Also, since you have brought up the possibility that my argument might require the mother to take the time to put an unwanted child up for adoption, but would not require her to be pregnant for nine months, do you have any thoughts on where the line would be drawn, on how far parents are obligated to go to arrange for their children to be cared for? I had been thinking that if they, for some reason, could not arrange this, that they would be obligated to get the child to the point where he could take care of himself (or she/herself).

JS, I am not sure that I can shed much more light on my thinking on this by answering your question, since my answer is based on what I have already written, but yes, I do think this person would be responsible for helping those brought into a state of helplessness by her trip to the desert. Again, I realize that it may seem strange that parents should have to compensate their children for their helplessness, as though the parents had hurt them somehow, but I assume that most of us here would argue that parents, if they give life to their children and neglect them until they die, they cannot really call it even.

Come to think of it, I have a better question: Since the beginning of this thread, has anyone had any changes of heart concerning abortion, one way or the other? If so, that would justify all this exposition.

John
narphonax.com/blog

I now feel compelled to defend my viewpoint on reproduction (such as it is), as you have reduced me on this board to a mentally challenged amoral child killer apologist, solely from some glib comments I made a couple of days ago which were taken out of context. Such character assassination is what is truly sickening and callous on a discussion board. Are you going to call me Mengele next?

You have me mistaken. And perhaps I inadvisedly used incendiary words that clouded my main point for you, and for that I can only say “too bad”. For the record, the quote you have passed judgement on my character is, “I can’t believe what a bunch of Gladys Kravits all of the anti-abortion folks can be at times. Why the hell does it matter [I should have added 'to anyone not directly involved with the situation' here, for clarification. Once again, too bad.] if someone decides to kill an unborn child, or fetus or whatever you want to call it? Doesn’t anyone see the disconnect with folks who advocate freedom to put whatever they want into their bodies (i.e. drugs, fast food, some other guy’s penis, etc.) having a problem with those who want the freedom to take something OUT of their bodies??? Personally, I don’t care what people do with their own bodies, just so long as they don’t come running to me when the bill is due”. Meaning that, in my opinion, it is immaterial what word one feels compelled to attribute to a collection of cells growing inside another person’s body (child, fetus, zygote, tumor, etc.); what’s of utmost importance is that, unless you were there to assist in the creation of these cells and/or are paying the bills for the outcome, it’s NOBODY ELSE’S F*&#ING BUSINESS WHAT THE CARRIER OF THESE CELLS DOES WITH THEM!!!

I’m not advocating nor condoning the killing of children there, and for you to infer such is a huge leap away from civil discourse, to put it mildly. Your out of context interpretation has little to do with what was actually said or meant. And unlike your sour, condescending attitude toward me, I’m not about to presume that you are incapable of or not familiar enough with the language to be able to infer the true gist of my question. Even if my question was harsh in its delivery (which I will freely admit to), you know what it’s asking, and to twist it around like you have is being intellectually dishonest.

I myself was a child once, and it probably would have saddened me if I had been destroyed before I got the chance to destroy my own life. But my FEELINGS on the matter of reproduction are not a good enough reason to force a complete stranger to give up their liberties so that my will (and the deity that I am presuming to represent) shall be done.

This does not mean that I’m some sort of Margaret Sanger-following eugenics freak who is advocating abortions for all… If I were to advocate sincerely for any position in the reproduction fight (and I guess now would be a good time to do so, as my character is being besmirched), it would be for people to have the opportunity to think and act responsibly in any decisions regarding their stance on reproduction. And if they can’t or won’t think and act responsibly, whatever they decide to do, it should be on them to live with the consequences, whether it’s eternal guilt for having an abortion or raising a bunch of kids because they are following some antiquated belief system that forbids them to have any modern control over their reproductive functions (and when I say modern, I mean prophylactic methods that were used during the T’ang dynasty or the Age of the Pharaohs, by people apparently more enlightened than the entirety of the Vatican). The important thing is, it remains their choice in how they are going to live with the consequences of their actions. If we the people step in and take away one or more of their choices (either way), or choose to subsidize one choice over the other, then we the people have effectively made the choice for those who cannot or will not live responsibly. And frankly, that is counter to the libertarian ideals that most readers on this site profess to subscribe to. At least I’m assuming such, otherwise why do they bother reading this site on a daily basis?

So, that’s it for me on the whole reproduction fight. And I practice what I preach. My wife and I made our decision on where we stand with reproduction prior to getting married, being that we are trying to be responsible people. So far, our decision has worked out well for us. But, then again, the specifics of our decision are nobody else’s f*&#ing business, either. And I mean that both figuratively AND literally…

Our able-bodied person, let’s call her Jane, is going to trek out into the desert, for whatever reason. She has a large parking lot of automobiles that she can choose to take. These cars have enough fuel to get her out into the desert for her unknown purpose, but she must walk back, and she has a very high probability of survivng the trek back. Now, in some unknown percentage of the cars, there is a comatose parapalegic in the trunk, but no way of knowing this fact for sure, although there is a mechanism that will open the trunk when the fuel is fully expended.

If Jane gets to the middle of the desert and finds a comatose parapalegic in the trunk, is she obliged to bring him back?

If we assume that bringing him back will significantly increase her own chances of harm or death, is she still obliged?

If Jane has a device that will tell her with 99% certainty, that there is no comatose parapalegic in the trunk, but still finds herself with one, is she still obliged?

Michael, the specified intent in this hypothetical case is simply to stop caring. If the brother-in-law were deliberately led away from the possibility of other care to ensure death, you’d be absolutely right.

if the mother stopped caring for the mentally ill brother-in-law with the intent to murder him then its murder.

Now, my position is that given the above the woman is the only one with a choice here. As you’ve said, if society could help, it would be able to choose whether or not to.

Now, this may be callous (certainly a label i’ve been given once or twice) but I don’t think it’s irrational.

Interested to listen though.

I think that should have read, “However, what if the able-bodied person were the one who brought the retarded person into the desert?” Sorry.

Yeah, but maybe we need a better example, because the obligations of parents to their children are not like the obligations, or lack of obligations, that we have to each other. If an able-bodied, able-minded person and the retarded brother-in-law were stranded in the middle of a desert, or in any place where no one else could help the brother-in-law, would the able-bodied person be justified in refusing to help him? As much as I would advise helping him, and as wrong as it would be to choose to let the other person die, I don’t think a libertarian would hold the able-bodied person responsible for helping the other person, just because he/she can. As far as I can tell, this mirrors your position on abortion (it is supposed to). However, what if the able-bodied person was the one who brought the retarded person into the desert? Doesn’t the responsibility for meeting the needs of others come with causing those needs to exist?

As odd as it may seem — since the parents are responsible for giving their child life in the first place — I think it is because they are responsible for their child’s state of helplessness (surely they knew that babies are born into this condition) that parents cannot simply abandon their (born) children on the side of the road, or ignore and neglect them in their homes. Though the burden can be accepted by others, through adoption, the parents are still held responsible for driving their children to a place where they can be cared for and put up for adoption, or for getting their child to the point where the burden could be accepted by someone else. The only difference I can see between that car ride and pregnancy is the length and difficulty of the trip.

Just so it has been said, I want to point out that this discussion is only relevant when the objective of the abortion is to remove the child carefully, not to deliberately kill, as it often is.

If you withdraw support from the brother-in -law he’s dead without support. Same goes for the thing/baby growing in the mother. But society can step in for the adult. How does society step in for whatever you want to call what’s in the mother? Or is dying/murder ok if society physically cannot step in?

Stormy, my question was based on a long-standing gripe I have about the tendancy of legislators to bring in laws which are unenforcable and then using them as either moral or social filters. Murder is, on the whole, tough to get away with because citizens are known members of society, and people tend to notice when they go missing. My concern with criminalising abortion is that it will make women much cagier about seeking medical advice or seeking any kind of help in their decision making, while leading the rich to secluded or foreign abortion clinics, the poor to back alleys, coat hangers or hot baths and the police to spending a lot of time following up cases which are basically unwinnable. If I saw more than just a reflexive ‘I don’t like that, therefore it should be illegal’, in the pro-life arguments here I’d listen and think more carefully, but it’s taken a while, and a good deal of cajoling to even draw people into discussing it.

Ms Dani, there were a number, my favourite was the assumption that we all agree really, and that those who appear not to are just trying to rationalise away what they know (because he does, therefore they must).

Then there was the atheist who sees a unique dna code and (he infers) therefore must see human life beginning at conception.

The casual dropping in of sentences such as ‘I don’t have to rationalise baby-murder’ was another key sign of the great respect he held for those who disagree’d (and which I callously failed to show in return).

Roger:

Thanks. I asked 1a and b because I personally don’t see how society can legitimately make demands on women without providing for them in return.

I asked 2a-d because I’ve never managed to get specifics on exactly how the law should sit from any proponents before now. I see so many loopholes in any of the abortion laws i’ve seen in action that the social filter/bloated government arguments all come squarely into play, but if you’re prepared to explore the costs (social, as well as fiscal, of course) and still come out in favour of law enforcement, I have to respect that.

“1. Should women be legally obliged to support pregnancies to term? If so, does society have an obligation to provide them with resources sufficient to do so?

2. If ‘yes’ to question 1. How can society detect pregnancies and ensure that they are protected? How far should miscarriages be investigated? How many resources should be allocated to this, and what should the penalties be for infringement?”

1.a Yes, barring life-threatening situations for the mother.
1.b No, the mother has the obligation.

2.a Society can’t detect, it can only react after the fact.
2.b As far as necessary.
2.c Have no idea.
2.d Various degrees of murder.

Sorry I don’t have the specifics of the big plan already worked out for you - I wasn’t aware that today was the due date for my Illegal Abortion Detection and Punishment Plan.

“My foresight is almost prophetic”

You are a god among men. After all, a mere mortal couldn’t possibly have seen where this conversation was headed.