Should we be allowed to pay a doctor to murder a thirty year old man?

[loustrikesagain]

Some who agree with the pro-life point of view on abortion would argue that an unborn child is a human life
and that it should be illegal to abort the child; however, they will say that in the case that someone is raped
it is permissible.

My question is this: What makes the difference?

If an unborn child is just as much a life as anyone else and truly does deserve the rights of everyone else,
why should there be a distinction made if they are the bastard child of a rape? If a woman is raped and
births the child, is it permissible to pay a doctor to murder it 30 years later?

This is a serious inconsistency I see in the perspective of pro-lifers. So I ask:

Should we be allowed to pay a doctor to murder a thirty year old man, given the proper circumstance?

 

[specklebang]

Those who are pro-life but make exceptions like this are those who would be reasonable and compromising. This seems to be the lurking place of extremes so the way your question is phrased may inhibit responses. Just IMHO.

I personally believe there should be 3 chances to abort. In the first and second trimester. In the first 24 hours after birth and again at the age of 14. There would have to be a valid reason for post-birth abortion. A defective child should be obvious in the first 24 hours. A criminal child should be revealed by age 14. The parents would have to undergo voluntary sterilization.

I realize this is not a popular opinion but I'm sure you realize it is ONLY an opinion. I would lik to see a better world and I find this one overcrowded with the lame and the halt squeezing the breath out of society. Fewer people, higher quality.

Some who agree with the pro-life point of view on abortion would argue that an unborn child is a human life
and that it should be illegal to abort the child; however, they will say that in the case that someone is raped
it is permissible.

My question is this: What makes the difference?

If an unborn child is just as much a life as anyone else and truly does deserve the rights of everyone else,
why should there be a distinction made if they are the bastard child of a rape? If a woman is raped and
births the child, is it permissible to pay a doctor to murder it 30 years later?

This is a serious inconsistency I see in the perspective of pro-lifers. So I ask:

Should we be allowed to pay a doctor to murder a thirty year old man, given the proper circumstance?

 

[JayDubya]

Is this a trick question? Doctors don't deliberately kill. If they do, they aren't doctors.

 

[tessaesque]

Taking arguments to their furthest and most illogical extreme hardly benefits the debate.

 

[choiceone]

Taking arguments to their furthest and most illogical extreme hardly benefits the debate.

I disagree. When pro-lifers make an exception in a case of rape, but not in other cases, that exception still calls into question the claim that the embryo is a living human being who deserves the same right to life as every born person. Most people who make such an exception have no difficulty making it, i.e., they do not begrudge making it. Yet they would admit, along with pro-choice people (and hopefully all born people) that killing a born human being because its father raped its mother is totally unacceptable. I think such pro-lifers need to ask themselves why the exception in rape pregnancy is acceptable to them because it is the one case that is considered an elective rather than medical reason for abortion that vast majorities think acceptable.

 

[tessaesque]

I disagree. When pro-lifers make an exception in a case of rape, but not in other cases, that exception still calls into question the claim that the embryo is a living human being who deserves the same right to life as every born person. Most people who make such an exception have no difficulty making it, i.e., they do not begrudge making it. Yet they would admit, along with pro-choice people (and hopefully all born people) that killing a born human being because its father raped its mother is totally unacceptable. I think such pro-lifers need to ask themselves why the exception in rape pregnancy is acceptable to them because it is the one case that is considered an elective rather than medical reason for abortion that vast majorities think acceptable.

First of all, if you're not pro-life you can hardly speak for how easily they make the distinction. My pro-life friends don't simply shrug and say, "well rape's okay, teehee...but abortion bad!!". It isn't an easy concession for some. The logical explanation would be that, however tragic the death of the baby, the likelihood that the mother and baby would suffer because of the child's origins might be worse. Then you have a "lesser of two evils" decision on your hand. Do you birth a child and risk it knowing its life is based on the forceful rape committed by it's likely unknown father?

But at the end of the day, does it really matter? Pro-life people don't like abortion. They don't like abortion for the sake of birth control, rape, incest, defect, or any other reason. But they accept that the trauma involved in some circumstances changes the game and they make a concession.

Pro-choicers don't usually like abortion, but they emphasize the rights of the mother over the rights of the fetus and decide that all abortion (usually up to viability) should be acceptable.

One is no more right than the other, it's completely subjective.

But if we want to call out "hypocrisy" in the PL crowd because of a concession then we have to call out "hypocrisy" on the PC crowd for setting an arbitrary point of disallowance (generally viability, but sometimes as low as 20 weeks).

Personally? It disturbs me when arugments from either side portray the other as hypocritical, dishonest, illogical, or ridiculous. This is an issue of human life and it is incredibly complex. Until we learn to respect those on both sides we're all just pissing in the wind.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Is this a trick question? Doctors don't deliberately kill. If they do, they aren't doctors.

Yes, they do, and those who do still are.

 

[Removable Mind]

Tess, when you say....

One is no more right than the other, it's completely subjective.

Isn't that really getting down to nothing more than "choice"?

Most pro-lifers don't see this issue as "subjective". The consensus among pro-lifers is...boy sperm meets girl egg...they mix it up and kaboom a bouncing baby is on the way and to interfere in the development of that baby is basically committing murder. And for many without regard to how boy sperm meets girl egg.

On the extreme end (I might add - in my opinion) are those who believe that on top of abortion being a no-no. Also taking birth control is a no-no. Talk about complicated. Now that is complicated.

Now granted, the word "believe" is usually something I take as "subjective". But that seems to fall out of the debate somehow...probably on both sides of the arguments.

Or am I misunderstanding the argument altogether?

 

[tessaesque]

Tess, when you say....



Isn't that really getting down to nothing more than "choice"?

Most pro-lifers don't see this issue as "subjective". The consensus among pro-lifers is...boy sperm meets girl egg...they mix it up and kaboom a bouncing baby is on the way and to interfere in the development of that baby is basically committing murder. And for many without regard to how boy sperm meets girl egg.

On the extreme end (I might add - in my opinion) are those who believe that on top of abortion being a no-no. Also taking birth control is a no-no. Talk about complicated. Now that is complicated.

Now granted, the word "believe" is usually something I take as "subjective". But that seems to fall out of the debate somehow...probably on both sides of the arguments.

Or am I misunderstanding the argument altogether?

What I mean is that the morality of the issue is subjective. Thus, choosing which side to support is subjective.

 

[Removable Mind]

What I mean is that the morality of the issue is subjective. Thus, choosing which side to support is subjective.

I personally can agree with that, but...choosing is choosing and that's not acceptable to many. Abortion isn't a matter of subjectively choosing sides for diehard pro-lifers. There is but only one side and one side requires no choice making.

But like everything else in life, Tess...I could be wrong. I think it happened once before.

 

[choiceone]

First of all, if you're not pro-life you can hardly speak for how easily they make the distinction. My pro-life friends don't simply shrug and say, "well rape's okay, teehee...but abortion bad!!". It isn't an easy concession for some. The logical explanation would be that, however tragic the death of the baby, the likelihood that the mother and baby would suffer because of the child's origins might be worse. Then you have a "lesser of two evils" decision on your hand. Do you birth a child and risk it knowing its life is based on the forceful rape committed by it's likely unknown father?

But at the end of the day, does it really matter? Pro-life people don't like abortion. They don't like abortion for the sake of birth control, rape, incest, defect, or any other reason. But they accept that the trauma involved in some circumstances changes the game and they make a concession.

Pro-choicers don't usually like abortion, but they emphasize the rights of the mother over the rights of the fetus and decide that all abortion (usually up to viability) should be acceptable.

One is no more right than the other, it's completely subjective.

But if we want to call out "hypocrisy" in the PL crowd because of a concession then we have to call out "hypocrisy" on the PC crowd for setting an arbitrary point of disallowance (generally viability, but sometimes as low as 20 weeks).

Personally? It disturbs me when arugments from either side portray the other as hypocritical, dishonest, illogical, or ridiculous. This is an issue of human life and it is incredibly complex. Until we learn to respect those on both sides we're all just pissing in the wind.

I'm not trying to point up hypocrisy, etc. I'm saying that the same pro-life person who would make an exception in a case of rape, however difficult he or she might find that to do, would never, ever say it is okay to kill a born human being in the same case. Hence, this pro-life person does not really believe that a born baby and a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus always have equal rights to life, yet the whole pro-life argument of that person may be this equal right to life assertion. That is an inconsistency that should be explored, because it is an indication of a perspective that involves some other underlying argument.

 

[samsmart]

Some who agree with the pro-life point of view on abortion would argue that an unborn child is a human life
and that it should be illegal to abort the child; however, they will say that in the case that someone is raped
it is permissible.

My question is this: What makes the difference?

If an unborn child is just as much a life as anyone else and truly does deserve the rights of everyone else,
why should there be a distinction made if they are the bastard child of a rape? If a woman is raped and
births the child, is it permissible to pay a doctor to murder it 30 years later?

This is a serious inconsistency I see in the perspective of pro-lifers. So I ask:

Should we be allowed to pay a doctor to murder a thirty year old man, given the proper circumstance?

Well, we already do murder a thirty year old man, given the proper circumstances.

We murder them in death penalty cases. Some states don't even need a unanimous vote on using the death penalty. And jurors who refuse to apply the death penalty are automatically disqualified from being a juror in such cases. And forensic units are generally tied to the prosecutor's office or the sheriff's office. Which means that there's an inherent bias on the collection of evidence and how it's analyzed against a potential suspect. Which increases the likelihood of innocent people having evidence used improperly against them.

So if we're going to murder a thirty year old man, as well as many others, why should we make the distinction with an unwanted pregnancy?

 

[mac]

Some who agree with the pro-life point of view on abortion would argue that an unborn child is a human life
and that it should be illegal to abort the child; however, they will say that in the case that someone is raped
it is permissible.

My question is this: What makes the difference?

If an unborn child is just as much a life as anyone else and truly does deserve the rights of everyone else,
why should there be a distinction made if they are the bastard child of a rape? If a woman is raped and
births the child, is it permissible to pay a doctor to murder it 30 years later?

This is a serious inconsistency I see in the perspective of pro-lifers. So I ask:

Should we be allowed to pay a doctor to murder a thirty year old man, given the proper circumstance?

We don't make the exception because the child conceived from rape is any less human or deserving of life. We accept it (those of us that do) as a compromise. The only reason it is acceptable to me as a compromise is that it is the only case in which the woman is in no way responsible for the conception.

 

[nathanjames1791]

Some who agree with the pro-life point of view on abortion would argue that an unborn child is a human life
and that it should be illegal to abort the child; however, they will say that in the case that someone is raped
it is permissible.

My question is this: What makes the difference?

If an unborn child is just as much a life as anyone else and truly does deserve the rights of everyone else,
why should there be a distinction made if they are the bastard child of a rape? If a woman is raped and
births the child, is it permissible to pay a doctor to murder it 30 years later?

This is a serious inconsistency I see in the perspective of pro-lifers. So I ask:

Should we be allowed to pay a doctor to murder a thirty year old man, given the proper circumstance?

Uhhhhhhh you are all over the board here.

First off I get you, the rape thing doesnt make sense to me either but I dont know, not a woman, never been raped, thats for them to decide.

That being said, your scenario with the 30 year old being killed is normaly one that prolifers use against prochoicers.

 

[Paralogic]

Some who agree with the pro-life point of view on abortion would argue that an unborn child is a human life
and that it should be illegal to abort the child; however, they will say that in the case that someone is raped
it is permissible.

My question is this: What makes the difference?

There's no difference.

Abortion is an act that is not dependent on the circumstances of conception. However, if society wants to leave the choice to the woman, she can very well justify her action due to the violent circumstances she conceived, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

If the argument against abortion is that it is the end of a human life, then a potential rape or incest or any other similar violent or anti-social act that resulted in the conception, should have nothing to do with the alleged human life a pregnancy represents.

Whoever wants to ban abortion but allow it in such cases is a hypocrite. The health of a woman is a different factor, even though there may be some overlap. But it's best to examine that case in a different context than including it in the rape/incest situations.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Some who agree with the pro-life point of view on abortion would argue that an unborn child is a human life
and that it should be illegal to abort the child; however, they will say that in the case that someone is raped
it is permissible.

My question is this: What makes the difference?

If an unborn child is just as much a life as anyone else and truly does deserve the rights of everyone else,
why should there be a distinction made if they are the bastard child of a rape? If a woman is raped and
births the child, is it permissible to pay a doctor to murder it 30 years later?

This is a serious inconsistency I see in the perspective of pro-lifers. So I ask:

Should we be allowed to pay a doctor to murder a thirty year old man, given the proper circumstance?

You've already stated the difference: she was raped.

 

[Peter King]

Is this a trick question? Doctors don't deliberately kill. If they do, they aren't doctors.

That is not always the fact. In the US maybe (even though switching off life support could be seen as ending a life) but in some countries around the world doctors do legally "kill" patients.

 

[choiceone]

We don't make the exception because the child conceived from rape is any less human or deserving of life. We accept it (those of us that do) as a compromise. The only reason it is acceptable to me as a compromise is that it is the only case in which the woman is in no way responsible for the conception.

I get that. But I am aware that, if that same child had been born, killing it would not be an acceptable compromise to you (or, indeed, to me). If the woman is not responsible for the conception - this would hold even after a child conceived from rape was born. I'm asking, why is abortion an okay compromise position and killing the born child not an equally okay compromise position? We all know the latter is not okay.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I get that. But I am aware that, if that same child had been born, killing it would not be an acceptable compromise to you (or, indeed, to me). If the woman is not responsible for the conception - this would hold even after a child conceived from rape was born. I'm asking, why is abortion an okay compromise position and killing the born child not an equally okay compromise position? We all know the latter is not okay.

Because - whether you support abortion or not - late term abortion or not - there is a time at which there is no choice.

* For some prolife individual: the moment you become pregnant = you have no choice.
* For other prolife individuals / pro choice with exception (the grey area in the middle) = there is a choice, it doesn't extend out indefinitely and isn't under "any" circumstance. . . this might fall to when there's a heartbeat - or certain types of movement or growth . . . some milestone has been reached. But the time for decision ends sometime during the beginning/middle of the pregnancy
* For other pro choice individuals there is exception except for late-term abortion. . . this might be marked by the beginning of the 3rd trimester.
* For others yet again as long as your pregnant they consider options to all be viable. . . for these: the choice ends when birth occurs. (of course - this isn't a legally supported stance)

Everyone holds a view - and in their views at *some* point (which we don't all agree on) you forgo the choice.

Our Constitutional rights apply to those who are born - as it is currently interpreted - Ergo: Unless you become the next biggest serial killer and go through a trial or try to attack someone in the middle of the night and kill them: no one has the right to kill you.

So - you're really just asking 'why do pro-choice individuals have a line, why do they draw one, and under what premise.' . . . and you're focusing on a case of rape: after she already chose to have the child. That choice - the choice makes a HUGE difference in where things fall. No one other than her (unless she's underage) should have the right ot make that choice FOR her - she makes the choice for herself . . . and if she chooses to have the baby no one has the right to just come along and take that child's life *just because* they want to (of course - you know this) - no on, unless she's underage or unable to speak for herself, has the right *ever* to decide if she's going to abort or not.

I believe that if you wait and don't make up your mind until you're 3 months along *knowing* you were raped and pregnant - you've already made the choice and you can't change your mind. The ONLY exception to any of this I make is when the woman isn't even a woman: but underage - just today I heard of a child in my state who was raped by her mother's boyfriend and *now* she's pregnant and didn't tell her mother or anyone until after the boyfriend moved out of their home because she's TWELVE years old and NOT a mature woman - and not capable of making the *right* decisions for herself and no matter how old a CHILD is - she shouldn't be having a child regardless of her feelings on the issue.

Now - in my view: I focus a lot more on the rapist's agenda and his goals here - something some people just don't bother with. What rights does he have? A rapist doesn't have the right to CHOOSE when a woman is going to have a child. . . that's what rape that leads to pregnancy is, really - he chose to attack her, he chose to rape her, he made all these decisions and she has to live with the consequences of his unjust actions. I think it's easy to forget that his choices set this all in motion.

When it comes to the right to have a child - no one without your consent has the right to decide that for you.

 

[choiceone]

Because - whether you support abortion or not - late term abortion or not - there is a time at which there is no choice.

* For some prolife individual: the moment you become pregnant = you have no choice.
* For other prolife individuals / pro choice with exception (the grey area in the middle) = there is a choice, it doesn't extend out indefinitely and isn't under "any" circumstance. . . this might fall to when there's a heartbeat - or certain types of movement or growth . . . some milestone has been reached. But the time for decision ends sometime during the beginning/middle of the pregnancy
* For other pro choice individuals there is exception except for late-term abortion. . . this might be marked by the beginning of the 3rd trimester.
* For others yet again as long as your pregnant they consider options to all be viable. . . for these: the choice ends when birth occurs. (of course - this isn't a legally supported stance)

Everyone holds a view - and in their views at *some* point (which we don't all agree on) you forgo the choice.

Our Constitutional rights apply to those who are born - as it is currently interpreted - Ergo: Unless you become the next biggest serial killer and go through a trial or try to attack someone in the middle of the night and kill them: no one has the right to kill you.

So - you're really just asking 'why do pro-choice individuals have a line, why do they draw one, and under what premise.' . . . and you're focusing on a case of rape: after she already chose to have the child. That choice - the choice makes a HUGE difference in where things fall. No one other than her (unless she's underage) should have the right ot make that choice FOR her - she makes the choice for herself . . . and if she chooses to have the baby no one has the right to just come along and take that child's life *just because* they want to (of course - you know this) - no on, unless she's underage or unable to speak for herself, has the right *ever* to decide if she's going to abort or not.

I believe that if you wait and don't make up your mind until you're 3 months along *knowing* you were raped and pregnant - you've already made the choice and you can't change your mind. The ONLY exception to any of this I make is when the woman isn't even a woman: but underage - just today I heard of a child in my state who was raped by her mother's boyfriend and *now* she's pregnant and didn't tell her mother or anyone until after the boyfriend moved out of their home because she's TWELVE years old and NOT a mature woman - and not capable of making the *right* decisions for herself and no matter how old a CHILD is - she shouldn't be having a child regardless of her feelings on the issue.

Now - in my view: I focus a lot more on the rapist's agenda and his goals here - something some people just don't bother with. What rights does he have? A rapist doesn't have the right to CHOOSE when a woman is going to have a child. . . that's what rape that leads to pregnancy is, really - he chose to attack her, he chose to rape her, he made all these decisions and she has to live with the consequences of his unjust actions. I think it's easy to forget that his choices set this all in motion.

When it comes to the right to have a child - no one without your consent has the right to decide that for you.

I like your post. However, it seems to me that, what bothers pro-lifers so much is that the SC decisions draw the line at a point after they themselves would. Some pro-choicers would draw an even later line and are also bothered. But the whole point of our kind of government is that it is rare for a huge majority to agree on even one particular item in a world view. That it is wrong to kill a born person except in very limited cases of defense of the born self or born innocent third party is something everyone agrees on (except the few murderers). A very large majority agrees that it is wrong to abort a viable fetus except in very limited circumstances. Well over 50% of people in the US do not want to draw the line differently than the SC decisions do, even though some might draw their personal line differently, because they agree to differ. The others do not agree to differ.

But the problem in the case of rape is that the objective empirical evidence of the embryo, fetus, or child remains the same whether or not rape caused the pregnancy. You say that after birth, the woman/girl has already chosen to have the child, but it is possible to imagine a case where a rape victim is physically prevented from making a choice during the whole pregnancy, yet virtually none of us think she should have a choice to kill the born child. What you do in your post here is talk about the woman, and this is my point. In a case of rape, even mac shifts gears - the woman did not by a free act contribute to the pregnancy, so he thinks she has the right to choose abortion. But in the hypothetical forced pregnancy example, he would agree that it is wrong to kill the born child. Most pro-lifers do not really consider the embryo/fetus to be equal to the born child, to be a person with a really equal right to life or they could not make this distinction. So what makes a really equal person with a really equal right to life? Clearly, it is not just being a live human organism in this case, even for most pro-lifers.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I like your post. However, it seems to me that, what bothers pro-lifers so much is that the SC decisions draw the line at a point after they themselves would. Some pro-choicers would draw an even later line and are also bothered. But the whole point of our kind of government is that it is rare for a huge majority to agree on even one particular item in a world view. That it is wrong to kill a born person except in very limited cases of defense of the born self or born innocent third party is something everyone agrees on (except the few murderers). A very large majority agrees that it is wrong to abort a viable fetus except in very limited circumstances. Well over 50% of people in the US do not want to draw the line differently than the SC decisions do, even though some might draw their personal line differently, because they agree to differ. The others do not agree to differ.

But the problem in the case of rape is that the objective empirical evidence of the embryo, fetus, or child remains the same whether or not rape caused the pregnancy. You say that after birth, the woman/girl has already chosen to have the child, but it is possible to imagine a case where a rape victim is physically prevented from making a choice during the whole pregnancy, yet virtually none of us think she should have a choice to kill the born child. What you do in your post here is talk about the woman, and this is my point. In a case of rape, even mac shifts gears - the woman did not by a free act contribute to the pregnancy, so he thinks she has the right to choose abortion. But in the hypothetical forced pregnancy example, he would agree that it is wrong to kill the born child. Most pro-lifers do not really consider the embryo/fetus to be equal to the born child, to be a person with a really equal right to life or they could not make this distinction. So what makes a really equal person with a really equal right to life? Clearly, it is not just being a live human organism in this case, even for most pro-lifers.

The details of the situation dictates the acceptable actions that one can take. This is true for everyone and every thing - governing any circumstance and concern: the elements in the equation are all taken into consideration and accounted for.

There are times and reasons where me taking someone's life would be ok or acceptable if they're an individual living on their own free will: protecting my self from immediate danger, for example, or if I was in the military and it occurred within military guidelines and with given permissions . . . and so with abortion there are also general 'exceptions to the rule' - for many, it's rape and illness.

But even in these examples of 'exceptions to the rule' - there are still times at which it's less tolerated or less excused or ok. For example: the mentally ill and children - in wartime or in matters of self protection it's usually accepted less so if the perpetrator/attacker/assailant/enemy is of these two things (and so on).

Society sets different values for different levels and modes of existence - and therefor society sets 'the standards rules' and also sets ' the exceptions to the rule'

It's a cultural issue - which is why we in the US have a serious issue: we don't have one single unified culture.

If we were in another country - with a different culture - we'd have a completely different exposure to these issues: some places have no tolerance and even force a rapist to marry their victim if she ends up pregnant. While in other cultures abortion is quite common - and so is infanticide. I was quite shocked to read an article that detailed the events of a culture in South America that had an alarmingly high infant and child death rate - where there was more paperwork and questions involved in buying a car than registering the death of a young child.

It's complicated - just like people.

 

[mac]

I get that. But I am aware that, if that same child had been born, killing it would not be an acceptable compromise to you (or, indeed, to me). If the woman is not responsible for the conception - this would hold even after a child conceived from rape was born. I'm asking, why is abortion an okay compromise position and killing the born child not an equally okay compromise position? We all know the latter is not okay.

Mostly for the same reasons that pro-choicers suddenly consider it "not ok" to kill it after viability. At that point the the humanity of the child is undeniable. It's not an "okay" compromise position, in my view, it's a necessary one in order to achieve the greater goal of limiting most abortion.

 

[JayDubya]

That is not always the fact. In the US maybe (even though switching off life support could be seen as ending a life) but in some countries around the world doctors do legally "kill" patients.

I repeat my statement. Once they deliberately kill their patients, they do not hold to the tenets of professional medical ethics, and they are not doctors.

 

[Peter King]

I repeat my statement. Once they deliberately kill their patients, they do not hold to the tenets of professional medical ethics, and they are not doctors.

That is a different discussion, and in the US some doctors deliberately kill and they are still doctors. Pulling the plug as it is known by some is actively ending a persons life. In the Netherlands (and more countries around the world) euthanasia is legal and they are still doctors.

On a non-human level, almost all doctors (vets) end the lives of animals to end their suffering, they are doing the "humane thing" but they are killing (if only animals) but that makes them better doctors IMHO not worse doctors but I guess that is a discussion that we should not have here.

 

[Sig]

Some who agree with the pro-life point of view on abortion would argue that an unborn child is a human life
and that it should be illegal to abort the child; however, they will say that in the case that someone is raped
it is permissible.

My question is this: What makes the difference?

If an unborn child is just as much a life as anyone else and truly does deserve the rights of everyone else,
why should there be a distinction made if they are the bastard child of a rape? If a woman is raped and
births the child, is it permissible to pay a doctor to murder it 30 years later?

This is a serious inconsistency I see in the perspective of pro-lifers. So I ask:

Should we be allowed to pay a doctor to murder a thirty year old man, given the proper circumstance?

My position is that as long as the ZEF is attached to the umbilical cord, it exists at the pleasure of its host.

Once the umbilical cord is cut, then the ZEF is a constitutionally protected individual. Therefore, to so terminate a 30 year-old individual, who was conceived in the womb of its host via rape, would amount to murder.