Anonymous asked: So you're just gonna ignore those rape pregnancies? The fact that it's half a percent (which, when multiplied by the 1.3 million or so abortions annually, adds up to a LOT of rape victims having to face an absurdly horrifying reminder of their rapes for the rest of their lives) makes it negligible? Honestly, I expected more from you.
OK, I’ll humor you. Even if pregnancy is a fetal infringement on a woman’s rights, does that necessarily mean she has the right to kill to be rid of it?
There’s a famous philosophical hypothetical called “The Famous Violinist.” It goes: a famous violinist is unconscious and in a coma. Doctors and music lovers everywhere decide that you’re the only one that can save him, by being hooked up to him for the next 9 months. And one night while you’re asleep, they break in and hook the violinist up to you. If you unhook him, he’ll die. He’s innocent in all this (he was unconscious, and therefore unknowing when it happened)—so the question is, are you morally justified in unhooking him (and therefore killing him) simply because you don’t wish to be burdened with this for the next 9 months?
Many would say yes. It’s not something you want, and his right to life doesn’t trump your liberty interest in not hosting him for 9 months. However, is that valid? The flipside of that coin is—a burdened right to liberty is better than a deprived right to life. Because let’s face it—the pregnancy is temporary and the abortion is permanent. Whose rights outweigh whose?
Try applying the theft argument as an excuse to stop caring for an extrautero product of your conjugal exertions and its absurdity will become clear. Consider the principle behind child abuse/neglect. We consider it a criminal offense to purposefully harm or refuse to care for your child. Now, obviously it’s not the same as having it physically attached to you—but caring for a child is kind of a pain in the ass. It’s a major upheaval in life that demands your time and energy and attention, and it taxes your health, autonomy, and finances. But, if you don’t do it—we consider that wrongful and offensive to the child’s rights. Pregnancy is similarly a pain in the ass. Now, obviously, the big flaw here is equating a child with a fetus. But for sake of argument, if they are the same, does the proximity of the child really matter in terms of the parental duty to care for one’s progeny?
Not that I’m accusing you of this, but it’s supremely ironic that this argument usually comes from proponents of affirmative duties—the sort who’ll call you a monster for not wanting your taxes going to welfare programs, or for valuing your own time over someone else’s safety. I’d like to see one of them try to justify that contradiction.