If it would take only a few months of inconvenience before they can live on their own, no.
What exactly is the standard here? Why is 'a few months' OK, but permanently is not? What about a few years? Where do you draw the line?
The "surgeon" is just more guilty beyond the initial crime of "surgery" for having forced the situation on her. If there's a reasonable way to save both, you take it.
You can make the request of the victim of the situation, and if he is of good will he may even oblige, but you cannot force him morally - because you have no right to deprive him of his liberty.
Now, if you had been at fault in some way for the situation, it's a different matter.
Let me put it this way. There's 2 kids stuck in a well: you can kill one now and safely remove the other or wait a few months, keep them alive and then rescue both. If you pick the 1st option, you're a monster, but if it's an abortion- suddenly okay to murder.
That's an excellent comparison. But let's make it more apt to the situation. There is one kid stuck in a well, and a fertilized egg or embryo. The only way you can save the 'fertilized' egg is by inflicting months of misery on the other kid, misery that he didn't ask for.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
But let's make it more apt to the situation
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life". You could easily say an adult and a child if age is your problem. If you want it to be more apt, you would have to leave both as kids, but one of the kids has claustrophobia or something. Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me, when I didn't ask for it?
You said that "several months" is OK but nothing further. Is 10 years OK?
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life".
It's clearly a 'life'. I'm annoyed with other pro-choicers who make dishonest arguments like claiming that the embryo or fetus is "part of the woman's body". But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons, let alone such horrendous acts as imposing further misery and trauma on a victim of rape.
Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
Nor did I intend to. By calling it 'murder' you prejudge the issue. I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'. Of course, if I ask for it, it's a different situation.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own. You could just leave it to starve to death since it's not "entitled" to food. Why is there a duty to care for it just because it's outside the womb? Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
You do. What's the limit. So if it's 10 months, it's suddenly bad? I think you don't want to answer because you're smart enough to realize that it would undermine your own argument.
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
Sure it is. A brain-dead person is still a human life.
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
You're not entitled to life support on my body unless I consented to you being so attached to me.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own.
They are viable though.
Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
I think it's justified until viability. If you don't get rid of it until then, you have implicitly consented to taking care of the baby at least until birth.
What exactly is the standard here? Why is 'a few months' OK, but permanently is not? What about a few years? Where do you draw the line?
You can make the request of the victim of the situation, and if he is of good will he may even oblige, but you cannot force him morally - because you have no right to deprive him of his liberty.
Now, if you had been at fault in some way for the situation, it's a different matter.
That's an excellent comparison. But let's make it more apt to the situation. There is one kid stuck in a well, and a fertilized egg or embryo. The only way you can save the 'fertilized' egg is by inflicting months of misery on the other kid, misery that he didn't ask for.
I'll choose to save the kid.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life". You could easily say an adult and a child if age is your problem. If you want it to be more apt, you would have to leave both as kids, but one of the kids has claustrophobia or something. Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me, when I didn't ask for it?
You said that "several months" is OK but nothing further. Is 10 years OK?
It's clearly a 'life'. I'm annoyed with other pro-choicers who make dishonest arguments like claiming that the embryo or fetus is "part of the woman's body". But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons, let alone such horrendous acts as imposing further misery and trauma on a victim of rape.
Nor did I intend to. By calling it 'murder' you prejudge the issue. I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'. Of course, if I ask for it, it's a different situation.
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own. You could just leave it to starve to death since it's not "entitled" to food. Why is there a duty to care for it just because it's outside the womb? Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
You do. What's the limit. So if it's 10 months, it's suddenly bad? I think you don't want to answer because you're smart enough to realize that it would undermine your own argument.
Sure it is. A brain-dead person is still a human life.
You're not entitled to life support on my body unless I consented to you being so attached to me.
They are viable though.
I think it's justified until viability. If you don't get rid of it until then, you have implicitly consented to taking care of the baby at least until birth.