Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok- you've abandoned the concert violinist, and you are expanding the tort case to a thought experiment.

Uncharted waters.

A couple of wrinkles to add to your thought experiment to increase the analogy to abortion.

Change the man to a young child, or even a baby, someone upon whom the mother has a substantial physical advantage. Have the rapist bar the door as he leaves, preventing easy removal of the child.

The woman could force the door, but not without risk of injury, since she lacks the proper tools to open the door.

She then calls her neighbour to force the door open, using a wrench. The neighbour then tosses the child out into the snow. The mother pays the neighbour for his trouble and for the use of the wrench.

Given these changes, does the mother still have a right to remove the non-threatening child from her house, even though he entered without consent, and ate from her refrigerator?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Ok- you've abandoned the concert violinist, and you are expanding the tort case to a thought experiment.

Well, not abandoned it, but I decided to meet your example head on.

Change the man to a young child, or even a baby, someone upon whom the mother has a substantial physical advantage. Have the rapist bar the door as he leaves, preventing easy removal of the child.

I'm not sure that these are meaningful changes. It doesn't matter what the physical development of the intruder is, or whether the obstruction is the barred door or the physical power of the intruder. The point is still that there is a human being in the house against the will of the owner, and the owner requires the assistance of the neighbor to excise him.

Given these changes, does the mother still have a right to remove the non-threatening child from her house, even though he entered without consent, and ate from her refrigerator?

Yes. I never made the inference that the child/stranger was actually harmful to the mother; the threat posed by the intruder is meaningless to the question of obligation. So, therefore, no matter what the actual threat posed by the intruder, the mother has the right to remove him from her house, even if that leads to his death.

[Ben Kenobi]

It doesn't matter what the physical development of the intruder is, or whether the obstruction is the barred door or the physical power of the intruder.

Two points here:

First, you are correct that the physical development of the intruder is not pertinent, however, the risk to the mother is important. I have been arguing for my exception clause, that if the mother's life is in danger, abortion is justified, as it is better to save one life then to allow two to die. If the intruder is a physical threat to the life of the mother, this example would fall under my exception clause. However, if the intruder is not a threat, then the clause cannot apply.

Secondly,

The barred door more accurately represents the fact that the unborn child does not bar the mother from killing him herself, perhaps with a coathanger. The key point here is not without risk of injury to herself, and that to pay the neighbour reduces this risk.

"and the owner requires the assistance of the neighbor to excise him."

Beware of euphemisms such as 'excise.' Would the lawyer defending the child call the actions of the neighbour an excision, or perhaps an extraction of uterine tissue?

Cyclotron, do you believe that an unborn child is a person, no different from the mother in this regard?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
First, you are correct that the physical development of the intruder is not pertinent, however, the risk to the mother is important. I have been arguing for my exception clause, that if the mother's life is in danger, abortion is justified, as it is better to save one life then to allow two to die. If the intruder is a physical threat to the life of the mother, this example would fall under my exception clause. However, if the intruder is not a threat, then the clause cannot apply.

I would disagree that risk to the mother is even an issue in this case. I am discussing obligation; the obligation of the mother to keep the child does not change whether the baby poses a threat or not. The person in the house has equal right to throw the intruder out whether he is a 250 pound ex-con or a 90 year old man in a wheelchair. The obligation the mother has to that person is still the same: none.

The barred door more accurately represents the fact that the unborn child does not bar the mother from killing him herself, perhaps with a coathanger. The key point here is not without risk of injury to herself, and that to pay the neighbour reduces this risk.

Fair enough. We'll say that, whether the door is barred or not, the mother could possibly get rid of the intruder but she is more likely to succeed and less likely to hurt herself by calling in help.

Beware of euphemisms such as 'excise.' Would the lawyer defending the child call the actions of the neighbour an excision, or perhaps an extraction of uterine tissue?

I wasn't aware the word had strong inorganic connotations, but I'll refrain from using that word if you like.

Cyclotron, do you believe that an unborn child is a person, no different from the mother in this regard?

My arguments given thus far, from the violinist to your legal case, would all seem to indicate that I do. If the child was not a person, all my arguments would be spurious because the child would not have a right to life anyway. All my arguments have been centered around how the right of one to their body/preperty supercedes another's right to life, which of course necessitates that the child have a right to life in the first place.

[Ben Kenobi]

The person in the house has equal right to throw the intruder out whether he is a 250 pound ex-con or a 90 year old man in a wheelchair.

-Cyclotron

Normally, this would be the case. However, in this example, throwing the person out of the house, into the blizzard will result in the death of that person. Extra consideration must be taken due to the violation of the right to life. Only the threat to the mother's life can justify action taken to remove the intruder. A 250 pound man with a knife would justify such actions, while a young child would not.

How would your weaker conception of the right to life constrain the behavior of the mother? Why should the mother sacrifice her own property just because a condom failed?

I ask you this:
If an unborn could defend itself, would we have abortion, why or why not?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18

-Cyclotron

Normally, this would be the case. However, in this example, throwing the person out of the house, into the blizzard will result in the death of that person. Extra consideration must be taken due to the violation of the right to life. Only the threat to the mother's life can justify action taken to remove the intruder. A 250 pound man with a knife would justify such actions, while a young child would not.

If the intruder is expelled, that is only returning the stranger to the place he was in before the break-in. It's not actively killing anybody. Besides, I would think that only the mother can evaluate threat to the mother.

How would your weaker conception of the right to life constrain the behavior of the mother? Why should the mother sacrifice her own property just because a condom failed?

Keep in mind I am only talking about rape. Nothing I have said pertains to consensual sex.

I ask you this:
If an unborn could defend itself, would we have abortion, why or why not?

I don't think it matters. Assuming abortion was still possible, I don't see any reason why anything would change.

[Ben Kenobi]

Besides, I would think that only the mother can evaluate threat to the mother.

Cyclotron, even if it's a child? If the mother said a young child was a threat, this would be adequate justification for killing the child?

If the intruder is expelled, that is only returning the stranger to the place he was in before the break-in. It's not actively killing anybody.

No. We agreed that throwing them into the snow results in the person's death. That's the whole reason why the person is justified to minimal property demands.

All pregnancies have a small fatality risk. Does this mean that all mothers have a credible defense for aborting their child?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Cyclotron, even if it's a child? If the mother said a young child was a threat, this would be adequate justification for killing the child?

The "adequate justification" is that the child is an intruder into the woman's body, not a guest. I don't think the threat posed matters, but I also don't think you are in a position to evaluate that threat (unless you specifically mean a threat to the life of the mother).

No. We agreed that throwing them into the snow results in the person's death. That's the whole reason why the person is justified to minimal property demands.

It results in the person's death, but it isn't an illegal killing. I am entitled to throw out intruders in my house, outside weather be damned.

All pregnancies have a small fatality risk. Does this mean that all mothers have a credible defense for aborting their child?

No. Mothers who have consensual sex are acknowleging and accepting the risk by inference. Women who are raped do have that credible defense.

[Ben Kenobi]

The "adequate justification" is that the child is an intruder into the woman's body,

-Cyclotron

Intruder:

1 : to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome

Who is thrusting oneself in the mother?
The rapist.

How can the unborn child thrust itself into the womb? It begins its life in the womb, the unborn child has no other home.

By all means shove the intruder out the door.
Punish the rapist for his intrusion, his crime.
But don't throw the innocent baby out too.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack-

How many abortions are done as a result of rape?

The number is irrelevant. SOME are, and those are the ones we're discussing.

But the same arguments also apply to a lesser extent to abortions resulting from contraceptive failure. The woman is not to blame: she took every reasonable precaution but was unlucky, just as a woman who gets raped despite carrying a can of Mace is unlucky.

A small clump of undifferentiated cells feels no pain or emotion and cannot be tortured.

Most abortions are done between 8-13 weeks, when the child can feel pain. Do you have any sources to verify that most abortions because of rape occur earlier than 8 weeks?

Most post-rape abortions would (obviously) be done as soon as possible. But, at 8-13 weeks, there is no "child" that can "feel pain": merely a fetus with a semi-functioning nervous system that can produce reflex responses. You need sentience to truly "feel pain".

"For rape victims, torturing them is MORE dangerous."

Source?
Abortion has many complications that need to be factored into your decision, that I don't think you acknowledge.

Are you serious?

17% of all those medically diagnosed with depression kill themselves: that's why Prozac is a life-saving drug. You don't think a woman forced to act as a rapist's incubator would at least be somewhat depressed?

Yes, torturing them is MORE dangerous. That's why they are absolutely desperate to get an abortion!

In this scenario, the torturers are John Ashcroft and George W. Bush.

How so? Isn't the rapist responsible for the torture? Without the rapist you have no pregnancy. If abortions were no longer legal, it makes no sense to say that more women will be raped.

No, the rapist is not directly responsible for the torture. He played his part in the chain of events, yes, but it was not his decision to inflict ongoing torture. If abortions were no longer legal, it makes perfect sense to say that more women will be TORTURED: that far more human suffering will result. Due to the number of women that such legislation would affect, Ashcroft and Bush would be responsible for causing far more suffering than any single rapist.

We don't blame the victim of the rape. We don't blame an innocent unborn child for the rape.

Double standard!

I am obviously not blaming the "innocent unborn child". If you accuse me of blaming the "child", then I can accuse you of blaming the rape victim, because of your willingness to torture her.

The big difference is that I am not advocating real human suffering. You apparently wish real people to suffer.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Intruder:

1 : to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome

I wasn't aware intruder was a verb. The definition I am using is "someone who intrudes on the privacy or property of another without permission," which is more of a synonym for "trespasser," another wor di have used.

How can the unborn child thrust itself into the womb? It begins its life in the womb, the unborn child has no other home.

I didn't imply that the child forced itself in. A trespasser is one who trespasses, whether he did on pupose or not. All that is important is that he is an uninvited guest; and is trespassing on property without the permission of the owner.

By all means shove the intruder out the door.
Punish the rapist for his intrusion, his crime.
But don't throw the innocent baby out too.

The rapist has already left; he is no longer intruding. The intruder, however, is still present and must be immediately removed, which in this case results in the destruction of the intruder.

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe the correct analogy would be a trespasser who breaks into a womans House and leaves another Person (a child for example) in it before he disappears again.

Of course it doesn´t alter the fact, that this person is unwanted and uninvited and, just in this moment eats Aunt Marthas Strawberry Jam, which you actually wanted to spare for the next breakfast.

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe the correct analogy would be a trespasser who breaks into a womans House and leaves another Person (a child for example) in it before he disappears again.

Of course it doesn´t alter the fact, that this person is unwanted and uninvited and, just in this moment eats Aunt Marthas Strawberry Jam, which you actually wanted to spare for the next breakfast.

[Proteus_MST]

Oooops
please delete one of those Posts, Mods

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Maybe the correct analogy would be a trespasser who breaks into a womans House and leaves another Person (a child for example) in it before he disappears again.

That is the exact analogy I used.