Is this a stupid abortion question?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070215131829AAUnsi9&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMhjVQV5fomWy580E4NxOF.GUFiN3cyuKwvA--&paid=answered#JsUmW0n0MUKZFvv0b_4R

Using this analogy, anyone who cares for the homeless should be forced to house millions of them in their homes.

Or how about this? Since women who don't want kids can just "abort" them to solve their problem (instead of NOT HAVING SEX), how about we just "get rid" of some of the homeless problem?

If killing solves one problem, it should solve ALL problems!!

Answer 1

I just want to know what is so wrong with people actually taking a little responsilibity for themselves?!?

Answer 2

You're running in the opposite direction from the matter at hand. The relevant questions are: (1) Does a fetus have the normative rights of a human being (including the right to life) despite the fact that it lacks the constituent characteristics (mere DNA not being one of them) on which those rights are based? And, if the fetus can be shown to have such rights, (2) Is a mother, or any human being for that matter, obligated to physically sustain another human being simply because that human being is physically dependant for survival?
The first point is something that you and many pro-life people fail to understand about the moral perspective of those who are pro-choice. Pro-choice people are not pro-murder! The argument being made is NOT "Abortion is ok because it is more expedient and easier"! A pro-choice person will agree that killing a human being is unacceptable, but a pro-choice person doen't believe that a fetus is in fact a human being- it is a human fetus with no subjective ontology. Similarly, there is no contradiction between being pro-choice and being anti-capital punishment because questions of killing a human being are only present in the latter case.
It should be noted that there is, on the face of it, a moral inconsistency with being pro-life and pro-death penalty. If human life is sacred and both are forms of human life, then the double standard seems untenable. The Catholic Church is, however, entirely consistent and unequivocal in the paramount importance of human life- no abortion, no death penalty.
The second pro-choice argument leads to the same conclusions. If one grants the fetus the right to life, one does not necessarily have to grant the fetus the right to be kept alive by the mother. The "Case of the Famous Violinist" demonstrates the reasoning behind this, but I'll refrain from going into it at length. The basic point is that if you were to find yourself hooked up to another human being (tubes and wires, possibly due to organ failure) such that the person is physicallv dependent upon you for survival and limits your ability and freedom in an undesirable way you do not have an obligation to keep the person alive. One might choose to do so, but to remove the tubing would not be morally equivalent to killing the person. There is no such thing as a right to be kept alive such that it infringes upon the freedom of others. Thus even if a fetus were to be concluded to have a right to life, that would not entail a right to be kept alive and certainly not a right to be kept alive by a particular, unwilling person.
I hope this clarifies why what your saying has no relevancy to real argument over abortion.

Answer 3

I believe if you pay attention to the future, perhaps ideas coming out of the left coast, you may see that coming as an answer in the future. Why stop with homeless? How about elderly and when are we considered elderly? If you go with elderly, the government will have more money to steal from social securily earlier than usual. Political Blindness and political correctness is killing this country. If we don't wake up, soon, we may not wake up at all. Good luck

Answer 4

I don't think it's a stupid question. Everyone knows abortion is wrong, but the real issue here is should it stay legal or not. Pro-choice people are not always for abortion.

Answer 5

was it stupid? no, it just wasn't a complete thought. and is just as valid as your counter argument.. the converse being true takes nothing away from the first statement.. being that maybe both sides are a little too extreme on the subject... it's black/white, right/wrong logic...which leaves no room for the gray area in which we actually live our lives

Answer 6

What about abstinence? Isn't that killing unborn living human sperm and ova babies? Why are they less important? They are alive and human, that is a biological fact.

Isn't Clint Eastwood a hippie?

Answer 7

Why don't we just put everyone up against the wall and let the Firing Squad do Our thinking for Us?

Answer 8

Pretty stupid. Stupider because someone asked the same stupid question of Monday...

Answer 9

It's either stupidity or sophistry. Yes, it is a false analogy.

Answer 10

Yes.