The Abortion Debate: in the third timester
Posted: 19 July 2006 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  187
Joined  2006-07-14

Even once a fetus has brain waves and we would recognize it as a legal person, there is reason to keep abortion legal.

I find this area a bit ugly and I don’t like it personally at all, but legally, I can’t see where the government has the authority to favor the rights of one life over another.

Here are two hypothetical scenarios to clarify where I’m coming at with this one. Let me know what you think:

———————————————————————-
———————————————————————-
1) Bob and Tom are siamese twins. Bob is fully formed but not Tom; among other things, Tom’s heart does not pump enough blood to keep himself alive independently of Bob. Bob is suffering under the physical and mental strain of supporting Tom’s body and decides that he no longer wants to be attatched to Tom (thus ending Tom’s life).

[b:a1c34c6885]- Does Bob have the right to detach himself from Tom ?[/b:a1c34c6885]

———————————————————————-
———————————————————————-
2) You are at fault in a car accident that causes an innocent woman to suffer a double kidney failure. You are the only compatible donor availbale to donate a kidney in time to save her life. Your decision to accept the risks of driving has forced an innocent life to require the use of one of your organs to be able to live. 

[b:a1c34c6885]-Should the government be able to force you to donate your kidney? [/b:a1c34c6885]
[b:a1c34c6885]-Should you be convicted of murder if you don’t provide the kidney?[/b:a1c34c6885]
———————————————————————-


Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2006 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  187
Joined  2006-07-14

The Abortion Debate: in the third timester

Even once a fetus has brain waves and we would recognize it as a legal person, there is reason to keep abortion legal.

I find this area a bit ugly and I don’t like it personally at all, but legally, I can’t see where the government has the authority to favor the rights of one life over another.

Here are two hypothetical scenarios to clarify where I’m coming at with this one. Let me know what you think:

———————————————————————-
———————————————————————-
1) Bob and Tom are siamese twins. Bob is fully formed but not Tom; among other things, Tom’s heart does not pump enough blood to keep himself alive independently of Bob. Bob is suffering under the physical and mental strain of supporting Tom’s body and decides that he no longer wants to be attatched to Tom (thus ending Tom’s life).

- Does Bob have the right to detach himself from Tom ?

———————————————————————-
———————————————————————-
2) You are at fault in a car accident that causes an innocent woman to suffer a double kidney failure. You are the only compatible donor availbale to donate a kidney in time to save her life. Your decision to accept the risks of driving has forced an innocent life to require the use of one of your organs to be able to live. 

-Should the government be able to force you to donate your kidney?
-Should you be convicted of murder if you don’t provide the kidney?
———————————————————————-


Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2006 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15370
Joined  2006-02-14

Excellent questions, Riley. I will be interested to see some responses. I have my own intuitions but will wait a bit here ...

:wink:

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2006 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2006-07-10

The government already “forces you to donate your kidney” in other ways, by serving time, paying reparations, etc.  So where’s the difference here?

The government isn’t convicting the person of murder for not donating the kidney.  The crime is the original causing of the accident.  If then, the causer doesn’t serve time or pay reparations, there is another crime committed.  This becomes a different issue.

The siamese twins example is rough.  The issue is whether or not there are two lives here.

 Signature 

What’s the point?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2006 07:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  187
Joined  2006-07-14

[quote author=“thakkus”]The government already “forces you to donate your kidney” in other ways, by serving time, paying reparations, etc.  So where’s the difference here?

The difference is between “serving time” and “sacrificing an organ” (which involves an added risk to your life and the compromising of your long term health - its also considered “torture”, even by the lax standards of the Bush Administraiton).

[quote author=“thakkus”]The government isn’t convicting the person of murder for not donating the kidney.  The crime is the original causing of the accident.


This avoids the issue.
If you’re driving a car, you have an accident, and you’re at fault - the government gives you a ticket and makes you pay a fine. That’s all (unless you’ve been reckless).  The victim of your accident, however, may sue you for damages (in the form of cash) . . . but what good is money to a victim who is about to die ?

Profile