Forums | MacLife

radarman wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

The right to control your own body outweighs even another's right to life.

If you kill someone else to control your own body, then you're at the same time infringing on someones right to control their body.

I don't think he was talking about killing anyone. I think he was talking about being coerced into acting, or failing to act, against your best interests for the sake of another.

For example, legally you cannot be forced to give blood, even if that is the only way to save another persons life.

Fixed that fer ya. Illegally, me and the boys could make "arrangements."

radarman wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

radarman wrote:

Adult Siamese twins would be an interesting case. However, as long as they are adults, I would think that consent from both would be required. I suppose the surviving twin could try to have the other twin declared legally dead, at which point we could see some really interesting case law develop.

In the case of infant Siamese twins, the parents choose for both.

In the case of the infant siamese twins what would the moral argument be (assuming the hypothetical) for not waiting the 9 months as opposed to killing one infant and letting the other live immediately.

Legally, it's a done deal. The parents get to make the call, period.

Morally, it would depend on the circumstances. Perhaps the comatose twin is dragging the 'healthy' twin down, and waiting 9 months could result in the loss of both children? I would imagine that could change the scenario dramatically. What if it only caused severe developmental challenges to the surviving twin? If you cut now, he turns out normal. If you wait 9 months, both could be severely crippled. What do you do? Frankly, I don't think we have the right to judge the parents, so long as their primary goal is the health and safety of their children.

I think most parents, given that choice, would wait - but there is nothing you can do legally to stop them from making the 'wrong' choice.

The hypothetical doesn't in fact bring the healthy twin down. That would dovetail into the health of the mother argument and people like resedit and most prolifers have already stated that in those instances a woman should have the right to an abortion. Also again, the development issues again are the same as the health of the mother issues.
Assuming for the sake of argument that in fact those aren't issues to the best of the doctors ability to determine the future) what is the moral argument to not allow the other child to wake up?

Another hypothetical (and again, there aren't perfect).
Two mountain climbers are harnessed to each other and climbing a mountain. The one at the bottom hits his head while on the way up and is knocked unconscious. They are midway up the mountain. However, it will only take a few hours to drag for the climber on top to finish scaling the mountain, and despite the fact that the other climber is not conscious he should be able to climb to the top without any danger befalling himself (though admittedly it would be a hard climb). However, he would have to continue dragging  the other mountain climber with him (and this climber is not dead but in and out of consciousness) Or he could cut him loose and climb to the top even though to do so would kill the other mountain climber.

IF one were to say that the unconcsious climber is pulling the other climber down with him and if he doesn't let him go, they'll both die one could certianly make the argument that cutting the rope is justified.But it would be a much harder case to make to cut the rope barring those extreme circumstances.

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-10-08 4:41 pm)

bratboy wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

The hypothetical doesn't in fact bring the healthy twin down.

Then it's a dumb hypothetical.

Pregnancy and child birth is not so predictable.

Except you're assuming risk to the mother that may not in fact be there. Every pregnancy has a potential for risk. It doesn't mean that the mother will in fact experience the risk.


State the hypothetical as, to the best of the doctors ability to determine the future the baby (in the hypothetical) SHOULD wake up in 9 around months (barring any unforseen circumstance), and once out of his coma, an operation can be done that can potentially separate both twins, and there is a high probability that both will go on to live full, productive lives. Barring some unforseen event (the equivalent of a mother actually having her life be put in jeapordy).

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-10-08 5:14 pm)

bratboy wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

Every pregnancy has a potential for risk.

Don't you mean "a potential" for a adverse outcome?  That's what the "risk" is.

It doesn't mean that the mother will in fact experience the risk.

No, the mother might not experience the negative outcome, but the risk of a negative outcome will be there (unless you're suggesting it's possible to identify 100% safe pregnancies).

In hypotheticals we are allowed a bit of leeway as we are allowed to assign the values that are known. But regardless, those saying they are prolife but allow for abortions if the mothers life is at risk, are at least requiring that they experience that actual adverse outcome. Otherwise, abortions would always be allowed on the assumption that pregnancies are always potentially risky.

Alien wrote:

That's rather arbitrary, isn't it? Who are you to decide which of the twain gets to live or die?

.tsooJ

Did I ever say it was me who got to decide?

everlong554 wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

The right to control your own body outweighs even another's right to life.

If you kill someone else to control your own body, then you're at the same time infringing on someones right to control their body by killing them.

That type of reasoning just ends up going round and round.

Looking at things from a legal perspective (as we always should when discussing this kind of stuff as it pertains to our society):
Say I have a house with heating. The low is forecast to be -20F tonight, and there is a homeless man outside my house. If I don't let him in, he will die. Legally, however, I am fully justified if I choose to refuse this guy entry into my house, even if it will kill him. I cannot be coerced by the government to let him into my house, even though he will die otherwise.

I don't see how this case is any different from the case of abortion, except that there is a womb instead of a house, and a embryo instead of a homeless man.

When I was a lifeguard, california law required me to have something called Title 22 first aid training.
The requirement was met by taking standard first, CPR, and CPR for the Professional Rescuer, plus an additional 4 hour class that mostly covered legal issues.

One of the legal issues - if we were ever in uniform (lifeguard shirt or sweater for us) - we were required by law to stop at any accident and perform first responder duties until an EMT/Paramedic arrived to take over. This was required whether we were on duty, going to work, coming from work, or just wearing the shirt to get the chicks.

I just came back from Raleys. There was an off duty Sheriff there doing his shopping - but he had his Sheriff uniform on (and his kids with him). If I flipped out, he would have been required by law to stay until a paramedic arrived.

matt wrote:

If you outlaw abortion, then you infringe on both the woman's right to decide when she is capable of providing a loving and safe environment for a child and on her child's right to be brought up in a loving and safe environment.

Also, what are both of your stances on welfare? Since children cost so much, having a child might make it so a woman would end up on welfare, or so the child might grow up without a parent at home to take care of them.

The day I say it is better for a child to day than to have his or her mother on welfare is the day I no longer have a soul.

Chickenhawk wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

The right to control your own body outweighs even another's right to life.

If you kill someone else to control your own body, then you're at the same time infringing on someones right to control their body by killing them.

That type of reasoning just ends up going round and round.

Looking at things from a legal perspective (as we always should when discussing this kind of stuff as it pertains to our society):
Say I have a house with heating. The low is forecast to be -20F tonight, and there is a homeless man outside my house. If I don't let him in, he will die. Legally, however, I am fully justified if I choose to refuse this guy entry into my house, even if it will kill him. I cannot be coerced by the government to let him into my house, even though he will die otherwise.

I don't see how this case is any different from the case of abortion, except that there is a womb instead of a house, and a embryo instead of a homeless man.

I fully recognize that in fact there are exceptions to the argument I stated. I was only pointing out the inherent contradiction in saying that your right to control your body outweighs another persons right to life, since they too have bodies and you are in fact taking control from them of their right to control their body. Society would haveto make such considertions and determinations where competing rights overlap.

Now, as to the argument about a house with heating and a homeless man outside who is potentially dying if you don't intercede, you can certainly make a case that it would be callous to let someone to die like that. On the other hand there is no compulsion in forcing you to help other people, and there is the similar problem of there being too many people to realistically be able to help. If for example there were ten homeless people sleeping outside it might be phyiscally impossible or beyond your means to help any or all even if you wanted to.

I dont know how close that matches a baby inside you. A homeless person is not linked to you, other than that he shares a place in the world. A baby though, through no fault of its own is bound to its mother while it develops. In fact, its in that situation because of the fault of its parents.

If you want to carry the homeless man argument through and apply it to abortion suppose you had a house with heating. And in your house you had basement and in the basement the homeless guy of your hypothetical was trapped and can't leave. And suppose its your fault he's in that predicament (ie suppose you built the house on a spot without realizing that he we was sleeping there). If you wait till summer you can drill a hole in the wall and he can come out, most likely with no harm (this is  not to say that he can't suffer a heart attack in the meantime). Or you can turn off the heat and let him freeze to death. You did put him in that situation, so its really your fault, but it is your house. are you obligate to keep him alive, or are you within your rights to let him die then.

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-10-09 1:04 am)

resedit wrote:

matt wrote:

Then you would support providing full support for children when their parents can't afford it, then?

Absolutely.

And in fact - I always vote that way.

resedit wrote:

Alien wrote:

That's rather arbitrary, isn't it? Who are you to decide which of the twain gets to live or die?

Did I ever say it was me who got to decide?

Would you support killing a woman to save the embryo she's carrying?

.tsooJ

resedit wrote:

matt wrote:

Then you would support providing full support for children when their parents can't afford it, then?

Absolutely.

then be a sport and send me enough money to cover the taxes that go to buying houses, food etc ( at least that is what they claim it's for ) that the "let's see how many kids the gov will pay me to have and I can neglect while I do my crack and whore around with yet another future daddy" crowd that seems to feel the gov "owes" them.

radarman wrote:

In most states, you can give up custody to the state if you can't manage. If you do a poor enough job, they will take your kids from you anyway.

Sure you can - it still needs to go through a legally approved process, and until then, you are required by law to ensure the well being of your children.

If a mother drops her daughter off with her brother to raise, and her brother sexually abuses her, she could be charged with child endangerment unless the court relieved her of her parental duties.

If you can't manage, you bet there are agencies that will try to do what is in the best interest of the child, but by default - it is the parents legal responsibility.

In California, it doesn't even have to be the biological father. If he is named on the birth certificate, unless he challenged it at that time - it's his kid as far as the law is concerned whether or not he contributed his DNA. The reason for the law? According to lawyer on talk radio - it was written because the state felt it more important for the child to have a legally responsible father - so if the mother names him daddy on the birth certificate, he either challenges it then or he is the legal daddy.

Last edited by resedit (2008-10-09 8:44 pm)