The Problem with Legalized Abortion

No human, not even a human child, has the right to demand to use another person's organs without that person's consent.Look at it this way. We as a society has already determined that we can't force anyone to give up a kidney or a liver or even a pint of blood to save another person's life, even if that other person is a 1 month old infant. If we are to assume that a fetus is a human child (and I think it should be clear to everyone by now that I really hate abortion and really really do consider human life to begin at the point of conception), what on Earth give us the right to force a woman to share her organs with it especially when we've already determined that we can't force anyone to give something as trivial as a pint of blood to save another human being? They also really ought to declare that millions are dead because we don't force people to donate their kidneys and parts of their liver. Heck, they also ought to declare that hundreds of millions are dead because we don't force people to donate to charity to help feed hungry children in Africa.Again, if we have already determined that we can't force anyone to donate marrow or blood, what on Earth gives us the right to force people to share their organs?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This post was a joke, right?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

She's really not. She just borrowed a page from my argument on this matter. That's not the point, though. The argument is the fetus should be treated as a human being like any other with all the rights that any other enjoy. Nator is saying that noone is obligated to give up a piece of him/herself to save another person. Scratch that, except for specific professions, noone is morally obligated to give up a piece of him/herself to save another human.Assumption 1: the fetus is a human being who should have all human rights.Assumption 2: the woman is a human being who should have all human rights.Assumption 3: the right of control over one's own body is a human right.Assumption 4: no person has the right to force another to give up a part of him/herself to save the person's life.Conclusion: the woman has the right to refuse to share her organs (which are part of her body) to another human.Is this clearer?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

At this point, we are reduced to individual interpretation of what's personally right.Personally, I could never bring myself to leaving someone else to die, let alone severing him from a lifeline. This is a very important issue to my wife and I. This is why we are applying to adopt rather than having biological children of our own. As I mentioned before, I personally choose to see human life beginning at the point of conception (and may I remind you that I'm an atheist... so no religious argument here). By adopting, we hope to encourage other people to do the same and perhaps even stop a few abortions here and there.But when it comes to it, the right to one's body is a human right. Noone should have the right to force another person to share his or her body. It must come from consent.Directly addressing your question, we have 2 twins, one is totally dependent on the other for survival. The one with the fully functioning organs one day decides that he doesn't want to share his organs anymore. He wants to sever the link between them, which would ultimately result in the other one's death.Should he be allowed to do this? If he wants to, I say yes. It's heartless, but it's his organs. If he decides to stop sharing his organs, what right do the rest of us have to force him to carry on what he now views as a burden?Here is another situation that would make this even clearer.Suppose Joe recently got into a car accident. His organs are shattered. It will take them about 9 months to build him new organs. In the mean time, he needs to be hooked up to someone compatible or he will die. It just happens that I'm the only person on the planet that is compatible to Joe. So, I volunteer to have myself hooked up to Joe.3 months passed and I've grown more selfish. I've grown sick and tired of being hooked up to Joe. I've grown sick and tired of sharing my organs to this other person. I want the link severed.For a moment, forget that to leave Joe to die is a heartless thing. Do you have any right to tie me up and force me to continue to share my organs with Joe? Do I have a right to simply get up and leave? If you can answer these two questions rationally, I think we've made some very good progress on the matter.I think this is the reason why I am not well liked among the pro-choice crowd even though I am pro-choice myself. My argument makes the woman looks too... heartless. I think this is also why most pro-choice advocates decide to take the easy route by defining human life to start immediately after birth, not 2 seconds before. Thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining the weaknesses in your analogy there. To be honest, I was ready to hit the reply button after I read the previous paragraph. Had to make myself read on. Ok, I have answered your question. Mind telling me what you had in mind?Added by edit.Silent H, I'd advice you to ignore Amen's message, unless of course you're a masochist.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

You need consent all the way through.Say you give me consent to be in your house as guest. I over stay my welcome. You ask me to leave. I tell you "but you consented for me to be in your home."

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

I never said I disliked lalaland. I said I disliked sounding like lalaland. It is my personal opinion that we should all strive to talk in a linear fashion as to communicate with each other. What goes on in your head is up to you, though. And this is exactly what my pro-choice in the legal world is. Whether it is right or wrong to sever a lifeline should remain entirely up to the person who is in control of the lifeline.I personally think it's morally wrong to leave a person to die, and I think the fetus is a person. I also recognize other people's right to their personal interpretation of the matter. But unlike christians, we actually follow through with our stance on the matter. My wife and I decided long ago to not have biological children of our own. And if it's not obvious from my previous posts about what christmas means to me, I would really really really like to have a full family... at least 5 kids or so. We are currently applying to adopt. I'd like to view it as more than just my own system. All I did, really, was try to be as consistent with currently accepted views as possible.It's bleedingly obvious that we don't force people to give up something as small as a pint of blood to save another person. It's bleedingly obvious that we can't force a twin to not cut off his brother's lifeline to his organs. It's also bleedingly obvious that nobody seem to be able to agree on when human life with full human rights should start. This is why I decided to take the safest stance possible, which is the point of conception. I'm sure a few people here and there believe that human life begins when you're just thinking about screwing someone... but that's another story. I've spent years thinking long and hard on such laws. My primary goal was to come up with some kind of law that would both protect conscious and unconscious individuals while not stepping on other people's toes. Trust me, it's impossible. In order to protect someone's life, who at least for a time depends entirely on the use of another's organs, we have to violate some very fundamental rights of the other person (assuming medical technology hasn't gotten to that point yet). If you could think of a way we could construct a law that would not violate anyone's fundamental rights, please share it with me. Actually, if we probe deeper, you might find that our philosophies on the matter to be closer than you think. But that's another can of worms. Haha.Now, remember that I personally would never sever someone's lifeline like that, even if I have to amputate an arm or leg. The heartless part comes in when I recognize other people's right to be heartless.Just the other day, I forgot to turn my car lights off. A few hours later, when I came back to my car I found that the battery was drained. I had the necessary cords to jump start the car. All I needed was another car. I went around in the cold asking one person after another for 2 minutes of their time to jump start my car. Out of the dozen people with big SUV's and vans, not a single person was willing to help me out. I ended up having to call a service. The bastard charged me $75 just to jumpstart my car.As much as I'd like to shake each one of those selfish people for not wasting 2 minutes of their time to help me out, I couldn't think of a single valid reason why I ought to have the right to force those people to not be selfish. It's their inherent right to be selfish, damn it. I generally ignore messages that came entirely from emotion or religious conviction rather than human reason. If the person wasn't willing to use logic to reason through some of these problems earlier, what on Earth do you think could make them start to use logic now? Can I charge you a certain fee everytime you use this analogy? Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

I'm sorry, I wasn't following your conversation with Nator. What were you two talking about and what is this rape thing?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Well, be realistic. What are we going to do? Tie him up and tell him he can't have control over his organs? Silent H, as a philosopher, you should know that feeling good or feeling bad about something should not affect your capacity to reason. Personally, I think the whole issue sucks in that I don't feel good about any conclusion I came to using human reason. Perhaps this is why so many people are drawn away from reason and logic and rally to religion.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Amen, to be fair, I think you, Ringo, and Nator are caught in your own web of emotive arguments. But don't mind me, please continue with your conversation.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

If you're referring to the original Chinese siamese twins that gave us the expression, their condition was anything but "incurable". Shhh... just between us two, I think crash has an ego problem. Just so you don't misunderstand me, I am not a moral relativist. I'm a moral absolutist. Why and how? It's a very very long story.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Haha, actually I've explained it a few times before. It's just that nobody was interested in an atheist who's also a moral absolutist.I'll summarize it now. I'm a moral absolutist because I believe in moral truths that are absolute. However, I don't believe for a second that anyone in this world has it right yet.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Yes. There really was nothing that prevented them from being seperated beside skin. I saw this on the history channel about famous conjoint twins in history. If this info is wrong either due to the history channel's incompetence or me having false memory syndrome, please call me out on this.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Told you I had bad memory.Still, their condition was not that bad. Could have easily seperated them.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!