The King of Comedy: And the Hits Just Keep on Coming

Zach Moore indicated in his last post that he wanted to tell jokes and be a pedant rather than engage in serious rejoinders and substantive arguments. Although I've already responded to that post more specifically, I'd rather keep piling more arguments on top of him than play Last Comic Standing.

Anyway, below are some self-evident immoral consequences of Moore's peculiar brand of pro-choice apologetics. He argues that all humans have a kind of sovereignty that entails that they have the right to do anything to their body that they want to. They decide what goes in it and what goes out from it. Period. He said this argument works even if the unborn baby is “fully human.” We see the absurdity of this line of libertarian, Randian thinking exposed for the sophomoric, sloppy argument that it is.

This self-proclaimed king of comedy not only deserves to have tomatoes thrown at him, but he just keeps digging his grave deeper and deeper.

1. The Kanga Kid Argument:



Consider what if I were to knocked Moore out, and then sew a three-year old into his back covering it up with skin graphs from other areas of Moore's body, then I included some breathing and feeding apparatuses for the toddler to survive a bit, upon awakening, could Moore now kill that toddler? That seems odd. If not, then he's giving up his 'sovereignty' to do with inside his body whatever he wants.

2. The Alien Super Scientist Argument:




Consider an alien super scientist that implants a bomb into a human, Jones, so powerful that it would destroy half the universe if detonated. Now, assume that this bomb is about the size of a flea. Suppose it is harmless to Jones and all so long as it stays in the body it was implanted in. Assume that the bomb has a device built in to it so that the death of Jones diffuses the bomb. So, so long as Jones doesn't take the bomb out before he dies, nothing will happen. Does Moore's view allow Jones to kill every man, woman, child, and wookie this side of the universe! It would have to. Notice his conditional IF/THEN premise. If the antecedent could be true while the consequent false, then we'd have to assign a false truth value to the premise. Hence Moore's argument would be unsound. Therefore, for Moore to maintain the soundness of his argument, his must admit that his position allows someone to take the life of every single person and thing this side of the universe! To claim that Jones could not because sovereignty doesn't entail that we can do something which would kill billions of innocent people is about as clear as one can get to seeing one's argument crumble right in front of him.

3. The Conjoined Twins Argument:




Consider conjoined twins of the highly symmetric dicephalic parapagus type. Suppose one twin decided to cut her own wrist (the arm on her side of the body). Moore's view of sovereignty allows her to do so. But this would result in the death of the other twin.

4. The Torture Argument:




Consider the immoral act of torturing a human being for the mere fun of it. Moore's thesis allows a woman, if she were so inclined, to pay a doctor to enter her womb with instruments and pull off a leg of her third-trimester baby, or perhaps subject the unborn baby to chemical burns in just the right places so it wouldn't kill the baby.

5. The Crack Baby Argument:




Consider crack babies. Moore's view allows a mother to use crack while pregnant while intending to keep the child so as to get more welfare money to buy crack. This baby will go through terrible withdrawals and possibly suffer mental and physical effects of crack use at that developmental stage. No action whatsoever should be taken against the women for her actions while "sovereign" over her body.