Question for anti-abortion people

[Kandahar]

Suppose that you woke up tomorrow to find yourself strapped to a lab table. You ask the doctor what was happening, and he points to a man who is also on a lab table.

"Mr. Smith has a rare kidney disease, and he needs a new kidney," the doctor explains. "You are the only compatible donor in the world. We'll be removing your kidney soon."

You protest, but the doctor makes it clear that you have no choice in the matter. This man's right to life is more important than your right to choose what to do with your body.

The doctor then explains to you about the consequences of this procedure. "There is a small chance that you will die during the procedure, and a large chance that you will become sick. Most people who undergo this type of procedure will feel physically sick for nine months, and will probably have to miss some work."

You inquire who is paying for all of this.

"Mr. Smith doesn't have any money or income, so I'm afraid that you will be billed for the cost. It will be approximately $300,000. We understand if you don't have all the money now...so you can spread out your payments over the next 18 years."

The question is this:
Are you morally obliged to undergo this procedure?

If not, how do you justify opposing abortion? What's the distinction?

 

[Gibberish]

First let it be known that I am Pro-Choice.

I feel there is a flaw in your scenario:

The doctor then explains to you about the consequences of this procedure. "There is a small chance that you will die during the procedure, and a large chance that you will become sick. Most people who undergo this type of procedure will feel physically sick for nine months, and will probably have to miss some work."

I think many "Anti-Abortion" individuals would feel choice should be available in this scenario because the individual's (the mother) health and safety is in question.

 

[talloulou]

Suppose that you woke up tomorrow to find yourself strapped to a lab table. You ask the doctor what was happening, and he points to a man who is also on a lab table.

"Mr. Smith has a rare kidney disease, and he needs a new kidney," the doctor explains. "You are the only compatible donor in the world. We'll be removing your kidney soon."

You protest, but the doctor makes it clear that you have no choice in the matter. This man's right to life is more important than your right to choose what to do with your body.

The doctor then explains to you about the consequences of this procedure. "There is a small chance that you will die during the procedure, and a large chance that you will become sick. Most people who undergo this type of procedure will feel physically sick for nine months, and will probably have to miss some work."

You inquire who is paying for all of this.

"Mr. Smith doesn't have any money or income, so I'm afraid that you will be billed for the cost. It will be approximately $300,000. We understand if you don't have all the money now...so you can spread out your payments over the next 18 years."

The question is this:
Are you morally obliged to undergo this procedure?

If not, how do you justify opposing abortion? What's the distinction?

What a complete and total crock of $hit! I'm really disappointed in you. The two cases are in no way the same. Humans reproduce. The young are carried in the mother's womb for nine months. The mother and father created the human that resides in her womb. The mother and father may have used some type of birth control to try to limit her chances of getting pregnant but even if they did so that only shows that they were aware, as most consenting adults are, that pregnancy was a possiblity of their actions.

To compare a women getting pregnant as a result of her and her partners actions to a person kidnapped and having a body part physically removed by a strange dr is beyond ridiculous. And for what it is worth I also believe trying to compare the unborn human in the womb to a complete and total stranger is also rather absurd.


In one scenario you have a victim and a crime. Unless you were raped "getting pregnant" does not in itself make you a victim.

Really this retarded post is not what I've come to expect from you.

 

[talloulou]

I refuse to vote on the grounds that this poll is not even up to ptsdkid's level.

 

[Kandahar]

I think many "Anti-Abortion" individuals would feel choice should be available in this scenario because the individual's (the mother) health and safety is in question.

The things I described are normal health/safety risks of ANY pregnancy: a small chance of death, and nine months of sickness.

 

[Skip]

Also, few anti-abortion people argue against adoption. So the whole deal with a $300,000 cost is really quite superfluous.

The two scenarios really don't compare very easily. I definitely see your point though.

 

[Kandahar]

What a complete and total crock of $hit! I'm really disappointed in you. The two cases are in no way the same. Humans reproduce. The young are carried in the mother's womb for nine months. The mother and father created the human that resides in her womb. The mother and father may have used some type of birth control to try to limit her chances of getting pregnant but even if they did so that only shows that they were aware, as most consenting adults are, that pregnancy was a possiblity of their actions.

So then the distinction is one of being "responsible" (i.e. punished) for your actions, as opposed to any right to life for either the fetus or the recipient of your kidney?

And for what it is worth I also believe trying to compare the unborn human in the womb to a complete and total stranger is also rather absurd.

Interesting. Don't you think that most people (or at least most people who seek abortions) would consider the fetus growing in them to be a "complete and total stranger"? Why is this distinction important anyway?

In one scenario you have a victim and a crime.

Only because the state defines it as such. Are you saying that you're pro-life, and there is no victim/crime in abortion? That's certainly an unusual view.

 

[doughgirl]

"Are you morally obliged to undergo this procedure?"

Absolutely not. Both people are adults and can make their own decisions. The unborn can't speak for themselves, can they.

Both strapped to a lab table?........No woman is strapped down and forced to get an abortion. She hops up on the table all by herself. She is the one who decides to kill her child. And the abortionist is the one who accepts the job of killing it. They both together make the decision to kill the unborn. They decide for the unborn who cant speak that death is ok.

"rare kidney disease" A rare kidney disease is not a life, its an organ. Are you comparing them? :rofl


"you have no choice in the matter." No choice? You got that right.........the unborn HAS NO CHOICE. The unborn in a way is held captive by the woman and cant defend itself.

If asked, do you think most unborn children would give the consent for the doctor to dismembered them alive? To accept death because their mothers made a boo boo, because they just were inconvenient and not wanted. How many would choose death to help their mothers out of a TEMPORARY CRISIS?


Sick? "There is a small chance that you will die during the procedure, and a large chance that you will become sick. Most people who undergo this type of procedure will feel physically sick for nine months, and will probably have to miss some work."

How many woman die from childbirth? How many are so sick they can't continue on with their lives while they are pregnant? If pregnancy was that bad, and delivery was that bad.......no woman on earth would decide to have a child. Well unless they were strapped down on some table in some hypothetical stupid situation like the one you pose. :rofl

$300,000 Abortions can be done for under $400 bucks. That cheap for killing isnt it?

Your little scenario is ridiculous and another attempt at making the unborn seem like its nothing. The unborn however small is a LIVING HUMAN BEING. It is a life and science sees it as a life from conception.

In your scenario, all parties can make decisions. In an abortion, one very important party cant can they??

So you have an abortion clinic and the woman is sitting down filling out the paperwork, mainly the consent form to allow the doctor to perform the "medical procedure". "Medical procedure" sounds better than "killing" doesnt it? Pro-choicers and abortionists like this term. But the results are the same thing arent they?

Who does not get to fill out a consent form? You tell me..............

 

[talloulou]

So then the distinction is one of being "responsible" (i.e. punished) for your actions, as opposed to any right to life for either the fetus or the recipient of your kidney?

I have tons of responsibilities in my life. I don't view them as "punishments." Everyone has things they are responsible for. Responsibility does not automatically equate to punishment any more than accountability does.

Furthermore I don't believe in the "right to life" so much as I believe in the "right not to be killed" by another. If the guy who needs a kidney dies you were not directly responsible for his killing. If you go pay a dr. to rip your baby from your womb in pieces than you directly caused the death.

Interesting. Don't you think that most people (or at least most people who seek abortions) would consider the fetus growing in them to be a "complete and total stranger"? Why is this distinction important anyway?

It's not important. But I find the callous way prochoicers speak of the unborn to be really quite absurd. If you and your partner create a new human it just seems rather "off" to be so disconnected to that new human. To view that new human as punishment for sex or view it as a parasite or compare it to a dr. frankenstein who kidnaps you in your sleep and then physically begins removing your organs when you awake. It's a very hysterical viewpoint as far as human reproduction goes.

Only because the state defines it as such. Are you saying that you're pro-life, and there is no victim/crime in abortion? That's certainly an unusual view.

Getting pregnant is not the same as getting victimized unless the pregnancy is a result of rape. So a pregnant woman does not become a victim merely because she doesn't want to be pregnant. Unless she's considering herself a victim of her own actions which could be possible but probably won't garner much sympathy the way a victimization at the hands of another would.

With an elective abortion the unborn human most certainly is a victim whether the crime is recognized or not. You can't purposely end another human's life without their consent in a "benign" fashion.

 

[Skip]

Both strapped to a lab table?........No woman is strapped down and forced to get an abortion. She hops up on the table all by herself. She is the one who decides to kill her child. And the abortionist is the one who accepts the job of killing it. They both together make the decision to kill the unborn. They decide for the unborn who cant speak that death is ok.

No one decides to kill a child, it is a fetus. Of course it cannot speak, it is a subhuman life form. It is not capable of rational thought, much less speaking. Why should a woman be forced to carry a fetus for nine months if she doesn't want to? Who are YOU to tell her that she has to? Who is more important here, a human or a fetus?

"rare kidney disease" A rare kidney disease is not a life, its an organ. Are you comparing them? :rofl

You're lacking in comprehension. That "rare kidney disease" would result in Mr. Smith's death. Much like an abortion would result in a fetus' death. It seemed simple to me...

"you have no choice in the matter." No choice? You got that right.........the unborn HAS NO CHOICE. The unborn in a way is held captive by the woman and cant defend itself.

If you had things your way, the presumed opinion of an unborn subhuman fetus would take precedence over that of a full formed human being who has passed puberty. The woman would be "held captive" by YOUR personal opinion taking precedence over her own.

If asked, do you think most unborn children would give the consent for the doctor to dismembered them alive? To accept death because their mothers made a boo boo, because they just were inconvenient and not wanted. How many would choose death to help their mothers out of a TEMPORARY CRISIS?

If asked, I'm certain that approximately 0% of them would be able to respond, as they wouldn't be viable outside of a womb, much less be capable of holding a command of the English language. So your thought's as good as mine, really.

How many woman die from childbirth? How many are so sick they can't continue on with their lives while they are pregnant? If pregnancy was that bad, and delivery was that bad.......no woman on earth would decide to have a child. Well unless they were strapped down on some table in some hypothetical stupid situation like the one you pose. :rofl

500,000 women die in childbirth each year. As for the number of sickness, who knows? It would be impossible to collect that information.

$300,000 Abortions can be done for under $400 bucks. That cheap for killing isnt it?

Well, actually, no, it's not cheap for killing. I can step on a bug and kill it for free. A slaughterhouse or a butcher can do the same thing with a cow or chicken. And the $300,000 figure is the cost of raising a child (hence the "spread over 18 years").

The unborn however small is a LIVING HUMAN BEING. It is a life and science sees it as a life from conception.

1. Wrong.
2. Sure, it's life, but prove to me that science sees it as human life.

In your scenario, all parties can make decisions. In an abortion, one very important party cant can they??

What?!? Did you read the scenario? You are being FORCED to give your kidney to Mr. Smith. In an abortion, the least important party - the subhuman life form, AKA fetus - is given the smallest say in the matter, much like if a doctor had to choose between saving a human or a chimpanzee.

So you have an abortion clinic and the woman is sitting down filling out the paperwork, mainly the consent form to allow the doctor to perform the "medical procedure". "Medical procedure" sounds better than "killing" doesnt it? Pro-choicers and abortionists like this term. But the results are the same thing arent they?

Who does not get to fill out a consent form? You tell me..............

Once again, for the last time, it is the non-human fetus that is, in fact, incapable of filling out one of these consent forms you speak of. If you handed a fetus a pen, assuming a fetus can hold a pen (which would be about the same size as the fetus in the first place), it would not sign its name, because it is incapable of writing. That is assuming it knew the English language, however. That is also assuming that the fetus has a name, and if so, was capable of understanding and knowing its own name.

But you knew all that already, didn't you?

 

[Red_Dave]

Suppose that you woke up tomorrow to find yourself strapped to a lab table. You ask the doctor what was happening, and he points to a man who is also on a lab table.

"Mr. Smith has a rare kidney disease, and he needs a new kidney," the doctor explains. "You are the only compatible donor in the world. We'll be removing your kidney soon."

You protest, but the doctor makes it clear that you have no choice in the matter. This man's right to life is more important than your right to choose what to do with your body.

The doctor then explains to you about the consequences of this procedure. "There is a small chance that you will die during the procedure, and a large chance that you will become sick. Most people who undergo this type of procedure will feel physically sick for nine months, and will probably have to miss some work."

You inquire who is paying for all of this.

"Mr. Smith doesn't have any money or income, so I'm afraid that you will be billed for the cost. It will be approximately $300,000. We understand if you don't have all the money now...so you can spread out your payments over the next 18 years."

The question is this:
Are you morally obliged to undergo this procedure?

If not, how do you justify opposing abortion? What's the distinction?

Excuse my pedantry but is it not assumptious to assume that anyone who's anti-abortion is automatically anti-choice? Im personally opossed to abortion but ild never condone stopping it by force.

 

[jallman]

"Are you morally obliged to undergo this procedure?"

Absolutely not. Both people are adults and can make their own decisions. The unborn can't speak for themselves, can they.

Both strapped to a lab table?........No woman is strapped down and forced to get an abortion. She hops up on the table all by herself. She is the one who decides to kill her child. And the abortionist is the one who accepts the job of killing it. They both together make the decision to kill the unborn. They decide for the unborn who cant speak that death is ok.

"rare kidney disease" A rare kidney disease is not a life, its an organ. Are you comparing them? :rofl


"you have no choice in the matter." No choice? You got that right.........the unborn HAS NO CHOICE. The unborn in a way is held captive by the woman and cant defend itself.

If asked, do you think most unborn children would give the consent for the doctor to dismembered them alive? To accept death because their mothers made a boo boo, because they just were inconvenient and not wanted. How many would choose death to help their mothers out of a TEMPORARY CRISIS?


Sick? "There is a small chance that you will die during the procedure, and a large chance that you will become sick. Most people who undergo this type of procedure will feel physically sick for nine months, and will probably have to miss some work."

How many woman die from childbirth? How many are so sick they can't continue on with their lives while they are pregnant? If pregnancy was that bad, and delivery was that bad.......no woman on earth would decide to have a child. Well unless they were strapped down on some table in some hypothetical stupid situation like the one you pose. :rofl

$300,000 Abortions can be done for under $400 bucks. That cheap for killing isnt it?

Your little scenario is ridiculous and another attempt at making the unborn seem like its nothing. The unborn however small is a LIVING HUMAN BEING. It is a life and science sees it as a life from conception.

In your scenario, all parties can make decisions. In an abortion, one very important party cant can they??

So you have an abortion clinic and the woman is sitting down filling out the paperwork, mainly the consent form to allow the doctor to perform the "medical procedure". "Medical procedure" sounds better than "killing" doesnt it? Pro-choicers and abortionists like this term. But the results are the same thing arent they?

Who does not get to fill out a consent form? You tell me..............

Do you bother to read anything before you start flapping your jaws? There are so many blatant falsehoods and dismissal of the OP that I don't even know where to begin. Typical tripe.

 

[talloulou]

No one decides to kill a child, it is a fetus. Of course it cannot speak, it is a subhuman life form.

It is not subhuman. It is human. A male or female member of the species homosapiens.
Wanting it to be "less than human" doesn't make it so.

It is not capable of rational thought, much less speaking. Why should a woman be forced to carry a fetus for nine months if she doesn't want to? Who are YOU to tell her that she has to? Who is more important here, a human or a fetus?

The nature of pregnancy is one human residing in the body of another. The location of the human doesn't make it less human. If you believe one human should not kill another human without just cause then it's hard to accept abortion except in cases where the mother's life is genuinely at risk in which case you could view abortion as self defense. If the pregnancy is normal and both the mother and unborn baby are healthy and you still believe abortion is okay than you are making an exception to the whole "no human should kill another human without just cause" rule. And the fact that it is the mother ordering the killing of her own offspring makes the whole scenario rather unseemly.

You're lacking in comprehension. That "rare kidney disease" would result in Mr. Smith's death. Much like an abortion would result in a fetus' death. It seemed simple to me...

Had you acted in a manner that actually caused Mr. Smith's own kidney to fail then I could see how you might morally be held accountable for his fate however if his failing kidney has nothing to do with you than his resulting death is not directly your fault.

If you had things your way, the presumed opinion of an unborn subhuman fetus would take precedence over that of a full formed human being who has passed puberty. The woman would be "held captive" by YOUR personal opinion taking precedence over her own.

I have never heard a scientist or dr. use the term "subhuman" in regards to the unborn. It's merely an attempt to make killing them something less than killing any other human. The pregnant women would be held "captive" by the actions she and her partner took. "Opinion" isn't something we generally allow when it comes to letting one human kill another. You are not normally going to be legally allowed to end another human's life merely because it is your opinion that ending said life would be the best course of action.

If asked, I'm certain that approximately 0% of them would be able to respond, as they wouldn't be viable outside of a womb, much less be capable of holding a command of the English language.

Yes and the same could be said of a newborn or a one year old. Neither has command of the English language and yet we would be quick to refute any notion that their mother should have a "right" to end their lives on a whim.

500,000 women die in childbirth each year. As for the number of sickness, who knows? It would be impossible to collect that information.

People die doing all manner of things that are considered "safe" all the time. Childbirth in the US is relatively safe. The overwhelming vast majority of women choosing to abort their babies are not doing so out of concerns for their physical well being.

Well, actually, no, it's not cheap for killing. I can step on a bug and kill it for free. A slaughterhouse or a butcher can do the same thing with a cow or chicken. And the $300,000 figure is the cost of raising a child (hence the "spread over 18 years").

Men don't get to "consent" to the financial cost of parenting. They don't get to "opt out" of the financial burden if the woman wants to hold them accountable. Nor should they. If they were it would be disastrous for children and women alike.

1. Wrong.
2. Sure, it's life, but prove to me that science sees it as human life.

Individual organisms are classified according to species. A fertilized human egg is an organism. Sperm and unfertilized eggs are not. Your hair, skin, and blood cells are not organisms. The unborn are organisms classified as members of the species homosapiens. They are absolutely 100% human. What else could they be?

Once again, for the last time, it is the non-human fetus

Oh now it's not even subhuman it's non-human? You can't change reality to make your assertions more palatable. If I prefer to view you as a "non-human" you don't magically become so no matter how many times I assert it. :doh

that is, in fact, incapable of filling out one of these consent forms you speak of. If you handed a fetus a pen, assuming a fetus can hold a pen (which would be about the same size as the fetus in the first place), it would not sign its name, because it is incapable of writing. That is assuming it knew the English language, however. That is also assuming that the fetus has a name, and if so, was capable of understanding and knowing its own name.

Do newborns hold pens? Do 1 year old toddlers write their names and sign consent forms? Or are they non-humans too? :roll:

 

[talloulou]

Do you bother to read anything before you start flapping your jaws? There are so many blatant falsehoods and dismissal of the OP that I don't even know where to begin. Typical tripe.

The original post was a steaming pile of dog$hit anyway.

 

[jallman]

The original post was a steaming pile of dog$hit anyway.

It's called a moral exercise and it was a valid comparison, though it was a bit awkwardly prosecuted.

 

[ARealConservative]

Suppose that you woke up tomorrow to find yourself strapped to a lab table. You ask the doctor what was happening, and he points to a man who is also on a lab table.

"Mr. Smith has a rare kidney disease, and he needs a new kidney," the doctor explains. "You are the only compatible donor in the world. We'll be removing your kidney soon."

You protest, but the doctor makes it clear that you have no choice in the matter. This man's right to life is more important than your right to choose what to do with your body.

The doctor then explains to you about the consequences of this procedure. "There is a small chance that you will die during the procedure, and a large chance that you will become sick. Most people who undergo this type of procedure will feel physically sick for nine months, and will probably have to miss some work."

You inquire who is paying for all of this.

"Mr. Smith doesn't have any money or income, so I'm afraid that you will be billed for the cost. It will be approximately $300,000. We understand if you don't have all the money now...so you can spread out your payments over the next 18 years."

The question is this:
Are you morally obliged to undergo this procedure?

If not, how do you justify opposing abortion? What's the distinction?

This is a terrific analogy - but only if I played a key role in Mr Smith's kidney problem in the first place.

"Mr. Smith has a rare kidney disease, it's your fault that he needs a new kidney," the doctor explains.

 

[talloulou]

This is a terrific analogy - but only if I played a key role in Mr Smith's kidney problem in the first place.

"Mr. Smith has a rare kidney disease, it's your fault that he needs a new kidney," the doctor explains.

I agree. But I'd also add Mr. Smith shouldn't need a kidney. He should need something else. Somehow Mr. Smith needs to be able to live off your resources for 9 months whilst making you fat and waddle when you walk. After 9 months Mr. Smith will call you mommy and you'll have to clean up his $hit for apx. two years. :rofl You'll be tired for a few more years but all your major organs remain intact.

 

[Kandahar]

"Are you morally obliged to undergo this procedure?"

Absolutely not. Both people are adults and can make their own decisions. The unborn can't speak for themselves, can they.

Both strapped to a lab table?........No woman is strapped down and forced to get an abortion. She hops up on the table all by herself. She is the one who decides to kill her child. And the abortionist is the one who accepts the job of killing it. They both together make the decision to kill the unborn. They decide for the unborn who cant speak that death is ok.

"rare kidney disease" A rare kidney disease is not a life, its an organ. Are you comparing them? :rofl


"you have no choice in the matter." No choice? You got that right.........the unborn HAS NO CHOICE. The unborn in a way is held captive by the woman and cant defend itself.

If asked, do you think most unborn children would give the consent for the doctor to dismembered them alive? To accept death because their mothers made a boo boo, because they just were inconvenient and not wanted. How many would choose death to help their mothers out of a TEMPORARY CRISIS?


Sick? "There is a small chance that you will die during the procedure, and a large chance that you will become sick. Most people who undergo this type of procedure will feel physically sick for nine months, and will probably have to miss some work."

How many woman die from childbirth? How many are so sick they can't continue on with their lives while they are pregnant? If pregnancy was that bad, and delivery was that bad.......no woman on earth would decide to have a child. Well unless they were strapped down on some table in some hypothetical stupid situation like the one you pose. :rofl

$300,000 Abortions can be done for under $400 bucks. That cheap for killing isnt it?

Your little scenario is ridiculous and another attempt at making the unborn seem like its nothing. The unborn however small is a LIVING HUMAN BEING. It is a life and science sees it as a life from conception.

In your scenario, all parties can make decisions. In an abortion, one very important party cant can they??

So you have an abortion clinic and the woman is sitting down filling out the paperwork, mainly the consent form to allow the doctor to perform the "medical procedure". "Medical procedure" sounds better than "killing" doesnt it? Pro-choicers and abortionists like this term. But the results are the same thing arent they?

Who does not get to fill out a consent form? You tell me..............

I think you just missed the analogy entirely.

 

[talloulou]

I think you just missed the analogy entirely.

I missed it too.

Why don't you again try to explain how some mad hatter type socialism where body parts instead of finaces are redistributed by a crazy frankenstein dr. who kidnaps you while you sleep can possibly be compared to human reproduction? :shock:

 

[Kandahar]

This is a terrific analogy - but only if I played a key role in Mr Smith's kidney problem in the first place.

"Mr. Smith has a rare kidney disease, it's your fault that he needs a new kidney," the doctor explains.

Then the anti-abortion argument ceases to be about the "right to life," and instead about whose "fault" it is that the pregnancy happened in the first place. In other words, it's about punishing women for having sex.

 

[ARealConservative]

Then the anti-abortion argument ceases to be about the "right to life," and instead about whose "fault" it is that the pregnancy happened in the first place. In other words, it's about punishing women for having sex.

So you want an analogy that doesn't take responsibiliy into account at all?

How am I to answer the question of my moral obligation while ignoring my role in the situation altogether?

 

[talloulou]

Then the anti-abortion argument ceases to be about the "right to life," and instead about whose "fault" it is that the pregnancy happened in the first place. In other words, it's about punishing women for having sex.

So in your mind I am as equally responsible for my own children as I am for children I've never met who reside in Africa? The fact that my children are mine doesn't increase my level of responsibility and accountability for their well being? And if I claim to care about children that's really just bull$hit. The fact that I take care of my children means nothing and says nothing about my concern for children because there are other children out there that I am not taking 100% responsibilty for? :roll:

In other words I can't believe that children have a right to not be killed unless I am willing to hold myself personally responsible for any and all children that currently exist? Expecting other moms to be responsible for their children is an attempt by me to punish those moms and not an expression of my overall concern for children in general?

Is that what you are saying?

 

[Kandahar]

So in your mind I am as equally responsible for my own children as I am for children I've never met who reside in Africa? The fact that my children are mine doesn't increase my level of responsibility and accountability for their well being? And if I claim to care about children that's really just bull$hit. The fact that I take care of my children means nothing and says nothing about my concern for children because there are other children out there that I am not taking 100% responsibilty for? :roll:

In other words I can't believe that children have a right to not be killed unless I am willing to hold myself personally responsible for any and all children that currently exist? Expecting other moms to be responsible for their children is an attempt by me to punish those moms and not an expression of my overall concern for children in general?

Is that what you are saying?

There is a difference between honoring your commitment to take care of your children that you made by CHOOSING not to give them up for adoption, versus honoring a commitment to a mass of goo in the womb that you did NOT CHOOSE to allow to use you as a host in the first place.

 

[Kandahar]

So you want an analogy that doesn't take responsibiliy into account at all?

How am I to answer the question of my moral obligation while ignoring my role in the situation altogether?

Why should that matter? If it's about the fetus' right to life, and not about what a slut the mother is, then it shouldn't matter what role responsibility played. If the mother was raped, for example, it wouldn't be her fault but the fetus would still be killed by an abortion.

 

[ARealConservative]

Why should that matter? If it's about the fetus' right to life, and not about what a slut the mother is, then it shouldn't matter what role responsibility played. If the mother was raped, for example, it wouldn't be her fault but the fetus would still be killed by an abortion.

It's about a moral obligation.

Perhaps you should reread your own poll question.

In order for me to determine my moral obligation, I need the full picture. What role did I play in the dying man's condition? If I'm the cause, then it is my moral obligation to do everything within reason to prevent it. And because I have a good chance of surviving with one kidney and this other person will certainly die without my kidney -and his kidney wouldn't be having a problem if it wasn't for my actions - I would have a moral obligation to help.