No.
He should obviously be kept alive in a scientific laboratory, to further our knowledge.
Killing him would be a waste.
You don’t choose “the lesser of two evils” when you can do something good.
[quote]kamui wrote:
No.
He should obviously be kept alive in a scientific laboratory, to further our knowledge.
Killing him would be a waste.
You don’t choose “the lesser of two evils” when you can do something good.[/quote]
Well you’re just saying that because you’re a Christian ideologue, oh, wait…
And just in case I was unclear, the drunk will come out of his stupor the next day, with a killer hangover. This is a blackout.
actually, it was a sarcastic answer.
I think that no individual, not even the family members or the best scientists of the world, should have the power/right to make this kind of decision.
That being said, it’s a political answer, not a moral one.
That’s two different problems.
In such a case, i don’t know what i would do. Maybe i would think that’s my moral duty to “put a pillow over his head”. But then i would have to accept that society has the right to defend itself against me, and to punish me for my crime.
TT, I want to ensure I understand you correctly.
Simple DNA determines when we become human? A simple yes or no will suffice, perfectly.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
<<<< What makes us human is our human DNA. >>>>
[/quote]
I can tell you what works in every situation, let the child live. No one can determine what a human life will become and where they will go besides the human them selves.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No, you just set up very stupid counter arguments. I’ve said already that no one formula works for every situation. Different circumstances require a different approach, there are different things to consider. I’m telling you why what I’m saying makes sense in this situation, but all you’re doing is going “Yeah? Well it doesn’t make sense in THIS situation over here, therefore it’s wrong ALWAYS!”…
[/quote]
So are you going to tell me that someone in a coma has ‘no right to life’?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
If you have a non-cognitive 10 year old body just being “alive” then it would be very much the same as if he was on life support. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the parents call as to whether he stays on it or not.
[/quote]
Your stance is: Abortion is perfectly justifiable. Please defend your stance, rather than side stepping the issue.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
You’re arguing against me as though It’s my responsibility to “justify” killing to you in every situation you can come up with. It’s not. My position is it’s the mother’s choice. I’m not “pro-abortion”, despite what you all so desperately want me to be.
[/quote]
Your stance is defending the choice to murder a child. According to the choice you argue for. In my mind, all LIFE should be defended. I do NOT know all details of every situation and I sure don’t know the outcome of every life.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Different situations means different factors to consider. That’s all. Is that unreasonable to you?[/quote]
Watch these videos and tell me the child feels nothing! If you want to get to the nitty gritty, the third video is of the part where ‘an unborn child feels nothing’.
http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No, you just set up very stupid counter arguments. I’ve said already that no one formula works for every situation. Different circumstances require a different approach, there are different things to consider. I’m telling you why what I’m saying makes sense in this situation, but all you’re doing is going “Yeah? Well it doesn’t make sense in THIS situation over here, therefore it’s wrong ALWAYS!”…
If you have a non-cognitive 10 year old body just being “alive” then it would be very much the same as if he was on life support. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the parents call as to whether he stays on it or not.
You’re arguing against me as though It’s my responsibility to “justify” killing to you in every situation you can come up with. It’s not. My position is it’s the mother’s choice. I’m not “pro-abortion”, despite what you all so desperately want me to be.
Different situations means different factors to consider. That’s all. Is that unreasonable to you?[/quote]
A child has no properties of being self aware until at least around three or four months. By your logic we can and should kill a two month old. Am I understanding you correctly?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s not as though most women are getting abortion right at the 5 month point. It’s also not as though we have no means of making the process painless if the contrary is proven to be three or two months. Also, whatever “self awareness” the fetus may or may not have at any given point in the pregnancy is irrelevant as the child is unable to make a choice (I already know what your going to say to this, but go ahead and say it anyway…). Consider that during an abortion the child shows no signs of self-preservation. Either it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both.
But don’t take my word for it, let’s see what scientists studying this have to say
Looks to me like, if anything, a fetus can’t feel pain until closer to 25 weeks, with some suggesting as late as 30!
It’s also worth noting that most abortions take place long before week 20. [/quote]
TT if you want the forefront of science, wiki is NOT the place to go. I will give you another shot. Or would you like me to show you how wrong wiki can be?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s not as though most women are getting abortion right at the 5 month point. It’s also not as though we have no means of making the process painless if the contrary is proven to be three or two months. Also, whatever “self awareness” the fetus may or may not have at any given point in the pregnancy is irrelevant as the child is unable to make a choice (I already know what your going to say to this, but go ahead and say it anyway…). Consider that during an abortion the child shows no signs of self-preservation. Either it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both.
But don’t take my word for it, let’s see what scientists studying this have to say
Looks to me like, if anything, a fetus can’t feel pain until closer to 25 weeks, with some suggesting as late as 30!
It’s also worth noting that most abortions take place long before week 20. [/quote]
I bolded my favorite portion!
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
There’s no right answer to when it is or isn’t okay to take a human life (or any life, I suppose). <<<< [/quote]
With your own words you say that no one person should make that decision, yet with your position you are making that exact same claim!! You personally know that all people should have to option to kill a child! If this is not what you are saying, please clarify.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Which logical fallacies, exactly? And how so, for that matter?
[/quote]
Funny you should ask. This right here:
…happens to be one of them. My beliefs on suicide do not affect my argument and bringing it up is the same as bringing up my religion. It is a red herring intended to divert the focus of the argument onto my ideologies. Just to humor you, though, no, I don’t “support” suicide. However, on the scale of bad to really fucking evil, I would put taking the life of an innocent human who has no say in the matter whatsoever waaaaaaay the hell to the really fucking evil side compared to killing yourself. That’s all I am going to say on this matter.
Asking you if you agree with suicide is a fallacy? What? You said we should wait for the child to grow up enough that they could decide either way. This seemed strange to me because, as a catholic, you should oppose suicide, so I asked. It’s not as though I was going to say “Aha! You support suicide, even though you’re catholic! Therefore YOU LOSE!!!11!1!!one1!”
I’d like to think by now you know I’m not like that.
I don’t know what more you want. You ask why self-sustaining matters, I say because it’s not a mercy to kill something that can survive on it’s own. You have my answer. You ask why fetal pain matters, I say because I personally do not want a fetus to suffer, but moreover (and this is my first time saying this because I thought it was obvious before) the film you linked me strongly made the assertion that the fetus was suffering during the abortion, therefore abortion is wrong. I was showing this is not true. You have my answer. You ask why cognitive life matters, I say because a being capable of caring whether it lives or dies should have a say in it’s own life. You have my answer.
I also say that these are just side issues, so if these issues don’t make or break the point for you, I don’t care. You can read my main argument a few posts above.
If you disagree with one or more of my answers, fine, say why. I’m not going to guess every counter argument you could possibly think of and then address them if that’s what you’re shooting for.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
In the meantime, food for thought. A “hopeless” alcoholic has, through his addiction, completely ruined his own life and is the cause of an absolutely hellish existence for his family. One night, he has drunk himself into such a stupor there there is absolutely no way to wake him from it. He may as well be in a coma.
Clearly, his existence is a net minus to himself and all of the people he is close to. So, is it okay for his wife to put a pillow over his head and end it for him? Certainly ending his and his family’s misery would be the lesser of two evils. Yes? Or no? [/quote]
No. In a way, yes, but this is a false dichotomy. There is a better option, leaving him. His life is not her problem nor her responsibility.
Also, even though he is a miserable drunk, I don’t see any reason why he can’t be a miserable drunk if that’s the life he chooses.
… I’m just going to ignore you. There’s a lot wrong with your arguments, and you’ve made a lot of them. It would take much more typing than I’m willing to do to sort it out.
Don’t take it personally. Or do, I don’t care.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
…Consider that during an abortion the child shows no signs of self-preservation. Either it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both…
[/quote]
This is so fuckin lame I can’t even believe I lolly-gag around here.
If I sneak up on a 10 year old and whack his head off with a machete and it can’t feel it, doesn’t care, or both…does that make it OK?
TT, you repeatedly approach, and pass, the line of sheer stupidity on this thread. Good grief, boy.
[/quote]
The bizarre part is that he acknowledges its a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it. [/quote]
Unlike your God, right?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Which logical fallacies, exactly? And how so, for that matter?
[/quote]
Funny you should ask. This right here:
…happens to be one of them. My beliefs on suicide do not affect my argument and bringing it up is the same as bringing up my religion. It is a red herring intended to divert the focus of the argument onto my ideologies. Just to humor you, though, no, I don’t “support” suicide. However, on the scale of bad to really fucking evil, I would put taking the life of an innocent human who has no say in the matter whatsoever waaaaaaay the hell to the really fucking evil side compared to killing yourself. That’s all I am going to say on this matter.
Asking you if you agree with suicide is a fallacy? What? You said we should wait for the child to grow up enough that they could decide either way. This seemed strange to me because, as a catholic, you should oppose suicide, so I asked. It’s not as though I was going to say “Aha! You support suicide, even though you’re catholic! Therefore YOU LOSE!!!11!1!!one1!”
I’d like to think by now you know I’m not like that.
I don’t know what more you want. You ask why self-sustaining matters, I say because it’s not a mercy to kill something that can survive on it’s own. You have my answer. You ask why fetal pain matters, I say because I personally do not want a fetus to suffer, but moreover (and this is my first time saying this because I thought it was obvious before) the film you linked me strongly made the assertion that the fetus was suffering during the abortion, therefore abortion is wrong. I was showing this is not true. You have my answer. You ask why cognitive life matters, I say because a being capable of caring whether it lives or dies should have a say in it’s own life. You have my answer.
I also say that these are just side issues, so if these issues don’t make or break the point for you, I don’t care. You can read my main argument a few posts above.
If you disagree with one or more of my answers, fine, say why. I’m not going to guess every counter argument you could possibly think of and then address them if that’s what you’re shooting for.[/quote]
First, I am assuming your main argument is this. Please correct me if I am mistaken:
You know what? You are right. All of these points are actually incidental to the main point of your argument. Logically unsound as they are, they are not nearly so damaging to your position as your main point. I’ll demonstrate why. Based upon the information you have provided so far in this thread, I can construct the following syllogism:
Impairing the freedom of another human is wrong.
Abortion impairs the freedom of a human.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
This is not me putting words in your mouth. This is an argument using exactly what you have declared in this thread. Indeed, I actually agree with this statement, particularly as it highlights the fact that the freedom the woman must sacrifice is far, far less than the freedom the child is forced to relinquish, thereby providing a reliable standard to determine whose freedom we must prioritize in this dilemma.
What you are trying to argue for is not the primacy of freedom, as your statements upon this are contradictory. When you strip this down to its core, you are actually arguing that murder should be sanctioned in certain instances, particularly in those instances in which the victim has no say in the matter.
Make no mistake, this is exactly where your philosophy takes us.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
First, I am assuming your main argument is this. Please correct me if I am mistaken:
You know what? You are right. All of these points are actually incidental to the main point of your argument. Logically unsound as they are, they are not nearly so damaging to your position as your main point. I’ll demonstrate why. Based upon the information you have provided so far in this thread, I can construct the following syllogism:
Impairing the freedom of another human is wrong.
Abortion impairs the freedom of a human.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
This is not me putting words in your mouth. This is an argument using exactly what you have declared in this thread. Indeed, I actually agree with this statement, particularly as it highlights the fact that the freedom the woman must sacrifice is far, far less than the freedom the child is forced to relinquish, thereby providing a reliable standard to determine whose freedom we must prioritize in this dilemma.
What you are trying to argue for is not the primacy of freedom, as your statements upon this are contradictory. When you strip this down to its core, you are actually arguing that murder should be sanctioned in certain instances, particularly in those instances in which the victim has no say in the matter.
Make no mistake, this is exactly where your philosophy takes us.
[/quote]
Right, so my main argument is that, all else being equal mind you, going through the pregnancy and spending years raising the child to see if it would rather have died back when it didn’t care either way is a stupid thing to do when the alternative (abortion) solves the problem immediately (and painlessly, if you care).
BUT since “all else” is never equal, the decision should be solely the mothers.
Your three point synopsis does not describe me. What have I said that gives the impression of your first two points there? I don’t think I would say something like that (especially as a universal) because you can then say the following:
Impairing the freedom of another human is wrong.
restraining impairs the freedom of a human.
Therefore, restraining is wrong.
I think we can both agree that there are times when the “freedom” of a human must be impaired, so even if I was pro-life, I would not make the argument you set up above.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
You could argue children under 2 are not human-beings, as they haven’t developed human-traits yet. [/quote]
Don’t have kids, eh? Never been around any either, apparently. My 15 month old has more logic than this.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.[/quote]
It may come off cruel, but I don’t think anyone is entitled to anything.
Unless, of course, you have some sort of written agreement, like custody for example. If a woman signed something saying she would not abort her baby, then I would not support her abortion if she decided to get one anyway.
It’s also worth mentioning that I don’t think people who are against abortion should be forced to pay for abortions via taxation.[/quote]
So you do support murder, flat out. End of discussion.
Why is this even an argument? It’s basic biology.