Comments on Crash Landing: All aboard!

flyff penya flyff money flyff gold buy flyf...

2008-12-23T23:48:00.000-05:00

flyff penya
flyff money
flyff gold
buy flyff penya
cheap penya

You're correct in that what I wrote did not come o...

2007-12-16T10:57:00.000-05:00

You're correct in that what I wrote did not come out the way I wanted it to. I'm going to write a follow-up.

Gene,I don't think you did stipulate that these ...

2007-12-13T22:28:00.000-05:00

Gene,

I don't think you *did* stipulate that these issues would be gone. You spent all of your article on the analogy--where the guy kicking off the person is a murderer, not "a murderer in 15 years when technology advances"--and then in your final paragraph, you come back to the actual case of pregnant women:

"Therefore, as I see it, the ethical way to end an unwanted pregnancy is to deliver the baby at the first moment it is likely to be viable, and place it up for adoption."

You didn't say anything here about, "In 30 years, I'm saying the ethical way to..." You are here unequivocally saying that someone who gets an abortion is unethical. That's a defensible position, but don't deny that that's what you're implying. If a woman last week got an abortion because she didn't want to spend 2 months puking or lose her job, if she read your article she would rightfully conclude that you thought she was immoral.

Back to your article:

This may seem burdensome, but advances in medical technology are pushing that "first moment" back earlier and earlier, so that soon it will approach the initial detection of the pregnancy itself.

OK this is like the 4th last sentence in your article, and the first point where you mention technology. But even here, you are simply trying to take the sting out of your ethical pronouncement; you're certainly not saying, "My view only holds once technology sufficiently advances so that only sadism remains as a motivation for abortion."

It won’t be long before a foetus can quickly and easily be relocated in an artificial womb of some sort, or the womb of a willing mother. Once that happens, what excuse will there be for killing the child?

Are you talking about for upper middle class American women? There are people in Africa without running water right now. Your technological solution to abortion is several decades away, at least.

Maybe what's happened is that your article gave people the wrong idea of your claim, but your article clearly seemed to me to say a sober libertarian would have to conclude that abortion is murder, *right now*. Are you saying that or not?

'To make the analogy more accurate, it's that you ...

2007-12-13T12:31:00.000-05:00

'To make the analogy more accurate, it's that you were in your ship heading down to the wharf 3 hours away, when all of a sudden a guy climbs aboard who has a disease that can only be treated at a port 9 months away.'

No, Bob, per the conditions I stipulated, port is only a week or two away and your body will hardly be changed at all.

'You can say morality and law demand that you do it, but it's not just an inconvenience.'

Bob, I explicitly stipulated that these issues would be gone, and that the baby could be removed but not killed almost as soon as pregnancy is detected! Then delivering the baby is 0% more onerous than aborting it! The question is, is there then *any* justification left for abortion?

And yes, this is in the future, but not too far off -- the age of viablity is dropping very fast.

Since Callahan's solution is in the imaginary scie...

2007-12-13T09:32:00.000-05:00

Since Callahan's solution is in the imaginary scientific future, let us also imagine the potential human can be implanted in the impregnating man, and let him carry the spud to term.

Oh and what are you talking about the "all aboard"...

2007-12-11T18:20:00.000-05:00

Oh and what are you talking about the "all aboard" was heard?! It's more like, "Jim come aboard" and then a baby crawled on too when nobody was looking, because the gangplank was left out.

(Yes I have very little maritime experience; I don't even know the terminology to describe the picture in my head.)

I don't object to the use of analogies but it doesn't seem that you are trying very hard to tailor it to the actual situations over which most people disagree.

I don't know your personal situation, John, but I ...

2007-12-11T18:14:00.000-05:00

I don't know your personal situation, John, but I am surprised that Gene so flippantly refers to a pregnancy as an "inconvenience."

To make the analogy more accurate, it's that you were in your ship heading down to the wharf 3 hours away, when all of a sudden a guy climbs aboard who has a disease that can only be treated at a port 9 months away. And unless you take him immediately, he will die.

In addition to changing your plans for the next 9 months, this guy's illness is mildly contagious, and will make you vomit every morning for a while, and change your body irreparably.

You can say morality and law demand that you do it, but it's not just an inconvenience. If you guys are really trying to convince people who don't already agree with you, I would recommend reading some of the more intelligent defenses of abortion.

(BTW my own view: I'm not sure whether it's murder. It's certainly "less murder" than killing an infant, and "more murder" than refraining from reproduction. But since I'm a pacifist I don't think anybody should be locked up anyway. If you want to boycott people who have/perform abortions, OK go ahead; I won't boycott you in turn. But I probably wouldn't boycott them myself.)

I am still not sure of the basic terms of the anal...

2007-12-11T12:12:00.000-05:00

I am still not sure of the basic terms of the analogy. Is it a baby or a potential baby? Is the baby on the ship or three months away from being on the ship? If you assume away the basic legal and physical framework, then what good is the analogy?