develops enough to be called sentient, especially since use of that term is extremely inconsistent?

What does it mean and does it include animals, mentally handicapped, babies, plants, people who are less than genius status, or fetuses?

It's a cop out term that just comes to mean whatever arbitrary classification the person uses to grant or deny rights. Most moral systems are not equipped to deal with questions of sentience and thus they are not equipped to deal with abortion, thus the mass dumb surrounding the subject.

Ultimately I have to go with a practicality vs. rights vs. other rights sort of compromise.

There's no practical reason to stop abortion legally. Unlike murder laws, which impede mass violence, the person who decides to do the kill is quite specific and there is no risk of any born people getting hit by it. The killing may even be in the interests of the fetus in some cases. Another dimension is that laws are supposed to protect rights and wellness of the people, so how can you just let people kill others? Yet the right to freedom of thought and autonomy is important, and any sort of law about abortion would impose a subjective sentience definition upon everybody. Any law would have to be as open and permissive as possible because otherwise you are letting the government simply decide a ridiculously subjective question.

The best compromise I can think of is no legal answer to early trimester abortion, but requiring very permissive health reasons at late trimesters, due to potentially greater capacity of the fetus to understand suffering. The reason I say very permissive is that this is NOT a subject that should involve courts or lawyers or police or technicalities, especially if the earlier it is done the better. I wonder if those who want government involved have thought through the consequences and what those police, jail, and court scenes would be like.

I don't see that many protests and anger directed towards those undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatments, selective reduction/the many fertilised eggs that get destroyed each year? 

I don't see that many protests and anger directed towards those undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatments, selective reduction/the many fertilised eggs that get destroyed each year? 

I want to leave the abortion topic alone, but I do want to remind Matthew that there IS a sell-by date on people's statements and posts. That thread was 4 years ago. During the Bush administration, before some (minor) issues changed and most importantly while all of the posters (many of whom have not been on the board in years) were four years younger than they are now.

I for one do not think my statements about sexual affairs (ie: procration) can be taken with any weight given that I was a virgin when I typed all that stuff.

My point here is: STOP. BRINGING. UP. OLD. TOPICS. AND. RELATING. THEM. TO. TODAY.

Please?

I want to leave the abortion topic alone, but I do want to remind Matthew that there IS a sell-by date on people's statements and posts. That thread was 4 years ago. During the Bush administration, before some (minor) issues changed and most importantly while all of the posters (many of whom have not been on the board in years) were four years younger than they are now.

I for one do not think my statements about sexual affairs (ie: procration) can be taken with any weight given that I was a virgin when I typed all that stuff.

My point here is: STOP. BRINGING. UP. OLD. TOPICS. AND. RELATING. THEM. TO. TODAY.

Please?

The rest of this post will speak of sex as of it were consensual between both partners (there are different circumstances to consider when sex is forced, i.e. rape).

What does that have to do with anything? If you believe it is murder, how does murder become OK because of rape?

I actually wrote about this in for a particular project as an undergraduate, so I'm going to copy what I put down wholesale:

First, let us consider rape.

A truly heinous act. A rapist exerts his will over an unwilling woman, violating her and damaging her in a way no man can ever quite experience or fathom. So what happens if she gets pregnant as a result? Keep in mind that the number of actual pregnancies due to rape is quite low, the absolute lowest figure being one in a thousand. Even the highest estimations still result in rape accounting for less than 1% of all abortions7. Nevertheless, numbers should not matter when it comes to human life; given the extenuating circumstances involved, what is the proper course of action?

Considering that both are human lives, it would initially seem the prudent choice to let the baby live instead of aborting it. For one, the child did not commit a crime worthy of being killed. It is contrary to the rule of natural law that one be punished for the crimes of another; is it proper to put a child to death for the father's crime? One would think not. I certainly don't. And there have been documented stories (such as this one8) regarding children born of rape. However, the unique nature of the crime has an intricate aspect to it.

Enter John Walker of Libertarians for Life.

The logic offered in his piece "Abortion in the Case of Pregnancy Due to Rape"9 is somewhat intriguing. Arguing under three assumptions ("X harming Y does not entitle Y to harm Z", the unborn are human from conception, and there is a difference in the eyes of justice between living and letting die), Mr. Walker offers interesting views on the scenario.

He notes that parents owe care and support to their children, provided they conceived them voluntarily. Since the voluntary aspect is removed from the case due to rape, it would seem that the mother has no obligation to meet the needs of the child growing within her womb. This would appear to be so, but consider: the father, the rapist, is the only one with a parental obligation to the child. However, in his negligence, he has given the mother total dominion over the life of the child. As such, should the mother attempt to actively terminate the child, she is acting using the power given to her by the rapist. As such, he is acting as HIS agent of aggression. Under libertarian principles, we all have the universal obligation to not commit aggression against the innocent...and, likewise, we are obligated not to act as someone else's agent of their aggression against the innocent. By aborting the child, the mother is acting as the rapist's agent of aggression against the innocent child. She does not have that right. No one has that right.

So we have an interesting dilemma. Aborting the innocent child would be committing an act of aggression in the name of the father. But letting the pregnancy endure would, to some extent, perpetuate the rapist's aggression against herself. It is true that suffering injustice is less evil than committing injustice, just as enduring nine months of pregnancy is less evil than killing the child. But the social stigma on both the rape victim and the child born of the rape is just another compounding element on this unfortunate clash of morals.

In the end, it was an evil act that brought this scenario about. The ideal solution is to pursue the path which brings about the least evil, remembering that the rapist is the TRUE criminal. He is the one who deserves punishment; not the mother, nor the child.

This brings us to incest. Aside from the psychological aspects involved with interfamilial intercourse, this scenario can be given either of two previously discussed qualities: voluntary, or forced (i.e. rape). In the case of voluntary sex amongst family members, then the words from the previous argument apply; the mother and father are obligated to care for the child. They voluntarily partook in sexual intercourse, so they owe care to the child. In the case of forced intercourse, then the argument above concerning rape applies. Note, however, the scenario wherein an older family member seduces a younger family member into having sex with them. This seems to be consensual intercourse, in regards to the thought that both agreed to have sex. However, it could also be considered forced rape, in that the elder used various means - psychological more often than not - to convince the younger to have sex. The latter is especially valid if the younger is not even at an age where one is considered able to have consensual sex. In such a case, the younger would be legally unable to give consensus.

The citation marked 7 has a busted hyperlink on my old references page, but the other two are still up.

I have no problem with murdering a parasite, same with murdering grass
or those spiders that wander into the house at this time of year.

The moment it can survive under its own power is the moment it ceases to be a parasite.

If you invited a "parasite" in to your house willingly, with full knowledge of what it would do, what does that say when you decide to kill it? You know, aside from your equivalence of humans with plants/arachnids.

More to the point, your argument that the human is no longer a 'parasite' when it can survive under its own power is an argument of dependence, i.e. how much the human depends on others to survive.

There is no fundamental biological difference between how a zygote and an infant obtain nourishment; both ingest nutrients (zygotes via the umbilical cord, infants via the mouth), and both process and utilize those nutrients (all of the processes that result in cellular reproduction). The most significant difference is how oxygen is retrieved; an infant is physically capable of breathing. A zygote is not. Also, embryos can't quite move from the mother's womb until nine months after conception; a baby is capable of going anywhere (with the aid of a caregiver, of course). However, that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are effectively bound to the mother's womb is a function of biology, nothing more.

My point is that an infant is as incapable of surviving on its own as a zygote. Leave an infant alone with a bottle of milk for a week and see what happens. By this form of logic, we would consider people to be more like a person only around the time they turn 2 or 3 years old; can you fathom a toddler feeding itself? That they are dependent on someone else for their continued existence is merely a function of their age.

Even though the fetus is dependent upon the mother for support whilst in the womb, that continues to be the case long after birth. Even if the mother gives her child up for adoption, the child will still need to depend on someone to survive. Humans have varying degrees of dependence, with further variations from person to person. Also, older people generally depend upon artificial means of support in order to function (e.g. a feeding tube, an I/V drip, some form of mechanical ventilation, etcetera). Your dependability argument would imply that killing older people or infants is less severe of an act than killing an adult.

The rest of this post will speak of sex as of it were consensual between both partners (there are different circumstances to consider when sex is forced, i.e. rape).

What does that have to do with anything? If you believe it is murder, how does murder become OK because of rape?

I actually wrote about this in for a particular project as an undergraduate, so I'm going to copy what I put down wholesale:

First, let us consider rape.

A truly heinous act. A rapist exerts his will over an unwilling woman, violating her and damaging her in a way no man can ever quite experience or fathom. So what happens if she gets pregnant as a result? Keep in mind that the number of actual pregnancies due to rape is quite low, the absolute lowest figure being one in a thousand. Even the highest estimations still result in rape accounting for less than 1% of all abortions7. Nevertheless, numbers should not matter when it comes to human life; given the extenuating circumstances involved, what is the proper course of action?

Considering that both are human lives, it would initially seem the prudent choice to let the baby live instead of aborting it. For one, the child did not commit a crime worthy of being killed. It is contrary to the rule of natural law that one be punished for the crimes of another; is it proper to put a child to death for the father's crime? One would think not. I certainly don't. And there have been documented stories (such as this one8) regarding children born of rape. However, the unique nature of the crime has an intricate aspect to it.

Enter John Walker of Libertarians for Life.

The logic offered in his piece "Abortion in the Case of Pregnancy Due to Rape"9 is somewhat intriguing. Arguing under three assumptions ("X harming Y does not entitle Y to harm Z", the unborn are human from conception, and there is a difference in the eyes of justice between living and letting die), Mr. Walker offers interesting views on the scenario.

He notes that parents owe care and support to their children, provided they conceived them voluntarily. Since the voluntary aspect is removed from the case due to rape, it would seem that the mother has no obligation to meet the needs of the child growing within her womb. This would appear to be so, but consider: the father, the rapist, is the only one with a parental obligation to the child. However, in his negligence, he has given the mother total dominion over the life of the child. As such, should the mother attempt to actively terminate the child, she is acting using the power given to her by the rapist. As such, he is acting as HIS agent of aggression. Under libertarian principles, we all have the universal obligation to not commit aggression against the innocent...and, likewise, we are obligated not to act as someone else's agent of their aggression against the innocent. By aborting the child, the mother is acting as the rapist's agent of aggression against the innocent child. She does not have that right. No one has that right.

So we have an interesting dilemma. Aborting the innocent child would be committing an act of aggression in the name of the father. But letting the pregnancy endure would, to some extent, perpetuate the rapist's aggression against herself. It is true that suffering injustice is less evil than committing injustice, just as enduring nine months of pregnancy is less evil than killing the child. But the social stigma on both the rape victim and the child born of the rape is just another compounding element on this unfortunate clash of morals.

In the end, it was an evil act that brought this scenario about. The ideal solution is to pursue the path which brings about the least evil, remembering that the rapist is the TRUE criminal. He is the one who deserves punishment; not the mother, nor the child.

This brings us to incest. Aside from the psychological aspects involved with interfamilial intercourse, this scenario can be given either of two previously discussed qualities: voluntary, or forced (i.e. rape). In the case of voluntary sex amongst family members, then the words from the previous argument apply; the mother and father are obligated to care for the child. They voluntarily partook in sexual intercourse, so they owe care to the child. In the case of forced intercourse, then the argument above concerning rape applies. Note, however, the scenario wherein an older family member seduces a younger family member into having sex with them. This seems to be consensual intercourse, in regards to the thought that both agreed to have sex. However, it could also be considered forced rape, in that the elder used various means - psychological more often than not - to convince the younger to have sex. The latter is especially valid if the younger is not even at an age where one is considered able to have consensual sex. In such a case, the younger would be legally unable to give consensus.

The citation marked 7 has a busted hyperlink on my old references page, but the other two are still up.

I have no problem with murdering a parasite, same with murdering grass
or those spiders that wander into the house at this time of year.

The moment it can survive under its own power is the moment it ceases to be a parasite.

If you invited a "parasite" in to your house willingly, with full knowledge of what it would do, what does that say when you decide to kill it? You know, aside from your equivalence of humans with plants/arachnids.

More to the point, your argument that the human is no longer a 'parasite' when it can survive under its own power is an argument of dependence, i.e. how much the human depends on others to survive.

There is no fundamental biological difference between how a zygote and an infant obtain nourishment; both ingest nutrients (zygotes via the umbilical cord, infants via the mouth), and both process and utilize those nutrients (all of the processes that result in cellular reproduction). The most significant difference is how oxygen is retrieved; an infant is physically capable of breathing. A zygote is not. Also, embryos can't quite move from the mother's womb until nine months after conception; a baby is capable of going anywhere (with the aid of a caregiver, of course). However, that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are effectively bound to the mother's womb is a function of biology, nothing more.

My point is that an infant is as incapable of surviving on its own as a zygote. Leave an infant alone with a bottle of milk for a week and see what happens. By this form of logic, we would consider people to be more like a person only around the time they turn 2 or 3 years old; can you fathom a toddler feeding itself? That they are dependent on someone else for their continued existence is merely a function of their age.

Even though the fetus is dependent upon the mother for support whilst in the womb, that continues to be the case long after birth. Even if the mother gives her child up for adoption, the child will still need to depend on someone to survive. Humans have varying degrees of dependence, with further variations from person to person. Also, older people generally depend upon artificial means of support in order to function (e.g. a feeding tube, an I/V drip, some form of mechanical ventilation, etcetera). Your dependability argument would imply that killing older people or infants is less severe of an act than killing an adult.

And how would you know at what point the brain develops enough to be called sentient, especially since use of that term is extremely inconsistent?

What does it mean and does it include animals, mentally handicapped, babies, plants, people who are less than genius status, or fetuses?

I was thinking somewhere along the lines of some venn diagram overlap. Among those with consciousness (ie. that includes everything on the list except plants) those who are human (ie. everything but plants and animals) ought to be the focus of rights. I wouldn't know about when consciousness begins, but neuroscientists would, and the last one I asked about it said it was in the 3rd trimester.

And Craig, I don't think the thread being an old topic makes it irrelevant per se; originally this was created more so with the aforementioned "perspective vs. tone in which it's expressed" irony in mind than about abortion in and of itself...

And how would you know at what point the brain develops enough to be called sentient, especially since use of that term is extremely inconsistent?

What does it mean and does it include animals, mentally handicapped, babies, plants, people who are less than genius status, or fetuses?

I was thinking somewhere along the lines of some venn diagram overlap. Among those with consciousness (ie. that includes everything on the list except plants) those who are human (ie. everything but plants and animals) ought to be the focus of rights. I wouldn't know about when consciousness begins, but neuroscientists would, and the last one I asked about it said it was in the 3rd trimester.

And Craig, I don't think the thread being an old topic makes it irrelevant per se; originally this was created more so with the aforementioned "perspective vs. tone in which it's expressed" irony in mind than about abortion in and of itself...

I for one do not think my statements about sexual affairs (ie: procration) can be taken with any weight given that I was a virgin when I typed all that stuff.

0_0  are you saying virgins cant give valid statements on sexual affairs?!

I for one do not think my statements about sexual affairs (ie: procration) can be taken with any weight given that I was a virgin when I typed all that stuff.

0_0  are you saying virgins cant give valid statements on sexual affairs?!

And Craig, I don't think the thread being an old topic makes it irrelevant per se; originally this was created more so with the aforementioned "perspective vs. tone in which it's expressed" irony in mind than about abortion in and of itself...

And yet here we are. :3

And Craig, I don't think the thread being an old topic makes it irrelevant per se; originally this was created more so with the aforementioned "perspective vs. tone in which it's expressed" irony in mind than about abortion in and of itself...

And yet here we are. :3