Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2581667 > unrolled thread

Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Peter Franks <none@none.com> - 2019-01-18 10:59 -0800
    Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-18 13:21 -0800
      Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Peter Franks <none@none.com> - 2019-01-18 16:15 -0800
        Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-18 17:23 -0700
          Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-18 17:13 -0800
            Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-18 18:29 -0700
              Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-18 17:34 -0800
                Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 03:41 +0000
                  Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-18 20:11 -0800
                    Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 04:20 +0000
                      Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 05:19 +0000
                      Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-18 21:49 -0800
                        Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-18 23:07 -0700
                          Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-19 08:35 -0800
                            Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 17:22 +0000
                              Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-19 09:53 -0800
                                Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 11:03 -0700
                                  Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-19 10:11 -0800
                                    Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 11:45 -0700
                                      Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-19 16:17 -0800
                                        Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 18:54 -0700
                                          Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-19 19:09 -0800
                                            Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 20:27 -0700
                                              Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-19 19:34 -0800
                                                Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 20:57 -0700
                                                  Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-19 20:52 -0800
                                                    Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-19 23:59 -0700
                                                      Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-20 08:41 -0800
                Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2019-01-19 13:19 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2581667 — Re: Kavanaugh casts deciding vote as Supreme Court rejects review of Medicaid funding for Baby Genocide Planned Parenthood

On 1/9/2019 6:12 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/9/2019 3:53 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 12/18/2018 5:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2018 4:07 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>> Let's determine the objective physical characteristics present (or 
>>>> absent) when life ends.
>>>
>>> http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/ 
>>> claims "The definition of death is not disputed, and is considered 
>>> the time when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. EEG 
>>> measures brain activity and must demonstrate regular wave patterns to 
>>> be considered valid. Therefore, by this rule the onset of life would 
>>> be the time when fetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave 
>>> patterns, which occurs fairly consistently around week 25."
>>
>> Umm, let's use a bit better resource than that, or newspaper 
>> clippings, shall we?
>>
>> Something like the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which is based 
>> on the (hopefully impartial and objective) Harvard Medical School 
>> report of 1968.
>>
>> Does that sound like a reasonable reference to at least start with?
> 
> It might be.  It might not be.  The issue is discussed in detail in 
> https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1387&context=uclf 
>   What I took from this paper and 
> http://www.answers.com/Q/When_does_a_fetus_have_brain_activity and 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html 
> is the resolution is complex and there is likely no objective way to say 
> when we attain rights.

I'm sure there's an objective way, however it is clouded with political 
subjectivity.  So be it.

Given that we are potentially dealing with the most sacrosanct of rights 
(life), should we err on the side of caution and protection of that 
right, as opposed to protecting lesser subordinate rights?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2581770

On 1/18/2019 10:59 AM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

> 
> Given that we are potentially dealing with the most sacrosanct of rights 
> (life), should we err on the side of caution and protection of that 
> right, as opposed to protecting lesser subordinate rights?

IMO, no.  It is clear to me that a bundle of cells right after 
conception can't have the same moral standing as the woman.  If they 
did, then the woman would be guilty of murder if she had an abortion 
milliseconds after conception.  That strikes me as absurd.  Thus, her 
liberty right wins out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2581935

On 1/18/2019 1:21 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/18/2019 10:59 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
> 
> {snip}
> 
>>
>> Given that we are potentially dealing with the most sacrosanct of 
>> rights (life), should we err on the side of caution and protection of 
>> that right, as opposed to protecting lesser subordinate rights?
> 
> IMO, no.  It is clear to me that a bundle of cells right after 
> conception can't have the same moral standing as the woman.  If they 
> did, then the woman would be guilty of murder if she had an abortion 
> milliseconds after conception.  That strikes me as absurd.  Thus, her 
> liberty right wins out.

So err on the side of negligence.

OK, so that is the root of where we will disagree.  Seems unlikely that 
we will agree on anything with such a dichotomy.  Probably serves as a 
core difference between liberal and conservative (duh).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2581940

On 1/18/19 5:15 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> On 1/18/2019 1:21 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/18/2019 10:59 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> Given that we are potentially dealing with the most sacrosanct of 
>>> rights (life), should we err on the side of caution and protection of 
>>> that right, as opposed to protecting lesser subordinate rights?
>>
>> IMO, no.  It is clear to me that a bundle of cells right after 
>> conception can't have the same moral standing as the woman.  If they 
>> did, then the woman would be guilty of murder if she had an abortion 
>> milliseconds after conception.  That strikes me as absurd.  Thus, her 
>> liberty right wins out.
> 
> So err on the side of negligence.
> 
> OK, so that is the root of where we will disagree.  Seems unlikely that 
> we will agree on anything with such a dichotomy.  Probably serves as a 
> core difference between liberal and conservative (duh).

Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even in 
cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other 
words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a 
living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear they 
did not want that?

Simple question. Would love an answer.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2581983

On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:

{snip}

> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even in 
> cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other 
> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a 
> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear they 
> did not want that?

No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is that 
relevant to the abortion debate?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2581991

On 1/18/19 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:
> 
> {snip}
> 
>> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even in 
>> cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other 
>> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a 
>> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear they 
>> did not want that?
> 
> No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is that 
> relevant to the abortion debate?

There is no debate once you decide a woman is not obligated to safe the 
life of the fetus and thus can have an abortion.

Good to reach agreement.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2581992

On 1/18/2019 5:29 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 1/18/19 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even 
>>> in cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other 
>>> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a 
>>> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear 
>>> they did not want that?
>>
>> No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is that 
>> relevant to the abortion debate?
> 
> There is no debate once you decide a woman is not obligated to safe the 
> life of the fetus and thus can have an abortion.

I think your analogy is inapt because abortion is an action that takes a 
life, not a lack of action where action would have saved a life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582058

Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/2019 5:29 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 1/18/19 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>> {snip}
>>> 
>>>> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even 
>>>> in cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other 
>>>> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a 
>>>> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear 
>>>> they did not want that?
>>> 
>>> No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is that 
>>> relevant to the abortion debate?
>> 
>> There is no debate once you decide a woman is not obligated to safe the 
>> life of the fetus and thus can have an abortion.
> 
> I think your analogy is inapt because abortion is an action that takes a 
> life, not a lack of action where action would have saved a life.
> 
> 

I either case a life is lost. But the dead body is respected more than a
living woman. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582076

On 1/18/2019 7:41 PM, Snit wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/2019 5:29 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 1/18/19 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even
>>>>> in cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other
>>>>> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a
>>>>> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear
>>>>> they did not want that?
>>>>
>>>> No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is that
>>>> relevant to the abortion debate?
>>>
>>> There is no debate once you decide a woman is not obligated to safe the
>>> life of the fetus and thus can have an abortion.
>>
>> I think your analogy is inapt because abortion is an action that takes a
>> life, not a lack of action where action would have saved a life.
> 
> I either case a life is lost. But the dead body is respected more than a
> living woman.

Even though I agree the liberty rights of a living woman ought to 
prevail, but the dead-body analogy continues to be unpersuasive as 
explained above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582081

Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/2019 7:41 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2019 5:29 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/19 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> {snip}
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even
>>>>>> in cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other
>>>>>> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a
>>>>>> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear
>>>>>> they did not want that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is that
>>>>> relevant to the abortion debate?
>>>> 
>>>> There is no debate once you decide a woman is not obligated to safe the
>>>> life of the fetus and thus can have an abortion.
>>> 
>>> I think your analogy is inapt because abortion is an action that takes a
>>> life, not a lack of action where action would have saved a life.
>> 
>> I either case a life is lost. But the dead body is respected more than a
>> living woman.
> 
> Even though I agree the liberty rights of a living woman ought to 
> prevail, but the dead-body analogy continues to be unpersuasive as 
> explained above.
> 

In both cases their will be death without the use of another’s body. Does
one person get to demand to use another’s to survive?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582089

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/2019 7:41 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2019 5:29 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/19 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even
>>>>>>> in cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other
>>>>>>> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a
>>>>>>> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear
>>>>>>> they did not want that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is that
>>>>>> relevant to the abortion debate?
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is no debate once you decide a woman is not obligated to safe the
>>>>> life of the fetus and thus can have an abortion.
>>>> 
>>>> I think your analogy is inapt because abortion is an action that takes a
>>>> life, not a lack of action where action would have saved a life.
>>> 
>>> I either case a life is lost. But the dead body is respected more than a
>>> living woman.
>> 
>> Even though I agree the liberty rights of a living woman ought to 
>> prevail, but the dead-body analogy continues to be unpersuasive as 
>> explained above.
>> 
> 
> In both cases their will be death without the use of another’s body. Does
> one person get to demand to use another’s to survive?
> 
> 

...there will be....

Grammar trolled myself. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582099

On 1/18/2019 8:20 PM, Snit wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/2019 7:41 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2019 5:29 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/19 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even
>>>>>>> in cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In other
>>>>>>> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life of a
>>>>>>> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear
>>>>>>> they did not want that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is that
>>>>>> relevant to the abortion debate?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no debate once you decide a woman is not obligated to safe the
>>>>> life of the fetus and thus can have an abortion.
>>>>
>>>> I think your analogy is inapt because abortion is an action that takes a
>>>> life, not a lack of action where action would have saved a life.
>>>
>>> I either case a life is lost. But the dead body is respected more than a
>>> living woman.
>>
>> Even though I agree the liberty rights of a living woman ought to
>> prevail, but the dead-body analogy continues to be unpersuasive as
>> explained above.
>>
> In both cases their will be death without the use of another’s body. Does
> one person get to demand to use another’s to survive?

Again, you have ignored the key distinction.  In the first case, an 
action has to be taken by the other body to *avoid* death - and you 
can't demand that to occur.  In the second case, an action has to be 
taken by the other body to *produce* death - and you can demand that not 
occur (*).

(*) Except in this case, you can't demand that action not occur because 
the fetus isn't a person and its right to life is subordinate to a 
person's right to liberty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582102

On 1/18/19 10:49 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/18/2019 8:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2019 7:41 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/18/2019 5:29 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/18/19 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2019 4:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you think that it is OK to harvest organs from a dead body, even
>>>>>>>> in cases where it is needed to maintain the life of another? In 
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> words, can you force a dead body to be used to sustain the life 
>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>> living person, even if the dead person (when alive) made it clear
>>>>>>>> they did not want that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, there is no obligation to take action to save a life.  How is 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> relevant to the abortion debate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no debate once you decide a woman is not obligated to 
>>>>>> safe the
>>>>>> life of the fetus and thus can have an abortion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think your analogy is inapt because abortion is an action that 
>>>>> takes a
>>>>> life, not a lack of action where action would have saved a life.
>>>>
>>>> I either case a life is lost. But the dead body is respected more 
>>>> than a
>>>> living woman.
>>>
>>> Even though I agree the liberty rights of a living woman ought to
>>> prevail, but the dead-body analogy continues to be unpersuasive as
>>> explained above.
>>>
>> In both cases their will be death without the use of another’s body. Does
>> one person get to demand to use another’s to survive?
> 
> Again, you have ignored the key distinction.  In the first case, an 
> action has to be taken by the other body to *avoid* death - and you 
> can't demand that to occur.  In the second case, an action has to be 
> taken by the other body to *produce* death - and you can demand that not 
> occur (*).
> 
> (*) Except in this case, you can't demand that action not occur because 
> the fetus isn't a person and its right to life is subordinate to a 
> person's right to liberty.

I see what you are saying, but it really is a matter of control in both 
cases... others are controlling what the dead body is being used for 
outside of the wishes of the person when they were alive, OR the woman's 
body is being controlled by others and not the woman.

In both cases the person is losing control of what they can do with 
their own body -- but in one case the body is dead and in the other it 
is alive.

To say it is about an action being done or not is really besides the 
point -- I cannot force you to shave (action) or to grow you hair out 
(inaction). I simply do not have the right to do either.

I cannot force another to have their organs be used even on their death 
(action taken by other) or to not have an abortion (denying an action of 
another).

If I had to choose which one should be forced by government, though, 
clearly the dead body has fewer rights than the living woman.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582285

On 1/18/2019 10:07 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 1/18/19 10:49 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

{snip}

>> Again, you have ignored the key distinction.  In the first case, an 
>> action has to be taken by the other body to *avoid* death - and you 
>> can't demand that to occur.  In the second case, an action has to be 
>> taken by the other body to *produce* death - and you can demand that 
>> not occur (*).
>>
>> (*) Except in this case, you can't demand that action not occur 
>> because the fetus isn't a person and its right to life is subordinate 
>> to a person's right to liberty.
> 
> I see what you are saying, but it really is a matter of control in both 
> cases... others are controlling what the dead body is being used for 
> outside of the wishes of the person when they were alive, OR the woman's 
> body is being controlled by others and not the woman.
> 
> In both cases the person is losing control of what they can do with 
> their own body -- but in one case the body is dead and in the other it 
> is alive.
> 
> To say it is about an action being done or not is really besides the 
> point -- I cannot force you to shave (action) or to grow you hair out 
> (inaction). I simply do not have the right to do either.

I don't think that is the correct analogy.  The correct analogy is I 
cannot obligate you to shave even if shaving would save another person's 
life.  However, I can punish you for cutting your hair if cutting your 
hair kills another person.

I understand, and fully agree with you that a living woman has greater 
liberty rights than a dead body.  Nonetheless, the two cases are not 
analogous because of the distinction between an obligation to take 
action versus a prohibition against an action.

Moreover in the case of a baby in your custody, I can both obligate you 
to take actions to keep the baby alive and prohibit you for taking 
actions that kill the baby.  I can charge you with murder if you either 
don't feed the baby or smother it with a pillow.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582298

Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/2019 10:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 1/18/19 10:49 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> 
> {snip}
> 
>>> Again, you have ignored the key distinction.  In the first case, an 
>>> action has to be taken by the other body to *avoid* death - and you 
>>> can't demand that to occur.  In the second case, an action has to be 
>>> taken by the other body to *produce* death - and you can demand that 
>>> not occur (*).
>>> 
>>> (*) Except in this case, you can't demand that action not occur 
>>> because the fetus isn't a person and its right to life is subordinate 
>>> to a person's right to liberty.
>> 
>> I see what you are saying, but it really is a matter of control in both 
>> cases... others are controlling what the dead body is being used for 
>> outside of the wishes of the person when they were alive, OR the woman's 
>> body is being controlled by others and not the woman.
>> 
>> In both cases the person is losing control of what they can do with 
>> their own body -- but in one case the body is dead and in the other it 
>> is alive.
>> 
>> To say it is about an action being done or not is really besides the 
>> point -- I cannot force you to shave (action) or to grow you hair out 
>> (inaction). I simply do not have the right to do either.
> 
> I don't think that is the correct analogy.  The correct analogy is I 
> cannot obligate you to shave even if shaving would save another person's 
> life.  However, I can punish you for cutting your hair if cutting your 
> hair kills another person.

When driving you are obligated to act to save lives. You cannot say I
merely choose to not hit the brakes. The defense that one cannot force such
a driver to act, even to save a life, would not fly. 

The question to me is not about action vs inaction but about forcing choice
on a dead body / woman. 

> 
> I understand, and fully agree with you that a living woman has greater 
> liberty rights than a dead body.  Nonetheless, the two cases are not 
> analogous because of the distinction between an obligation to take 
> action versus a prohibition against an action.
> 
> Moreover in the case of a baby in your custody, I can both obligate you 
> to take actions to keep the baby alive and prohibit you for taking 
> actions that kill the baby.  I can charge you with murder if you either 
> don't feed the baby or smother it with a pillow.
> 
Right: you are obligated to act AND not act. Your choices are limited. And
that is fine. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582301

On 1/19/2019 9:22 AM, Snit wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/2019 10:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 1/18/19 10:49 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>>> Again, you have ignored the key distinction.  In the first case, an
>>>> action has to be taken by the other body to *avoid* death - and you
>>>> can't demand that to occur.  In the second case, an action has to be
>>>> taken by the other body to *produce* death - and you can demand that
>>>> not occur (*).
>>>>
>>>> (*) Except in this case, you can't demand that action not occur
>>>> because the fetus isn't a person and its right to life is subordinate
>>>> to a person's right to liberty.
>>>
>>> I see what you are saying, but it really is a matter of control in both
>>> cases... others are controlling what the dead body is being used for
>>> outside of the wishes of the person when they were alive, OR the woman's
>>> body is being controlled by others and not the woman.
>>>
>>> In both cases the person is losing control of what they can do with
>>> their own body -- but in one case the body is dead and in the other it
>>> is alive.
>>>
>>> To say it is about an action being done or not is really besides the
>>> point -- I cannot force you to shave (action) or to grow you hair out
>>> (inaction). I simply do not have the right to do either.
>>
>> I don't think that is the correct analogy.  The correct analogy is I
>> cannot obligate you to shave even if shaving would save another person's
>> life.  However, I can punish you for cutting your hair if cutting your
>> hair kills another person.
> 
> When driving you are obligated to act to save lives. You cannot say I
> merely choose to not hit the brakes. The defense that one cannot force such
> a driver to act, even to save a life, would not fly.

Driving is like caring for a baby in your custody.  A heightened level 
of responsibility attaches that includes requiring certain actions to 
prevent death (in addition to prohibiting actions that cause death). 
But in most circumstances, you are only prohibited from actions that 
cause death.

> The question to me is not about action vs inaction but about forcing choice
> on a dead body / woman.

I'm not persuaded.  Organ donation is not like driving or caring for a 
baby in your custody.  You are not obligated to donate an organ whether 
or not you are alive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582305

On 1/19/19 10:53 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/19/2019 9:22 AM, Snit wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2019 10:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/19 10:49 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>>> Again, you have ignored the key distinction.  In the first case, an
>>>>> action has to be taken by the other body to *avoid* death - and you
>>>>> can't demand that to occur.  In the second case, an action has to be
>>>>> taken by the other body to *produce* death - and you can demand that
>>>>> not occur (*).
>>>>>
>>>>> (*) Except in this case, you can't demand that action not occur
>>>>> because the fetus isn't a person and its right to life is subordinate
>>>>> to a person's right to liberty.
>>>>
>>>> I see what you are saying, but it really is a matter of control in both
>>>> cases... others are controlling what the dead body is being used for
>>>> outside of the wishes of the person when they were alive, OR the 
>>>> woman's
>>>> body is being controlled by others and not the woman.
>>>>
>>>> In both cases the person is losing control of what they can do with
>>>> their own body -- but in one case the body is dead and in the other it
>>>> is alive.
>>>>
>>>> To say it is about an action being done or not is really besides the
>>>> point -- I cannot force you to shave (action) or to grow you hair out
>>>> (inaction). I simply do not have the right to do either.
>>>
>>> I don't think that is the correct analogy.  The correct analogy is I
>>> cannot obligate you to shave even if shaving would save another person's
>>> life.  However, I can punish you for cutting your hair if cutting your
>>> hair kills another person.
>>
>> When driving you are obligated to act to save lives. You cannot say I
>> merely choose to not hit the brakes. The defense that one cannot force 
>> such
>> a driver to act, even to save a life, would not fly.
> 
> Driving is like caring for a baby in your custody.  A heightened level 
> of responsibility attaches that includes requiring certain actions to 
> prevent death (in addition to prohibiting actions that cause death). But 
> in most circumstances, you are only prohibited from actions that cause 
> death.

You must actively feed and clothe and otherwise take care of the baby.

But really to me all of this is off topic -- it is not about the action 
vs. the inaction, I was speaking of the respect for the body / woman.

The idea we can force a woman to sustain another (this is an action of 
her body) but NOT forcibly take organs from a dead body to sustain 
another shows a lower level of respect for the woman than for the dead body.

I do see what you are saying and I think you have been respectful and 
reasonable in your presentation -- but I do not see how the difference 
you bring up changes the level of respect / rights shown.


>> The question to me is not about action vs inaction but about forcing 
>> choice
>> on a dead body / woman.
> 
> I'm not persuaded.  Organ donation is not like driving or caring for a 
> baby in your custody.  You are not obligated to donate an organ whether 
> or not you are alive.

You are not obligated to do ANYTHING on a prolonged case to sustain 
another. Even for a parent who does not want a child, they can take 
short term actions to give up the child -- though I will admit I do not 
know the full process that takes. Can one just drop an unwanted baby off 
for others to take care of? I think it used to work that way but do not 
know current laws.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582306

On 1/19/2019 10:03 AM, Snit wrote:

{snip}

> The idea we can force a woman to sustain another (this is an action of 
> her body) but NOT forcibly take organs from a dead body to sustain 
> another shows a lower level of respect for the woman than for the dead 
> body.

We force women to feed their babies.  We force them to use brakes when 
they drive.  And yet, no one argues those laws show a lower level of 
respect for a woman than a dead body.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582317

On 1/19/19 11:11 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/19/2019 10:03 AM, Snit wrote:
> 
> {snip}
> 
>> The idea we can force a woman to sustain another (this is an action of 
>> her body) but NOT forcibly take organs from a dead body to sustain 
>> another shows a lower level of respect for the woman than for the dead 
>> body.
> 
> We force women to feed their babies.

Others can do it. If they do not want to a man can. Even if they are the 
only one there it is generally short term (though we can contrive of 
long term situations).

> We force them to use brakes when 
> they drive. 

I talked of this before -- we force short term action (or inaction).

> And yet, no one argues those laws show a lower level of 
> respect for a woman than a dead body.

The idea is for long term or permanent changes (9 months of pregnancy or 
giving up an organ even after death). You rarely have to use brakes for 
9 months straight. :)

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2582455

On 1/19/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote:
> On 1/19/19 11:11 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/19/2019 10:03 AM, Snit wrote:
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>> The idea we can force a woman to sustain another (this is an action 
>>> of her body) but NOT forcibly take organs from a dead body to sustain 
>>> another shows a lower level of respect for the woman than for the 
>>> dead body.
>>
>> We force women to feed their babies.
> 
> Others can do it. If they do not want to a man can. Even if they are the 
> only one there it is generally short term (though we can contrive of 
> long term situations).

I would say that raising a child is more than a contrivance of a 
long-term situation.

>> We force them to use brakes when they drive. 
> 
> I talked of this before -- we force short term action (or inaction).
> 
>> And yet, no one argues those laws show a lower level of respect for a 
>> woman than a dead body.
> 
> The idea is for long term or permanent changes (9 months of pregnancy or 
> giving up an organ even after death). You rarely have to use brakes for 
> 9 months straight. :)
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web