Abortion///cont.

[glassjester]

In otherwords, unlike you and others, I don't presume to impose it upon others.

You would willingly impose your theory of life on unborn children...

 

[glassjester]

Not so.
If the rescuer does nothing, he/she is not a rescuer; just a bystander.

Just like a doctor that doesn't treat the pregnant woman.

I am simply pointing out that the moral dilemna is not which one to save.
It is between saving one or none.

Just like the doctor attempting to save the pregnant woman.

No culpability attaches to itself to the rescuer for leaving one to die while rescuing the other.
That was your original statement; "the would-be rescuer will certainly be allowing the other to drown".
This is not true. The rescuer is not allowing the other to drown at all.
He/she has no moral obligation to the one not saved if only one can be saved.

Just like the doctor...

 

[George Affleck]

Just like a doctor that doesn't treat the pregnant woman.

Yes, now you've got it! Thank you for agreeing that your original statement was incorrect.

Just like the doctor attempting to save the pregnant woman.

Yes, now you've got it! Thank you for agreeing that your original statement was incorrect.

Just like the doctor...

Yes, now you've got it! Thank you for agreeing that your original statement was incorrect.

 

[quip]

Just like the doctor treating the mother and unborn child...

Where am I in error, here?

The doctor's life is not being imperiled. As such assisting in one or the other's death is not in the service of self-preservation in regard to the doctor's life.

Not so. It is objectively true that a human's life begins at conception.

Though it's not objectively apparent that this life must bestow a right to life at conception.

Of course you do. If someone killed me (I am thirty-two years old), and argued in court that he personally believes that life begins at thirty-three - I am sure you would gladly allow the law to impose upon the criminal, a "theory of life" other than his personal one.

Great but this scenario has nothing in common with the pregnancy/abortion one.

 

[quip]

You would willingly impose your theory of life on unborn children...

Since, it's the object of the theory...that seems inevitable.

Of course, only if such a decision was personally relevant to me.

 

[George Affleck]

Where am I in error, here?

In both the case of the swimmers, and the mother and child...
- Two lives are endangered.
- Without intervention, both will die.
- By saving one, the rescuer must allow the other to die.

.

Here is where you are in error:

By saving one, the rescuer does not allow the other to die.

 

[glassjester]

Yes, now you've got it! Thank you for agreeing that your original statement was incorrect.

Which?

 

[George Affleck]

Which?

"By saving one, the rescuer must allow the other to die."

False - not logical


Please be advised that I am pro-life.
I am also pro-logic.

There is nothing to be gained, and everything to lose, by arguing illogically.

 

[glassjester]

The doctor's life is not being imperiled. As such assisting in one or the other's death is not in the service of self-preservation in regard to the doctor's life.

Right... you get that the doctor in the pregnancy scenario parallels the role of the lifeguard in the swimmer scenario, right?

Though it's not objectively apparent that this life must bestow a right to life at conception.

Are you arguing that no one knows objectively when life begins, or no one knows objectively when the right to life begins? You seem to be switching between the two claims.

 

[glassjester]

Since, it's the object of the theory...that seems inevitable.

Of course, only if such a decision was personally relevant to me.

You said you do not seek to impose your personal theory of life on others. Yet now you say it is inevitable. Which is it, Quip?

 

[glassjester]

"By saving one, the rescuer must allow the other to die."

False - not logical

Sure, I guess that might more accurately read, "By saving one, the rescuer must allow for the possibility that the other will die."

Please be advised that I am pro-life.

Why?

I am also pro-logic.

That's good.

There is nothing to be gained, and everything to lose, by arguing illogically.

Yep.

 

[glassjester]

Good evening to you both, George and Quip. Nice talking with you, but my early wake-up demands an early bedtime. Until tomorrow :e4e:

 

[quip]

Right... you get that the doctor in the pregnancy scenario parallels the role of the lifeguard in the swimmer scenario, right?

No. No doctor is going to save the baby while intentionally allowing the mother to die. The opposite cannot be said to be true. It's not analogous because the respective moral choices between doctor and lifeguard are not equal thus dis-similar by comparison.

Are you arguing that no one knows objectively when life begins, or no one knows objectively when the right to life begins? You seem to be switching between the two claims.

Your confusion arises because you presume both as one and the same.

I've been strictly referring to rights-to-life.

 

[quip]

You said you do not seek to impose your personal theory of life on others. Yet now you say it is inevitable. Which is it, Quip?

I will not impose outside my personal purview...remember?

 

[George Affleck]

Sure, I guess that might more accurately read, "By saving one, the rescuer must allow for the possibility that the other will die."

Yes, and that the other will die on their own without any responsibility whatsoever to the rescuer.
The rescuer of the one is not allowing anything on behalf of the other. He is not at all involved except as he is saving or not saving one. The other one is completely outside his capabilities and therefore outside of his universe.

Why?

Psalm 139:13-16KJV

Psalm 139:13-16NIV


I apologize for being obtuse.
I just wasn't getting through.

 

[glassjester]

Yes, and that the other will die on their own without any responsibility whatsoever to the rescuer.
The rescuer of the one is not allowing anything on behalf of the other. He is not at all involved except as he is saving or not saving one. The other one is completely outside his capabilities and therefore outside of his universe.


Psalm 139:13-16KJV

Psalm 139:13-16NIV


I apologize for being obtuse.
I just wasn't getting through.

So you are pro-life, but you think abortion should remain legal?

 

[glassjester]

No. No doctor is going to save the baby while intentionally allowing the mother to die.

How would that work?

The opposite cannot be said to be true. It's not analogous because the respective moral choices between doctor and lifeguard are not equal thus dis-similar by comparison.

Again, where does the analogy not work?

- If the rescuer does nothing, both die.
- If the rescuer saves one, the other will die.

Is this not true in both situations?

 

[quip]

How would that work?

Saving the baby by way of intentionally allowing the mother's death?

The hypothetical seems obvious and obviously absurd.

Again, where does the analogy not work?

- If the rescuer does nothing, both die.
- If the rescuer saves one, the other will die.

Is this not true in both situations?

By way of unequal valuation. The doctor, where possible and where a choice must be made - will always prioritize saving the life of the mother over the unborn.

By contrast the lifeguard holds no such moral varience between the subjects of his dilemma.

 

[ok doser]

:think: ...sounds like backpedaling to me.

so, not only vision problems, but hearing problems as well?




gettin' old ain't for sissies, eh?

 

[glassjester]

Saving the baby by way of intentionally allowing the mother's death? Seems obvious and obviously absurd.

To be clear, you're saying it probably wouldn't be possible, right?