Abortion Rights

#926
#926
LouderVol said:
no, you are currently a person, under your vague and arbitrary system. you have rights, then one day you wake up and they have been taken away but you are in no physical pain from the loss. no harm right?
Click to expand...

If I still exist...
 
#927
#927
Louder, can you please point out where I've claimed that pain is a necessary condition of harm?

I simply can't remember even having thought such a thing was true. But, in getting old, maybe the memory is fading.

Thanks for the help.
 
#929
#929
therealUT said:
Louder, can you please point out where I've claimed that pain is a necessary condition of harm?

I simply can't remember even having thought such a thing was true. But, in getting old, maybe the memory is fading.

Thanks for the help.
Click to expand...

word games again.

you said if my child died painlessly they were not harmed.
 
#932
#932
LouderVol said:
word games again.

you said if my child died painlessly they were not harmed.
Click to expand...

I guess if someone intentionally kills you with CO2, you aren't harmed, since it would be painless.

Last I checked, unharmed lungs, heart, and brain function. All I can figure is he is using the term 'harm' in a way that I wouldn't agree to.
 
#933
#933
Roustabout said:
I guess if someone intentionally kills you with CO2, you aren't harmed, since it would be painless.

Last I checked, unharmed lungs, heart, and brain function. All I can figure is he is using the term 'harm' in a way that I wouldn't agree to.
Click to expand...

Use 'harm' in whatever manner you please. Before you die, you are not harmed by death. After death, there is no longer a 'you' that exists to be harmed. The moment of death is momentary, such that no moment passes between the time in which you existed and the time in which you do not exist.

If someone kills you, you are not harmed by being killed.

That does not mean that what they did was not morally wrong (I don't think harm exhausts wrongdoing). But, it does mean that it is nonsensical to assert that you are harmed.
 
#934
#934
Roustabout said:
I guess if someone intentionally kills you with CO2, you aren't harmed, since it would be painless.

Last I checked, unharmed lungs, heart, and brain function. All I can figure is he is using the term 'harm' in a way that I wouldn't agree to.
Click to expand...

thats what I am thinking.
 
#935
#935
therealUT said:
Use 'harm' in whatever manner you please. Before you die, you are not harmed by death. After death, there is no longer a 'you' that exists to be harmed. The moment of death is momentary, such that no moment passes between the time in which you existed and the time in which you do not exist.

If someone kills you, you are not harmed by being killed.

That does not mean that what they did was not morally wrong (I don't think harm exhausts wrongdoing). But, it does mean that it is nonsensical to assert that you are harmed.
Click to expand...

discussion for the other thread.
 
#936
#936
If a being has the power to prevent an infanticide and yet that being permits the infanticide, is that being morally wrong in permitting this?

The fact that Lourder is ready to use the power of the state to compel behavior and, yet, refuses to directly answer this simple 'yes' or 'no' question is astounding.

It's quite a simple question. So, let me reiterate it:

If a being has the power to prevent an infanticide and yet that being permits the infanticide, is that being morally wrong in permitting this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#937
#937
LouderVol said:
Do I sin by not fire bombing the clinics, threatening the doctors, or the women? No I do not sin by not taking part in those actions. Do I sin by not taking part in every Right to Life march? By not signing every petition? By not calling/writing my senator everyday? no.
Click to expand...

LouderVol said:
more or less. I don't believe as an outsider I have the right to stop/prevent a robbery with killing the robber. violence should always be a last measure, and it can certainly never be justified in a "future murder" situation. basically I can't kill someone on the off chance they might commit murder at some vague point in the future. but if I directly observe someone plotting murder and pointing a gun at some one I have the obligation to stop them, or at least try. But I can not be faulted for a murder half the world away because I could have done a vague "something".

basically I don't think we have moral obligation to do something that would other wise be morally prohibited on uncertainties.
Click to expand...

I don't believe its a yes no situation.
 
#938
#938
therealUT said:
If a being has the power to prevent an infanticide and yet that being permits the infanticide, is that being morally wrong in permitting this?

The fact that Lourder is ready to use the power of the state to compel behavior and, yet, refuses to directly answer this simple 'yes' or 'no' question is astounding.

It's quite a simple question. So, let me reiterate it:

If a being has the power to prevent an infanticide and yet that being permits the infanticide, is that being morally wrong in permitting this?
Click to expand...

yes, they are wrong for not preventing it.

I say this knowing you are going to come in with some condition that makes the situation ridiculous.
 
#939
#939
I used to come to this site for football. Now I stay for the Political banter, it's priceless.
 
#943
#943
LouderVol said:
yes, I am Catholic.
Click to expand...

You should now begin to reflect on the question and your answer.

I was raised Catholic, still go to Mass (I love the theater of it), and my wife and I routinely hangout with priests and monks. Don't worry, they didn't have a good response when they ran into this problem situation, either.

Francis probably has the best approach, which is simply that there are more pressing concerns in the world at this moment in time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#944
#944
therealUT said:
But, you believe in using the coercive mechanism of the state in said situation. That makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in using physical violence in a gray situation doesn't make sense? to me what makes it gray is the government. right now the government says go for it (abortion), I may be morally right to stop the abortion, but the break down in society still has costs where I am still morally wrong for the consequences of the stop.
 
#945
#945
LouderVol said:
I don't believe in using physical violence in a gray situation doesn't make sense? to me what makes it gray is the government. right now the government says go for it (abortion), I may be morally right to stop the abortion, but the break down in society still has costs where I am still morally wrong for the consequences of the stop.
Click to expand...

You are for government prohibition of abortion at least in cases in which the mother's life is not at risk, hasn't been raped, and not incest, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#946
#946
therealUT said:
If a being has the power to prevent an infanticide and yet that being permits the infanticide, is that being morally wrong in permitting this?

The fact that Lourder is ready to use the power of the state to compel behavior and, yet, refuses to directly answer this simple 'yes' or 'no' question is astounding.

It's quite a simple question. So, let me reiterate it:

If a being has the power to prevent an infanticide and yet that being permits the infanticide, is that being morally wrong in permitting this?
Click to expand...
I'll answer it. I would say, yes, if we really believe abortion is wrong, we do have responsibility to stop it.

Obviously, it's already been pointed out that the state allows abortion and we have to decide if our actions are best directed through legal or illegal methods. I vote, and financially support organizations that do have a significant impact on curbing abortions and providing alternatives.

Moral dilemmas are just that. dilemmas. If there wasn't a moral fabric then there wouldn't be a dilemma. Other than that all you're working towards here (as i suspect) is attempting to impugn an argument by hypocrisy. But, hypocrisy doesn't determine whether something is actually right or wrong. If i say adultery is wrong and commit adultery, I'm a hypocrite. It doesn't mean adultery isn't wrong.
 
#948
#948
therealUT said:
Use 'harm' in whatever manner you please. Before you die, you are not harmed by death. After death, there is no longer a 'you' that exists to be harmed. The moment of death is momentary, such that no moment passes between the time in which you existed and the time in which you do not exist.

If someone kills you, you are not harmed by being killed.

That does not mean that what they did was not morally wrong (I don't think harm exhausts wrongdoing). But, it does mean that it is nonsensical to assert that you are harmed.
Click to expand...

Your future reality was most certainly harmed. I would say it's nonsensical to assert otherwise.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top