Planned Parenthood leader resigns after watching ultrasound of abortion procedure.

[Old Herb Lady]

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

This is what is known as argumentum ad hominem (aka argument against the person), and is indicative of the lack of a solid position from which to argue.

You don't know a thing about my personal life, so please refrain from making false statement about it.

Okay, fair enough !!
So are you just uncomfortable answering my question
if you have any children or not ?
I think it's the 3rd or 4th time I've asked you for Pete's sake already.
Sheesh.
Also , an unborn baby does have a soul but it is extremely undeveloped
but grows and matures. I don't know where you get your information from.

[Russkie]

I hate stepping into abortion debates.....but I have to.

No girl dreams of growing up to have an aboriton. "Abortion" always = soul-wrenching mistake somewhere, in some way.

There is one thing all people should be able to agree on;

It is obviously the most moral thing to spend AT LEAST equal energy on addressing the causes of abortion, as on making it available.

The most moral thing is to address AT LEAST as much airtime to ideas and values which address the causes of abortion as to ideas which promote risky sex.

So long as this is not happening, even the staunchest freedom-lover cannot support abortion in society, and claim to be moral.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by agmom

Just......wow.

If this is where you truly stand, there is no hope to reason with you.

If you can not comprehend the lack of absolutism in this area, which was pointed out in the full context of what I said (and is reproduced in full below), that you omitted from you quote of my text, then there is no hope in meaningfully communicating with you.

Not only could a human own another human, it has been well documented as having occurred in history (aka slavery).

I'd guess that what you really want to know is should a human own another human, and my answer is that I don't really have a problem with a human who qualifies as a person owning a human who doesn't qualify as a person, as the human not qualifying as person can still be granted protections by society. I own by pets, but they still receive protection via animal cruelty laws. The child/guardian relationship really isn't much different then owning a pet. The guardian of a child can force the child to do many things, but society does impose limits just as it does with pets. All ownership is control over something that is generally recognized and protected by society at large, and it frequently is not absolute control (e.g. various ordinance regarding modifications to land and existing structures).

Originally Posted by agmom

I fear that you don't believe an unborn child has a soul, because you've lost touch with your own.

You say that like there is undisputed evidence that a human fetus has a soul. Care to reference that evidence?

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

So are you just uncomfortable answering my question if you have any children or not ?

Why on earth would I answer such a personal question posed by a perfect stranger on an internet forum?

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

I think it's the 3rd or 4th time I've asked you for Pete's sake already.
Sheesh.

Ask it a hundred times, and you still won't get an answer.

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

Also , an unborn baby does have a soul but it is extremely undeveloped
but grows and matures. I don't know where you get your information from.

I note that you didn't say were you got your information from and that you stated it as fact rather then opinion. Care to share any actual evidence that "an unborn baby does have a soul but it is extremely undeveloped
but grows and matures"?

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by Russkie

So long as this is not happening, even the staunchest freedom-lover cannot support abortion in society, and claim to be moral.

Right, because there is one and only one morality. Oh wait that isn't the case at all.

[Russkie]

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

Right, because there is one and only one morality. Oh wait that isn't the case at all.

Moral relativity is a popular philosophy in the post-modern word.

But that doesn't mean it is right.....

If you open you ears and listen, instead of embracing your knee-jerk programming, you would understand my position of being one in which people on both sides of the debate could agree on the following very reasonable proposition:

In a moral society, the population which decided to tolerate abortion should spend at least as much money and time addressing the causes of abortion as it does championing sexual promiscuity and the ability to have an abortion.

It seems to me that we have a disbalance here- an overwhelming culture of "do whatever feels good" and "know your reproductive rights" and "tolerance for lifestyle choices" and "freedom of choice" whatever...

How much attention is paid these days to teaching the values of modesty, restraint, comitted monogamy and family life? How much are we encouraged to develop a civil society which takes care of all children in a non-governmental way?

All of those things promote an atmosphere which diminishes the cause and occaision of abortion.

So long as these things do not get AT LEAST equal time, we live in a nihilistic, death-loving, amoral anti-culture.

Get it?

[DC7]

Alloy,

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

Nope, that wasn't a general definition of 'right', and the are different kinds of rights anyway, so there can't be just one definition. My statement only applies to a right to life/live.

I think I see. A "right" should be defined one way, to include much forcing of duty onto others (such as "welfare, social security, child support, alimony, patrimony, etc") when refering to "a right to life". But this meaning "only applies to a right to life/live". It should be defined another way when refering to other rights. Thanks for explaining.

The definition right you're using above is that of a 'negative right', but from other things you've said its pretty clear to me that are not limiting the 'right to life' to purely a negative right as in 'you should not be killed'. This is because extending it to a fetus imposes a duty on the woman carrying it to allow it to live off her body, cause changes to her body (some of which will not go away, so of which could be in the category of actual injury, so then we can get into a self-defense argument such that if a woman can not defend herself from a fetus, why should anyone be able to defend themselves from being bruised or sliced, since that is no worse then the damage a C-section could inflict), which is a positive rather then a negative right. If you are also against a mother abandoning a live child where it isn't likely to be found by someone who will care for it, then that again is creating a duty on the mother even if its just to abandon it somewhere it can reasonably be expected to be found by some who will care for it.

Edit: Oh, and even a purely negative right as in 'you should not be killed', there are exceptions, such as self-defense, capital punishment, war, etc.

You can call it a negative right if you want. I notice you used the phrase "Natural or God-Given Right" earlier. Under the definition I use, sometimes rights conflict, and someone's rights can interfere with anothers. As I said, exactly: "The duty forced onto others under this definition is that they not commit a willfull act which will directly result in taking away what you have a right to". This creates situations where different people's right need to be weighed against eachother and a judgement needs to be made. If this doesn't fit into your definition of "negative, Natural, or God Given Rights", then call it what you want.

And... Ahh...... I think you skipped a part. In case you didn't notice, I asked that you humor me and use the definition of "rights" I provided to answer these 3 questions:

Should an innocent "person" have a right to life?

Should a two year old "human non-person"?

Should a 1 month old "human non-person"?

Thanks.

Nope.

Ok.

I'd guess that what you really want to know is should a human own another human, and my answer is that I don't really have a problem with a human who qualifies as a person owning a human who doesn't qualify as a person, as the human not qualifying as person can still be granted protections by society. I own by pets, but they still receive protection via animal cruelty laws. The child/guardian relationship really isn't much different then owning a pet. The guardian of a child can force the child to do many things, but society does impose limits just as it does with pets. All ownership is control over something that is generally recognized and protected by society at large, and it frequently is not absolute control (e.g. various ordinance regarding modifications to land and existing structures).

Yes, you're right that what I meant to clairify was not if a "person could", but if a "person should". So a "person" can own thier "human non-person children" just as they might own a pet. Thanks for giving a clear answer.

Society, typically through the government it has created......... Nope.

Society grants right to individuals throught he government. Ok.

If no one else owns their bodies or their lives, does it really matter?

If no one else owns their bodies or their lives, what benefit does a person get by owning their bodies or their lives (what does it even mean to own a life, since it isn't a physical thing?)?

So people should be allowed to own property and "human non-persons", but not thier own lives and bodies. Thanks for clarifying. I asked to make sure I understand you right. I think it does matter if people own thier own lives and bodies, but I guess you don't. Ok.

I don't subscribe to the philosophical concept that someone's life and or body shouldn't belong to themself. To me, ownership of my own life and body means ownership of myself. In my view, without that, individuals are in much greater danger of becoming mere subjects ruled by others.

I want to continue our conversation but I have some projects to get done. I hope to get back later tonight, but if not, talk to you again tomorrow night.

[gypsybiker45]

Originally Posted by randman

Hey Tread...

Maybe you should start with getting your government to stop bombing civilians in

Iraq,Iran, and Afghanistan before you spout off about this subject...

If you can get em to stop...

Then we'll talk about "protecting human life"

the S*** stirrer has spoken, hello Azeeb.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by Russkie

Moral relativity is a popular philosophy in the post-modern word.

But that doesn't mean it is right.....

It doesn't mean it is wrong either.

Originally Posted by Russkie

If you open you ears and listen, instead of embracing your knee-jerk programming, you would understand my position of being one in which people on both sides of the debate could agree on the following very reasonable proposition:

Your position, which I understand just fine, is flawed in that asserts, without proving, that a moral society necessarily needs to address the causes of abortion.

Originally Posted by Russkie

It seems to me that we have a disbalance here- an overwhelming culture of "do whatever feels good" and "know your reproductive rights" and "tolerance for lifestyle choices" and "freedom of choice" whatever...

How much attention is paid these days to teaching the values of modesty, restraint, comitted monogamy and family life? How much are we encouraged to develop a civil society which takes care of all children in a non-governmental way?

Here you assert, without proving, that "modesty, restraint, comitted monogamy and family life" are values that our society should attend to or teach. You also assert, without proving, that its possible there is to much "do whatever feels good", "know your reproductive rights", "tolerance for lifestyle choices", and "freedom of choice" without proving these things are vices or not values (if they are values, then how can there be to much of them?).

Originally Posted by Russkie

All of those things promote an atmosphere which diminishes the cause and occaision of abortion.

Birth control also diminishes the occasion of abortion, but I don't see that in your list.

Originally Posted by Russkie

So long as these things do not get AT LEAST equal time, we live in a nihilistic, death-loving, amoral anti-culture.

You haven't even come close to supporting this statement.

[Old Herb Lady]

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

Why on earth would I answer such a personal question posed by a perfect stranger on an internet forum?



Ask it a hundred times, and you still won't get an answer.



I note that you didn't say were you got your information from and that you stated it as fact rather then opinion. Care to share any actual evidence that "an unborn baby does have a soul but it is extremely undeveloped
but grows and matures"?

Yikes !! Wellllll , everyone else on here are perfect strangers, too,
and their openly saying if they have children. Doesn't bother them because
they are open to truth and love and not some form of unrealistic twisted thinking.
Whatever.

And why oh why would I share my evidence that unborn babies
have souls with someone who doesn't want to hear it or doesn't care.
Oh, it's much too much personal to share with strangers on the net.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by DC7

I think I see. A "right" should be defined one way, to include much forcing of duty onto others (such as "welfare, social security, child support, alimony, patrimony, etc") when refering to "a right to life". But this meaning "only applies to a right to life/live". It should be defined another way when refering to other rights. Thanks for explaining.

It isn't a matter of should, its just the way it is. Some rights impose an obligation on others not to do something, some impose an obligation to do something, and some do both.

Originally Posted by DC7

And... Ahh...... I think you skipped a part. In case you didn't notice, I asked that you humor me and use the definition of "rights" I provided to answer these 3 questions:

Should an innocent "person" have a right to life?

Should a two year old "human non-person"?

Should a 1 month old "human non-person"?

Okay, but I don't think you are going to be happy with the answer.

First I'm going to combine those seconds two questions into one, since my answer is the same regardless of time since first breath, so now we are at:

Should an innocent "person" have a right to life?

Should a "human non-person" have a right to life?

Next I'm going to substitute your definition so there is no confusion:

Should an innocent "person" not be killed?

Should a "human non-person" not be killed?

To both, because neither include any exceptions, my answer is no.

Now if we add an exception for justification:

Should an innocent "person" not be killed without justification?

Should a "human non-person" not be killed without justification?

My answer, assuming justification has a lot of gray area as it does in our current society, is yes to both, so long as "not be killed" does not include imposing a duty of taking an action that will or may prevent the killing, which it shouldn't as a negative right.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

Yikes !! Wellllll , everyone else on here are perfect strangers, too,
and their openly saying if they have children.

Everyone is not openly saying if they have children, and if some people choose to volunteer that information that is their prerogative.

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

Doesn't bother them because
they are open to truth and love and not some form of unrealistic twisted thinking.
Whatever.

Again with the argument against the person. Doing so twice is a very strong indication of the lack of a position from which to argue.

The next time you do so, I will respond in kind.

[Old Herb Lady]

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

Everyone is not openly saying if they have children, and if some people choose to volunteer that information that is their prerogative.



Again with the argument against the person. Doing so twice is a very strong indication of the lack of a position from which to argue.

The next time you do so, I will respond in kind.

Look, person, non-person, human, sub-human, what the hell
ever you are talking about..........................
you speak so eloquently but say/know nothing.

I have all the "position" in the world to argue with you,
however you aren't worth the time to argue with.

May you be blessed with a child someday, if not,
may you find that your heart will be able to give and receive love
in a healthy and happy way. May you be healed
from all the conditioning you have received
and from all of your pain from your past that
you have not yet healed from.

I pray that my children
never run into a mentor or someone like you in life to get advice from.

Let all the mumbo jumbo go.......release it and let love flow.
Find that place. It is there if you allow to receive it.
This darkness that you have and hold is beyond belief.

Oh, you can respond in "kind" or whatever talk you talk.
Save your energy. I'm outta here.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

Look, person, non-person, human, sub-human, what the hell
ever you are talking about..........................
you speak so eloquently but say/know nothing.

Your inability to comprehend is of no concern to me.

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

I have all the "position" in the world to argue with you,
however you aren't worth the time to argue with.

Yet you wrote paragraphs in this post. Hmmmmm.

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

May you be healed from all the conditioning you have received...

Yes, that's right I'm conditioned. My position is so wrought that everyone here knows just how to respond to it, because they've seen it so many times before as a result of all those conditioners running around conditioning the population.

Bzzt. Try again.

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

I pray that my children
never run into a mentor or someone like you in life to get advice from.

Yeah, they might unlearn something. The horror.

Hopefully you are actually out of here.

[Dude]

Originally Posted by Old Herb Lady

Look, person, non-person, human, sub-human, what the hell
ever you are talking about..........................
you speak so eloquently but say/know nothing.

I have all the "position" in the world to argue with you,
however you aren't worth the time to argue with.

May you be blessed with a child someday, if not,
may you find that your heart will be able to give and receive love
in a healthy and happy way. May you be healed
from all the conditioning you have received
and from all of your pain from your past that
you have not yet healed from.

I pray that my children
never run into a mentor or someone like you in life to get advice from.

Let all the mumbo jumbo go.......release it and let love flow.
Find that place. It is there if you allow to receive it.
This darkness that you have and hold is beyond belief.

Oh, you can respond in "kind" or whatever talk you talk.
Save your energy. I'm outta here.

I concur. I was going to try to get further specific clarification, but at this stage, it really does not matter to me either. What I did find, however, is that this train of thought is on the net. This is one of the reasons I hit this board - to hear about such odd thought patterns (at least to me) so I can be aware of them and discuss them with those I care about. It's not unlike teaching your kids to understand that there are people that abduct children.

[DC7]

Alloy,

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

It isn't a matter of should, its just the way it is. Some rights impose an obligation on others not to do something, some impose an obligation to do something, and some do both.

Let me quote the signers of the Declaration here:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I don't read here as "right to life" meaning all men have a right to force others to provide them with "welfare, social security, child support, alimony, patrimony, etc". It seems to me, if you decide "right to life" means forcing these duties on others, then your definition's only a matter of "the way it is" because you chose the definition. The right to an abortion, or to the press, or to arms, or almost any other right can also be defined to mean forcing others to provide it just as easily.

Okay, but I don't think you are going to be happy with the answer.

First I'm going to combine those seconds two questions into one, since my answer is the same regardless of time since first breath, so now we are at:

Should an innocent "person" have a right to life?

Should a "human non-person" have a right to life?

Next I'm going to substitute your definition so there is no confusion:

Should an innocent "person" not be killed?

Should a "human non-person" not be killed?

To both, because neither include any exceptions, my answer is no.

Now if we add an exception for justification:

Should an innocent "person" not be killed without justification?

Should a "human non-person" not be killed without justification?

My answer, assuming justification has a lot of gray area as it does in our current society, is yes to both, so long as "not be killed" does not include imposing a duty of taking an action that will or may prevent the killing, which it shouldn't as a negative right.

Far from not being happy with your answer, I actually agree with it as far as it goes. If I'm interpreting it correctly.

As I defined "right", and then clarified the consequences of using that definition:

If you have a right to speech or the press, then you should not be silenced when speaking out, or you should not be prevented from printing and distributing leaflets. If you have a right to arms, your weapons should not be taken from you. If you have a right to life, you should not be killed. The duty forced onto others under this definition is that they not commit a willfull act which will directly result in taking away what you have a right to.

And:

Under the definition I use, sometimes rights conflict, and someone's rights can interfere with anothers. As I said, exactly: "The duty forced onto others under this definition is that they not commit a willfull act which will directly result in taking away what you have a right to". This creates situations where different people's right need to be weighed against eachother and a judgement needs to be made.

In some situations where rights conflict, and a call has to be made about where to draw the line. Let's examine a few examples of conflicts between one person's right to property and another's right to life (please humor me again and let's use the definition of "rights" I provided):

Example 1:

You're walking down the street. A man pulls a revolver and states he won't harm you if you hand over everything in your pockets, which includes your just-cashed two week paycheck which you need to take care of your family. He's not paying attention, not wary of you and not keeping the gun on you. You have a pistol in your jacket pocket and are sure you could take him out and make him not a threat if you shot him in the face.

Would you be violating his right to life by shooting him? I say no. By his direct willful actions he is violating your rights and making himself a threat to you, and setting the claim to his own rights aside. It might be argued it's morally better to give up the cash than kill someone, but that's not an argument about rights in the definition I'm using here.

Example 2:

You're driving your car to work and as you park and get out you meet a man who has cancer. He needs $2000 for an operation to save his life. Your car would sell for about that price. He demands you give him your car and sign over the title. You hesitate and he draws a revolver. You notice it's a cap gun, and it's clear this man is no real threat to you. Are you violating his right to life by not giving up your property?

I'd say no. While it might be argued you should give him the car out of charity, I'd disagree if someone said you keeping the car would actually be violating his right to life. In my book, it doesn't qualify as a willfully acting to directly take the man's life from him. Your right to property isn't cancelled just because someone else needs it.

Example 3:

You live on 80 acres, sell firewood, and have a sign at the end of the 1/4 mile driveway advertising firewood with a big arrow pointing to your place inviting people to do business. A storm is expected to arrive within 24 hours, and last about a week. You have 4 deliveries of a cord each to make and want to get that done so you can use the cash to stock up on preps for the week.

A man's in a truck heading up your driveway while you're heading out. He wrecks as you two come up on eachother at a blind turn. His truck's rolled onto it's roof and he's stuck inside blocking you from using your own driveway to leave your property. The man's truck is crushed. You phone for help, but when help arrives you're told they don't have the equipment to get him out of the truck, and that they aren't going to move him til they get a helicopter anyway. The man has a brain injury. It's expected to be about 10 years before he recovers to a 12 year old's intelligence level, but soon after that he'll be fully recovered.

Now, if you wait for the equipment and helicopter you won't make any deliveries, you won't have any cash, your customers won't have any wood, and you won't get any supplies. By blocking your driveway the injured man is interfering with your right to use your own property (driveway), and interfering with your right to make a living. You won't actually be in any danger of starving or freezing, but you will be in for a really miserable week of hunger and discomfort at non life threatening levels.

But there is a solution. You have a backhoe back at the pad. You could easily go and fire it up, come down the driveway and just give the truck a little shove so that it falls into the river where he'll drown, and his gross interference with your rights will be solved. Would you be violating his right to life?

I'd say yes. Your action of pushing him into the river would directly end his life. The man's innocent, as far as his interference with your property rights is unintentional. He wasn't trespassing, as by your own act of posting a sign you invited the chance of visitors. Your property rights should include the right to kick people off your property. But in this case he'd leave on his own if he was able and knew you were going to kill him. But he doesn't have a choice. And this is all beside the fact that killing him will cost him everything, while the cost to you of letting him live is much less.

[Russkie]

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

It doesn't mean it is wrong either.


Your position, which I understand just fine, is flawed in that asserts, without proving, that a moral society necessarily needs to address the causes of abortion.



Here you assert, without proving, that "modesty, restraint, comitted monogamy and family life" are values that our society should attend to or teach. You also assert, without proving, that its possible there is to much "do whatever feels good", "know your reproductive rights", "tolerance for lifestyle choices", and "freedom of choice" without proving these things are vices or not values (if they are values, then how can there be to much of them?).



Birth control also diminishes the occasion of abortion, but I don't see that in your list.



You haven't even come close to supporting this statement.

In other words, no, you don't get it.

You can follow your logic through the devil's intestines for the rest of your life, but don't expect to find anything life-affirming or sustaining there, unless it is by accident- but in your current state of mind, don't expect to be able to recognize it.

There is an importat principle you are missing, and without it, freedom of thought and speech is just an invitation to your own destruction.

[Jeffs47]

Originally Posted by agmom

I'm afraid I have to seriously disagree with your statement that
Abortion is a cop out, it's a sad and destructive "solution" to the basic problem, irresponsibility.

It may very well be sad and destructive, but it's a solution. We have the right and freedom to make poor choices and be irresponsible. We also have the right and freedom to resolve those issues based on our own moral code and compass.

Do you have the same argument about bankruptcy? Should people just be forced to live their lives forever in debt because they were irresponsible and ignorant?

People are irresponsible and irrational when it comes to many things. The good news is that there can be a solution. Abortion is taking responsibility for your poor decision and dealing with it. Having a child you can't afford and expecting the welfare state to deal with it is the truly irresponsible outcome.

[traderken]

[GoldWampum]

Solution? When did rewarding and condoning irresponsibility become the solution to irresponsibility? The arguments just get weaker as we go.

However, Agmom is correct when she says that it is destructive. And once again, it is killing a human and the mills just keep on building business. One of the few growth industries left in this Babylonian society. That's pretty telling.

Suck 'em out, throw 'em in the trash and put the lid on, and call it a medical procedure to salve your conscience. If that's your solution then you are a low life human and one of you should be thrown in the dumpster with each baby.

That's a solution, right? Get rid of the unwanted kid AND get rid of those who reward irresponsible behavior.

A solution? You people are sick human beings.

[KingTheoden]

Originally Posted by Jeffs47

It may very well be sad and destructive, but it's a solution.
...

Abortion is taking responsibility for your poor decision and dealing with it. Having a child you can't afford and expecting the welfare state to deal with it is the truly irresponsible outcome.

This is amazing, calling killing someone a 'solution.' Using this logic one could say 'I made a stupid decision getting involved in a business deal I cannot afford. I can default and use public assistance - or I can just kill the man with whom I made the deal. The latter would be taking responsibility.'

No wait, the above example is not as serious because an unborn person did not even enter into a contract. Abortion is ending the life of a person without any say in the matter or ability to defend itself.

It becomes plainer and plainer as time flows who is aligned with good and evil. Clearly, such a mentality is horrible and matches the pattern set forth by the poster's offensive icon intended to mock Christianity.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by DC7

Let me quote the signers of the Declaration here:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I don't read here as "right to life" meaning all men have a right to force others to provide them with "welfare, social security, child support, alimony, patrimony, etc". It seems to me, if you decide "right to life" means forcing these duties on others, then your definition's only a matter of "the way it is" because you chose the definition. The right to an abortion, or to the press, or to arms, or almost any other right can also be defined to mean forcing others to provide it just as easily.

I plead guilty to assuming you where trying to trap me into agreeing to a "right to life" scenario that would then be extended to abortion is murder. Usually "right to life" is used as both positive right and a negative right in abortion debates, but you have been consistent in your use of it as just a negative right, not trying to get agreement to a negative rights scenario and then extend it to a positive rights scenario and "Ah, got you now!".

Originally Posted by DC7

Far from not being happy with your answer, I actually agree with it as far as it goes. If I'm interpreting it correctly.

I believe you are.

Originally Posted by DC7

You're walking down the street. A man pulls a revolver and states he won't harm you if you hand over everything in your pockets, which includes your just-cashed two week paycheck which you need to take care of your family. He's not paying attention, not wary of you and not keeping the gun on you. You have a pistol in your jacket pocket and are sure you could take him out and make him not a threat if you shot him in the face.

Would you be violating his right to life by shooting him? I say no. By his direct willful actions he is violating your rights and making himself a threat to you, and setting the claim to his own rights aside. It might be argued it's morally better to give up the cash than kill someone, but that's not an argument about rights in the definition I'm using here.

I agree.

Originally Posted by DC7

You're driving your car to work and as you park and get out you meet a man who has cancer. He needs $2000 for an operation to save his life. Your car would sell for about that price. He demands you give him your car and sign over the title. You hesitate and he draws a revolver. You notice it's a cap gun, and it's clear this man is no real threat to you. Are you violating his right to life by not giving up your property?

I'd say no. While it might be argued you should give him the car out of charity, I'd disagree if someone said you keeping the car would actually be violating his right to life. In my book, it doesn't qualify as a willfully acting to directly take the man's life from him. Your right to property isn't cancelled just because someone else needs it.

I agree.

Originally Posted by DC7

You live on 80 acres, sell firewood, and have a sign at the end of the 1/4 mile driveway advertising firewood with a big arrow pointing to your place inviting people to do business. A storm is expected to arrive within 24 hours, and last about a week. You have 4 deliveries of a cord each to make and want to get that done so you can use the cash to stock up on preps for the week.

A man's in a truck heading up your driveway while you're heading out. He wrecks as you two come up on eachother at a blind turn. His truck's rolled onto it's roof and he's stuck inside blocking you from using your own driveway to leave your property. The man's truck is crushed. You phone for help, but when help arrives you're told they don't have the equipment to get him out of the truck, and that they aren't going to move him til they get a helicopter anyway. The man has a brain injury. It's expected to be about 10 years before he recovers to a 12 year old's intelligence level, but soon after that he'll be fully recovered.

Now, if you wait for the equipment and helicopter you won't make any deliveries, you won't have any cash, your customers won't have any wood, and you won't get any supplies. By blocking your driveway the injured man is interfering with your right to use your own property (driveway), and interfering with your right to make a living. You won't actually be in any danger of starving or freezing, but you will be in for a really miserable week of hunger and discomfort at non life threatening levels.

But there is a solution. You have a backhoe back at the pad. You could easily go and fire it up, come down the driveway and just give the truck a little shove so that it falls into the river where he'll drown, and his gross interference with your rights will be solved. Would you be violating his right to life?

I'd say yes.

I would as well.

Originally Posted by DC7

Your action of pushing him into the river would directly end his life. The man's innocent, as far as his interference with your property rights is unintentional. He wasn't trespassing, as by your own act of posting a sign you invited the chance of visitors. Your property rights should include the right to kick people off your property. But in this case he'd leave on his own if he was able and knew you were going to kill him. But he doesn't have a choice. And this is all beside the fact that killing him will cost him everything, while the cost to you of letting him live is much less.

But I don't agree as far as the reason goes, because to me the invitation do do business on your property creates a duty not to cause harm to those invited (in this case the general public) intentionally or through negligence. He was only in that situation because of your own negligence regarding that blind turn (i.e. as the property owner you should know its there, at a minimum you should be honking as your approach that blind turn, but better bet would be put up mirrors), and pushing the vehicle he is trapped in to the river would be directly causing harm to him, adding intentional harm on top of negligent harm.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by Russkie

In other words, no, you don't get it.

You can follow your logic through the devil's intestines for the rest of your life, but don't expect to find anything life-affirming or sustaining there, unless it is by accident- but in your current state of mind, don't expect to be able to recognize it.

There is an importat principle you are missing, and without it, freedom of thought and speech is just an invitation to your own destruction.

I quite get that you are a moral absolutist, who thinks your morality is the one true morality, so any society not adhering to your morals is amoral.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by KingTheoden

Abortion is ending the life of a person without any say in the matter or ability to defend itself.

A soulless homo sapien fetus is not a person.

[traderken]

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

A soulless homo sapien fetus is not a person.

Thats it, I can't bite my tongue (fingers) any longer......

I think You have no soul AD

[Jeffs47]

Originally Posted by GoldWampum

Solution? When did rewarding and condoning irresponsibility become the solution to irresponsibility? The arguments just get weaker as we go.

What kind of sick and twisted world do you live in where an abortion is rewarded. That's pretty messed up.

The fact is, an abortion is a difficult decision to make. It's not cheap, it's usually painful, and there's a good bit of agony while the girl thinks about her options, etc. Believe me; she's taking plenty of responsibility.

I just thank God I live in a country that respects the rights of women enough to give them choice.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by traderken

Thats it, I can't bite my tongue (fingers) any longer......

I think You have no soul AD

Puppies are cute to, but that doesn't make them people. Fortunately the presence of my soul is not dependent on your thought.

[Jeffs47]

Originally Posted by KingTheoden

This is amazing, calling killing someone a 'solution.' Using this logic one could say 'I made a stupid decision getting involved in a business deal I cannot afford. I can default and use public assistance - or I can just kill the man with whom I made the deal. The latter would be taking responsibility.'

No wait, the above example is not as serious because an unborn person did not even enter into a contract. Abortion is ending the life of a person without any say in the matter or ability to defend itself.

It becomes plainer and plainer as time flows who is aligned with good and evil. Clearly, such a mentality is horrible and matches the pattern set forth by the poster's offensive icon intended to mock Christianity.

If that man has set up shop in your body and is sucking at your resources, then yes, I would call that a valid solution.

We might as well be arguing about the rights of tumors. A tumor is just as alive as a baby is in the first trimester.

[traderken]

Originally Posted by Jeffs47

We might as well be arguing about the rights of tumors. A tumor is just as alive as a baby is in the first trimester.

Can A tumor do this?

[traderken]

Originally Posted by AlloyDragon

Puppies are cute to, but that doesn't make them people. Fortunately the presence of my soul is not dependent on your thought.

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?

What makes a person a person is DNA
Fetuses have their own Human DNA (not the mothers DNA)

I didn't really want to get into this with a soulless Human such as your self.