|analogous abortion situation?||DougSloan|
Jan 23, 2003 2:24 PM
|A man is hiking way the hell out in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. He meets up with a woman and a baby. The woman hands him the baby, and takes off in her SUV, never to be seen again.
It begins to snow, and the temperature drops well below zero. The only way to keep the baby warm, and alive, is for the man to carry it under his parka. The man starts walking, but realizes that it is going to be an extremely difficult hike, with some climbing involved, carrying the baby; if he didn't have the baby, his chances of making it to safety are higher than without it. He must stop frequently to scrounge up food for the baby; this results in his progress being far slower, and with the winter approaching, actually life threatening.
Under these circumstances, is the man justified in abandoning the baby, such that it is certain it will die, in an effort to improve his chances of surviving?
|It's a personal choice.||RoyGBiv|
Jan 23, 2003 2:38 PM
|Myself, I keep the child and hope against hope that help will miraculously alive. If it doesn't, we die together. Sometimes you gotta make tough choices.|
|Or should he cut off his hand, make soup and FEED the baby?||cory|
Jan 23, 2003 2:48 PM
|It has more years of potential life left, and so its death would be a greater sin. He can live without a hand, and the baby would benefit from the nourishment.
And if he doesn't abandon the baby, and doesn't make it, so they both die, will he burn in hell for TWO mortal sins rather than one? Even knowing he might die, he refused to take the step that would have reduced the loss of life.
And why are we talking only about the man and the baby, not the circumstances that drove the woman to her decision in the first place? Oh, that's right--conservatives don't consider that.
|Legally speaking, isn't the answer no?||czardonic|
Jan 23, 2003 2:53 PM
|Is it true that under certain circumstances you can intentionally kill someone else if you reasonably believe that you are in a "him or me" survival situation?|
|Only if you get to eat them. nm||sn69|
Jan 23, 2003 3:42 PM
|Yeah, if it were me: BABY SOUP! nm||Sintesi|
Jan 23, 2003 4:03 PM
|I was thinking about a stew...cooked on the SUV's exhaust. nm||sn69|
Jan 23, 2003 4:39 PM
|Its easy. The baby would die anyway.||Kristin|
Jan 23, 2003 3:06 PM
|He has not milk for it. Not a happy ending, but true. The baby will starve without proper milk or formula.|
Jan 23, 2003 3:08 PM
|If it were me, I'd stay with the baby as long as I it were alive, even if it meant I would die...I think. But that's just me. Even if I wanted to leave it, I don't think my convictions and compassion would permit me to do so...I think.|
Jan 23, 2003 3:08 PM
|The woman abandoned the baby.
The solution is quite logical. If the situation is such that the baby will die whether the man protects it or not, the man should opt for his own survival. It sounds harsh, but there is no need for two people to die.
It's possible that the baby will be found and raised by wolves. Scientists will find him later and declare him the new "wild child." There will be a book, a movie, and the lecture circuit. The baby will become rich and famous.
|I guess I'll have to work on my analogy <8-| nm||DougSloan|
Jan 23, 2003 7:43 PM
|re: analogous abortion situation?||jaybird|
Jan 24, 2003 5:51 AM
|Since the woman was in an SUV he is obviously near a road (nobody drives their SUV off raod...) He needs to just start walking on the road and wait for another car to come by and ride to civilization. How did he get to the point where he is? Can't he back track to the point of civilization from where he started?
What does this have to do with abortion? How could anyone abandon a baby and go on and live a happy life? Wouldn't the thoughts of the baby haunt you forever especially if you survived.
|re: analogous abortion situation?||Jusme|
Jan 24, 2003 7:58 AM
|The question is moot. Everyone knows unborn babies aren't important. They're the uterine version of a melanoma. You know, " I LIKE tanning. I DON'T want to be bothered with a melanoma. I'll just have it taken care of.
Here are the common BS responses the pro-choice crowd gives us.
1- "Men need to shut the h***l up, it's a womens issue."
By this logic noone should not speak out against discrimination against someone of a different race.
2- "If it's illegal, women will get "back alley" abortions thereby hurting themselves"
In other words, give me what I want or I'll mutilate myself. Sounds like someone needs a psychologist, not an abortion Dr.
3- "women should not be forced to be mothers when they don't want to."
Noone says they have to be a mother. Just allow it to be adopted. It's not a matter of not wanting to be a mother, it's a matter of not wanting to be pregnant.
Conception is the only non subjective, non arbitrary point that each human being begins.
|the flaw here||ColnagoFE|
Jan 24, 2003 8:26 AM
|i believe the argument is to the definition of when life starts...when a baby can viably live outside the mother's body. this baby you handed off is definately outside the mother though still dependent on someone to care for it so the analogy doesn't fit.|
|Not a Libertarian analogy. Sounds Limbaughian. ; ) nm||128|
Jan 24, 2003 8:36 AM
|No, he is not justified. But that's not really your question,||bill|
Jan 24, 2003 9:02 AM
|is it? Your question is, how is this different from abortion? Because almost no one would say that the man is justified.
But to say that the man should not abandon the baby is not the same as saying that, once a cell divides, the woman inside of whom it divides should be forced by law to nourish it into a baby, possibly sacrifice her health or her very life in the process, carry it to term, deliver it, and THEN have to rely on the law to get someone to help her raise the kid or put it up for adoption or whatever, regardless of how she feels about any of that.
I don't advocate abortion. I find it morally ambiguous at best. I'm just not prepared to make that decision for everyone.