Originally posted by TacDavey
The violinist isn't controlling your body. You still have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it doesn't kill anyone.
Under no circumstances is being forced to remain back-to-back in bed with an unconscious person an example of autonomy or freedom.
If the circulatory system of the violinist is being plugged into yours against your will, then you do not have control of what is happening in and to your body.
Since the violinist by virtue of being plugged into is preventing you from having control of what is happening in and to your body, he is tacitly controlling you.
Why should the right to life of the violinist give him the right to control you and live off of your body?
Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty much can argue that abortions can be done up to the point the umbilical cord is cut using the "biologically dependent" stance, eh?
No, only until the fetus is no longer biologically dependent upon the woman to live, i.e. until it is viable outside of the womb.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Under no circumstances is being forced to remain back-to-back in bed with an unconscious person an example of autonomy or freedom.If the circulatory system of the violinist is being plugged into yours against your will, then you do not have control of what is happening in and to your body.
Since the violinist by virtue of being plugged into is preventing you from having control of what is happening in and to your body, he is tacitly controlling you.
Why should the right to life of the violinist give him the right to control you and live off of your body?
For the same reason you can't kill an innocent person because a mob boss tells you to. Even if this means harm will come to your body.
In this case, if the mob boss is going to kill or torture you, you don't have any control over what is happening to your body THEN either. But we wouldn't say the Mob boss is "controlling" your body. And even if he WAS, that doesn't excuse taking an innocent person's life in order to stop the mob boss from "controlling" your body.
Almost one out of every three American women will have an abortion by age 45.Most women having abortions are in there 20s.
Many people mistakenly believe that teens are the group most likely to have an abortion.
Teens actually account for fewer than 2 in 10 of all abortions, and most of them are older teens —those aged 18 and 19.
Six in 10 women having abortions already have a child and many have two or more.In 2008, more than 4 in ten abortion patients had incomes below the federal poverty line
Originally posted by TacDavey
For the same reason you can't kill an innocent person because a mob boss tells you to. Even if this means harm will come to your body.In this case, if the mob boss is going to kill or torture you, you don't have any control over what is happening to your body THEN either. But we wouldn't say the Mob boss is "controlling" your body. And even if he WAS, that doesn't excuse taking an innocent person's life in order to stop the mob boss from "controlling" your body.
This is a false analogy because it attempts to draw a comparison between relevantly disimilar things.
In this scenario, there is no biological dependency between the first and second agent, and there is an independent third agent causing the first to directly kill the second through force or coercion.
That is fundamentally different than one agent terminating the biological dependency of another agent, indirectly resulting in the death of the second agent.
I did not address this the first time you posted it, because you have enough difficult responding to direct questioning, let alone indulging invalid arguments.
Try again.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is a false analogy because it attempts to draw a comparison between relevantly disimilar things.In this scenario, there is no biological dependency between the first and second agent, and there is an independent third agent causing the first to directly kill the second through force or coercion.
That is fundamentally different than one agent terminating the biological dependency of another agent, indirectly resulting in the death of the second agent.
I did not address this the first time you posted it, because you have enough difficult responding to direct questioning, let alone indulging invalid arguments.
Try again.
It's actively killing another innocent person. Which is not acceptable.
The connection with the violinist is that you cannot kill an innocent person to protect yourself. Which is what you would be doing in both circumstances.
EDIT: You keep insisting I am not answering your questions but I have answered all of them.
Originally posted by TacDavey
It's actively killing another innocent person. Which is not acceptable.
No, it is indirectly killing another person which is not the same thing.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The connection with the violinist is that you cannot kill an innocent person to protect yourself. Which is what you would be doing in both circumstances.
The act of unplugging yourself from the violinist would only be to free you from his control. What happens to him as a consequence of that is not your concern.
Originally posted by TacDavey
EDIT: You keep insisting I am not answering your questions but I have answered all of them.
No, you just keep restating your position in different ways, which is not the same as explaining why your position is legitimate.
Your position is that the right to life of the violinist is more stringent than your right to control what happens in and to your body.
I keep asking you to explain why his right to live gives him the right to hold your body hostage.
And you keep restating that he has a right to live.
So what? You have a right to control your body too. Why is his right more stringent than yours? That is the question that you have yet to answer.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it is indirectly killing another person which is not the same thing.
No it isn't. You are putting actions into motion fully knowing that doing so will kill the man. It's the same as peeling his fingers off of the edge of a cliff he is hanging from so he plunges to his death.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The act of unplugging yourself from the violinist would only be to free you from his control. What happens to him as a consequence of that is not your concern.
Just as killing that innocent person would only be so you could free yourself from the Mob Boss' control.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, you just keep restating your position in different ways, which is not the same as explaining why your position is legitimate.Your position is that the right to life of the violinist is more stringent than your right to control what happens in and to your body.
I keep asking you to explain why his right to live gives him the right to hold your body hostage.
And you keep restating that he has a right to live.
So what? You have a right to control your body too. Why is his right more stringent than yours? That is the question that you have yet to answer.
That's like asking me why murder is wrong. A person's right to life is more important than almost any other. The alternative allows for too many unjust actions to take place. Such as the Mob Boss example. Is the Mob Boss not "controlling your body" by forcing you to do something or you will die? If we accept your way, it should be perfectly acceptable for the man to kill another innocent person to protect his body.
Or here's another hypothetical. A man straps a person to a chair with his hand on a button. By clicking the button, and innocent person will be killed. Once he does so, he will be freed from the chair. Otherwise, he will be stuck in the chair. Unable to "control his body" as you put it.
By your rational, it should be perfectly alright for the man to kill that innocent person to save himself.
Originally posted by The Rover
...Does anyone else dislike the wording of the poll? I wouldn't say I'm "for" abortion - if anything, I'm "for" the right to choose.
Of course everyone objects to the wording of the poll. It's insane.
Do you believe in abortion? **** yes I do it's right there in front of my eyes...
😐
Originally posted by TacDavey
No it isn't. You are putting actions into motion fully knowing that doing so will kill the man. It's the same as peeling his fingers off of the edge of a cliff he is hanging from so he plunges to his death.
No, it is more like one man prying himself free of the grip of another so that he is not pulled over the edge of a cliff.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Just as killing that innocent person would only be so you could free yourself from the Mob Boss' control.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Such as the Mob Boss example. Is the Mob Boss not "controlling your body" by forcing you to do something or you will die? If we accept your way, it should be perfectly acceptable for the man to kill another innocent person to protect his body.Or here's another hypothetical. A man straps a person to a chair with his hand on a button. By clicking the button, and innocent person will be killed. Once he does so, he will be freed from the chair. Otherwise, he will be stuck in the chair. Unable to "control his body" as you put it.
By your rational, it should be perfectly alright for the man to kill that innocent person to save himself.
Again, this is a False Analogy because it attempts to draw a comparison between relevantly dissimilar scenarios: one in which there is no biological dependency between the first and second agent, and an independent third agent causes the first to directly kill the second through force or coercion; and a scenario in which one agent terminates the biological dependency of the other, indirectly resulting in the death of the second agent.
This was an invalid argument the first time it was posted and ignored, the second time it was posted and addressed, and it continues to be the third and now forth time it has been posted. Sorry, try again.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's like asking me why murder is wrong. A person's right to life is more important than almost any other. The alternative allows for too many unjust actions to take place.
The right of one to live being more stringent than the right of another to control what happens in and to his body leads to just as many injustices. By that reasoning, any person with a failing organ need only plug himself into a person with a healthy organ, and he can never be unplugged—any person with a failing organ would have the right to the use of the healthy organ of another person without his consent indefinitely.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The point of the fetus' dependence on the mother has been brought up already and found to be faulty reasoning.
No, it has not.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Really, this video did not bring any new arguments to the table.
To the contrary, it made at least two:
[list=1][*]Terminating a biologically dependent relationship that results in death of a developing life is not ethically equivalent to killing a fully-developed life.
[*]If a woman can be forced to sustain the life of a fetus with her body, then a man can be forced to sustain the life of his child with his organs.[/list]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, this is a False Analogy because it attempts to draw a comparison between relevantly dissimilar scenarios: one in which there is no biological dependency between the first and second agent, and an independent third agent causes the first to directly kill the second through force or coercion; and a scenario in which one agent terminates the biological dependency of the other, indirectly resulting in the death of the second agent.This was an invalid argument the first time it was posted and ignored, the second time it was posted and addressed, and it continues to be the third and now forth time it has been posted. Sorry, try again.
It's not a false analogy. You have two people and a third party. The third party places one of the people in the position of having to kill the other to save themselves.
That simple explanation applies to all of the examples. If we look at just this base form of the situation you can see that it isn't correct for person one to kill person 2 to save themselves. Then, simply plug in the characters from each hypothetical.
You have two people (A violinist and a person) and a third party (The music group). The third party (music group) places one of the people (the person) in the position of having to kill the other (the violinist) to save themselves.
You have two people (person a and person b) and a third party (person c). The third party (person c) places one of the people (person a) in the position of having to kill person b to release them from the chair.
You have two people (you and an innocent person) and a third party (the mob boss). The third party (mob boss) places you in the situation of having to kill the innocent person to avoid dieing yourself.
At the core they are all the same situation. HOW they go about doing so is irrelevant. Whether it's strapping a person to a chair or strapping them to the person. The result is the same. You have to a.) give up your comfort for a limited time. Or b.) kill the other person to make the discomfort go away.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The right of one to live being more stringent than the right of another to control what happens in and to his body leads to just as many injustices. By that reasoning, any person with a failing organ need only plug himself into a person with a healthy organ, and he can never be unplugged—any person with a failing organ would have the right to the use of the healthy organ of another person without his consent indefinitely.
That isn't true. You cannot plug someone into someone against their will. That's still wrong.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it has not.
Yes, it has. That topic has already been brought up on this thread.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]Terminating a biologically dependent relationship that results in death of a developing life is not ethically equivalent to killing a fully-developed life.
It's either a person or it's not. If it's a person, it has the right to life. If it's not, then it doesn't. Why can't a 5 year old be considered a "developing" life? When to we make the cut off and why?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[*]If a woman can be forced to sustain the life of a fetus with her body, then a man can be forced to sustain the life of his child with his organs.[/list]
What..?
Originally posted by TacDavey
It's not a false analogy. You have two people and a third party. The third party places one of the people in the position of having to kill the other to save themselves.That simple explanation applies to all of the examples. If we look at just this base form of the situation you can see that it isn't correct for person one to kill person 2 to save themselves. Then, simply plug in the characters from each hypothetical.
You have two people (A violinist and a person) and a third party (The music group). The third party (music group) places one of the people (the person) in the position of having to kill the other (the violinist) to save themselves.
You have two people (person a and person b) and a third party (person c). The third party (person c) places one of the people (person a) in the position of having to kill person b to release them from the chair.
You have two people (you and an innocent person) and a third party (the mob boss). The third party (mob boss) places you in the situation of having to kill the innocent person to avoid dieing yourself.
At the core they are all the same situation. HOW they go about doing so is irrelevant. Whether it's strapping a person to a chair or strapping them to the person. The result is the same. You have to a.) give up your comfort for a limited time. Or b.) kill the other person to make the discomfort go away.
The difference is that the Society of Music Lovers only plugged the famous unconscious violinist into you, they are not prohibiting you from unplugging yourself from him, nor are they forcing you to remain plugged into him; whereas the Mob Boss is threatening to kill you unless you kill another hostage.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't true. You cannot plug someone into someone against their will. That's still wrong.
By your own admission, this is equally unjust, so on what basis is the right of one to live more stringent than the right of another to control what happens in and to his body?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, it has. That topic has already been brought up on this thread.
What is in question is not that the argument was raised, but that it was proved to be invalid.
Originally posted by TacDavey
It's either a person or it's not. If it's a person, it has the right to life. If it's not, then it doesn't. Why can't a 5 year old be considered a "developing" life? When to we make the cut off and why?
At issue is not the stage of development of the life, but the biological dependency of that life on another.
Originally posted by TacDavey
What..?
If a woman can be forced to sustain the life of her developing child with her womb, then a man can be forced to sustain the life of his child with his kidney; the two are logically equivalent.
Well, I read that if you mate two opposite species, thinking of the dolphin as an aesthetic example to go with human, the fetus is alive for like a microsecond. 😂
Also youtube.com/user/XtinaBarrett?feature=mhum#p/a/f/5/BSiv1oL0hDY
You can strongly influence whether you will have a boy or girl naturally. Now about hair color..
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference is that the Society of Music Lovers only plugged the famous unconscious violinist into you, they are not prohibiting you from unplugging yourself from him, nor are they forcing you to remain plugged into him; whereas the Mob Boss is threatening to kill you unless you kill another hostage.
The Music Society is forcing you to stay plugged in in the same way the Mob Boss is forcing you to kill someone. If you don't do said action, you suffer. They go about it differently, but the core of the situation is exactly the same. Perform a certain action and kill a person to save yourself, or don't and suffer. The choices are exactly the same.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your own admission, this is equally unjust, so on what basis is the right of one to live more stringent than the right of another to control what happens in and to his body?
I don't understand the question. You just asked the same thing I thought I've been responding to the whole time. It isn't okay to plug someone into another person against their will. It's also not okay to actively kill another person to save yourself. In this example, the music society are the only bad guys and are the only people who should be punished.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What is in question is not that the argument was raised, but that it was proved to be invalid.
As it stands now it has. You're welcome to bring some new points to the table if you want to revive it. Simply restating it, however, is not good enough. It's been discussed and found faulty.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
At issue is not the stage of development of the life, but the biological dependency of that life on another.
As I said, it's been brought up. If you want to bring it forward as a valid point, you will need to do more than simply restate an old argument.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a woman can be forced to sustain the life of her developing child with her womb, then a man can be forced to sustain the life of his child with his kidney; the two are logically equivalent.
Only if the man is already sustaining the life of the child. He can always simply refuse the procedure. As I have said time and time again. You cannot force someone to plug themselves into another person.