Total Posts:152|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion "Right To Privacy" Analogy

SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rights of any sort are manmade conceptions at best. Prolife argues for a right to live. Prochoice argues for a right to choose. The problem is that the pro-life position tends to be faith based, which is subjective at best. While the Pro-choice is selfish and relies on other Rights as support, however it is Rights that are particularly that which under question. As in should we or should we not alter the wright in favour of emerging life. So the Pro-life position amounts to an appeal to tradition by simply referring what the Right are already.

A P1 The Question is independent of on Pro-life or Pro-choice explanations.

Rights can't be shown to have any more reality then any subjectively based shared conception. We all share concepts of Unicorns. But they don't exist anymore than ideas our created from our imagination, regardless if we define them as existing unicorns, or Natural Unicorns, or necessary Unicorns or necessarily as part of their essential nature. It is irrational to think come into existence by definition. No matter whom we are or how much we declare it so. The fact remains the same.

A P1 Rights are Human made conceptions, which can be changed as easy as they are made up.

C1(B P1) Therefore the question is why should we or should we not change them.

I want to know ‘Y'!................. (The letter Y) ;)

Life is always continuous. Life goes from one living thing to another. As far as we know. Creationism is not a rational explanation, but neither are random happenings in evolution. Listen to a Fool now but believe me later on. Random always has, always is, and always will, be a false answer for anything. Whether in science or not its complete NONSENSE!! Just ask a Scientist how he knows something is random, and watch him not answer the question without appealing to ignorance. Creationism and Random life are both hasty generalizations in a rush to a have an answer. But the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know yet. That doesn't mean we won't know in the future.

B P2 ergo, Life is continuous

Trees are considered living, so is bacteria, and insects and such. We use trees for wood, and we have no problem killing bacteria and insects without a second thought. The reason for this is sentience. We define what counts as part of the moral community is live which is sentient. Aka life which is conscious and can feel pain.

B P3 ergo, only sentient life is considered a part of the moral community.

C2(C P1) Therefore the moral question can only be answered by our knowledge of Sentient life.

Our best sense of such knowledge is scientific, cognitive science in particular. In such Cognitive science the brain shows certain patterns when we feel pain. But such patterns depend on a necessary set of developments in the brain. And this is awhile after conception. So we should consider the fetus as part of the moral community, at that time.

C P2 To the best of our knowledge sentience develops at a later stage of development of the fetus after conceptualization

C P3 However to caution on the side of error, it should be made a standard deviation before the normal time for such a development to take place.

C3 Abortion should be justified one standard deviation, before the normal time the necessary development take place.

Straight from the Hill! ;)

The Fool: Some people don't like that. But I want to know 'Y'!!!!!!!! ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:11:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

Good analogy, though I'm not sure how it defends pro-life. Bill is about to fall off the cliff, so he grabs Adam, putting them both off-balance and in danger of falling. Bill has made himself become completely dependent on Adam for survival.

Adam would be within his right to force Bill off of him so they don't both plummet to their deaths.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:16:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

The difference here is multiple:

Bill is a person (http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk... ; Mary Anne Warren On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion)

Or other objections:
Society teaches us to help Bill, but a foetus is different.
Bill is someone who we can benefit from in the long term.
We'd want the same done to us, but as a foetus we are apathetic.
The death is dramatised in a fall.

Or, another analogy altogether (and this one is my favourite, as it illustrates my stand quite well):

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:19:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

After rereading your analogy, I change my "good" to "wtf". You're basically asking is it morally justified to shoot someone in face simply because they touched you, and trying to relate that to abortion.

It's not the same thing. It would be more accurate if Bill was absolutely dependent on Adam for survival (ie, if he was hanging over the edge of the cliff, tightly grabbing on Adam's ankles or something). If Adam does not want his own resources (ie, his body) to be used as a tool for someone else's survival, he shouldn't have to.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:24:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:19:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

After rereading your analogy, I change my "good" to "wtf". You're basically asking is it morally justified to shoot someone in face simply because they touched you, and trying to relate that to abortion.

It's not the same thing. It would be more accurate if Bill was absolutely dependent on Adam for survival (ie, if he was hanging over the edge of the cliff, tightly grabbing on Adam's ankles or something). If Adam does not want his own resources (ie, his body) to be used as a tool for someone else's survival, he shouldn't have to.

I like the burglar analogy for this point.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:25:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:16:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

The difference here is multiple:

Bill is a person (http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk... ; Mary Anne Warren On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion)

Or other objections:
Society teaches us to help Bill, but a foetus is different.
Bill is someone who we can benefit from in the long term.
We'd want the same done to us, but as a foetus we are apathetic.
The death is dramatised in a fall.

Or, another analogy altogether (and this one is my favourite, as it illustrates my stand quite well):

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

The Fool: right that is why I accounted for it by saying its the very Rights that are the very topic at hand. Thus this begs the question to appeal to another right, I had her argument taken into account.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:25:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:40:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Rights of any sort are manmade conceptions at best. Prolife argues for a right to live. Prochoice argues for a right to choose. The problem is that the pro-life position tends to be faith based, which is subjective at best. While the Pro-choice is selfish and relies on other Rights as support, however it is Rights that are particularly that which under question. As in should we or should we not alter the wright in favour of emerging life. So the Pro-life position amounts to an appeal to tradition by simply referring what the Right are already.

A P1 The Question is independent of on Pro-life or Pro-choice explanations.

Rights can't be shown to have any more reality then any subjectively based shared conception. We all share concepts of Unicorns. But they don't exist anymore than ideas our created from our imagination, regardless if we define them as existing unicorns, or Natural Unicorns, or necessary Unicorns or necessarily as part of their essential nature. It is irrational to think come into existence by definition. No matter whom we are or how much we declare it so. The fact remains the same.

A P1 Rights are Human made conceptions, which can be changed as easy as they are made up.

C1(B P1) Therefore the question is why should we or should we not change them.

I want to know ‘Y'!................. (The letter Y) ;)

Life is always continuous. Life goes from one living thing to another. As far as we know. Creationism is not a rational explanation, but neither are random happenings in evolution. Listen to a Fool now but believe me later on. Random always has, always is, and always will, be a false answer for anything. Whether in science or not its complete NONSENSE!! Just ask a Scientist how he knows something is random, and watch him not answer the question without appealing to ignorance. Creationism and Random life are both hasty generalizations in a rush to a have an answer. But the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know yet. That doesn't mean we won't know in the future.

B P2 ergo, Life is continuous

Trees are considered living, so is bacteria, and insects and such. We use trees for wood, and we have no problem killing bacteria and insects without a second thought. The reason for this is sentience. We define what counts as part of the moral community is live which is sentient. Aka life which is conscious and can feel pain.

B P3 ergo, only sentient life is considered a part of the moral community.

C2(C P1) Therefore the moral question can only be answered by our knowledge of Sentient life.

Our best sense of such knowledge is scientific, cognitive science in particular. In such Cognitive science the brain shows certain patterns when we feel pain. But such patterns depend on a necessary set of developments in the brain. And this is awhile after conception. So we should consider the fetus as part of the moral community, at that time.

C P2 To the best of our knowledge sentience develops at a later stage of development of the fetus after conceptualization

C P3 However to caution on the side of error, it should be made a standard deviation before the normal time for such a development to take place.

C3 Abortion should be justified one standard deviation, before the normal time the necessary development take place.

Straight from the Hill! ;)

The Fool: Some people don't like that. But I want to know 'Y'!!!!!!!! ;)

Is this the sentience argument?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:27:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:25:41 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:40:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Rights of any sort are manmade conceptions at best. Prolife argues for a right to live. Prochoice argues for a right to choose. The problem is that the pro-life position tends to be faith based, which is subjective at best. While the Pro-choice is selfish and relies on other Rights as support, however it is Rights that are particularly that which under question. As in should we or should we not alter the wright in favour of emerging life. So the Pro-life position amounts to an appeal to tradition by simply referring what the Right are already.

A P1 The Question is independent of on Pro-life or Pro-choice explanations.

Rights can't be shown to have any more reality then any subjectively based shared conception. We all share concepts of Unicorns. But they don't exist anymore than ideas our created from our imagination, regardless if we define them as existing unicorns, or Natural Unicorns, or necessary Unicorns or necessarily as part of their essential nature. It is irrational to think come into existence by definition. No matter whom we are or how much we declare it so. The fact remains the same.

A P1 Rights are Human made conceptions, which can be changed as easy as they are made up.

C1(B P1) Therefore the question is why should we or should we not change them.

I want to know ‘Y'!................. (The letter Y) ;)

Life is always continuous. Life goes from one living thing to another. As far as we know. Creationism is not a rational explanation, but neither are random happenings in evolution. Listen to a Fool now but believe me later on. Random always has, always is, and always will, be a false answer for anything. Whether in science or not its complete NONSENSE!! Just ask a Scientist how he knows something is random, and watch him not answer the question without appealing to ignorance. Creationism and Random life are both hasty generalizations in a rush to a have an answer. But the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know yet. That doesn't mean we won't know in the future.

B P2 ergo, Life is continuous

Trees are considered living, so is bacteria, and insects and such. We use trees for wood, and we have no problem killing bacteria and insects without a second thought. The reason for this is sentience. We define what counts as part of the moral community is live which is sentient. Aka life which is conscious and can feel pain.

B P3 ergo, only sentient life is considered a part of the moral community.

C2(C P1) Therefore the moral question can only be answered by our knowledge of Sentient life.

Our best sense of such knowledge is scientific, cognitive science in particular. In such Cognitive science the brain shows certain patterns when we feel pain. But such patterns depend on a necessary set of developments in the brain. And this is awhile after conception. So we should consider the fetus as part of the moral community, at that time.

C P2 To the best of our knowledge sentience develops at a later stage of development of the fetus after conceptualization

C P3 However to caution on the side of error, it should be made a standard deviation before the normal time for such a development to take place.

C3 Abortion should be justified one standard deviation, before the normal time the necessary development take place.

Straight from the Hill! ;)

The Fool: Some people don't like that. But I want to know 'Y'!!!!!!!! ;)

Is this the sentience argument?

Maybe you should read it and see.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:28:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:24:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I like the burglar analogy for this point.

Yes, that analogy was good, too. I actually laughed aloud when I read it... in a good way. I don't know why, but I laugh when I read something very intelligent...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:30:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:28:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:24:24 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I like the burglar analogy for this point.

Yes, that analogy was good, too. I actually laughed aloud when I read it... in a good way. I don't know why, but I laugh when I read something very intelligent...

I always enjoy something when I realise it's said in a way that you can explain to a six year old yet has wisdom that you strive for. This is one of those cases, I think.

I hate ethical theories, I love ethical problems: they always come across intelligently
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:31:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:16:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

The difference here is multiple:

Bill is a person (http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk... ; Mary Anne Warren On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion)

Or other objections:
Society teaches us to help Bill, but a foetus is different.
Bill is someone who we can benefit from in the long term.
We'd want the same done to us, but as a foetus we are apathetic.
The death is dramatised in a fall.

I see, so essentially you're arguing a fetus isn't a person because he isn't sentient, right?

Or, another analogy altogether (and this one is my favourite, as it illustrates my stand quite well):

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

I don't think this analogy stands. First of all, a bulgar intrudes on your privacy via his free will. A fetus does not do this. Second of all, keeping your window open does not directly cause a robber to enter your room. It can allow a robber to enter your house, but it does not cause the robber to enter your house. Sexual reproduction directly causes procreation to take place.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:31:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:11:21 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

Good analogy, though I'm not sure how it defends pro-life. Bill is about to fall off the cliff, so he grabs Adam, putting them both off-balance and in danger of falling. Bill has made himself become completely dependent on Adam for survival.

Adam would be within his right to force Bill off of him so they don't both plummet to their deaths.

I think you misunderstand the analogy. If Adam allows Bill to grab him Bill will be steadied and saved. Neither will fall.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:33:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:31:03 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:16:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

The difference here is multiple:

Bill is a person (http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk... ; Mary Anne Warren On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion)

Or other objections:
Society teaches us to help Bill, but a foetus is different.
Bill is someone who we can benefit from in the long term.
We'd want the same done to us, but as a foetus we are apathetic.
The death is dramatised in a fall.

I see, so essentially you're arguing a fetus isn't a person because he isn't sentient, right?

Or, another analogy altogether (and this one is my favourite, as it illustrates my stand quite well):

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

I don't think this analogy stands. First of all, a bulgar intrudes on your privacy via his free will. A fetus does not do this.
Neither does a tapeworm that hatches from eggs in infected pork. May I kill this?
Second of all, keeping your window open does not directly cause a robber to enter your room. It can allow a robber to enter your house, but it does not cause the robber to enter your house. Sexual reproduction directly causes procreation to take place.
So does forgetting to lock your house at night. Am I not permitted to defend myself against the burglar? I have no obligation to accept negative consequences of actions.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:33:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:19:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

After rereading your analogy, I change my "good" to "wtf". You're basically asking is it morally justified to shoot someone in face simply because they touched you, and trying to relate that to abortion.

It's not the same thing. It would be more accurate if Bill was absolutely dependent on Adam for survival (ie, if he was hanging over the edge of the cliff, tightly grabbing on Adam's ankles or something). If Adam does not want his own resources (ie, his body) to be used as a tool for someone else's survival, he shouldn't have to.

Bill is dependent on Adam for his survival. He has lost his balance and requires Adam to maintain his balance.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:34:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:33:19 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:19:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

After rereading your analogy, I change my "good" to "wtf". You're basically asking is it morally justified to shoot someone in face simply because they touched you, and trying to relate that to abortion.

It's not the same thing. It would be more accurate if Bill was absolutely dependent on Adam for survival (ie, if he was hanging over the edge of the cliff, tightly grabbing on Adam's ankles or something). If Adam does not want his own resources (ie, his body) to be used as a tool for someone else's survival, he shouldn't have to.

Bill is dependent on Adam for his survival. He has lost his balance and requires Adam to maintain his balance.

Adam has no obligation to save Bill. You might find him despicable, but he does not have to do it.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:35:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:31:43 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I think you misunderstand the analogy. If Adam allows Bill to grab him Bill will be steadied and saved. Neither will fall.

Which is why I said after rereading, it find it very lacking and incomparable to abortion.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:36:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:33:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:31:03 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:16:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

The difference here is multiple:

Bill is a person (http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk... ; Mary Anne Warren On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion)

Or other objections:
Society teaches us to help Bill, but a foetus is different.
Bill is someone who we can benefit from in the long term.
We'd want the same done to us, but as a foetus we are apathetic.
The death is dramatised in a fall.

I see, so essentially you're arguing a fetus isn't a person because he isn't sentient, right?

Or, another analogy altogether (and this one is my favourite, as it illustrates my stand quite well):

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

I don't think this analogy stands. First of all, a bulgar intrudes on your privacy via his free will. A fetus does not do this.

Neither does a tapeworm that hatches from eggs in infected pork. May I kill this?

A tapeworm is of another species.

Second of all, keeping your window open does not directly cause a robber to enter your room. It can allow a robber to enter your house, but it does not cause the robber to enter your house. Sexual reproduction directly causes procreation to take place.

So does forgetting to lock your house at night. Am I not permitted to defend myself against the burglar? I have no obligation to accept negative consequences of actions.

I think you're confused. Forgetting the lock your door does not directly cause a robber to break into your house. Sexual reproduction does directly cause a human being to come into being. Sexual reproduction is like you directly inviting the robber into your house, allowing him to take your resources, and then killing him.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:38:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:35:25 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:31:43 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I think you misunderstand the analogy. If Adam allows Bill to grab him Bill will be steadied and saved. Neither will fall.

Which is why I said after rereading, it find it very lacking and incomparable to abortion.

In what way? Bill is dependent on Adam for his survival, just like in the case of abortion. (Unless you argue fetus's aren't people, and then we get into the sentience argument).
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:39:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:33:19 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Bill is dependent on Adam for his survival. He has lost his balance and requires Adam to maintain his balance.

Exactly. Bill is absolutely dependent on Adam's resources to survive, not his own resources. Adam has no obligation to give up his resources to someone else if he doesn't want to, and it is not morally wrong to not do so.

If you lost the use of your kidney or stomach or some other such organ(s), and somehow connected yourself to my fully functioning organs to survive, to what point am I obligated to maintain the cords connecting us and thus your survival? To no point at all. You will live for only as long as I want you to and it won't be morally wrong when I take back my own resources for myself.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:39:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:34:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:33:19 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:19:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

After rereading your analogy, I change my "good" to "wtf". You're basically asking is it morally justified to shoot someone in face simply because they touched you, and trying to relate that to abortion.

It's not the same thing. It would be more accurate if Bill was absolutely dependent on Adam for survival (ie, if he was hanging over the edge of the cliff, tightly grabbing on Adam's ankles or something). If Adam does not want his own resources (ie, his body) to be used as a tool for someone else's survival, he shouldn't have to.

Bill is dependent on Adam for his survival. He has lost his balance and requires Adam to maintain his balance.

Adam has no obligation to save Bill. You might find him despicable, but he does not have to do it.

The question is not whether Adam has an obligation to save Bill, but whether it is morally justified for Adam to directly cause Bill's death.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:43:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:38:30 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
In what way? Bill is dependent on Adam for his survival, just like in the case of abortion.

Okay, let me say this plainly as I can: Everyone has a right to use their own resources for themselves or for others as they see fit (so long as it doesn't infringe on their rights). If Bill, at some point, suddenly becomes dependent on Adam's resources for survival, Bill has infringed on Adam's rights be essentially stealing his resources and he is naturally at risk of not surviving anytime Adam chooses to not continue the lending of his resources.

(Unless you argue fetus's aren't people, and then we get into the sentience argument).

I can agree that fetuses are people and still argue the sentience argument.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:45:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:39:33 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
The question is not whether Adam has an obligation to save Bill, but whether it is morally justified for Adam to directly cause Bill's death.

The problem is Adam was not directly the cause of Bill's death. It would be morally justified for Adam to decide to keep his own resources to himself, and if he did, he would be indirectly causing Bill's death.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:46:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:31:03 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:16:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

The difference here is multiple:

Bill is a person (http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk... ; Mary Anne Warren On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion)

Or other objections:
Society teaches us to help Bill, but a foetus is different.
Bill is someone who we can benefit from in the long term.
We'd want the same done to us, but as a foetus we are apathetic.
The death is dramatised in a fall.

I see, so essentially you're arguing a fetus isn't a person because he isn't sentient, right?

Or, another analogy altogether (and this one is my favourite, as it illustrates my stand quite well):

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

I don't think this analogy stands. First of all, a bulgar intrudes on your privacy via his free will. A fetus does not do this.

Except you specifically do everything you possibly can to not have the foetus. You, as the example says, put up the mesh, add the iron bars, etc. to stop the feotus. But because of sheer luck, and defect of the mesh and bars and all other protection, does the foetus then get a right? The fact that it has no free will doesn't stop the argument: it simply means that now you have no other way of getting the foetus out. You have basically been trapped because you opened your window, even though you did everything else right: you had the pill, wore the condom, etc. It seems unreasonable to force someone to have to live with something that it does not deserve.

Second of all, keeping your window open does not directly cause a robber to enter your room. It can allow a robber to enter your house, but it does not cause the robber to enter your house. Sexual reproduction directly causes procreation to take place.

"suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army."

If TL;DR The cause of the child's existence is not because of yourself, it's because of the fault of others. (but there's a lot more points in the paragraph, and covers a lot of potential arguments).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:46:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:36:45 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:33:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:31:03 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:16:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

The difference here is multiple:

Bill is a person (http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk... ; Mary Anne Warren On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion)

Or other objections:
Society teaches us to help Bill, but a foetus is different.
Bill is someone who we can benefit from in the long term.
We'd want the same done to us, but as a foetus we are apathetic.
The death is dramatised in a fall.

I see, so essentially you're arguing a fetus isn't a person because he isn't sentient, right?

Or, another analogy altogether (and this one is my favourite, as it illustrates my stand quite well):

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

I don't think this analogy stands. First of all, a bulgar intrudes on your privacy via his free will. A fetus does not do this.

Neither does a tapeworm that hatches from eggs in infected pork. May I kill this?

A tapeworm is of another species.

Why is this important? If a sentient alien species landed on Earth tomorrow, would we not grant them rights? The species is of absolutely no importance. This is an arbitrary distinction that you are making because you want to. Please justify giving humans rights and denying them from other life forms.
Second of all, keeping your window open does not directly cause a robber to enter your room. It can allow a robber to enter your house, but it does not cause the robber to enter your house. Sexual reproduction directly causes procreation to take place.

So does forgetting to lock your house at night. Am I not permitted to defend myself against the burglar? I have no obligation to accept negative consequences of actions.

I think you're confused. Forgetting the lock your door does not directly cause a robber to break into your house. Sexual reproduction does directly cause a human being to come into being. Sexual reproduction is like you directly inviting the robber into your house, allowing him to take your resources, and then killing him.

Again, I do not have any obligation to accept negative consequences of my actions.

Next, you are using the "invitation" argument, which is false. When I have sex, I am accepting my partner's sperm (assuming it is unprotected). I am not being injected with a child.

Killing the new robber is completely permissible, by the way. If I invite a police officer into my home, and he begins stealing my resources, I do have a right to kill him.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:47:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:39:33 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:34:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:33:19 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:19:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

After rereading your analogy, I change my "good" to "wtf". You're basically asking is it morally justified to shoot someone in face simply because they touched you, and trying to relate that to abortion.

It's not the same thing. It would be more accurate if Bill was absolutely dependent on Adam for survival (ie, if he was hanging over the edge of the cliff, tightly grabbing on Adam's ankles or something). If Adam does not want his own resources (ie, his body) to be used as a tool for someone else's survival, he shouldn't have to.

Bill is dependent on Adam for his survival. He has lost his balance and requires Adam to maintain his balance.

Adam has no obligation to save Bill. You might find him despicable, but he does not have to do it.

The question is not whether Adam has an obligation to save Bill, but whether it is morally justified for Adam to directly cause Bill's death.

Nobody has a right to force others to aid them. In the situation you are discussing, Bill is forcing Adam to help him. It does not matter if he could not survive without aid. He has no right to force Adam to aid him in the first place.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:48:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:36:45 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I think you're confused. Forgetting the lock your door does not directly cause a robber to break into your house. Sexual reproduction does directly cause a human being to come into being. Sexual reproduction is like you directly inviting the robber into your house, allowing him to take your resources, and then killing him.

What is the direct cause in the analogy, when the only variables are:

The ways of protection the homeowner used (analogy for (surprisingly) protection)
leaving the window open. (analogy for sexual activity)

Everything else is ceteris paribus.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:52:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:47:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:39:33 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:34:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:33:19 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:19:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:55:26 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
One of the most common arguments for abortion is that a woman has a "right to privacy" or "right to body"

Here's an analogy my friend thought of:

Two people are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Bill starts to fall, so he just puts his hand on Adam's shoulder to balance himself. Adam was in no danger of falling, however, Adam didn't allow Bill to have the privilege of touching him, so he pushed Bill's hand off of him, knowing full well that it would result in Bill's death. Adam allowed Bill to die, simply because he didn't want Bill to have access to his body. Does Adam sound like a descent man?

After rereading your analogy, I change my "good" to "wtf". You're basically asking is it morally justified to shoot someone in face simply because they touched you, and trying to relate that to abortion.

It's not the same thing. It would be more accurate if Bill was absolutely dependent on Adam for survival (ie, if he was hanging over the edge of the cliff, tightly grabbing on Adam's ankles or something). If Adam does not want his own resources (ie, his body) to be used as a tool for someone else's survival, he shouldn't have to.

Bill is dependent on Adam for his survival. He has lost his balance and requires Adam to maintain his balance.

Adam has no obligation to save Bill. You might find him despicable, but he does not have to do it.

The question is not whether Adam has an obligation to save Bill, but whether it is morally justified for Adam to directly cause Bill's death.

Nobody has a right to force others to aid them. In the situation you are discussing, Bill is forcing Adam to help him. It does not matter if he could not survive without aid. He has no right to force Adam to aid him in the first place.

I'm sure a certain philosopher argued this... Was it Jarvis?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:52:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My girlfriend finds it sad when other women are adamantly against abortion. Honestly, I'm more disheartened when men try to tell women what they can't do with their own bodies. Push a baby out of one of your orifices, Sub, then preach pro-life.