RoR: Forum

Still, to pretend that the issue isn’t about when human beings comes into being but about the right to privacy is to confuse matters and postpone a reasonable solution

Precisely.

Post 1

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 8:06am

This is an excellent piece, Tibor.

You have set up exactly what the debate needs to be about, and why.

Post 2

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:49am

Only self-defense justifies killing another human being, period.

Self-defense and defense of property, if necessary. An unwanted "unborn baby" is guilty of trespassing. The property owner (the pregnant women) is entitled to compel it to leave her property (her body). She is entitled to enlist 3rd parties (doctors) to assist her.

If you invite someone into your home for dinner, you are not authorized to kill him.

An unwanted pregnancy wasn't "invited," any more than ants at a picnic.

If I invite a homeless person into my home for a sandwich, he doesn't get to camp out in my home for nine months. He must leave promptly when asked to do so. If he doesn't I can have the police remove him. If he still doesn't comply necessary force, including deadly force if necessary, may be employed.

Post 3

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:41am

Welcome Mr. Swank,

I have never bought the 'parasite' analogy. The mechanism of human reproduction is simply the way mammals reproduce. Reality-Indentity, if you are an O. you get it.

Single-celled organisms reproduce by a process called mitosis. During the process a bud forms that takes nourishment and genetic material from the original or 'parent' cell; it grows and eventually separates becoming a wholly new entity.

Would a biologist observing the intermediary process consider the bud a parasite or would his conclusion be that this is simply the way the species reproduces?

Post 4

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 1:51pm

Mr. Swank, the baby was invited by the choice to engage in sex, so no the unwanted guest does not apply. If force were involved (rape), then the expectation is that termination (if desired) at the earliest time possible would be reasonable. Therefore, I think the argument makes sense. I always felt that the Roe v Wade was a pretty good decision because of the balance it gave to those various conditions vis a vis the term of the pregnancy and any extenuating circumstances. Of course, the whole political debate starts to devolve not only on non-issues but even things that we agree should not be done to either end, such as any government-funded abortions, or birth control, or "mandatory counseling" or any such enforced areas government does not belong in.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 3:09pm

Kurt, how can someone who doesn't exist be invited to anything? I think your timeline is screwed. :-)

Post 6

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:08pm

"Invited" is, of course, a metaphor or analogy. But once one engages in the act that normally produces a fetus, zygote, or embryo, without taking measures to prevent this, one is knowingly putting into motion the development of a human being. This being, however, requires care (it'll be a dependent). If it is a human being right away, then the care is due right away and killing it is murder. If, however, it will only be a human being in time (say 24 weeks, 9 months, whatever), then if the woman carries it past this point, it's due care from then on, when it has become a human child. One may not produce a child and then dump it unless someone else is willing to adopt it. So the issue remains: When does a human being come into existence during pregnancy? Once it exists, if this is during pregnancy, aborting the pregnancy, expelling the entity at that point (whereby it is killed), constitutes homicide. There is no way to dodge the central issue.

Post 7

Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:06am