Would Abortion of a 16-Year-Old be Moral?

Both.

No. Dumping a child that cannot fend for itself is putting it in imminent danger. It's a moral wrong and, I believe, unlawful.

By creating the condition in which the child cannot survive without you (ie. becoming a parent) you create a positive legal obligation to protect the life of that child. It would be the same if I were to see you drowning in a lake as I pass by. I am not obligated to stop and help you. However, if I push you into the lake, I have incurred an obligation to rescue you. Putting the child intentionally into imminent danger would be the same me pushing you into the lake. It's a situation that parents create. Rothbard would disagree, as he insisted there can be no positive obligations, but I think it fits the philosophy in that in some way, parents are violating the rights of children by creating them in a state that would be threatening but for the care of the parents. That violation can end when guardianship is transferred.

 

No, but her body is and the fetus does not have a right to force itself upon a woman who no longer wants it there.

 

No, it is not 'moral' to 'abort' a living human being. I don't see how the machine scenario in the OP would change anything. Someone put them in the machines; its that someone's obligation then to preserve their right to life.

 

Kyle was never alive, therefore it's not murder. He was an experiment, not a person, for 16 years.

 

If by aborting that one person you could save 2 lives, would you?

 

Well that's an entirely different moral dilemma, is it not? I can't give you an easy answer to such a hypothetical.

 

Whether it isn't or isn't different if you could save two lives by aborting one, would you do it?

If this situation were entirely controlled in that by aborting one you could save two others, it would indeed be the "moral" decision we would be forced to make.

 

How could a person be pregnant for 16 years?

Just as ridiculous as the entire subject of the pro-life movement.

 

No it would not be moral to abort a 16 year old if he was only months from viability. You had over a decade an a half to make your decision. I think that's enough time to decide. This is a stupid question.

 

Abort the Corporation and all its executive officers and give the proceeds from the sale of the company to Kyle.
Personally, I believe that at one time or another most parents have wished that abortion was legal up to the age of 18.

 

Since morality is always subjective this really hinges on the same definition of the Right to Life as all pro-choice and anti-abortion arguments rest.

A Natural Right, such as the Right to Life, has criteria related to it. A Natural Right is always that which the individual can do independently of others and it cannot infringe upon anyone else's Natural Rights.

First of all regardless of the "gestation" period Kyle is not born until the moment when when Kyle is no longer dependent upon the machine. It might be a 16 year gestation period but until Kyle can live independently "age" is not established. Kyle becomes a human being at birth regardless of whether it is based upon birth from a mother after 9 months or from a machine after 16 years.

Does Kyle have a Right to Life while dependent on the machine? Does Kyle own and control the machine or is it owned and operated by others? Since a Natural Right, such and the Right to Life, is dependent upon that which the individual can do for themself without infringing upon the Rights of others the ownership and operation of the machine prevents Kyle from having any Rights related to it's use. Kyle gains the Right to Life once Kyle is no longer dependent upon the machine.

Abortion is never murder. Murder is the violation of the Right to Life which does not exist until a the fetus (and Kyle meets the definition of fetus regardless of the years of gestation) becomes an independent human being.

There are certainly moral issues that while subjective we might all agree to such as the need for parents to feed a child. The child has no Right to be Fed (it does have a Right to feed itself) but we can universally agree on the morality of laws that require it.

Ultimately the issue of abortion rests with the definition and application of the Natural Rights of the Individual. Those Rights begin at birth and end at death.

 

No one has any rights, natural or otherwise, except those won by might of arms. What we today call "god-given rights" and "natural rights" are things WON by the MIGHT OF ARMS of the American soldiers. Freedom, voting, representation, the right to life, liberty and the yadda yadda yadda, were all won from oppressors, by the fist, not given by anything or anyone, not born with, they were WON. Even things such as drinking a beer, women voting, or eating in the establishment of your choice, were WON by might of arms. Only our soldiers gave us the right to drink, vote and eat, by keeping oppressors away and allowing us to (fairly peacefully) settle differences of opinion.
The issue of abortion rights eventually rests solely on the intelligence of the American people (if the have any). Only when two things are realized will abortions cease. ONE - making abortions illegal does NOTHING to stop abortion, all it does is kill young girls along with their fetus. TWO- HELP and real education for ALL, not religious nonsense, will allow young women to make better decision. Currently we cannot take care of the millions of parent-less, and unwanted children in America. When we learn to take care of the children we have, only then can we teach young women that any child they may have, will be wanted and cared for, even if they themselves will not be able to do so. On any given day, there are over 120,000 un-adopted children in America and a great many of them will NEVER be adopted. If we cannot take care of the parentless children we have, it is stupidity to complain about the reasons we do not have more children.
One of the first things we need to do is to remove the tax credit for children. It was initiated to promote the growth of American families, we no longer need to promote that growth. Also that one thing would bring many billions of dollars into the coffers to assist with the national debt, wow, two birds with one stone.

 

On that note:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E[/ame]

 

Some hold this belief but the "unalienable" (natural) Rights of the Individual was the foundation and justification of government in the United States. The might of arms protects those Rights but for Americans these Rights exist whether they are violated or not. The violations of the natural Rights of the Individual by the government is the basic definition of government tyranny.

As established in the Declaration of Independence the very purpose of government is to protect the Rights of the People. If it were not for this purpose then there really isn't a reason for government to exist.

 

So, you're saying the fetus (which is latin for "a very young one," by the way) does not have the right to life since the fetus cannot sustain that right on his or her own. A newborn also cannot sustain the right to his or herself on his/her own, and so you say that there is a legitimate reason to legislate the morality of not providing your child with the proper treatment in order to keep the child alive. Basically, your argument is that if the fetus is dependent on someone or something physically, then it is proper for that someone to stop providing the physical attention needed for that fetus (even if the so-called fetus is 16 years old). However, if the child is not physically dependent on another being and only needs the parent to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc., then there is reason to make laws making sure the parent provides those necessities through physical labor. This seems like a very inconsistent position.

Also, why is it that you have not gained your rights until viability? Because you have arbitrarily decided so?

 

Do you realize how ridiculous your statement is? You are arguing that a right to a life that can not be sustained? That is like arguing for home ownership when you can not pay the mortgage.

I fail to see what right you are referring to, but one thing is certain. An infant can sustain his or her own life with his or her own organs.

 

An infant can provide his/herself with food, shelter, clothing, etc.? Interesting, interesting...

 

You are being ignorant or obtuse. If you can not grasp the difference between having functioning organs and not having them you are not in a position to intelligently debate the issue.

 

You need food just as much as you need organs to survive (actually, you can live without a kidney...). You say that if someone cannot sustain organs, that person does not have a right to those organs. However, if someone does not have the physical capability of providing him/herself with food, the parent should provide him/her with food.

 

The topic is not food but life and life does not exist without organs. It is really that simple.

 

Life does not exist without food.

 

You are failing to grasp the difference between physical dependency and social dependency. We are all socially dependent to some degree since none of us is totally self-sufficient. Depending upon the phsyical body of one other person is physical dependency. Social dependence is always satisfied by voluntary providers.

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#independent

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

 

there's some annoying 16 y/o skate rats at the mall i wish could be aborted.

 

So there's no need for social welfare programs.

Anyway, on topic, what if a parent refused to provide for his/her child and did not give that child to anyone else? Should that be legal?

 

A parent will not be allowed to refuse to provide for his/her child and not give the child up. The parent can choose which, but the parent must do one or the other.