To opponents of abortion

[runningmadbull]

I once opposed abortion. In fact I did it while I was on the center-left. When I moved to the right (though I have since moved to the true left) I got a different view of it. I know those Ayn Rand people are kooks on just about everything but it was an Ayn Rand kook that helped me see the light on abortion. It was explained to me that it was a parasite that lives in the body and nobody has a right to come live inside of your body. So to any "pro-lifer" I must ask you, do you want another animal to come live in your body? What if a cat climbed in or a dog did? If even I shrunk myself down to size would you want ME in your body? Think of this. A tapeworm is also in the body. So is the fetus. If some animal came and lived in your body you would have every right to get it out? And so I see it it is not life in and of itself since it cannot support itself. It is interesting that the "pro-life" movement claims to oppose suicide since it ends life when it is not supposed to, but if you think about it it is supposed to in premature abortion since it cannot support itself, the same goes for Terry Shiavo. So it is not ending "natural life" since in some senses the fetus is kept alive artifically though by a biologic organism.

[PigmerikanMao]

I think there's a difference between a dog crawling up your vagina and you having sex without a condom.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:45 am
I once opposed abortion. In fact I did it while I was on the center-left. When I moved to the right (though I have since moved to the true left) I got a different view of it. I know those Ayn Rand people are kooks on just about everything but it was an Ayn Rand kook that helped me see the light on abortion. It was explained to me that it was a parasite that lives in the body and nobody has a right to come live inside of your body. So to any "pro-lifer" I must ask you, do you want another animal to come live in your body? What if a cat climbed in or a dog did? If even I shrunk myself down to size would you want ME in your body? Think of this. A tapeworm is also in the body. So is the fetus. If some animal came and lived in your body you would have every right to get it out? And so I see it it is not life in and of itself since it cannot support itself. It is interesting that the "pro-life" movement claims to oppose suicide since it ends life when it is not supposed to, but if you think about it it is supposed to in premature abortion since it cannot support itself, the same goes for Terry Shiavo. So it is not ending "natural life" since in some senses the fetus is kept alive artifically though by a biologic organism.
I am not really a pro-lifer, but I think that all absolutist positions on this issue are flawed, including yours.

Here is why I think the analogy is inappropriate: it is the mother who, through her actions and failures to act, actually caused the dependency to occur in the first place, without the consent of the organism which is ultimately disadvantaged by it. If I forcibly place you inside of my body against your will and prevent you from getting out safely, am I now free to kill you to prevent your parasitic behavior? You seem to be saying yes.

The mother has all the power to prevent the creation of the dependent relationship before it occurs. The dependent has none whatsoever. So I think it's reasonable that her acts makes her at least partially culpable for the parasitic relationship and creates a modicum of responsibility to the dependent.


So it is not ending "natural life" since in some senses the fetus is kept alive artifically though by a biologic organism.
Hmmm. I have to ask in what way a fetus being dependent on its mother is "artifical." Is there a more "natural" way that it is supposed to exist?

[TC]

Here is why I think the analogy is inappropriate: it is the mother who, through her actions and failures to act, actually caused the dependency to occur in the first place, without the consent of the organism which is ultimately disadvantaged by it.

The analogy with the tape worm is an extremely apt one then.

Likewise, with a tape worm, the host takes the worm inside her body through ingesting contaminated food. Its through her actions, (eating bad food,) not the worms (it was just in the ‘wrong place at the wrong time) and failure to eliminate every possible risk (such by refusing to food that could potentially carry anything, even when the risk of each individual piece of food is extraordinarily low) that led to the ingestion of the poor, defenseless, totally innocent tape worm that didn’t consent to the arraignment it found itself in...

...you can still kill the worm though.


If I forcibly place you inside of my body against your will and prevent you from getting out safely, am I now free to kill you to prevent your parasitic behavior? You seem to be saying yes.

Lets look at this from a more apt comparison;

You have sex with a woman carrying an exotic Amazonian penis worm. Obviously you didn’t know she was carrying an exotic Amazonian penis worm at the time, but hey, you didn’t think to ask her for her full medical history, whether she’d ever spent time in the Amazon, etc sometimes these things just happen.

So, you feel sick, nauseated, and you go to your doctor, who draws blood and says “Woah! Congratulations, you’ve picked up an Amazonian penis worm! Obviously you happily consented to this or you wouldn’t have had sex with a carrier!”

Disturbed, you ask your doctor what course the infection will take.

Your doctor replies “As the Amazonian penis worm feeds off of your testicles and prostate gland, you wont be able to produce hormones normally so you’ll experience massive weight gain in a characteristic pattern that everyone can recognize as being the result of an Amazonian penis worm; specifically your stomach will get watermelon shaped, you’ll grow saggy ‘man boobs’, have generalized swelling and get red or purple, stretch mark scars covering your torso, chest and thighs. Also expect constant nausea and unwanted attention from strangers who will oddly think its wonderful and tell you to stop drinking alcohol or coffee, smoking or using any medication, just you know, try to deal.”

You then asks “how long will the infection last?”

The doctor answers “About nine months. In nine months the fully developed Amazonian penis worm work its way out through your penis, ripping apart every inch of it as it goes so that you’re left disfigured, and probably incontinent and impotent. Sexual and urinary dysfunction is to be expected but, if you’d like to feel better about it, we’ll probably be able to repair some of the damage surgically. Also it’s excruciatingly painful and can take hours, maybe even a day and half, and you’ll lose a lot of blood so you might die. Also, you’ll lactate from your man-boobs, but don’t worry, that’s a natural reaction for someone who has had an Amazonian penis worm in his system, don’t be embarrassed by it. And try not to worry, lots of supportive people from the Amazonian-Penis-Worm-Right-To-Life-Society suggest that it can be a ‘beautiful’ experience and you’ll learn to bond with your Amazonian penis worm; you’ll want to keep in a nice terrarium after it emerges and re-organize your life around its feeding schedules, and random feeding demands.”

Now, visibly upset, you asks “But there must be a medical solution!”

Your doctor, looking somewhat disappointed, says “Well, I’m not really comfortable talking about it, but you could take a pill that would kill your worm and expel it from your system. It would be completely safe and nearly painless for you, but...this is a serious moral issue...the worm didn’t consent to being in your body, sure, it would have died on its own if it didn’t, but still, you willingly had sex with its female carrier. Don’t you feel you should take some responsibility for its well being? You know Amazonian Penis Worms can feel pain and we can speculate that they might have emotions although I can’t really give you any proof that...You should think it over, it’s a very very very very serious decision and one you might regret and feel guilty and ashamed about. After all, is the life of the poor, defenseless, innocent Amazonian penis worm, who many people would find adorable and would be willing to take care of, really worth less than what’s really only a little inconvenience for you, could you really be that selfish? Have you consulted the woman who infected you with it, maybe she’d like say, and like to take care of it after it emerges from your body? Doesn’t the Amazonian penis worm have a right to life? This was your fault, take some responsibility for your actions man!”


So, Pusher Robot, what do you do? Do you accept that you have a responsibility to the worm and allow it to use, abuse, and ultimately mutilate your body, or do you think there’s no fucking way and you’ll destroy it to save yourself?

Or do you just think this an absurd scenario that you don’t have to entertain at all? Why? Cause you’re a man and its not expected of you? If that’s the case, then its only by patriarchal social convention that women even have to think about it, because clearly, I think, any man presented with the scenario above would kill the worm without hesitation. Likewise, if there was no patriarchal social pressure, any woman seeing the same scenario who thought of the parasite she was infected with as burdensome and undesirable would have no hang ups about getting rid of it.


I you want to continue a serious question about some kind of “responsibility” to a fetus though I insist that you answer my question as to what you’d do in such a scenario; otherwise you’ll show logical inconsistency in demanding an answer in a totally abstract scenario and not in a concrete, specific application of it that more closely matches the case in question.



The mother has all the power to prevent the creation of the dependent relationship before it occurs.

No, the host only has the power to reduce the risk of creating the dependent relationship, and they can reduce the risk to a negligible level but they can’t reduce the risk to zero (short of having a hysterectomy). Every contraceptive method can hypothetically fail, even people who never have sex take a theoretical (though negligible) risk of pregnancy from rape if they want to walk outside without a burkha.



Hmmm. I have to ask in what way a fetus being dependent on its mother is "artifical." Is there a more "natural" way that it is supposed to exist?


No theres not, and that in of itself changes the question. There is a huge difference between the reality of abortion and the abstract issue of an animal climbing into someone is that a fetus did not exist as an independent entity before its dependant status, so its dependence predates its existence. A fetus didn’t have an autonomous life that its being deprived of by someone who forced it to depend on them, its existence depends on that dependent relationship.

In any case, the best argument for abortion in my opinion is the self-defense argument not the unwanted dependency argument.

[pusher robot]

...you can still kill the worm though.

Quite so, yes...yet I can kill worms anywhere they are. Because they're worms, and worms are not people.

Your entire silly analogy rests upon the erroneous assumption that worms==people. Of course I'd have no compunction about killing a worm. Nobody has any responsibility to worms. But some people do have responsibilities to other people. Or do you reject that, I wonder? Can a person disclaim absolutely any responsibility towards anyone for anything they do?

[TC]

Your entire silly analogy rests upon the erroneous assumption that worms==people. Of course I'd have no compunction about killing a worm. Nobody has any responsibility to worms. But some people do have responsibilities to other people. Or do you reject that, I wonder? Can a person disclaim absolutely any responsibility towards anyone for anything they do?


A fetus, though it has human dna, isn't a person either, neither for that matter is a neonate, a neonate is more like a human in its larval form, it doesn't behave or think like a person, it has no permanent memory and therefore no consistent awareness of self, no ability to move, to communicate, to express will or agency or interact in an expressive way, it is merely acted upon passively.

And this doesn't mean that someone has a right to kill neonates, because there is no self defense argument for killing one, and the dependent status of a neonate can be transfered to another caretaker without harming either party (this is untrue in the case of a fetus, attempting to transfer it to another caretaker would harm both the host and the fetus). But a neonate isn't a person in the way that an older baby, a toddler or a child is, its more like Terry Schiavo (a human organism without the capacity to function as a person).

Most mammals give birth to fully functional, autonomous organisms, that behave and appear as miniature versions of the adult organism; Humans do not.

A fetus does not have any more characteristics of a person than the worm in the scenario does. Or for that matter, sperm, which you kill without thinking about it as well, or week old human blastula which women who use almost any type of reliable birth control also do without thinking about...If its okay to kill a worm or a blastocyst what makes a fetus special?

Nothing, except that you want it to be because you think its okay to enslave people who aren't you.

[RedCeltic]

Tragic Clown: Did you write that analogy of the "exotic amazon penis worm?" I'm going to have to copy paste that into a word doccument and save it for reference!

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:05 am
I think there's a difference between a dog crawling up your vagina and you having sex without a condom.
Im going to agree with Pigmerikan on this one.

"It was explained to me that it was a parasite that lives in the body and nobody has a right to come live inside of your body"

A baby does not come live inside your body. It grows inside your body. I agree fully with abortion, but if babies dont have the right to live inside your body than we should go around kicking the stomachs of pregnant ladies. That'll show those fuckin parasites!

[The-Spark]

Mind you the kicking of pregnant ladies was sarcastic

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:28 pm
Tragic Clown: Did you write that analogy of the "exotic amazon penis worm?" I'm going to have to copy paste that into a word doccument and save it for reference!
Yah, i'm glad you liked it :)

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 18, 2007 01:41 am
...we should go around kicking the stomachs of pregnant ladies. That'll show those fuckin parasites!
:lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

the main difference between a pregnancy and a parasite is that a parasite does not propogate your own DNA. I for one, would be honoured to make a contribution to the course of human evolution but at the same time i wouldnt refuse a womans right to interfere with her body as she sees fit.
The parasite analogy is not a fair one, because if you do not want a baby then there are ample precautions you can take to prevent it from happening(not to undermine a would be mother who changes her mind later on). Parasites happen largely through no fault of the sufferer.

[runningmadbull]

And despite my conversion I still remain pro-choice for the reasons I stated in this topic.

[Publius]

And despite my conversion I still remain pro-choice for the reasons I stated in this topic.

Commandment 11: Thou Shalt Kill Parasites