Libertarian Troll Bingo!

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the two cases seem different (at least) insofar as in cases of child abandonment/murder/etc., there are more reasonable avenues for relinquishing responsibility of a child. So if Jane has a child and then decides she isn't capable of raising it, she can give it to a relative, or put it up for adoption, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to think carrying a child you are responsible for bringing into the world long enough that it can experience life outside the womb is extremely reasonable. Apparently a lot of other people don't. So I am not going to accept any argument based on a subjective judgment of what is "reasonable" - if no positive action can be required, then that is that - that includes putting a child up for adoption.

In a hypothetical AC child murder/abandonment scenario (say a 1-year-old so there's less gray about moral agency), do you think intervention/retribution is justified?

[ QUOTE ]
If a woman has a kid she can't care for anymore, she can't just abandon it or kill it, since these aren't acceptable means for ridding oneself of a child that's been born and is living with you

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point - "abandoning" isn't doing anything - it's simply choosing to do nothing. Can a positive action on the part of the parents to care for children be required or not? If it can, what is magically different about the scenario from 5 minutes before the baby is born to 5 minutes after? If positive action is required after birth, then I don't see how the use-of-the-mother's-body canard is relevant before birth - she clearly has to use her body in performing any positive action that may or may not be required for a 1-year-old.

[ QUOTE ]
since the trauma of carrying an unwanted child is sufficient to allow such means to be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, highly subjective