Placing a fully grown human inside a person's body would kill her, so that would be difficult. 🙁
Anyway this reminds me of Adam_Poe's analogy:
Originally posted by Adam_PoEObviously the person's right to bodily autonomy takes priority. 👆
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Placing a fully grown human inside a person's body would kill her, so that would be difficult. 🙁Anyway this reminds me of Adam_Poe's analogy: Obviously the person's right to bodily autonomy takes priority. 👆
This is an error in framing. For one, the situation automatically assumes that the child bearer was in no way responsible for the babies conception. The mother did have sex and by proxy is the party accountable. Of course, there are specific situations in which this logic doesn't apply. But let me create a more accurate thought experiment. You run over a person with a car. Are you responsible for paying their medical bills? The answer would be a yes. You chose to drive the car, and you decided to drive recklessly.
Poe's example was the same as yours and yet all of the sudden there is something wrong with it, figures. 😘
But no, a right isn't conditional. You can't exempt a person of their bodily autonomy because "they had sex" anymore than you can deny a criminal humane treatment because they committed a crime. Whether or not they are "responsible" for their situation doesn't matter.
And paying someone's medical bills doesn't involve an infringement on any kind of comparable right, pretty irrelevant. On the other hand would the victim be entitled to blood payment, or medieval style punishment? Nah.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Poe's example was the same as yours and yet all of the sudden there is something wrong with it, figures. 😘But no, a right isn't conditional. You can't exempt a person of their bodily autonomy because "they had sex" anymore than you can deny a criminal humane treatment because they committed a crime. Whether or not they are "responsible" for their situation doesn't matter.
And paying someone's medical bills doesn't involve an infringement on any kind of comparable right, pretty irrelevant.
Beni actually take a second to think before you type. In Adam's example, the person giving the blood type isn't responsible for the kidney failure. In my case, the person driving the car is responsible for hitting the pedestrian. I am not sure this is an error in reading comprehension or worse an inability to read. By admitting that they should pay the medical bills you concede that rights are conditional. Since the mother, is responsible for Baby's creation, she, therefore, must take care of it. Thereby the right to the baby's life supersedes the right to personal autonomy. Let me give you a more specific example, to illustrate my point. You accidentally stab someone with a knife. They are slowly dying due to blood loss. You are the only person whose blood type aligns with the victim. Should be you be forced to give him your blood?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0I was referring to your original example you numbskull. 😘
Beni actually take a second to think before you type. In Adam's example, the person giving the blood type isn't responsible for the kidney failure. In my case, the person driving the car is responsible for hitting the pedestrian. I am not sure this is an error in reading comprehension or worse an inability to read.
By admitting that they should pay the medical bills you concede that rights are conditional.You'll have to explain why that's the case rather than just stating it.
Since the mother, is responsible for Baby's creation, she, therefore, must take care of it. Thereby the right to the baby's life supersedes the right to personal autonomy.Being responsible for the baby's creation doesn't mean she concedes her bodily autonomy no. Like I said, a right is not conditional.
Let me give you a more specific example, to illustrate my point. You accidentally stab someone with a knife. They are slowly dying due to blood loss. You are the only person whose blood type aligns with the victim. Should be you be forced to give him your blood?No.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I was referring to your original example you numbskull. 😘
As was I.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
You'll have to explain why that's the case rather than just stating it.
[/B]
That person's right to compensation supersedes the right for personal autonomy, i.e., to drive a car.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Being responsible for the baby's creation doesn't mean she concedes her bodily autonomy no. Like I said, a right is not conditional.[/B]
Contradictory.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
No.
[/B]
So, does that person have no obligation to do anything to compensate?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0No, that was your second. This was your first.
As was I.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0Stop being wilfully obtuse. 🙁
If we placed a fully grown human inside her body, would she have the ability to kill it?
That person's right to compensation supersedes the right for personal autonomy, i.e., to drive a car.They don't have a right to drive their car into other people. You're right to drive a car or personal autonomy extends to doing so without infringing on the rights of others.
So, does that person have no obligation to do anything to compensate?Not by giving them blood. That's literally illegal, christ. Should tell you something about the state of your argument if this is the best example you can come up with.
No, that was your second. This was your first.
Beni, my first example was the car and the pedestrian...
Stop being wilfully obtuse. sad
*willfully, and its called a thought experiment
They don't have a right to drive their car into other people.
Yes, that is called a condition.
Not by giving them blood. That's literally illegal, christ. Should tell you something about the state of your argument if this is the best example you can come up with.
You love dodging the question, don't you?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Beni, my first example was the car and the pedestrian...*willfully, and its called a thought experiment
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Stop being wilfully obtuse. 🙁
Yes, that is called a condition.If rights come in to conflict with each other one has to give yes. As I said already a foetus doesn't have the right to live off another person so that isn't the case here.
You love dodging the question, don't you?I answered you're question, the answer was no. Now you're trying to change your question so it doesn't appear so idiotic.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
If rights come in to conflict with each other one has to give yes. As I said already a foetus doesn't have the right to live off another person so that isn't the case here.
That is called a condition.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I answered you're question, the answer was no. Now you're trying to change your question so it doesn't appear so idiotic. [/B]
You are obfuscating the initial purpose of the question, I would like an answer...
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0I'll just assume you have nothing more meaningful to say.
That is called a condition.
You are obfuscating the initial purpose of the question, I would like an answer...Nah, we've already done the "is x entitled to compensation if injured by y" and I addressed it. You are boring me and I'm about done.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'll just assume you have nothing more meaningful to say.Nah, we've already done the "is x entitled to compensation if injured by y" and I addressed it. You are boring me and I'm about done.
Honestly, I don't know who's winning this back and forth between you two because it ended up being a banal word game.
One of you, probably DS0, re-frame the original arguments and pick up from the beginning.
Here's my original argument:
Premise 1: Couple, who is religious and does not believe in modern medicine, has a newborn infant die due to medical complications.
Premise 2: An adult is criminally liable for the medical neglect of their infant which can result in a Murder 2-manslaughter conviction.
Premise 3: You can abort a baby and kill it knowingly and directly.
Conclusion: There is a logical consistency issue between premises 1+2 and 3.
Going back from newborn infant, leftists thinking indirectly killing a baby due to religious belief is wrong but directly killing a baby through abortion is not wrong and not worthy of a murder 2 conviction.
They justify this with a timeline of development stating that at some very much arbitrary point, it is now a murder 2 charge instead of an okay thing to do.
It's like this in their mind:
1 day gestation: kill it if you want
1 month gestation: kill it if you want
3 month gestation: kill it if you want
Late term abortion: kill it if you want
Partial birth abortion: kill it if you want
Born but your religion is opposed to modern medicine and your babies: HOLY F*CKING SHIT! YOU MURDERER!
Note: that is NOT Robtard's position. He has the same opinion as I do: 5 months, no more. If science allows us to mature babies outside the womb even earlier, then I'll keep adjusting that date. It's based on science, not feelings or God. I think as soon as the zygote is formed, it's unique enough to have minimal pershonhood rights to not be aborted but the life or desires of the mother supersedes the pershonhood rights.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Going back from newborn infant, leftists thinking indirectly killing a baby due to religious belief is wrong but directly killing a baby through abortion is not wrong and not worthy of a murder 2 conviction.
Not sure that's a fair assessment, those same "lefttist" would probably also have a problem if a couple wanted to abort their perfectly healthy/normal pregnancy unborn baby at say 8 months due to religious reasons, but couldn't care less if it was at 20 weeks or less.
So the real point of contention seems to go back to what all abortion talks goes back to: "when does 'it' become a baby/person". A newborn (as in your story) is clearly a person.