Sorry I took so long to respond.
mighty_duck said:
That should be a convincing message to the mother.
But it is the mother's choice, not ours. We can't force her to have her own body used. Is it selfish on her part? Probably. Should we coerce people to have their body used against their will? Absolutely not.
If the only action the mother can make toward choosing not to allow her body to be used is murder, then
yes, we should force the woman not to murder her baby.
That is not what I'm saying at all. Are you even reading my responses??
If I wasn't I wouldn't bother responding at all.
While I agree that the fetus is innocent, lack of malicious intent does not make the ordeal any less painful for the unwilling mother.
So since it is soooo painful for the mother we should murder the child? Is that right? Is it right for the government to allow murder to spare someone from a little bit of unintentional pain?
What if a rapist had no malicious intent, like a rapist who honestly thinks the victim is willing despite her objections, or a mentally retarded rapist who isn't aware of his actions. Does his lack of malicious intent make the rape any less wrong for the victim?
:rotfl: :mock: :liberals: :rotfl: That's one of the most ridiculous, fantasy scenarios I've ever heard!
In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, we have an innocent fetus with no malicious intent, who is nonetheless using the mother's body against her will. It is the mother's choice whether to continue allowing her body to be used.
So you acknowledge the child is not at fault, but still think the child deserves the death penalty because he is a menacing inconvenience and the mother's will is more important than his life. You can scream at the top of your lungs that it is the mother's choice to murder her baby, but in no way does it make it right. Taking the life of an innocent person is wrong under all circumstances and should not be permitted in society. I'm sorry we have people that think otherwise. :nono:
Why not? It is the convenience of one person vs the life of another. The unwilling donor is just "selfish".
The only difference is passive vs active interference. Otherwise the scenarios are identical.
I don't think it is fair to call the baby an interferer.
The way I see it :
- In one case a new healthy life is actively being destroyed limb by limb or burned with saline or whatever other methods may be used.
- In the other case you have a perishing human being that isn't being actively or passively murdered.
It is great to try and save the person's life if the means are available, but you can't force another person to endanger their life by going through a risky surgery just to give another person a
better chance at life.
Or you could think of it as stealing. It is wrong for the government to steal organs that rightfully belong to a person. It is also wrong for the government or mother to steal the life that rightfully belongs to her baby. I know you argue that the mother has a right to spare her own body, but the stark difference that you miss is that the baby, while attaining nourishment from the mother, is a separate innocent being whose life should not be inferior to the mother just because of the baby's dependence and smaller size. See, you are trying to compare lifeless organs to a human being.
A fetus can't survive without using the mother's body.
A Leukemia victim can't survive without using another person's bone marrow.
It's ok to let a person die a natural death (and I do not mean depriving them of food and water while they are still living). It is wrong to actively take a person's life whether that person is dependent on you or not.
Should the state coerce a person to use their body against their will to save the life of another?
The state should prevent a person from using their will to justify
taking the life of another no matter how inconvenienced they are.
If you continue to write without thinking things through, I will stop responding to you. The only time I give a higher priority to a person's will than to another's life is when that will relates to the use of the person's own body.
I hope you don't go around teaching murders that. It's a very wicked principle.
I noticed you again failed to respond to my question about a (for clarifications let's say a 10-year-old) child crippled from an accident and confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. Should it be the parents' right to decide whether to kill or care for their heavily dependent child?
Also, I'm curious, do you support abortion in all cases?
