Oh great Crash, we're gonna be hearing about this for at least a year now.
Hardly, I can't be bothered anymore to address someone whose debating skills are still stuck in the first grade,
Tragic statement of the day:
- Thread starter PKevman
- Start date
- Status
Hardly, I can't be bothered anymore to address someone whose debating skills are still stuck in the first grade,
Find me someone selling a clue and I will buy it. It certainly is not YOU! You have to have a clue before you can sell one.
wow, way to address the argument...
Red. You admit yourself that this is a highly unlikely scenario. There is probably no concievable situation where a mother eating her child would mean her life would be saved. Couldn't you just hold onto that angle instead of saying it might possibly be justified?
PKevman
New member
wow, way to address the argument...
Nothing to address. It is never, ever, ever ok for a parent to eat their own child. Never, under any circumstances. Ever. Until you can agree with that statement your comments are irrelevant!
PKevman
New member
No because he knows that to do so would mean Turbo would trounce him even more profoundly in the One on One than he is already being trounced!
But it's ok for two people to die when one could survive then? Why can't you just address that and admit it? thats what you obviously believe.....
PKevman
New member
:doh:
Thats the whole point of a hypothetical, it normally IS a very unrealistic scenario and thankfully I can't conceive of a situation of where this could occur either, but thats as hypotheticals go and if that WAS the only chance for one of them to survive then theoretically one life saved is better than two lives lost.....
It is OK to die as a result of acting on what you believe to be true. It would be OK for a mother to die because she refused to eat her baby.
Obviously it's better if what you believe is actually true.
Great explanation pastor, it's what you believe should happen, two people should die instead of one
At what cost Red? What act would you consider too evil to commit even if it meant saving a life?
If the mother couldnt do it and chose to die instead then that would be her choice
It is OK to die for what you believe to be right and true.
Obviously it is better if what you believe is actually true.
that would all depend on the scenario....
And there would be nothing wrong with that, correct?
No there wouldn't be anything wrong with that, it would be her choice, what seems to be happening here though is that if the mother somehow could do this to survive then she shouldnt and be condemned to death regardless
:doh:
why do you think I said it would depend on the scenario? On the above I would have to say no, I don't understand how the act of rape could be tied into saving a life anyway....:liberals: at least try and set up a more specific scenario.....
erm if your seed had the antidote to her deadly disease and erm she didn't fancy you.... or something... come Red uses your imagination.
Also read thier questions well..
WOULD IT BE OK FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO KILL A CHILD Blah blah is totally different to
WOULD IT BE OK FOR YOU ect ect... they always assume that if in an "All things being equal" senario the one death outweighs the two they then consider you a personal child killer.
Last edited:
Well, hopefully after an explanation of something like that it would become...erm.... a mutual bonding.....
And I can see your point, i wonder in this scenario if people would be less likely to condemn this as wicked if the woman had other children who were dependant on her and the only way would be to survive..... :think:
- Status