3 ms·

Either a fetus is a human being, or it is not. Either murder is wrong, or it is not. We could have a nuanced discussion on, for example, societal pressures that

Either a fetus is a human being, or it is not. Either murder is wrong, or it is not. We could have a nuanced discussion on, for example, societal pressures that drive people to abortion; but the central question is not "nuanced" at all.

vkou 4y ago
An adult human being cannot subject you to the imposition of using your body as a life support vessel for nine months. Either you have the right to your body, or you don't. We could have a nuanced discussion on how far your obligations go to be made to use your body to support the life of another person (You could probably be cut up into enough organs to save the lives of four or five people, after all), but the central question is not "nuanced" at all.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  The child "subjects" its mother to exactly nothing. It is an innocent babe, incapable of such things. There are two possibilities here: - The mother made the conscious decision to have sex, while fully aware, in advance, that her action could result in a child being dependent on her for survival. To kill the child, would be to punish an innocent human so that the mother can escape the consequences of her decisions. - The mother is a victim of rape. In this case, the rapist should face severe punishment for his heinous crime (life in prison and castration at minimum). In addition, the society and state should do everything possible to support the victim and her child. But killing the child for the sins of the father would simply add more evil to an already tragic situation. The child does not deserve to die for his father's sins; one human life violated is more than enough!
  - vkou 4y ago
    > The child "subjected" its mother to exactly nothing, it is an innocent babe incapable of such things. And I'm an innocent person who could use a kidney transplant, or a blood transfusion, or whatnot, from you. Your life story up to this point doesn't matter - by what right can you assert that your body autonomy is more important than my life?
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      If my actions were the cause of you needing a kidney, then yes I would owe you one. When you do an action, you are responsible for the consequence of the action you performed. The innocent bystander who had no role in performing the action, should not have to suffer the consequences.
      - vkou 4y ago
        > If my actions were the cause of you needing a kidney, then yes I would owe you one. That's a much weaker argument than the one you were making a few hours ago. Here, I thought that you were making the argument that murder is an unconditional wrong, and putting your body autonomy above providing life-saving aid for me is murder. Now it seems like it's a very conditional wrong.
        Georgelemental 4y ago
        No, my argument is "murder is an unconditional wrong, and putting your body autonomy above providing life-saving aid for me, given that your actions are the cause of me needing that life-saving aid, is murder." For example, if you stab someone, and then they bleed out because you refused them a blood transfusion (that they only need because you stabbed them), that's murder. More generally, while it's true that you can't murder purely through inaction, all abortion requires performing an action.

vkou 4y ago

An adult human being cannot subject you to the imposition of using your body as a life support vessel for nine months. Either you have the right to your body, or you don't. We could have a nuanced discussion on how far your obligations go to be made to use your body to support the life of another person (You could probably be cut up into enough organs to save the lives of four or five people, after all), but the central question is not "nuanced" at all.

Georgelemental 4y ago
The child "subjects" its mother to exactly nothing. It is an innocent babe, incapable of such things. There are two possibilities here: - The mother made the conscious decision to have sex, while fully aware, in advance, that her action could result in a child being dependent on her for survival. To kill the child, would be to punish an innocent human so that the mother can escape the consequences of her decisions. - The mother is a victim of rape. In this case, the rapist should face severe punishment for his heinous crime (life in prison and castration at minimum). In addition, the society and state should do everything possible to support the victim and her child. But killing the child for the sins of the father would simply add more evil to an already tragic situation. The child does not deserve to die for his father's sins; one human life violated is more than enough!
- vkou 4y ago
  > The child "subjected" its mother to exactly nothing, it is an innocent babe incapable of such things. And I'm an innocent person who could use a kidney transplant, or a blood transfusion, or whatnot, from you. Your life story up to this point doesn't matter - by what right can you assert that your body autonomy is more important than my life?
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    If my actions were the cause of you needing a kidney, then yes I would owe you one. When you do an action, you are responsible for the consequence of the action you performed. The innocent bystander who had no role in performing the action, should not have to suffer the consequences.
    - vkou 4y ago
      > If my actions were the cause of you needing a kidney, then yes I would owe you one. That's a much weaker argument than the one you were making a few hours ago. Here, I thought that you were making the argument that murder is an unconditional wrong, and putting your body autonomy above providing life-saving aid for me is murder. Now it seems like it's a very conditional wrong.
      - Georgelemental 4y ago
        No, my argument is "murder is an unconditional wrong, and putting your body autonomy above providing life-saving aid for me, given that your actions are the cause of me needing that life-saving aid, is murder." For example, if you stab someone, and then they bleed out because you refused them a blood transfusion (that they only need because you stabbed them), that's murder. More generally, while it's true that you can't murder purely through inaction, all abortion requires performing an action.