Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on May 31, 2018 11:03:53 GMT
An embryo or early fetus is entirely dependent on someone else's body for its continued existence. Consequently, its rights are entirely subservient to the needs and desires of the person in whom it is growing. If the doctors discovered that lets say a guy call John would awake from his vegetative state in 8 months time and I shot and killed him what punishment should I receive? Not sure what point you're trying to make. If you shot and killed someone, and it was not in defense of yourself or another person, you should be punished for committing murder. The fact that your victim had previousy been in a vegetative state would be immaterial.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 11:04:07 GMT
Also what about the bodily autonomy of the murderer? Doesn't the murderer have the right of bodily autonomy? Shouldnt they be allowed to place their figure on the trigger and pull it? Its their body afterall. But is John living off the body of the murderer? You sound like an anti-choice troll right now, so I'll troll you back. Anti-Choice laws regarding abortion mean: More unwanted children. More unwanted children means: More potential prey for pedophiles. I am not surprised that you are anti-choice when it comes to abortion.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 11:06:36 GMT
why is one a person and the other not? For the same reason why a tree is a plant and a mouse is not. It's simply a biological fact.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 11:12:12 GMT
Also what about the bodily autonomy of the murderer? Doesn't the murderer have the right of bodily autonomy? Shouldnt they be allowed to place their figure on the trigger and pull it? Its their body afterall. But is John living off the body of the murderer? You sound like an anti-choice troll right now, so I'll troll you back. Anti-Choice laws regarding abortion mean: More unwanted children. More unwanted children means: More potential prey for pedophiles. I am not surprised that you are anti-choice when it comes to abortion. One drunken night John and his friend (the murderer) signed a contract. If John ever damages one of his organs to such an extent that he will die if it is not replaced the murderer must give him one of his organs. Whatever caused John to go into a vegetative state also caused John to severely damage his heart. Right now a robotic heart is keep kim alive however this is not viable long term. The murderer is going to be forced to give up his heart. John is therefore dependent on the murderer's body for survival. Does the murderer have the right to kill John? "You sound like an anti-choice troll right now, so I'll troll you back." It's called a thought experiment, I am taking your train of thought to its logical extreme.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 11:15:00 GMT
why is one a person and the other not? For the same reason why a tree is a plant and a mouse is not. It's simply a biological fact. Why does biology matter? Its kind of funny for a German to argue that only organisms of a certain biological make up are morally relevant, who else argued for that?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 11:16:32 GMT
One drunken night John and his friend (the murderer) signed a contract. If John ever damages one of his organs to such an extent that he will die if it is not replaced the murderer must give him one of his organs. Whatever caused John to go into a vegetative state also caused John to severely damage his heart. Right now a robotic heart is keep kim alive however this is not viable long term. The murderer is going to be forced to give up his heart. John is therefore dependent on the murderer's body for survival. Does the murderer have the right to kill John? No. Such a contract would be laughed off from every judge in any civilized country.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 11:18:43 GMT
One drunken night John and his friend (the murderer) signed a contract. If John ever damages one of his organs to such an extent that he will die if it is not replaced the murderer must give him one of his organs. Whatever caused John to go into a vegetative state also caused John to severely damage his heart. Right now a robotic heart is keep kim alive however this is not viable long term. The murderer is going to be forced to give up his heart. John is therefore dependent on the murderer's body for survival. Does the murderer have the right to kill John? No. Such a contract would be laughed off from every judge in any civilized country. This country isnt civilised, it is run by a dictator who is an extreme Rousseauist
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 11:20:12 GMT
No. Such a contract would be laughed off from every judge in any civilized country. This country isnt civilised, it is run by a dictator who is an extreme Rousseauist I don't believe such a country exists. But if the people living in this country are ok with the laws, and John and his friends are willing citizens of this country, then the decision whether it's moral for John's friend to kill John is not mine to make.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 11:22:14 GMT
This country isnt civilised, it is run by a dictator who is an extreme Rousseauist I don't believe such a country exists. But if the people living in this country are ok with the laws, and John and his friends are willing citizens of this country, then the decision whether it's moral for John's friend to kill John is not mine to make. "I don't believe such a country exists." You know what a thought experiment is, dont you? "But if the people living in this country are ok with the laws, and John and his friends are willing citizens of this country, then the decision whether it's moral for John's friend to kill John is not mine to make." lol ok
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 11:24:18 GMT
For the same reason why a tree is a plant and a mouse is not. It's simply a biological fact. Why does biology matter? Its kind of funny for a German to argue that only organisms of a certain biological make up are morally relevant A strawman. One of the favourite tools of trolls. But I have time right now, so I'll reply to it anyway. I didn't say "morally relevant", I said "is a person". There are plenty of types of moral relevance. A person, as everybody who is not illiterate and has not lived under a rock knows, is an entity with a sense of self, a sense of time, and expectations and plans for the future. A fetus doesn't have any of these. John does. Actually, the question in the OP makes as much sense as asking whether it's immoral to kill someone who's asleep. The only difference is that sleep usually lasts about 8 hours, not 8 months.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 11:28:18 GMT
Why does biology matter? Its kind of funny for a German to argue that only organisms of a certain biological make up are morally relevant A strawman. One of the favourite tools of trolls. But I have time right now, so I'll reply to it anyway. I didn't say "morally relevant", I said "is a person". There are plenty of types of moral relevance. A person, as everybody who is not illiterate and has not lived under a rock knows, is an entity with a sense of self, a sense of time, and expectations and plans for the future. A fetus doesn't have any of these. John does. Actually, the question in the OP makes as much sense as asking whether it's immoral to kill someone who's asleep. The only difference is that sleep normally lasts a maximum of 8 hours, not 8 months. Clearly you dont know what personhood is in the philosophical sense of the word. "Actually, the question in the OP makes as much sense as asking whether it's immoral to kill someone who's asleep. The only difference is that sleep normally lasts a maximum of 8 hours, not 8 months." Sleeping people can feel pain, can have desires (if dreaming) etc. Either way interpret it that way if you want, it does not make it invalid.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 11:33:24 GMT
Clearly you dont know what personhood is in the philosophical sense of the word. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PersonhoodRead if you are not illiterate. You might learn something.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 11:43:31 GMT
Clearly you dont know what personhood is in the philosophical sense of the word. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PersonhoodRead if you are not illiterate. You might learn something. Because wikipedia, edited by amateurs, is gospel, right?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 31, 2018 11:51:46 GMT
My abortion stance is based on containment. Someone being in a vegetative state has nothing to do with containment.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 31, 2018 11:54:59 GMT
Because we're talking about humans, about morality, etc.? Humans are biological entities. Morality is a biological phenomenon.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 11:55:17 GMT
My abortion stance is based on containment. Someone being in a vegetative state has nothing to do with containment. What if one drunken night John and his friend (the murderer) signed a contract. If John ever damages one of his organs to such an extent that he will die if it is not replaced the murderer must give him one of his organs. Whatever caused John to go into a vegetative state also caused John to severely damage his heart. Right now a robotic heart is keep kim alive however this is not viable long term. The murderer is going to be forced to give up his heart. John is therefore dependent on the murderer's body for survival. Does the murderer have the right to kill John?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 11:55:35 GMT
For me the fundamental moral issue with abortion is bodily autonomy. If you forbid abortion you are compelling a woman to host a fetus as part of her body whether she wants to or not. This would not apply to a person in a vegetative state, whose body functions independently. If somebody killed someone who would awake from a vegetative state in 8 months why would that be bad? Because he is overriding the bodily autonomy of that person which, whilst they are in a vegetative state, belongs to their relatives or medical proxy. That's not what "bodily autonomy" actually means. It means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It doesn't refer to you having the right to do whatever you like to other people.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 11:57:36 GMT
If somebody killed someone who would awake from a vegetative state in 8 months why would that be bad? Because he is overriding the bodily autonomy of that person which, whilst they are in a vegetative state, belongs to their relatives or medical proxy. That's not what "bodily autonomy" actually means. It means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It doesn't refer to you having the right to do whatever you like to other people. what if one drunken night John and his friend (the murderer) signed a contract. If John ever damages one of his organs to such an extent that he will die if it is not replaced the murderer must give him one of his organs. Whatever caused John to go into a vegetative state also caused John to severely damage his heart. Right now a robotic heart is keep kim alive however this is not viable long term. The murderer is going to be forced to give up his heart. John is therefore dependent on the murderer's body for survival. Does the murderer have the right to kill John?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 11:58:35 GMT
If the doctors discovered that lets say a guy call John would awake from his vegetative state in 8 months time and I shot and killed him what punishment should I receive? Not sure what point you're trying to make. He's trying to get people to say you can't kill John because one day he will awake from his vegetative state - that how we treat him now should depend on what he has the potential to become in the future, rather than what he is at present. That way he can say that it's hypocritical to abort a fetus just because you don't consider it a person now, because what matters is that it will be a person in future.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 31, 2018 12:08:47 GMT
My abortion stance is based on containment. Someone being in a vegetative state has nothing to do with containment. What if one drunken night John and his friend (the murderer) signed a contract. If John ever damages one of his organs to such an extent that he will die if it is not replaced the murderer must give him one of his organs. Whatever caused John to go into a vegetative state also caused John to severely damage his heart. Right now a robotic heart is keep kim alive however this is not viable long term. The murderer is going to be forced to give up his heart. John is therefore dependent on the murderer's body for survival. Does the murderer have the right to kill John? First, my abortion stance isn't about dependence. It's about containment. When one human is fully contained inside another human, I feel that it's morally permissible for the "container" human to kill the contained human. So what we'd have to imagine is that John is really small and Joe is really big--enough so that somehow John could be wholly put inside of Joe, so that Joe is functioning as a container to John, who is contained inside Joe. In that case, yes, Joe would be morally justified in killing John, whether John has any medical issues or not, and whether both John and Joe consented to the relationship or not. I usually point this out (although not in as much detail) when I'm explaining my abortion stance. In your example, I'd say that the murderer is obligated to give John his heart, unless there was a clause covering vegatative states. That's the contract they agreed to. This wouldn't have any bearing on whether it would be morally permissible to terminate John's life, but the murderer wouldn't be able to do it himself. The gist of this for the murderer would be, "Think more carefully about the contract you're agreeing to." ;-)
|
|