Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 12:09:35 GMT
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? No, because the contract is invalid. You can't legally force a person to give up an organ. Not even if they sign a contract to say that you can. Because... let's say it together... his friend has a right to bodily autonomy. But let's imagine there is no robotic heart. Let's imagine that when John's heart gave out, his surgeon - who is a maniac - knocked his friend (let's call him Bob) out. He performed an operation which linked Bob's circulatory system to John's - so Bob's heart is actually pumping blood for both of them. The mad surgeon is captured by the police, but this leaves John's life dependent on Bob. Does John have a right to demand that Bob remain cross-connected to him, supporting his life? I say no. I say Bob has the right to disconnect John, even if doing so will result in John's death. Because John has no right to demand that Bob devote the biological processes of his body to keeping John alive. In fact, let's go a step further. Let's say there was no mad surgeon, and Bob volunteered for the procedure to keep John alive. Then after a month, Bob just changed his mind and decided to disconnect. Yes, he still has a right to do so.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 12:16:32 GMT
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? No, because the contract is invalid. You can't legally force a person to give up an organ. Not even if they sign a contract to say that you can. Because... let's say it together... his friend has a right to bodily autonomy. But let's imagine there is no robotic heart. Let's imagine that when John's heart gave out, his surgeon - who is a maniac - knocked his friend (let's call him Bob) out. He performed an operation which linked Bob's circulatory system to John's - so Bob's heart is actually pumping blood for both of them. The mad surgeon is captured by the police, but this leaves John's life dependent on Bob. Does John have a right to demand that Bob remain cross-connected to him, supporting his life? I say no. I say Bob has the right to disconnect John, even if doing so will result in John's death. Because John has no right to demand that Bob devote the biological processes of his body to keeping John alive. In fact, let's go a step further. Let's say there was no mad surgeon, and Bob volunteered for the procedure to keep John alive. Then after a month, Bob just changed his mind and decided to disconnect. Yes, he still has a right to do so. "No, because the contract is invalid. You can't legally force a person to give up an organ. Not even if they sign a contract to say that you can. Because... let's say it together... his friend has a right to bodily autonomy." " You understand that law is not universal, right? That different polities have different laws, right? You understand that laws can be written so that it allows for it, dont you? This paragraph is just bizarre. I have no clue what the point of those other paragraphs was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 12:22:13 GMT
"No, because the contract is invalid. You can't legally force a person to give up an organ. Not even if they sign a contract to say that you can. Because... let's say it together... his friend has a right to bodily autonomy." " You understand that law is not universal, right? That different polities have different laws, right? Is there a jurisdiction anywhere on Earth that would allow such a contract to be legal? Name it. They could be, in theory. In reality they wouldn't be, for the very reason I outlined. And if they did, then this hypothetical country would be one that had immoral laws that led to immoral outcomes. Well we mustn't have you wandering around being all clueless, so let me clue you in : the point is that bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. And if another person's continued existence depends on somebody's bodily autonomy being violated against their will, the moral thing to do is to let them die. Hence why letting John die is moral. Hence why abortion is moral, and legal in civilised countries. Hence why the Irish referendum is a good result.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 31, 2018 12:24:43 GMT
No, because the contract is invalid. You can't legally force a person to give up an organ. Not even if they sign a contract to say that you can. I'd allow that. I'd allow people to contract to whatever they want to agree to with others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 12:28:22 GMT
No, because the contract is invalid. You can't legally force a person to give up an organ. Not even if they sign a contract to say that you can. I'd allow that. I'd allow people to contract to whatever they want to agree to with others. To each their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 12:29:03 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. I don't buy that argument. First of all, with our advancements in healthcare, developing embryos can survive outside of the womb. Secondly, a newborn's life is entirely dependent on someone else being there to care for it for its continued existence, yet most sane people would agree that leaving that child to die would be evil.
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on May 31, 2018 12:30:23 GMT
Who said abortion is moral you prick?
Abortion is evil and if it were up to me anyone who performed one, got one or paid for one would be sentenced to death or life in prison.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 12:30:51 GMT
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." ;-) Where would you draw the line with that though? If I invited you into my house could I kill you?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 31, 2018 12:33:22 GMT
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." ;-) Where would you draw the line with that though? If I invited you into my house could I kill you? Only if by "my house" you mean your body, and somehow I could be completely inside your body. I'm talking about bodies.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 12:34:32 GMT
Because wikipedia, edited by amateurs, is gospel, right? If you want to believe that... I'm not stopping you.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 12:35:37 GMT
"No, because the contract is invalid. You can't legally force a person to give up an organ. Not even if they sign a contract to say that you can. Because... let's say it together... his friend has a right to bodily autonomy." " You understand that law is not universal, right? That different polities have different laws, right? Is there a jurisdiction anywhere on Earth that would allow such a contract to be legal? Name it. They could be, in theory. In reality they wouldn't be, for the very reason I outlined. And if they did, then this hypothetical country would be one that had immoral laws that led to immoral outcomes. Well we mustn't have you wandering around being all clueless, so let me clue you in : the point is that bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. And if another person's continued existence depends on somebody's bodily autonomy being violated against their will, the moral thing to do is to let them die. Hence why letting John die is moral. Hence why abortion is moral, and legal in civilised countries. Hence why the Irish referendum is a good result. "Is there a jurisdiction anywhere on Earth that would allow such a contract to be legal? Name it." Lol do you not know what a thought experiment is? "Well we mustn't have you wandering around being all clueless, so let me clue you in : the point is that bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. And if another person's continued existence depends on somebody's bodily autonomy being violated against their will, the moral thing to do is to let them die. Hence why letting John die is moral. Hence why abortion is moral, and legal in civilised countries. Hence why the Irish referendum is a good result." lol, yeah I know what your opinion is. Your explanation of "bodily autonomy is a right" was unsolicited and off topic.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 12:37:43 GMT
Where would you draw the line with that though? If I invited you into my house could I kill you? Only if by "my house" you mean your body, and somehow I could be completely inside your body. I'm talking about bodies. Seems kind of arbitrary in a silly ad hoc way to draw the line at bodies though.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 12:37:55 GMT
Lol do you not know what a thought experiment is? Unlike you, I do know what a thought experiment is. If you did know, you wouldn't have to ask.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 12:39:05 GMT
Lol do you not know what a thought experiment is? Unlike you, I do know what a thought experiment is. If you did know, you wouldn't have to ask. Then why do you and Graham keep bring up the fact that no such place exists. Its really weird, do you have some sort of phonic tic?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 31, 2018 12:40:20 GMT
Only if by "my house" you mean your body, and somehow I could be completely inside your body. I'm talking about bodies. Seems kind of arbitrary in a silly ad hoc way to draw the line at bodies though. All morality is arbitrary in that sense. It's inescapable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 12:41:20 GMT
Who said abortion is moral I did, for one. No. Forbidding it is, though. Then how lucky for everyone else that it is not up to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 12:43:59 GMT
Is there a jurisdiction anywhere on Earth that would allow such a contract to be legal? Name it. They could be, in theory. In reality they wouldn't be, for the very reason I outlined. And if they did, then this hypothetical country would be one that had immoral laws that led to immoral outcomes. Well we mustn't have you wandering around being all clueless, so let me clue you in : the point is that bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. And if another person's continued existence depends on somebody's bodily autonomy being violated against their will, the moral thing to do is to let them die. Hence why letting John die is moral. Hence why abortion is moral, and legal in civilised countries. Hence why the Irish referendum is a good result. "Is there a jurisdiction anywhere on Earth that would allow such a contract to be legal? Name it." Lol do you not know what a thought experiment is? Yes. I covered that. If your thought experiment is that this is some hypothetical country where such contracts are valid, then sure, enforce it. But it would, IMO, be an immoral law. No, it isn't. It's why I answered your thought experiment as I did. I'm sorry if you're still clueless, I don't think I can make it any clearer than I already have.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 31, 2018 12:53:30 GMT
"Is there a jurisdiction anywhere on Earth that would allow such a contract to be legal? Name it." Lol do you not know what a thought experiment is? Yes. I covered that. If your thought experiment is that this is some hypothetical country where such contracts are valid, then sure, enforce it. But it would, IMO, be an immoral law. No, it isn't. It's why I answered your thought experiment as I did. I'm sorry if you're still clueless, I don't think I can make it any clearer than I already have. "Yes. I covered that. If your thought experiment is that this is some hypothetical country where such contracts are valid, then sure, enforce it. But it would, IMO, be an immoral law." Saying nothing but "Enforce the immoral law" is clearly an evasion of the comparison being made in the thought experiment. "No, it isn't. It's why I answered your thought experiment as I did. I'm sorry if you're still clueless, I don't think I can make it any clearer than I already have." Nobody asked you to change the thought experiment and then give your thoughts on it.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 31, 2018 17:46:18 GMT
No. It would be immoral NOT to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 19:12:54 GMT
Yes. I covered that. If your thought experiment is that this is some hypothetical country where such contracts are valid, then sure, enforce it. But it would, IMO, be an immoral law. No, it isn't. It's why I answered your thought experiment as I did. I'm sorry if you're still clueless, I don't think I can make it any clearer than I already have. "Yes. I covered that. If your thought experiment is that this is some hypothetical country where such contracts are valid, then sure, enforce it. But it would, IMO, be an immoral law." Saying nothing but "Enforce the immoral law" is clearly an evasion of the comparison being made in the thought experiment. If you say so. The comparison is invalid. Too bad, as I did it anyway.
|
|