3 ms·

Why is it just metabolic support that is the qualifier here? A child is still very dependent on caregivers for years after exiting the birth canal, and in many

Why is it just metabolic support that is the qualifier here? A child is still very dependent on caregivers for years after exiting the birth canal, and in many cases a child remains dependent on the mother's metabolic processes when thy receive breastmilk. Why is it acceptable to kill the child before exiting the birth canal but not after?

WanderPanda 5y ago
I see the point that there is no single way to separate the unborn from its mother, while in all other cases there are ways that it can survive when separated (even though the separation might not be allowed).
- gfodor 5y ago
  Correct. In the future if we can extract a fetus safely (to both mother and child) and bring it to term then under current law abortion by termination would be illegal, is my understanding.
- lax4ever 5y ago
  That still doesn't answer why killing the child is acceptable.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    It does: the primacy is that a person always has the choice to cease providing metabolic support of another person. If you take this as primacy then consequential death as a side effect of exercising that choice is killing, for sure, but a distinct category of killing with regards to culpability. Analogies fail: abortion is a unique form of killing by ending internal biologically bound sacrificial life support, so it’s best to not reach for analogs. I would say for full consistency with this it would imply abortion providers ought to take steps to not directly inflict harm, but practically speaking death is assured under this framework and so perhaps that falls onto questions of suffering vs painless death. Edit: To be more direct, the killing is considered acceptable since the alternative is less acceptable: namely, that a person who is providing biologically, metabolically bound life support to another via an umbilical cord is not permitted to cut that cord of their own agency, under penalty of law.
    - lax4ever 5y ago
      That's an incredibly narrow definition of metabolic support. Providing food for children is also a form of metabolic support and it is certainly not acceptable to just stop feeding your children. That also discards the idea that there is another life in the balance here that has committed no crime that would be considered on the level of forfeiture of life and thus has as much right to life as the mother does.
      - gfodor 5y ago
        I invented the term internal sacrificial biologically bound metabolic support in an attempt to describe the exact nature of the very specific fixed connection of a umbilical cord. Adjust the terminology to your liking, but anything short of a direct analog of a fixed, biological structure connecting the two persons in a host/dependent situation in which an act of agency would be necessary to sever it won’t be useful for the point of argument. I don’t know of any useful analog so this is why I think arguments around abortion should be had on their own terms without trying to draw on analogies.

WanderPanda 5y ago

I see the point that there is no single way to separate the unborn from its mother, while in all other cases there are ways that it can survive when separated (even though the separation might not be allowed).

gfodor 5y ago
Correct. In the future if we can extract a fetus safely (to both mother and child) and bring it to term then under current law abortion by termination would be illegal, is my understanding.
lax4ever 5y ago
That still doesn't answer why killing the child is acceptable.
- gfodor 5y ago
  It does: the primacy is that a person always has the choice to cease providing metabolic support of another person. If you take this as primacy then consequential death as a side effect of exercising that choice is killing, for sure, but a distinct category of killing with regards to culpability. Analogies fail: abortion is a unique form of killing by ending internal biologically bound sacrificial life support, so it’s best to not reach for analogs. I would say for full consistency with this it would imply abortion providers ought to take steps to not directly inflict harm, but practically speaking death is assured under this framework and so perhaps that falls onto questions of suffering vs painless death. Edit: To be more direct, the killing is considered acceptable since the alternative is less acceptable: namely, that a person who is providing biologically, metabolically bound life support to another via an umbilical cord is not permitted to cut that cord of their own agency, under penalty of law.
  - lax4ever 5y ago
    That's an incredibly narrow definition of metabolic support. Providing food for children is also a form of metabolic support and it is certainly not acceptable to just stop feeding your children. That also discards the idea that there is another life in the balance here that has committed no crime that would be considered on the level of forfeiture of life and thus has as much right to life as the mother does.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      I invented the term internal sacrificial biologically bound metabolic support in an attempt to describe the exact nature of the very specific fixed connection of a umbilical cord. Adjust the terminology to your liking, but anything short of a direct analog of a fixed, biological structure connecting the two persons in a host/dependent situation in which an act of agency would be necessary to sever it won’t be useful for the point of argument. I don’t know of any useful analog so this is why I think arguments around abortion should be had on their own terms without trying to draw on analogies.