Yes, I knew someone would reply this way. I'm off topic here and the analogy doesn't carry over perfectly, I'll admit. I was just taken aback by the seeming original assertion that if you have a human being, he's got rights when you put him in society and he's got none if you move him to a deserted island. Got a better analogy than the one I used? Because I think the original assertion is absurd and I do think the Gitmo situation is a little absurd but not quite parallel.

I think the mother (and father) are obligated to give their child the best life they can until he/she reaches adulthood (lets for argument's sake call it 18). I think circumstances can arise where that is best achieved by putting the baby in another person's care. I do not think abortion is ever the right thing to do unless the doctor is looking at how the baby is forming and has concluded the mother is likely to die or be seriously harmed if pregnancy continues. There are so many people that want to have babies that can't, I do not understand why we can't pair these people up with other people that are going to have babies and don't want them. It seems like a win-win to me.

Yes, I think you're right to say this. My reply is this is a situation where SOMEONE'S rights are going to get stepped on. The question is are you going to take away the life of the baby or force the mother to carry the baby to term. The impact of this decision is either felt over nine months or 70+ years. Once the baby has been born, there are lots of people that would be happy to raise it. What would you say to having an adoption service setup that would compensate the mother for her hardship?

this is one of those very difficult moral dilemmas that no one else has the right to tell you what you can do. For instance, if my child was dying and needed a kidney transplant, and I am an acceptable match, does the state tell me I must give a kidney? After all, the risk to my life is not high. There is risk, however.

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." AR