Leaderboard

Welcome dingo dude. I am a big fan of "The Truth About" series also. You should check them all out if you haven't.

I will add in my .02 cents, here. I just finished Robert Wright's Moral Animal (recommended). His conclusion is that free will is just socialized instinct. Near the end of the book, a quote from Wright: "our conscious mind isn't privy to all the motivating forces." And from Darwin (within Moral Animal): "the general delusion about free will obvious... his motives [are] mostly instinctive." My take on Wright and Darwin's argument is that consciousness is developed from the unconscious mind. And, the conscious mind is just a tool of the unconscious. I thought it was an interesting argument, so I shared it here. Also, in psychology, the term subconscious is no longer really used, but unconscious is. I like unconscious better too, because "sub" makes it sound inferior to the conscious mind, which it is not. The unconscious has been developed over millions of years and Stefan has mentioned, before, that it operates much faster than the conscious mind. Great discussion here.

The assertion of self ownership is not enough to demonstrate the distinction between the obligation to nurture a child and the obligation to birth a fetus. The nurturing of the child requires the woman's properties which infringes on her self ownership. It is either the case that the obligation supersedes her self ownership (in which case the woman is obligated to nurture the child) or self ownership supersedes the obligation (in which case the woman can voluntarily abandon/relinquish said child). "As a rule, nobody that engages in coitus is unaware of the facts that it could be tantamount to the creation of a new life, that said life cannot survive on its own, and therefore needs the protection and nurturing for many years until it can." Why does sex which precedes both pregnancy and childbirth only create obligation in nurturing the child, but not in delivering the fetus?

I didn't phrase the question well enough. There is a line of argument in this thread that abortion should be permitted because the unwanted fetus is using the mother's property (the uterus) and the mother should be allowed to deny or withdraw her consent to be used this way. Based on this logic, why should a mother not be allowed to abandon an unwanted newborn since it continues to be dependent on the use of the mother's property to survive and the mother should be able to withdraw her consent to be used this way? Without bringing up when the fetus acquires its own rights, can this line of argument hold both that abortion is permissible and that child abandonment is not permissible?

That wasn't my point at all. My approach was prevention vs cure. Children who are peacefully raised will choose not to risk pregnancy prior to being ready for such commitments in every way. You were talking about how to deal with polio after polio has been cured. It's a non-issue. I'm not sure I understand the question. However, both parents voluntarily create a positive obligation to protect and nurture their child until such a time as it is able to do so themselves without their parents. It would be like asking how would we reconcile that McDonald's owes you the burger that you paid for. That was the deal. Could you point out how there's something that needs to be reconciled?