Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for pro-lifers

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 12:59:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Question for all pro-lifers.

So I live in Wisconsin. Let's say it's back in the time when Jeffery Dahmer was abducting, cannibalizing, and torturing people.

If I lived next door to Jeffery Dahmer, and I fully knew that he was abducting people and doing horrendous things to them, how could I just sit there and let it go on? Wouldn't I be morally obliged to go in there, and stop him, even if it meant breaking down the door and shooting the sh*t out of him?

But if I'm morally obliged in this case, wouldn't I be morally obliged to do this to abortionists?

So there's two things...

(i) That I am obliged to kill Jeffery Dahmer
(ii) That the analogy holds water

If both of these are true, then pro-lifers are morally obliged to kill abortionists in order to stop them from performing abortions.

So, to all prolifers, how do you deal with this? Do you think that you're morally obliged to kill abortionists?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 1:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't support any forms of violence against abortionist just to clarify. I would disagree with (i) since I don't think it's the individual person's obligation to go around being a vigilante.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 1:05:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, we could push the analogy further.

Suppose that the police would do nothing to stop Jeffery Dahmer. Suppose there were hundreds of thousands of Jeffery Dahmers across the country, even across the world.

Would you be morally obliged to rise up against the Jeffery Dahmers with force?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 1:23:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 1:05:02 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Also, we could push the analogy further.

Suppose that the police would do nothing to stop Jeffery Dahmer. Suppose there were hundreds of thousands of Jeffery Dahmers across the country, even across the world.

Would you be morally obliged to rise up against the Jeffery Dahmers with force?

Only if you're sure rising up won't mean putting yourself at risk. That's usually what prevents people from standing up for a victimized person, the fear of becoming the assaulter's new target (his or anybody else's affiliated with him).
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 1:27:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 1:23:59 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:05:02 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Also, we could push the analogy further.

Suppose that the police would do nothing to stop Jeffery Dahmer. Suppose there were hundreds of thousands of Jeffery Dahmers across the country, even across the world.

Would you be morally obliged to rise up against the Jeffery Dahmers with force?

Only if you're sure rising up won't mean putting yourself at risk. That's usually what prevents people from standing up for a victimized person, the fear of becoming the assaulter's new target (his or anybody else's affiliated with him).

Sorry, but that's some f*cked up selfish sh*t you're saying. I understand people might think like that alot, but really, that's really selfish.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 2:11:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 1:27:33 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:23:59 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:05:02 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Also, we could push the analogy further.

Suppose that the police would do nothing to stop Jeffery Dahmer. Suppose there were hundreds of thousands of Jeffery Dahmers across the country, even across the world.

Would you be morally obliged to rise up against the Jeffery Dahmers with force?

Only if you're sure rising up won't mean putting yourself at risk. That's usually what prevents people from standing up for a victimized person, the fear of becoming the assaulter's new target (his or anybody else's affiliated with him).

Sorry, but that's some f*cked up selfish sh*t you're saying. I understand people might think like that alot, but really, that's really selfish.

How is it less selfish of you to demand that I put myself at risk to save you as it is selfish of me to leave you at risk to save myself? I don't see any difference. If I'm messed up and selfish, so are you.

Of course if you're a little girl being assaulted by another little girl with her bare hands and I'm a big grown man with a gun, I should come to your rescue because I have extremely low chances of losing a fight against a little girl, but in your scenario, my opponent would be a crazy torturing cannibal (most likely with dangerous weapons) instead. That's not the same thing.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 2:35:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 2:11:48 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:27:33 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:23:59 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:05:02 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Also, we could push the analogy further.

Suppose that the police would do nothing to stop Jeffery Dahmer. Suppose there were hundreds of thousands of Jeffery Dahmers across the country, even across the world.

Would you be morally obliged to rise up against the Jeffery Dahmers with force?

Only if you're sure rising up won't mean putting yourself at risk. That's usually what prevents people from standing up for a victimized person, the fear of becoming the assaulter's new target (his or anybody else's affiliated with him).

Sorry, but that's some f*cked up selfish sh*t you're saying. I understand people might think like that alot, but really, that's really selfish.

How is it less selfish of you to demand that I put myself at risk to save you as it is selfish of me to leave you at risk to save myself? I don't see any difference. If I'm messed up and selfish, so are you.


I'm not calling you messed up and selfish, I'm just saying that not helping someone because you're afraid you will get hurt sounds self-centered.

Of course if you're a little girl being assaulted by another little girl with her bare hands and I'm a big grown man with a gun, I should come to your rescue because I have extremely low chances of losing a fight against a little girl, but in your scenario, my opponent would be a crazy torturing cannibal (most likely with dangerous weapons) instead. That's not the same thing.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 2:40:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 1:48:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lol @ comparing abortionists to a Serial Killer.

Well that's probably because you're pro-choice and don't think a fetus is a person.

But, just for the sake of argument, IF a fetus was a person, would you be morally obliged to an abortionist from killing the fetus even if it meant using force?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,944
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 3:13:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If somebody had killed Jeffrey Dahmer before he had the chance to kill more innocent people, then innocent lives would be saved.

Likewise, if somebody kills a particular person committing abortion, they would've saved an innocent baby that had a propensity to live to an adult.

I think the comparison is valid speaking in terms of a nominal maximum of saved human life in the long run, but abortionists act based on a collective idea that fetuses are legally able to be aborted because they don't constitute as a human being yet. Thus, the moral intentions are different between Jeffrey and an abortionist and can't be compared because of this intent.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:09:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:13:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If somebody had killed Jeffrey Dahmer before he had the chance to kill more innocent people, then innocent lives would be saved.

Likewise, if somebody kills a particular person committing abortion, they would've saved an innocent baby that had a propensity to live to an adult.

I think the comparison is valid speaking in terms of a nominal maximum of saved human life in the long run, but abortionists act based on a collective idea that fetuses are legally able to be aborted because they don't constitute as a human being yet. Thus, the moral intentions are different between Jeffrey and an abortionist and can't be compared because of this intent.

I don't think that's true. I think lots of abortionists believe that they are killing babies, but they think they're helping women.

So it wouldn't be immoral to have killed the Nazis who were slaughtering Jews, because the Nazis truly believed the Jews were "less human"?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 5:25:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:59:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Question for all pro-lifers.

So I live in Wisconsin. Let's say it's back in the time when Jeffery Dahmer was abducting, cannibalizing, and torturing people.

If I lived next door to Jeffery Dahmer, and I fully knew that he was abducting people and doing horrendous things to them, how could I just sit there and let it go on? Wouldn't I be morally obliged to go in there, and stop him, even if it meant breaking down the door and shooting the sh*t out of him?

You should call the cops on him in that case.

But if I'm morally obliged in this case, wouldn't I be morally obliged to do this to abortionists?

Nope.

So there's two things...

(i) That I am obliged to kill Jeffery Dahmer
(ii) That the analogy holds water

If both of these are true, then pro-lifers are morally obliged to kill abortionists in order to stop them from performing abortions.

So, to all prolifers, how do you deal with this? Do you think that you're morally obliged to kill abortionists?

No. Murder is illegal, abortion isn't illegal and isn't considered murder under the law. A better comparison would be what you should do if murder wasn't illegal but you felt what Dahmer was doing is wrong. In that case, like with abortion, you should push for it to be made illegal, not kill someone as revenge for something that isn't a crime.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,944
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 6:38:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:09:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:13:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If somebody had killed Jeffrey Dahmer before he had the chance to kill more innocent people, then innocent lives would be saved.

Likewise, if somebody kills a particular person committing abortion, they would've saved an innocent baby that had a propensity to live to an adult.

I think the comparison is valid speaking in terms of a nominal maximum of saved human life in the long run, but abortionists act based on a collective idea that fetuses are legally able to be aborted because they don't constitute as a human being yet. Thus, the moral intentions are different between Jeffrey and an abortionist and can't be compared because of this intent.

I don't think that's true. I think lots of abortionists believe that they are killing babies, but they think they're helping women.

So it wouldn't be immoral to have killed the Nazis who were slaughtering Jews, because the Nazis truly believed the Jews were "less human"?

Well it's impossible to know people's true intent unless you knew their thoughts and soul or at least on the merits of their spoken opinion, but the controversy over abortion mainly hinges on whether a fetus is considered a human being. I don't believe that any significant portion of abortionists would intentionally kill something they consider to be human.

I'm sure that many Nazi's thought that the Jews were less human. Would you say that it's morally equivalent to kill something regardless of intent? So take the Aztecs performing human sacrifices to false gods vs. Jeffrey Dahmer making a human sacrifice for his own pleasure. These situations aren't morally equivalent because the intent is different even though the outcome is the same.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 6:50:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 2:35:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

I'm not calling you messed up and selfish, I'm just saying that not helping someone because you're afraid you will get hurt sounds self-centered.

And I understand that, but do you agree that what I said actually isn't "some f*cked up selfish sh*t"?
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 8:23:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just label a killer with victim status and it's not their fault anymore. So no, you should do nothing to stop the Jeffery Dahmers of the world. They are only expressing their victimhood rage and therefore justified in their actions.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:15:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:59:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Question for all pro-lifers.

So I live in Wisconsin. Let's say it's back in the time when Jeffery Dahmer was abducting, cannibalizing, and torturing people.

If I lived next door to Jeffery Dahmer, and I fully knew that he was abducting people and doing horrendous things to them, how could I just sit there and let it go on? Wouldn't I be morally obliged to go in there, and stop him, even if it meant breaking down the door and shooting the sh*t out of him?

But if I'm morally obliged in this case, wouldn't I be morally obliged to do this to abortionists?

So there's two things...

(i) That I am obliged to kill Jeffery Dahmer
(ii) That the analogy holds water

If both of these are true, then pro-lifers are morally obliged to kill abortionists in order to stop them from performing abortions.

So, to all prolifers, how do you deal with this? Do you think that you're morally obliged to kill abortionists?

What if I am pro life and pro choice at the same time?
I won't even get into the comparison because it is a terrible one.
This is obviously about abortion. Why not just call it what it is?

I am a man, and I feel that my body is the only thing in this life that is all mine.
A woman's body is all hers.
My belief is that she is wrong to get an abortion under most circumstances.
(If I had something growing inside of me that was going to kill me, I might choose to get rid of it.)

But, her body is sacrosanct and she has to be free to choose what to do with it even if I think it's wrong.
If you are not a pregnant woman, it is my opinion that it's none of your business.
Who fights for the life growing inside her?
She does. She fights with her conscious and what ever God she is beholden to (if any.)
If the new life loses the fight, then that is tragic, and is to be mourned.
Either way, it's something for everyone else (except for the father) to stay out of.

That's my opinion.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:26:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:21:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:48:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lol @ comparing abortionists to a Serial Killer.

Right. Abortionists are much more abhorrent.

Ya and down is up.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:26:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:21:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2014 1:48:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lol @ comparing abortionists to a Serial Killer.

Right. Abortionists are much more abhorrent.

Ya and down is up.

I found this way funnier than I should -.-

.. lol
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:17:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:59:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Question for all pro-lifers.
Shoot!

So I live in Wisconsin. Let's say it's back in the time when Jeffery Dahmer was abducting, cannibalizing, and torturing people.
Odd, but OK...

If I lived next door to Jeffery Dahmer, and I fully knew that he was abducting people and doing horrendous things to them, how could I just sit there and let it go on?
I agree wholeheartedly: one should defend the innocent from being murdered.

Wouldn't I be morally obliged to go in there, and stop him, even if it meant breaking down the door and shooting the sh*t out of him?
Actually, I would be morally obligated to attempt to save any survivors, not necessarily kill Dahmer. However, if Dahmer threatened an innocent's life and the only way to stop him was to kill him, then I would be morally obligated to do so and also be legally justified.

But if I'm morally obliged in this case, wouldn't I be morally obliged to do this to abortionists?
Actually, I would be morally obligated to attempt to save any survivors, not necessarily kill the abortionist. However, if the abortionist threatened an innocent's life and the only way to stop him was to kill him, then I would be morally obligated to do so but I would NOT be legally justified and so would need to weigh the options. It seems easy enough to stop an abortionist from performing an abortion without having to kill him, so unlike above, I cannot conceive of a situation where this would be the case. If you feel like you can come up with one, let me know.

Also, this is not a good analogy because in the first example, there is only 1 murderer, Dahmer, while in the second example there is the mother and the abortionist that are the murderers; something which you failed to point out.

So there's two things...
(i) That I am obliged to kill Jeffery Dahmer
No, you are obliged to prevent the innocent from being murdered.

(ii) That the analogy holds water
No, it does not.

If both of these are true, then pro-lifers are morally obliged to kill abortionists in order to stop them from performing abortions.
They are both false and so it does not follow.

So, to all prolifers, how do you deal with this?
The same way I deal with all non sequiturs: I ignore it.

Do you think that you're morally obliged to kill abortionists?
No, not at all.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 3:16:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If a "torturer" was cutting off an conjoined twin that lived on it's siblings arm would you be justified in shooting them? Should the person be forced to live their life with their sibling attached? At that point it is no longer their life since they can't make the choices they want, it's your life they're living for you. You want something so you'll enact a law to get your way. Same thing with drug policy, immigration, mandating religion etc. It's motivated by self interest. You'd feel bad about it so it has to stop.

I'm tired of seeing arguments made where you assume an unborn fetus is the same thing as a grown person. It has nothing to do with the time spent in gestation, it's a mother's right to not be forcefully coerced into bringing a child to fruition. If as a man I was told I had to carry my sickly child around tied to my back I would tell you to push off. It's my right to live a life I want as long as it doesn't harm an unwilling participant. Until that embryo, fetus, or what have you is conscious and able to comprehend what is happening they aren't unwilling. Yes the same can be said of a comatose patient if they haven't made clear their thoughts on the issue. Should we keep them alive for decades just because they haven't said yes? It's a matter of opinion at that point, and the mother of that child's opinion is all that I care about. That's why they ask a loved one to sign off on pulling the plug, not some lawmaker or ma and pa from Oklahoma who can't possibly understand the situation fully.

Then again some don't want people to have the choice to pull the plug. They value life over the living.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 4:51:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 3:16:12 PM, Nebelous wrote:
If a "torturer" was cutting off an conjoined twin that lived on it's siblings arm would you be justified in shooting them?
It's not clear the number of people involved: is it 4 (torturer, conjoined twin 1, torturer, conjoined twin 2, you) or 3 (where the torturer is one of the conjoined twins) or are you one of the twins?

Should the person be forced to live their life with their sibling attached?
There's 2 people involved so whom are you asking this of and how are they each responding?

At that point it is no longer their life since they can't make the choices they want, it's your life they're living for you.
That is quite the non sequitur.

You want something so you'll enact a law to get your way.
One cannot always enact the laws one wants; not to mention that we (in the US) don't live in a Democracy where laws can change willy nilly but rather a Republic that is ruled by laws and immutable principals.

Same thing with drug policy, immigration, mandating religion etc. It's motivated by self interest. You'd feel bad about it so it has to stop.
Another non sequitur.

I'm tired of seeing arguments made where you assume an unborn fetus is the same thing as a grown person.
Who are you to say otherwise?

It has nothing to do with the time spent in gestation, it's a mother's right to not be forcefully coerced into bringing a child to fruition.
So by that rationale a mother can kill her child at any time: 1 month gestation, 9 month gestation, 1 month old, 9 years old? So then anyone can be killed by their mother! Brilliant! Or is it that YOU decide by pulling out of your rectum what age it's ok for her to kill her offspring? Or is it you have a mathematical formula?

If as a man I was told I had to carry my sickly child around tied to my back I would tell you to push off.
And you can, but YOU are still responsible for your child and if you didn't want it than YOU should not have had it REGARDLESS if you're a man or woman.

It's my right to live a life I want as long as it doesn't harm an unwilling participant.
I guess murdering an unwilling participant isn't harming. You need to get a dictionary.

Until that embryo, fetus, or what have you is conscious and able to comprehend what is happening they aren't unwilling.
So a newborn can be killed. Someone who's unconscious can be killed. Any anyone child or otherwise that is unable to comprehend can be killed...Brilliant!

Yes the same can be said of a comatose patient if they haven't made clear their thoughts on the issue. Should we keep them alive for decades just because they haven't said yes?
No, we should kill them because they haven't said no. What a dope you are.

It's a matter of opinion at that point, and the mother of that child's opinion is all that I care about. That's why they ask a loved one to sign off on pulling the plug, not some lawmaker or ma and pa from Oklahoma who can't possibly understand the situation fully.
Right, so whenever your mother's opinion of you changes, she can whack you. What a buffoon!

Then again some don't want people to have the choice to pull the plug. They value life over the living.
Brilliant incoherent phrase "value life over the living"! They value life over someone else's COMFORT. So yes, I think it's better let someone live in order not to inconvenience someone.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 4:52:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 3:16:12 PM, Nebelous wrote:
If a "torturer" was cutting off an conjoined twin that lived on it's siblings arm would you be justified in shooting them? Should the person be forced to live their life with their sibling attached? At that point it is no longer their life since they can't make the choices they want, it's your life they're living for you. You want something so you'll enact a law to get your way. Same thing with drug policy, immigration, mandating religion etc. It's motivated by self interest. You'd feel bad about it so it has to stop.

I'm tired of seeing arguments made where you assume an unborn fetus is the same thing as a grown person. It has nothing to do with the time spent in gestation, it's a mother's right to not be forcefully coerced into bringing a child to fruition. If as a man I was told I had to carry my sickly child around tied to my back I would tell you to push off. It's my right to live a life I want as long as it doesn't harm an unwilling participant. Until that embryo, fetus, or what have you is conscious and able to comprehend what is happening they aren't unwilling. Yes the same can be said of a comatose patient if they haven't made clear their thoughts on the issue. Should we keep them alive for decades just because they haven't said yes? It's a matter of opinion at that point, and the mother of that child's opinion is all that I care about. That's why they ask a loved one to sign off on pulling the plug, not some lawmaker or ma and pa from Oklahoma who can't possibly understand the situation fully.

Then again some don't want people to have the choice to pull the plug. They value life over the living.

And way to take an already poor analogy and make it 10000x worse!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 6:54:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 4:51:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:16:12 PM, Nebelous wrote:
If a "torturer" was cutting off an conjoined twin that lived on it's siblings arm would you be justified in shooting them?
It's not clear the number of people involved: is it 4 (torturer, conjoined twin 1, torturer, conjoined twin 2, you) or 3 (where the torturer is one of the conjoined twins) or are you one of the twins?

Obviously the former. Did you read the original post?
Should the person be forced to live their life with their sibling attached?
There's 2 people involved so whom are you asking this of and how are they each responding?

The person who has to eat, carry, and otherwise care for the sibling. Are you really this dense?

I'm going to call the twin that is attached with no body twin 2.

Twin 1's response would have the choice ultimately.
At that point it is no longer their life since they can't make the choices they want, it's your life they're living for you.
That is quite the non sequitur.

Fair enough.
You want something so you'll enact a law to get your way.
One cannot always enact the laws one wants; not to mention that we (in the US) don't live in a Democracy where laws can change willy nilly but rather a Republic that is ruled by laws and immutable principals.

Thanks for the lesson?
Same thing with drug policy, immigration, mandating religion etc. It's motivated by self interest. You'd feel bad about it so it has to stop.
Another non sequitur.


It has nothing to do with the time spent in gestation, it's a mother's right to not be forcefully coerced into bringing a child to fruition.
So by that rationale a mother can kill her child at any time: 1 month gestation, 9 month gestation, 1 month old, 9 years old? So then anyone can be killed by their mother! Brilliant! Or is it that YOU decide by pulling out of your rectum what age it's ok for her to kill her offspring? Or is it you have a mathematical formula?

Pretty sure I made it clear that it's until she gives birth. At that point the child can be given up for adoption. I like the current law at 22 weeks because there's a scientific basis for it.
If as a man I was told I had to carry my sickly child around tied to my back I would tell you to push off.
And you can, but YOU are still responsible for your child and if you didn't want it than YOU should not have had it REGARDLESS if you're a man or woman.

Who gets an abortion when a baby is what they wanted? Teens who's condoms break, pills don't work, or are raped are getting abortions. Not a mature woman who has been planning this for years and suddenly decides that she needs a few more years to plan.
It's my right to live a life I want as long as it doesn't harm an unwilling participant.
I guess murdering an unwilling participant isn't harming. You need to get a dictionary.

If you take the paragraphs one at a time instead of breaking them down into sentences without context you'd make me happy. =)
Until that embryo, fetus, or what have you is conscious and able to comprehend what is happening they aren't unwilling.
So a newborn can be killed. Someone who's unconscious can be killed. Any anyone child or otherwise that is unable to comprehend can be killed...Brilliant!

Newborns are conscious, you smack their rumps and they respond. Someone who is unconscious will shortly be conscious, and again you conflate a person with a non-person. How could someone be unable to comprehend that they are dying? PLEASE respond with the most absurd example possible. I BEG you.
Yes the same can be said of a comatose patient if they haven't made clear their thoughts on the issue. Should we keep them alive for decades just because they haven't said yes?
No, we should kill them because they haven't said no. What a dope you are.

Okay it's obvious now that your insane. Look up stories on comatose patients and get back to me.
It's a matter of opinion at that point, and the mother of that child's opinion is all that I care about. That's why they ask a loved one to sign off on pulling the plug, not some lawmaker or ma and pa from Oklahoma who can't possibly understand the situation fully.
Right, so whenever your mother's opinion of you changes, she can whack you. What a buffoon!

I think a lot of this goes over your head honestly. You just keep saying things that cannot be logically deduced from what I wrote. Maybe it's because of the aforementioned structuring of your response?
Then again some don't want people to have the choice to pull the plug. They value life over the living.
Brilliant incoherent phrase "value life over the living"! They value life over someone else's COMFORT. So yes, I think it's better let someone live in order not to inconvenience someone.
If you think comfort is the goal of pulling the plug or having an abortion you have a screwed mind. That's why I don't believe the decision should be up to you.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:59:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Question for all pro-lifers.

So I live in Wisconsin. Let's say it's back in the time when Jeffery Dahmer was abducting, cannibalizing, and torturing people.

If I lived next door to Jeffery Dahmer, and I fully knew that he was abducting people and doing horrendous things to them, how could I just sit there and let it go on? Wouldn't I be morally obliged to go in there, and stop him, even if it meant breaking down the door and shooting the sh*t out of him?

But if I'm morally obliged in this case, wouldn't I be morally obliged to do this to abortionists?

So there's two things...

(i) That I am obliged to kill Jeffery Dahmer
(ii) That the analogy holds water

If both of these are true, then pro-lifers are morally obliged to kill abortionists in order to stop them from performing abortions.

So, to all prolifers, how do you deal with this? Do you think that you're morally obliged to kill abortionists?

I actually have thought about that before. My answer would ultimately be no, because abortionists do not posses the moral understanding of what they are doing. Right now the fight to end abortion is not a physical fight, rather it is one we must fight with knowledge, so that they may gain understanding of the actions they are doing. Ultimately, physically fighting against abortion would not only be a losing battle, but would further alienate Christians from society which is a very bad thing to do. Rather, we must persuade them and reason with them, and hopefully through reason and experience (and probably a divine act of God lol) abortion may finally end.
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:39:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:59:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Question for all pro-lifers.

So I live in Wisconsin. Let's say it's back in the time when Jeffery Dahmer was abducting, cannibalizing, and torturing people.

If I lived next door to Jeffery Dahmer, and I fully knew that he was abducting people and doing horrendous things to them, how could I just sit there and let it go on? Wouldn't I be morally obliged to go in there, and stop him, even if it meant breaking down the door and shooting the sh*t out of him?

But if I'm morally obliged in this case, wouldn't I be morally obliged to do this to abortionists?

So there's two things...

(i) That I am obliged to kill Jeffery Dahmer
(ii) That the analogy holds water

If both of these are true, then pro-lifers are morally obliged to kill abortionists in order to stop them from performing abortions.

So, to all prolifers, how do you deal with this? Do you think that you're morally obliged to kill abortionists?

The analogy fails. If there were laws against abortion in whatever state I may be in, then I would be obligated to inform the police, which was what you should've done when the murderer was discovered to be next to your house.

If there wasn't laws against it, then I wouldn't be obligated, no.

?
Dude... Stop...
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:41:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:59:05 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Question for all pro-lifers.

So I live in Wisconsin. Let's say it's back in the time when Jeffery Dahmer was abducting, cannibalizing, and torturing people.

If I lived next door to Jeffery Dahmer, and I fully knew that he was abducting people and doing horrendous things to them, how could I just sit there and let it go on? Wouldn't I be morally obliged to go in there, and stop him, even if it meant breaking down the door and shooting the sh*t out of him?

But if I'm morally obliged in this case, wouldn't I be morally obliged to do this to abortionists?

So there's two things...

(i) That I am obliged to kill Jeffery Dahmer
(ii) That the analogy holds water

If both of these are true, then pro-lifers are morally obliged to kill abortionists in order to stop them from performing abortions.

So, to all prolifers, how do you deal with this? Do you think that you're morally obliged to kill abortionists?

Also, lol, are you kidding me? It'd kill the mom AND THE CHILD if we killed the mom first. Lol Duh.
Dude... Stop...
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:43:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 8:23:03 PM, sadolite wrote:
Just label a killer with victim status and it's not their fault anymore. So no, you should do nothing to stop the Jeffery Dahmers of the world. They are only expressing their victimhood rage and therefore justified in their actions.

Um... That isn't the reason a 16 year old get's an abortion.
Dude... Stop...
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 8:42:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 7:43:50 PM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:23:03 PM, sadolite wrote:
Just label a killer with victim status and it's not their fault anymore. So no, you should do nothing to stop the Jeffery Dahmers of the world. They are only expressing their victimhood rage and therefore justified in their actions.

Um... That isn't the reason a 16 year old get's an abortion.

Killing the innocent is killing the innocent, you have to justify it somehow.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%