To abort or not to abort

[Heywood]

In my view any being with a future expectation of personhood should be given moral protection. That does not mean we need to go out of our way to insure its survival. It means we should not take action to insure its destruction.

An interesting moral stance. Does it extend to actual people? So for eg, if I see a child fall off a train platform onto the track, do I have a moral obligation to lift the child clear? (go out of my way to ensure its survival)? Or is it enough not to take action to ensure its destruction (push him off).

IUDs work by impeding implantation of a fertilised egg. Is this taking action to ensure its destruction?

A)Attempt to push a child into the path of an on coming train.
B)Not attempt to save a child who has fallen in front of an on coming train.

A is not the same thing as B. A is analogous to abortion. B is not analogous to abortion. I fear you are attempting to conflate A with B....but to answer your question I would say yes, you have some obligation to lift the child from the tracks.

---

I'd rather keep the argument theological and philosophical than political. For all I know he may be Chinese!

Understand, but politics is where the proof is that their concern ends as soon as the tyke is ejected from the womb. Besides, politics is philosophical.

I would get rid of food stamps and WIC and give poor people money instead. The problem with being poor is not having any money. The reason people on left and the right like food stamps, housing assistance and such is they think poor people are too irresponsible to make good decisions....so they want to make those decisions for them. I disagree....but that is a political discussion...maybe one day I will do a thread in politics on a negative income tax.