Abortion of a fully-fledged human life

[Kyrisch]

The abortion debate has been largely centered about whether or not a fetus has all the rights of a fully-grown human being. Recently, I heard an argument from the pro-choice camp regarding rape victims even given that those rights are in fact secured to that fetus, which is what makes it interesting. It basically argues that even if the baby were a fully-grown human being, it would still be morally acceptable to abort in the case of a forced pregnancy.

 

[disclaimer: please don't get offended, this is not intended to be politically charged at all, and the characters are in no way intended to reflect upon the practices of real people whose relationship therewith may be construed. Also, it's a bit of a stretch, but just go with it -- it's hypothetical.]

 

A French prince is horribly ill, and the King, the prince being his sole heir, demands that he be taken to the doctor and treated with the finest medicine in the land. The doctor discovers that the prince's kidneys have failed and that he will die within 24 hours if action is not immediately taken. However, this taking place in a time long ago, the crude method of dialysis will take nine full months to construct and prepare.

 

Determined to keep his only son alive, the king orders his men to kidnap a Spaniard of the same blood type and bring him to the doctor. They cross the border and spend the day secretly testing men and women for the correct type. When they finally find a match, they smuggle him back into France and present him to the king's physician. In an hour or so, the physician connected the two men's circulatory system so that the imprisoned Spaniard acted as a living dialytic machine, using his own kidneys to filter the Frenchman's blood.

 

So the question is, is it morally acceptable to force a random bystander to keep another human being alive at his own expense for nine months?

[Psycho]

No, but then I have nothing against abortion presuming that when the "birth" occurs the fetus can't survive on its own.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm going to go with a good, solid maybe. People are expected to save the life of another if they can, but there are limits to that. In this case we are talking about the life of an adult with full rights. I think doctors are expected to treat life-threatening conditions whether or not the patient can pay.

 

In your story, the king could afford to compensate his victim, and probably would have had an easier time finding a volunteer. Maybe you should change your story so that it is a poor doctor's son that is sick. Another consideration is that a king without an heir can leave a civil war when he dies.

[Glider]

No, I don't think it is.

[Mokele]

Another relevant point - this is not a risk-free procedure, and the blood-slave could easily develop an infection, or trigger an immune response. So this person isn't just being forced into slavery, they're also being forced to risk their life without consent.

[visceral]

No, no one should be made to support another's life without their own consent. They do not owe that human being anything.

[DrDNA]

Oky doky.

 

Please humor me and allow me to change a couple of things and imagine a slightly different, but similar, scenario.

 

For example, forget the random stranger for a moment.

Let's focus only on the King and the Prince and a entirely voluntary act by the King.

 

Let's say that the King knowingly and willingly was a participant in a voluntary activity.

And the King's voluntary activity was well known and accepted for hundreds of thousands of years to, with a high probability, result in the creation of a Prince.

The King knew before he participated in the activity that the resultant Prince would with 100% certainty have a condition that would require the Prince to tap into his (the King's) kidneys for about 9 months or so.

 

So the King was a participant in that voluntary activity

An activity which he knew had a very good chance of creating a Prince.

The king knew with certainty that the resulting Prince would not have functioning kidney's for nine months or so; thereby requiring the use of his own kidneys to keep this Prince alive.

 

Would the King be obligated to do this or let his son die?

 

Of course a natural response is going to be along the lines of what if [less than 1% of the time] 'the act was not voluntary'...

But this is purely focused on 100%, completely voluntary.

Edited March 11, 2009 by DrDNA

[Mokele]

Dr. DNA, you forgot something - what if the voluntary act would *not* lead to the creation of the Prince is certain precautions were followed, but there was a small and noticable failure rate?

 

What if 54% of all kings who wanted to get rid of the prince had taken these precautions? Yes, those are the real numbers.

 

What if not all kings had access to these precautions, or even knew of their existence?

 

What if the "voluntary" activity was the single deepest, strongest urge the kings had, and the urge was hard-wired into their nervous system?

 

What if most of the 'kings' were too poor to care for the prince?

Edited March 11, 2009 by Mokele

[DrDNA]

First of all, I should have answered the original question before presenting a modified scenario or changing any details.

So the question is, is it morally acceptable to force a random bystander to keep another human being alive at his own expense for nine months?

According to the scenario presented, probably not.

 

Now, please answer MY question before modifying my scenario or adding details to it.

Edited March 11, 2009 by DrDNA

[Mokele]

Your scenario is so divorced from reality as to be worthless.

[DrDNA]

Your scenario is so divorced from reality as to be worthless.

 

 

I hesitated to participate in this because I expected it to degrade quickly to that level after I presented an alternate view compared to the sciforum member majority.

 

Thanks for your opinion.

And thanks for reinforcing my initial assumption.

Edited March 11, 2009 by DrDNA

[Mokele]

Translation: Waaa, I can't support my anti-woman views, so I'm going to pretend to be all persecuted! How can you have the gall to actually *challenge* the flaws of my views? Isn't this UnquestioningAcceptanceForum?

[Mr Skeptic]

Your scenario is so divorced from reality as to be worthless.

 

So are scifi and fantasy, but strangely enough that has little effect on my morality.

[visceral]

Oky doky.

 

Please humor me and allow me to change a couple of things and imagine a slightly different, but similar, scenario.

 

For example, forget the random stranger for a moment.

Let's focus only on the King and the Prince and a entirely voluntary act by the King.

 

Let's say that the King knowingly and willingly was a participant in a voluntary activity.

And the King's voluntary activity was well known and accepted for hundreds of thousands of years to, with a high probability, result in the creation of a Prince.

The King knew before he participated in the activity that the resultant Prince would with 100% certainty have a condition that would require the Prince to tap into his (the King's) kidneys for about 9 months or so.

 

So the King was a participant in that voluntary activity

An activity which he knew had a very good chance of creating a Prince.

The king knew with certainty that the resulting Prince would not have functioning kidney's for nine months or so; thereby requiring the use of his own kidneys to keep this Prince alive.

 

Would the King be obligated to do this or let his son die?

 

Of course a natural response is going to be along the lines of what if [less than 1% of the time] 'the act was not voluntary'...

But this is purely focused on 100%, completely voluntary.

 

No - he would not be obligated to do this.

 

It's his bloodstream, his kidneys.

[DrDNA]

Your scenario is so divorced from reality as to be worthless.

 

Translation: Waaa, I can't support my anti-woman views, so I'm going to pretend to be all persecuted! How can you have the gall to actually *challenge* the flaws of my views? Isn't this UnquestioningAcceptanceForum?

 

If taunting and insults are the best you can do, you get an F.

 

Unfortunately, this means that you will have to repeat the course during the summer, while your counterparts are watching TV or outside swimming and playing baseball.

[Mokele]

Yes, pretend you have the moral highground, in spite of your failure to address any of the many, MANY flaws I pointed out in your drasticly oversimplified and frankly borderline misogynistic scenario.

 

If poor analogies and selective reasoning are your MO, I cringe to think of the quality of your science.

[DrDNA]

I presented an alternate scenario.

To which you responded:

 

Your scenario is so divorced from reality as to be worthless.

 

Translation: Waaa, I can't support my anti-woman views, so I'm going to pretend to be all persecuted! How can you have the gall to actually *challenge* the flaws of my views? Isn't this UnquestioningAcceptanceForum?

 

 

Yes, pretend you have the moral highground, in spite of your failure to address any of the many, MANY flaws I pointed out in your drasticly oversimplified and frankly borderline misogynistic scenario.

 

If poor analogies and selective reasoning are your MO, I cringe to think of the quality of your science.

 

I don't know what your problem is (besides immaturity), but isn't there some sort of minimal behavioral requirement or standard of decorum for moderators?

I would hope, that at least as a minimum, the standard for members would apply.

Edited March 12, 2009 by DrDNA

[Mokele]

Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

 

Try reading the thread. You presented a scenerio, I pointed out numerous, MASSIVE flaws in your scenario. Rather than actually address these flaws, like any rational human being, you insisted that your flawed analogy be given consideration, and flounced off in a huff when I was honest about the total lack of merit of your suggestion.

 

You want respect, earn it. Show me you're more than a bias ideologue who cannot stand having his beliefs scrutinized.

[DrDNA]

This is a perfect example of why this topic can not be discussed rationally on this forum.

An opposing view (eg, pro-life) is presented, and the insults fly.......

 

Aren't the pro-lifers were supposed to be the belligerent ones?

 

What have you proposed or presented?

NOTHING, except rude, crude and socially unacceptable remarks.

 

I don't care if you are a moderator, you (especially you), should learn how to behave like a dignified human being.

You can disagree with people without hurling insults at them.

[iNow]

Dr. DNA, you forgot something - what if the voluntary act would *not* lead to the creation of the Prince is certain precautions were followed, but there was a small and noticable failure rate?

 

What if 54% of all kings who wanted to get rid of the prince had taken these precautions? Yes, those are the real numbers.

 

What if not all kings had access to these precautions, or even knew of their existence?

 

What if the "voluntary" activity was the single deepest, strongest urge the kings had, and the urge was hard-wired into their nervous system?

 

What if most of the 'kings' were too poor to care for the prince?

 

 

DrDNA - Perhaps we can move past this after you've addressed Mokele's first response to your post (quoted above). From my third party perspective, this ridiculous nonsense began when you responded to that post thusly:

 

Now, please answer MY question before modifying my scenario or adding details to it.

 

...then got worse when you acted all offended and indignant. It would certainly seem that the ball has been in your court for quite some time now. Perhaps if you address the questions raised we can get back on topic.

[Mr Skeptic]

I say F's for the both of you. But I think the mods can change their grade, so just keep that in mind

 

Edit: oops, this tab was opened quite a while ago, and far more posts since then suggest an F minus for Dr DNA.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So are scifi and fantasy [divorced from reality], but strangely enough that has little effect on my morality.

 

Mokele, does your morality break down in implausible or impossible situations? I personally don't see why it should. Not to say that it is worth the time to think about such situations though.

[DrDNA]

iNow,

Oh yeah.

''Please answer MY question....'

That was a real heart breaker.

What was I thinking when I said that?

 

You mean these questions?

Dear Lord man; let me find a crayon.

 

"What if 54% of all kings who wanted to get rid of the prince had taken these precautions? Yes, those are the real numbers."

No.

If I put on a seat belt and drive like an idiot, I'm still responsible for crashing and all the damage done.

 

"What if not all kings had access to these precautions, or even knew of their existence?"

What is this? 10,000 BC?

 

"What if the "voluntary" activity was the single deepest, strongest urge the kings had, and the urge was hard-wired into their nervous system?"

So is eating.

And if I weigh 500 lbs from overeating.

It's my fault.

 

And if I eat somebody and they're in my colon, you can't kill them.

You'll have to wait until I poop them out.

 

"What if most of the 'kings' were too poor to care for the prince?"

What kind of a question....who ever heard of a poor king?

I always wanted a prince in the family.

I'll adopt him myself.

No wait. I'll have to wait in line for 3 yrs behind all of the other newborn want-to-be adoptive parents.

 

BTW:

Have you ever wondered how many people or how many would-be young scientific minds you all have chased off this site with your religion-basing, pro-life bashing intolerance?

 

You guys are ok....until somebody disagrees with you.

 

EDIT: To Mr Skep

[iNow]

Have you ever wondered how many people or how many would-be young scientific minds you all have chased off this site with your religion-basing, pro-life bashing intolerance?

 

No, but I have wondered how many I've helped by causing them to question their beliefs.

 

 

Btw - I'm also "intolerant" of adults who still believe in the tooth fairy or who think that killing goats will make it rain. I'm an equal opportunity basher of ridiculous nonsense.

[DrDNA]

Btw - I'm also "intolerant" of adults who still believe in the tooth fairy or who think that killing goats will make it rain. I'm an equal opportunity basher of ridiculous nonsense.

 

Have they done something to injure you?

[Mokele]

Wow, your willful ignorance is staggering.

 

No.If I put on a seat belt and drive like an idiot, I'm still responsible for crashing and all the damage done.

 

That is the WORST analogy I've ever heard for this. You really have no idea about this topic, do you?

 

Here's a better analogy: I'm walking to school fully clothed, when a stray wire from a nearby chainlink fence catches my pants and they tear off. Should I be arrested for indecent exposure, even though I took every precaution (wearing pants), or is it my fault for daring to go out in public.

 

What is this? 10,000 BC?

 

It is well established from impartial statistical research that many women do NOT know all the options available, either due to never being told or due to willful and active misinformation by certain groups.

 

So is eating.

And if I weigh 500 lbs from overeating.

It's my fault.

 

More intellectual dishonesty, how surprising.

 

I'll be blunt: were you a virgin until marriage? Keeping in one's pants requires *two* people.

 

What kind of a question....who ever heard of a poor king?

 

You cannot possibly be this stupid.

 

No wait. I'll have to wait in line for 3 yrs behind all of the other newborn want-to-be adoptive parents.

 

Find me this mythical surplus of adopters. Go on, find them.

 

You're made the stupid mistake of conflating the lag time in processing adoption with a scarcity. The screening process is long and arduous, but there are WAY more kids in foster care than there are adoptive parents.

 

Have you ever wondered how many people or how many would-be young scientific minds you all have chased off this site with your religion-basing, pro-life bashing intolerance?

 

Show me one place in this thread where I've bashed religion.

 

Show me a point in this thread where I do anything *other* than call you on your poor logic, biased reasoning, and worthless analogies.

 

Oh noes, we can't *offend* people by insisting their ideas hold up to logical scrutiny!

 

It's obvious yours don't, so why don't you go cry into your pillow about how much of a big meanie I am and let the grown-ups talk.