Do you agree with abortion? Discuss

Post Reply New Topic

How often are organ stolen from people?

Anyway, I'd want it back as soon as possible.

As you know, it's a hypothetical to better understand the morality of abortion.



That poor kid, whose family scrimped and saved for a black market kidney for their poor dying daughter. You would rip it out of her, even though a spare could be available in 9 months? How could you? :'(

My problem with these "hypothetical" situations is that they tend to become increasingly convoluted and ridiculous, and I'm not particularly interested in highly unrealistic "what-if" scenarios. "Rape" is not a abstract thought experiment.


Considering that they're willing to resort to criminality and assaulting/violating another human being to achieve their aims, I don't find much sympathy for them.

The parents resorted to criminality. The child did nothing wrong.

exactly

It still doesn't obligate me to the child in any way, shape, or form.

If parents of a sick child decided to sue me in court for the use of one of my organs, should I be legally required to give it to them?

We've covered this ground before. You've already given your organs/had them stolen. You are trying to take them back from someone who now depends on them temporarily, someone who had nothing to do with the original act/crime.

That doesn't negate the point of who has an inherent right to use my organs and why.

I do not give consent for anyone to use my organs, and I would not grant it on the basis that the person is "innocent." If we go down that road, then there is nothing to say that any individual could not sue me for use of my organs because 1.) they need it, and 2.) they haven't committed any crimes.

If someone steals my car and gives it to a poor family, am I obligated to let them keep it? Declaring that anyone who has their organs forcefully taken must relinquish them if the recipient "needs" it is announcing open war on healthy people everywhere.

Besides, if this idiot is allowed to keep my organ, and, later, one of my relatives needs my organs to live, why is this person more valuable than my relative.

I'm not convinced of this organ-free-for-all scenario. There's a legal concept in English property rights that says that even though land you own is absolutely yours, you do owe some duty of care to people who find themselves on it, whether by accident or illegal intrusion.

You can't just blow them away if they stumble or sneak onto your property. This seems pretty reasonable to me. Does it not to you?

To resolve the situation, you must appeal to authorities to have the situation resolved in a civilised manner. I don't think it then follows that people can then sue you for temporary or permanent use of land they have no claim of any kind over. The civilised, reasonable solution to the pregnancy problem seems to me to say ok you don't legally have to care for the child after it's born, but you can't just kill it with impunity either. Just like you can't kill people for trespassing.



Your property sustains life. You do understand that you can't murder (or have someone else murder) the poor family in the course of reclaiming your car right?

Edit: thanks for keeping this going, I have a new argument in my arsenal against abortion. Where else in law can you kill to protect property rights? I'm aware this may not be the case for our wayward American cousins across the pond.

I don't think I am anyone to decide what anyone else does.

In terms of rape, it's like this:

If I came over to your property, caused thousands of pounds worth of damage, would you not claim on your home insurance to have it fixed?

Also you can't compare property (inanimate objects which do not feel pain or have emotions) to a woman's body. Why would a woman want to spend 9 months carrying around a baby she doesn't want, who's father raped her? Why would she want to go through the emotional rollercoaster, the morning sickness, have to take maternity leave, go through the pain of labour etc?

Like you said, the authorities can remove people from your property. But it doesn't take them 9 months. And because it is usually done relatively fast (possibly a day or 2), the chance for these people to cause any lasting effects is minimised. It's not like they are going to make you vomit every morning for a month or 2, nor are they going to affect your hormones, nor make you be forced to take time off work etc.

I wouldn't normally but I keep having these friendly arguments with XFilesGeek every 6 months or so and the organ donation parallel keeps coming up (not introduced by me or my side of the debate, I'm the one who has to take it to pieces). We might finally have knocked it on the head after 2 years and 5 or so threads. Which, as always, takes us back to square one: the nature of the unborn, the true heart of this argument. If they are human, there are very very limited circumstances where abortion is moral. If they aren't human you don't even need a reason.



The right thing to do is almost never the easy thing to do. I've said before that these are all real concerns that should be taken seriously, I just don't think it's reason enough to terminate a human life.

I capture bugs and let them go free, so I don't have to kill them.

At some point, it's "alive" and I couldn't support terminating it.

And who decides it is the RIGHT thing to do? You? If you had a wife and she was raped, are you saying you would talk her into keeping the child? It's all well and good trying to be some moral compass until you are put into that situation yourself. There are plenty of people who are very self-righteous and claim to be the pinnacle of morality, but put them in some f****d up situation and 9 times out of 10 they will go back on their personal morals. In my opinion, it's fine for a number of reasons. Obviously health reasons and also criminal reasons. A woman should not be forced to carry a baby she never wanted or asked for, it affects her adversely, and whilst not the embryo/foetus's fault, it is not the woman's fault either so why should she have to suffer? Do you not think she will have suffered enough in the first place?

There is also the fact that contraception is never 100%. If someone takes every precaution and still ends up pregnant, I see no reason why they can't have an abortion. You can say that if they don't want to get pregnant don't have sex, but we are animals at the end of the day and we still have urges and instincts so yeah.....we aren't machines. Obviously I don't think a woman should be having abortions if she's just constantly having unprotected sex, that just seems idiotic and if anything is a drain on the NHS in the UK, and also a waste of money for them if they live in the US lol.

People are flawed, but if true, that has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong. Unless you are suggesting some kind of morality ad populum.



I like to believe I would retain my faculties and advise her to at least birth the child, if not keep it. It's true I can't know unless it happens. If I did give in to anger, that wouldn't make it right. There's a reason we delegate matters of justice to dispassionate judges, rather than the emotional mob.



This is pretty much the only reason that holds any water with me. If the mother's life is in truly mortal danger and there is good reason to believe she won't survive pregnancy - then it's likely justified.



I believe humans are humans from conception. Being a product of rape would not be accepted as a reason to kill an older human. If you are a "viability" nut, you wouldn't accept it as a reason to terminate beyond the legal limit either. The rest of your arguments have nothing in them that would make termination acceptable according to this belief. If it's human, these are not valid reasons.

As with all social issues, I don't completely agree with either side on this one(When you're all the way on one side or the other of a social issue, you tend to be guided by beliefs more than facts). I think its possible nowadays for a woman to know if she's pregnant 8 days after confession. So I think the deadline for abortion should be 1 month after conception. There's no excuse for a woman deciding halfway through that she doesn't want the baby. If it was even a question, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place and should've used birth control if they weren't intending to get pregnant. I think pro-choice is actually pro-female sexual irresponsibility. I know I'm gonna get flamed for this part but (at least in western society) its the woman who grants permission to have sex(unless of course she is raped), so since she is in control, she bares the responsibility that comes with being in control.

I'm not saying 1 month is right, but I think its sensible and a fair compromise between the two sides.

Christians who are against abortion because religious reasons are slightly hypocritical because apparently in the bible it says that life begins 18 days after conception because that's when the fetus is infused with blood. So why don't they accept an 18 day deadline? Maybe 18 days should be the line. I'm cool with that.

The person who said abortion is a women only issue should try getting pregnant without a man. You're case and point regarding being guided more by beliefs than facts.

I wonder if being a father or father-to-be would make me more pro-life.

@LoveNoteHate: I don't kill bugs either. I accidentally killed a snail a few days ago and I feel really bad about it.