[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
Well, actually. In the purest break down of the word it is a "dis-ease"
Actually though I do see it as something to be delt with however the mother sees fit. The disease part is a little rough but...<hr></blockquote>
Just dealing with it like you suggest is a bit rough for me.
[quote]Then your missing the point of the analogy. Let me propose the famous violinist example, as its less... harsh. (oh, and it wasnt actually supposed to be a weed, again i messed that up, it was supposed to be a baby who drifts in through the window and starts to thrive in your shag rug
(All these arguments gotten, though butchered fairly badly I fear, from the formentioned paper)
Durring the night by some odd circumstance of misfortune a famous violinist manages to get him self hooked into your blood system. Your told that for 3 months you have to have him sucking off of your system, and you will not be able to lead your current life. However due to some rare blood type you are the only person around who CAN support him, and are required to do so or else he would die.
Naturally this would offset your life GREATLY.
Now, how immoral would it be to unhook your self from the violinist? No one would tell you that your being immoral because you dont give up 3 months of your life for this guy whom you dont even know.<hr></blockquote>
Umm, I understand that it was an analogy, but usually with an analogy you try to put a situation that is fairly comparable so that your point is made in a meaningful way. Comparing a baby to a weed is hardly the same thing.
And then your violinist example, totally off the wall. Let's see here. Why a famous violinist? That is just off the wall. How is that the same thing? A vampire (someone hooked into my blood system) is not the same as a baby. The situation you mention is not a natural thing, at all. Are you trying to say that pregnancy is abnormal, unnatural, or wrong? Because if you believe that then your argument might stand, otherwise once more it fails on many points. Many points.
[quote]The plant thing was a way to point out that its absurd to say "You either have to live your life celibate or deal with the results of having a child!". You see, in this case each option infringes on the mothers autonomy.<hr></blockquote>
I am sorry if it is so terrible that someone ask a mother to be responsible when the possibility exists that she might create a new life and then to ask her to be responsible for her actions. (and i know that you are itching to bring up rape, everyone always does in this case) which leads us to your next post.
[quote]My point was that the rape part had more or less been covered, and thus I was trying to cover the inconvenience part. Yes, she should have the option to kill it as long as theres no other option available. For example, in the later periods purely killing the child should be wrong as long as the option of a C-section is available.
The right to autonomy does not equate the right to having the child killed.
However i dont see this as much of an issue as by the time a C-section is an option the mother should
have made up her mind.<hr></blockquote>
Umm ok, here we go. the mother should have the option to kill the child if there is no other option? I disagree. That's enough there unless you need to hear more.
And yes, in your examples the right to autonomy does equate the right kill the child if the mother feels that it is too inconvenient or painful to be pregnant.
[quote]You missin it Noah, however perhaps I was unclear, so lets simplify.
Replace the word plant with the word baby, or perhaps if you like, replace the whole circumstance with the following (there mght be some flaws in this one, I jsut made it up off the top of my head):
A rich doctor friend of yours has found a way to implant a child within YOU Noah. He takes a sample of your tissue, uses the whole clone technique with a empty egg cell and starts the growth of an embryo. Then one day he says that he really needs a human test subject to try the implant procedure with, and guantees that he will take it out afterwards. You wake up some hours later and he tells you, "Im sorry Noah, there was a complication and the child is now stuck growing inside of you"
"The problem" he informs you "is that due ot complications, if we WERE to take it out as we were planning, it would die and we can not allow that"
So Noah, do you let it grow inside of you? Or more importantly, should we pass laws that make it so that you HAVE to let it grow inside of you in the event that a doctor implants something in you secretly?
In the case of rape, what if the doctor knocked you out and did it without your permission?<hr></blockquote>
Well that is a bit closer to an analogy where the decisions are closer than a plant and a baby. I went into this knowing that they were going to be implanting a baby into me and thinking that the baby would be removed after a bit. Then for some reason that baby cannot be removed. First, if I carry this child to term I will die, guaranteed. There is no way that the male body can accommodate a baby and have the man live. So I have just killed myself. Second of all, this child is a clone and not a natural pregnancy so the likelihood of the child living or even surviving is further reduced. So in this situation both lives are in danger. It is virtually assured that I will die and it is also virtually assured that the child will die and the whole thing is unnatural. So I guess in that case I would have it removed. Tough call even in this bizarro situation. But when it is assured that both will die, and even if the child were carried to term that the child would die then in that case I feel that the parent should live. As I said, tough call.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />