Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
It seems pretty much for me that you assume that not doing everything to prevent somebody else's death is the same as killing somebody.

Well, no, I don't. I assume that people should have full control of what their internal organs are used for.

If the mother does not donate her uterus, the foetus dies. If I don't donate my kidney, a kidney patient somewhere dies. If the mother does donate her uterus, she goes through an invasive surgical procedure that will render her unable to carry out many lines of work for several months. If I donate my kidney, I have to go through an invasive surgical procedure, but at the associated downtime will usually be on the order of days or weeks, not months.

It would appear to me, then, that kidney donations are less invasive than uterus donations. So why, again, should uterus donations be mandatory while kidney donations remain voluntary?

And I don't buy your commission/omission logic either. Going through labour is - as the term alludes to - a rather laborious task, so it is by no means clear that denying the foetus use of the uterus is the more invasive action to take.

Consider, if you will, a stowaway found on a ship. The stowaway was hoping to get to Europe to work. If the captain kicks him off the ship at the next port of call, the stowaway will lose a not inconsiderable sum of money.

He's already on the ship, so kicking him out is indisputably an active commission, whereas carrying him until he leaves voluntarily would maintain the status quo. Since the captain is making an active effort to deny the stowaway the use of his ship, and since the stowaway stands to lose money from the captain's action, the captain's actions are morally equivalent to stealing the stowaway's money, no?

If abortion would be made illegal (in theory it is illegal in Germany although the public insurance pays for it) it would be based on a relatively broad acceptance that it should be illegal.

  1. 50 % + 1 is a majority, so - well - no, not necessarily.

  2. Quite a lot of people are hypocrites, who are perfectly fine with prohibiting something for everyone else while partaking in it themselves. Think Ted Haggard and whatshisname with the bathroom stall. Even quite a few of the "picketers" who regularly harass and threaten Planned Parenthood clinics in the US have abortions themselves when they are accidentally impregnated (sorry, I've lost the link, and Google has about a bazillion results for all the related search terms I can think of).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 10:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series