Abortion

Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, this example has been brought up already a while back.

The harsh truth is, yes. I don't think the violinist should be unplugged. I think steps should be made to find a way to fix the situation. Maybe a new kidney for the violinist or another volunteer. And I do think it was wrong of the music squad (or whatever they were) to do this in the first place. But the fact remains that it's THEIR fault. Not the violinists. And now it's done, and unplugging the violinist would be killing him against his will for something he did not choose to do.

I honestly hold the right to life as more important than someone's physical comfort. I think the majority of people do. They simply don't accept the fetus as a person with the right to life.

It is also not your fault that you are plugged into the violinist, so why should you have to remain plugged into him against your will for the rest of your life?

By your reasoning, any person with a failing organ has the right to the use of the healthy organ of another person indefinitely. That is ludicrous.

Why should the right of one person to live give him the right to control the body of someone else?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Robtard is right.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why should the right of one person to live give him the right to control the body of someone else?

It's called a gift from god. Arguing with that is nothing less than genocide.

Originally posted by TacDavey
😎

Robtard is right. An adult CAN live on it's own away from people if it knows what it's doing. The same cannot be said of a 5 year old.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wrong. We don't kill people. That means when we kill things we make sure they aren't people.

Hypothetical time.

You're out hunting with a buddy of yours. You see a rustling in the bushes near by. Thinking it's a deer, you buddy takes aim. Suddenly you notice that there is a cabin near by, that you know houses a family. And the kids love playing in the bushes around the house. Now you aren't sure if the rustling is a deer, or a kid.

"Wait!" You shout to your buddy. "Don't shoot, that might be a kid!"

You buddy turns to you and goes. "Oh yeah? Prove it. Unless you can prove it's a kid. I'm going to go ahead and shoot it."

You really see nothing wrong with that line of thinking?

Another brainless irrelevant hypothetical presented I see (as, again, your example has nothing to do with the philosophical issue involved with abortion and whether a fetus counts as a life). It's also you trying to change the argument from what the specific point was- your understanding of the idea of burden of proof. You are trying to use an emotive example which had nothing to do my with my point to try and attack it. As ever I won't engage in such silliness.

As you are offering no defence to the fact that you got the idea of burden of proof wrong, I can now conclude you have shown yourself to be both morally and logically weak in your presented arguments.

Originally posted by The MISTER
A five year old that is alone in the mall would survive if left there with no other humans.

no it wouldn't....

Originally posted by inimalist
no it wouldn't....

It has nothing to do with whether it can survive on its own. It has to do with can it survive outside of the womb. Can it breath on it's on, etc. If yes, then the baby can be put up for adoption

Originally posted by Utsukushii
It has nothing to do with whether it can survive on its own. It has to do with can it survive outside of the womb. Can it breath on it's on, etc. If yes, then the baby can be put up for adoption

which is arbitrary at best, given the underlying logic is that "because it needs the mother, she can kill it"

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is also not your fault that you are plugged into the violinist, so why should you have to remain plugged into him against your will for the rest of your life?

By your reasoning, any person with a failing organ has the right to the use of the healthy organ of another person indefinitely. That is ludicrous.

Why should the right of one person to live give him the right to control the body of someone else?

First off, the rest of your life is not the same as 9 months of discomfort.

Second, I do not think that a person with a failing organ has the right to another person's organ. As I said, hooking the violinist up to the person was wrong in the first place. But what's done is done, and now we have to deal with the fact that the violinist's life is on the line.

You can't kill someone because they make you uncomfortable. Bottom line.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Another brainless irrelevant hypothetical presented I see (as, again, your example has nothing to do with the philosophical issue involved with abortion and whether a fetus counts as a life). It's also you trying to change the argument from what the specific point was- your understanding of the idea of burden of proof. You are trying to use an emotive example which had nothing to do my with my point to try and attack it. As ever I won't engage in such silliness.

As you are offering no defence to the fact that you got the idea of burden of proof wrong, I can now conclude you have shown yourself to be both morally and logically weak in your presented arguments.

You know, insulting my intelligence and calling my stance morally and logically weak is not the same as refuting it.

My example fits perfectly well. Do you agree we don't know the status of the fetus? We don't know if it's a person or not. My hypothetical displayed that perfectly.

You are claiming that we need to prove something is a person or we are justified in killing it until we do. That is EXACTLY what the hunter in my hypothetical was doing. He was placing the burden of proof where it didn't belong. It's up to the hunter (and pro-choice people) to prove the target isn't a person before they freely kill it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I think the key here is "if it knows what it's doing" The man in the example Robtard gave might survive alone in one condition and fail to survive in another. The same might be said for a five year old. A five year old that is alone in the mall would survive if left there with no other humans. The point was that being able to sustain life alone is different than being able to sustain life alone indefinitely. A newborn baby can sustain life without any assistance though it cannot do it for extended periods of time. If a fetus can in no way sustain it's own life for any amount of time then wouldn't it be fair to say that it is an incomplete life form? It's not ready to be freed from it's mothers decisions yet.

So you agree. You are saying the length of time a "thing" can survive is what determines if it's a person or not? A child is a child and a fetus is not for no other reason than the child can last a few more hours?

Originally posted by TacDavey
That is EXACTLY what the hunter in my hypothetical was doing. He was placing the burden of proof where it didn't belong. It's up to the hunter (and pro-choice people) to prove the target isn't a person before they freely kill it.

not really, in the hunter situation you can point to physical evidence, such as the cabin, that suggest it might be a person

you have provided no such evidence with regard to the fetus, in fact, you don't feel you need to

Originally posted by inimalist
not really, in the hunter situation you can point to physical evidence, such as the cabin, that suggest it might be a person

you have provided no such evidence with regard to the fetus, in fact, you don't feel you need to

Just like the fetus might be a person. The law already shows that the fetus deserves rights at some point. And we know that the fetus DOES become a person eventually, we just don't know when. So just like the cabin, we know the fetus has the possibility of being a person.

Even if we accept that it was a human being we could still talk about moral rights to live, such as in the violinist to example, which are undeniably not categorical.

Which I guess is to some degree what Peter Singer thinks:

"[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life"

Originally posted by TacDavey
Just like the fetus might be a person. The law already shows that the fetus deserves rights at some point. And we know that the fetus DOES become a person eventually, we just don't know when. So just like the cabin, we know the fetus has the possibility of being a person.

in other words, no physical evidence

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if we accept that it was a human being we could still talk about moral rights to live, such as in the violinist to example, which are undeniably not categorical.

Which I guess is to some degree what Peter Singer thinks:

"[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life"

Singer's argument is good in regards to say the death penalty, unplugging comatose patients and the suffering with no chance of survival. It doesn't favor abortion to much though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Singer's argument is good in regards to say the death penalty, unplugging comatose patients and the suffering with no chance of survival. It doesn't favor abortion to much though.

...how not, in your opinion?

Originally posted by Bardock42
...how not, in your opinion?

If we accept as fact the: 'Fetus = being is human, and alive'

We're left with the fact that the fetus is innocent and to kill it, we'd need cause, just as in a capital punishment case; what cause could an innocent give though? Could argue it in cases of the mother's life being at risk, maybe.

Can't imagine what would happen in states/countries where the death-penalty is outlawed. "No, we don't believe in killing murderers, because killing to show killing is wrong is wrong. But hey, let's kill the innocent, cos it's convenient for some." It'd be a great debacle and an anti-abortionist wet dream.

Originally posted by Robtard
If we accept as fact the: 'Fetus = being is human, and alive'

We're left with the fact that the fetus is innocent and to kill it, we'd need cause, just as in a capital punishment case; what cause could an innocent give though? Could probably argue it in cases of the mother's life being at risk. Can't imagine what would happen in states/countries where the death-penalty is outlawed.

But that has nothing to do with Singer's argument, in the same vein it wouldn't work on comatose and on suffering people. However if we accept his morality, it definitely applies to fetuses.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But that has nothing to do with Singer's argument, in the same vein it wouldn't work on comatose and on suffering people. However if we accept his morality, it definitely applies to fetuses.

I was still editing my rant, jerk. You you I spam all over the keyboard, then take another 4-5 minutes to tune it.

Then I must have misinterpreted Singer, he isn't saying 'fetus = human/being/life'? Can you clarify it for me?

Originally posted by Robtard
I was still editing my rant, jerk. You you I spam all over the keyboard, then take another 4-5 minutes to tune it.

Then I must have misinterpreted Singer, he isn't saying 'fetus = human/being/life'? Can you clarify it for me?

He is saying life has different amounts of right to life, animal as well as human. Fetuses very little so, compared to their mothers in his opinion. I think he is basing it on capacity of suffering, of which fetuses do have little I believe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He is saying life has different amounts of right to life, animal as well as human. Fetuses very little so, compared to their mothers in his opinion. I think he is basing it on capacity of suffering, of which fetuses do have little I believe.

Fair enough, but 'capacity of suffering' falls into yet more tricky territory. Could I kill you, as long as I make it so you don't suffer? Cos I could.

Edit: Read up on Singer, guy's a whacky vegetarian/vegan tool. He argues that newborns aren't essentially people/have the rights of people, cos they're ignorant.

He also clearly is into bestiality and uses the "they enjoy it too" as a foundation. Really, so the horse he corn-holes and sucks off is capable of telling him this as fact?