Derf
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure that's NOT why some are here.
Answering old threads thread
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
Which is what?
It is moral to endeavor to maximize well-being and minimize misery.
In my hypothetical, removal of one person from a situation of risk leads inevitably to the shortened life of another. If life could be sustained (in the rubble in the pinned state) for both individuals for at least a number of months via providing food etc. with only a small risk that further collapse could create additional harm, should a person be required to stay in the rubble?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If you can't understand that forcing yourself on another is wrong then you're in no position to criticize anyone else's morality. You should intrinsically be repulsed by the notion and yet for some reason, you're not. Oh, and it matters not if the person in question is married or not, they have the right not to be raped by their spouse, or as you vaguely and feebly put it: "Something else".
But that's not what the question is about.
Why would it be okay to murder someone because their father was a rapist?
Or, to put it in the context of your analogy:
Why would it be ok to stop removing one of the people from under the rubble to shoot dead the one you can't save, even if there is no immediate risk to their life?
Yes. Because:
You can use that extra time to figure out a way to extract both of them without stopping to put a bullet through the brain of one of them while rescuing the other.
Derf
Well-known member
Yours or everyone's?
The question is about agency of one's own body.
Murder is a very charged way of putting it especially when the issue often involves a microscopic entity. I did not murder when I used mouth wash this morning in case you were wondering.
A person impregnated by rape should be able to stop the developing embryo in early stages of development because the pregnancy was not the result of volitional intention of the woman and women own their own bodies. Big government need not intervene.
A biological process within someone's body is the domain of that individual. In the case of pregnancy genetic material and resources are taken. The most basic right to property is ownership a person's actual body.
It could possibly be more humane to swiftly remove life rather than delicately when prolonging or reducing the period of pain is within the range of possibility. I do agree when considering an abortions, it is moral to consider the pain of the fetus.
It is not an easy scenario because there are two fully developed human beings involved here with identities, histories, memories, and communities. A person would be expected to remain for a reasonable amount of time, but leaving that resulted in the other person's death would not be considered murder.
Everyone in balance.
Derf
Well-known member
Based on what? Why should I understand something your way instead of someone else's way? What if my moral compass says it's ok to rape and pillage other people groups? Many, many people groups have believed so for thousands of years. Why is it wrong now? Was it wrong before? Is it because we're evolving better morals? Why is it that marriage is practiced in every people group? Are we now evolving out of marriage? These questions are not isolated from each other, as much as you want them to be.
Right Divider
Body part
You mean like the babies body?
Derf
Well-known member
And who decides the right balance? You or me?
Right Divider
Body part
That "microscopic entity" is a human person.
Every human starts out as a "microscopic entity".
Derf
Well-known member
But at least you acknowledge that they are here on this forum.
Contrary to folk wisdom, you can be a little bit pregnant. Abortion means a very different thing when it occurs in the first and most of the second trimester. A case could be made that a fetus in late stage of pregnancy acquires the same rights to bodily agency.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I read them in reflection and occasionally find their stupidity worth pointing out
But yes they are here. They have always been here.
The facts in any given situation and the application of logic determine the result. In many cases, it will be clear that I am right. There will be some closer calls when your point of view approaches mine in its level of cogency.
Right Divider
Body part
That is a LIE. Pregnancy is TRUE or FALSE... there is no in between.
No, it does not. It is the intentional termination of a human life... i.e., MURDER.
Irrelevant.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
A genetically unique human life starts at conception, the first step of a process of development through embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, early childhood, late childhood, young adulthood, adulthood, elderly adulthood, extreme elderly adulthood and ultimately death.
At no point in that arc of development is that life anything other than human.