|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 27, 2008 06:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it IS important because you see, you're the main reason he got there in the first place
That doesn't matter, once you revoke your invitation he has no right to be there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 06:45 PM |
|
|
The point is, he cannot refuse the invitation, so that's why it's unfair 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 06:57 PM |
|
|
By that logic, since fetuses don't ask to be created, sex is a crime.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Can you form some example from real life based on your post? I canīt imagine that situation quite clearly.
Well I guess what executor was saying, is that the neighbor is the fetus. You have made a mistake, gave him the chance to life (mistake because you do not want that). Then, you are 'inconvenienced' by the fetus.
I know what executor ment, but comparing neighbour and fetus is not very precise, because while neighbour can freely interact and say his opinion, fetus canīt. We are not even sure about if fetus is or isnīt human being. It would be pretty difficult to form good paralel to that example.
Since we will never know if fetus is human being, we have only two solutions - for abortion or against abortion. Method against abortion will ban abortions, cause amateur abortions and such. Method for abortion gives two choices - if you want baby, you will keep it, and if you are not ready, you will undertake abortion. For me second choice gives still more possibilities, freedom and less problems. I doubt that our attitude will ever change until someone proves that fetus is thinking human being.
____________
Result matters
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 27, 2008 11:41 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 23:45, 27 May 2008.
|
Quote:
...but comparing neighbour and fetus is not very precise, because while neighbour can freely interact and say his opinion, fetus canīt.
Almost an irrelevant difference for me, as long as one believes fetus to be a human being (as I do), one can assume the fetus would like to remain alive if it was able to come up with an opinion on this matter.
Quote:
We are not even sure about if fetus is or isnīt human being. It would be pretty difficult to form good paralel to that example.
True, true. I believe fetus to be a human being, but I don't know that for sure.
Quote:
Since we will never know if fetus is human being, we have only two solutions - for abortion or against abortion. Method against abortion will ban abortions, cause amateur abortions and such. Method for abortion gives two choices - if you want baby, you will keep it, and if you are not ready, you will undertake abortion. For me second choice gives still more possibilities, freedom and less problems.
Well the option depends on what we want.
If our aim is to prevent people being killed for other's irresponsibility or unwillingness to take the costs of their actions on themselves, then by banning abortion (with exceptions as danger to mother's life etc.) it is assured this does not happen (except illegal abortions), with a chance of making an error if fetuses are not human from the very beginning, but that is acceptable.
In case of no ban, we make risk our goal not being realized if fetuses are human beings.
Quote:
I doubt that our attitude will ever change until someone proves that fetus is thinking human being.
1. does a human need to be thinking to be considered human? What of people in a coma? Their brains are 'shut down', but not dead. And they can wake up.
2. If someone proves otherwise without doubt, i.e. that a fetus is not a human being (even if up to some moment of pregnancy), it will clear the matter as well.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 12:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
does a human need to be thinking to be considered human? What of people in a coma? Their brains are 'shut down', but not dead. And they can wake up
But it is legal to let someone who is in a vegetative state die.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 01:51 AM |
|
|
No, I meant coma, not vegetative state. People can fully recover from coma, even after many years.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 02:00 AM |
|
|
But I answered your question about whether a human needs to be thinking to be considered a human. Regardless, it is legal to let someone in a vegetative state die.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 09:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I doubt that our attitude will ever change until someone proves that fetus is thinking human being.
1. does a human need to be thinking to be considered human? What of people in a coma? Their brains are 'shut down', but not dead. And they can wake up.
2. If someone proves otherwise without doubt, i.e. that a fetus is not a human being (even if up to some moment of pregnancy), it will clear the matter as well.
1. I wasnīt sure about using word "thinking", but in the end, I did it. That "thinking" is in fact most important aspect in society. Consider people in vegetative state (or long-term coma) as mvass said - their families can consider whether they will live further or die, because they canīt. Or mad people - they are in perfect physical shape, but they canīt think in way rest of society requires, so someone other is deciding instead of him (sanatorium, state atc.). Same with children - why children canīt do everything since birth - because they need to grow up, become mature, form way of thinking - till their 18ī its parents who are making important decisions instead of them. In fact, society requires you to have right intellect (thinking, "soul"...) to give you opportunity to do things your way. Otherwise, someone else will it instead of you.
2. Iīm not much sure about that. In both cases, there will remain certain degree of opposition. If fetus is human being, there will still be people who will demand abortion (even illegal) no matter what - because they donīt want child. If fetus isnīt human being, there will be religious people, who will use words like "will of God" or "soul". It would just maybe push problem into another dimension.
____________
Result matters
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 10:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Consider people in vegetative state (or long-term coma) as mvass said
Don't know your opinion but for me long-term coma is substantially different from vegetative state, full recovery is entirely possible, even without slightest signs of amnesia, so I am against killing such people.
Quote:
It would just maybe push problem into another dimension.
Unfortunatelly I must agree with you, there will be alvays people who consider "every sperm to be sacred" or those disregarding other people, problem won't end completely even if we prove one way or another.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 10:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Consider people in vegetative state (or long-term coma) as mvass said - their families can consider whether they will live further or die, because they canīt.
Yes, but a child on the other hand has rights (albeit not like a grown-up), and parents go to jail if for example they kill them for no reason (because they say 'it was good for them'). Children have rights and the right to live is no exception.
Quote:
Or mad people - they are in perfect physical shape, but they canīt think in way rest of society requires, so someone other is deciding instead of him (sanatorium, state atc.).
'Mad' or 'Crazy' are too subjective. They actually mean "different", someone who disagrees with the rest. Even if this is what people call 'illegal' that doesn't mean it is fair or morally right to ban them just because they're different 
Quote:
2. Iīm not much sure about that. In both cases, there will remain certain degree of opposition. If fetus is human being, there will still be people who will demand abortion (even illegal) no matter what - because they donīt want child.
No matter what, believe it or not, some people do still rob banks or commit crimes, even if the law forbids it. But of course that's not a reason to make these legal
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 11:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Consider people in vegetative state (or long-term coma) as mvass said - their families can consider whether they will live further or die, because they canīt.
Yes, but a child on the other hand has rights (albeit not like a grown-up), and parents go to jail if for example they kill them for no reason (because they say 'it was good for them'). Children have rights and the right to live is no exception.
Difference is, that child was born, while fetus wasnīt. You are aquiring most of your human right since birth - that is matter of law.
Quote:
Or mad people - they are in perfect physical shape, but they canīt think in way rest of society requires, so someone other is deciding instead of him (sanatorium, state atc.).
'Mad' or 'Crazy' are too subjective. They actually mean "different", someone who disagrees with the rest. Even if this is what people call 'illegal' that doesn't mean it is fair or morally right to ban them just because they're different
I havenīt said if it is morally good or fair, Iīm just referring to the situation from real life.
Quote:
2. Iīm not much sure about that. In both cases, there will remain certain degree of opposition. If fetus is human being, there will still be people who will demand abortion (even illegal) no matter what - because they donīt want child.
No matter what, believe it or not, some people do still rob banks or commit crimes, even if the law forbids it. But of course that's not a reason to make these legal
I was talking about position of those people towards the problem. Until they break the law, they can freely express themselves - I for instance can say, that I would love to rob the bank - but that is only my opinion and you canīt make it illegal to the point when I break the law (rob the bank).
Quote:
Don't know your opinion but for me long-term coma is substantially different from vegetative state, full recovery is entirely possible, even without slightest signs of amnesia, so I am against killing such people.
Long-term coma = vegetative state, coma rarely last more than 5 weeks, than proceeds to the vegetative state (usually). But that wasnīt my point - point was, that in state of unconsciousness, you are losing your option to make decisions, so others must make them for you. That is the fact.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 11:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Difference is, that child was born, while fetus wasnīt. You are aquiring most of your human right since birth - that is matter of law.
IMO morally, it is, the law is never perfect and always on the change. It isn't 'reliable' as a morally good solution 
Quote:
I havenīt said if it is morally good or fair, Iīm just referring to the situation from real life.
If law encourages stealing, does that mean everyone should do it? I'm not trying to be forceful I'm trying people to understand
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 11:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
IMO morally, it is, the law is never perfect and always on the change. It isn't 'reliable' as a morally good solution
Yeah, law is never perfect and always changing, but you canīt really depend on moral, because "moral" is subjective for every person. Law "unites" us in a way, it is a way of compromise between different persons living in same area. "Morally good solution" is too subjective and theoretical, I would say that we need compromise acceptable for the both sides.
Quote:
I havenīt said if it is morally good or fair, Iīm just referring to the situation from real life.
If law encourages stealing, does that mean everyone should do it? I'm not trying to be forceful I'm trying people to understand
"If"...Law is created by majority, if majority would like to steal, than I will adapt. But this example seems bit impossible. Law brought more good than bad so far imo.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 12:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, law is never perfect and always changing, but you canīt really depend on moral, because "moral" is subjective for every person. Law "unites" us in a way, it is a way of compromise between different persons living in same area. "Morally good solution" is too subjective and theoretical, I would say that we need compromise acceptable for the both sides.
But a poor thief that steals from, let's say, the rich, will not agree with the law, so it's not for "both sides" (or did I misunderstand?).
Quote:
"If"...Law is created by majority, if majority would like to steal, than I will adapt. But this example seems bit impossible. Law brought more good than bad so far imo.
What I meant was, law has a lot of holes in it that can be abused by lawyers, if you know what I mean
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 12:19 PM |
|
Edited by Anakrom at 12:20, 28 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, law is never perfect and always changing, but you canīt really depend on moral, because "moral" is subjective for every person. Law "unites" us in a way, it is a way of compromise between different persons living in same area. "Morally good solution" is too subjective and theoretical, I would say that we need compromise acceptable for the both sides.
But a poor thief that steals from, let's say, the rich, will not agree with the law, so it's not for "both sides" (or did I misunderstand?).
"Morally good solution" for this situation would be, that rich would share some of with wealth with poor, to ease his problems. Now how possible it is? Law says "Stealing is forbidden" - no matter if you are rich or poor. It might not be fair in the eyes of beggar, but with this attitude we are all equal in the terms of law. If thief doesnīt agree with law, than he performs a dangerous subject for rest of society, which created compromise (law). Do you have any other realistic solution?
Quote:
"If"...Law is created by majority, if majority would like to steal, than I will adapt. But this example seems bit impossible. Law brought more good than bad so far imo.
What I meant was, law has a lot of holes in it that can be abused by lawyers, if you know what I mean
I know what you mean, but sadly I canīt do anything about it. There is nothing perfect in this world, you know.
____________
Result matters
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 01:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But that wasnīt my point - point was, that in state of unconsciousness, you are losing your option to make decisions, so others must make them for you. That is the fact.
Indeed, but wouldn't you agree that they should make decisions and judgements that would have been considered to be the best ones possible by you, if you were able to make them?
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 28, 2008 02:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But that wasnīt my point - point was, that in state of unconsciousness, you are losing your option to make decisions, so others must make them for you. That is the fact.
Indeed, but wouldn't you agree that they should make decisions and judgements that would have been considered to be the best ones possible by you, if you were able to make them?
Of course. But if you are in position when you canīt say what is better for you, than is decision made and based on opinion of other person. Sadly, this can lead to abusing given power for your own good, and there arenīt much ways to avoid it. But who can say what is best for everyone? There isnīt any universal pattern, so choice is given to family or state, who should you trust the most.
____________
Result matters
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 06:10 PM |
|
|
there are records of people who spent 20-15 years in coma and awakan with no memmory of what happend,does this means nesserily they slept?
failing to see relevency to topic..
Jewish thinking? no(in commement to petty diff topic) this isent jewish thinking becouse im atheist.
Its true people shouldnt mistake with humane life,but what life does embrio have before birth? does any of u remmber what u ware doing in ur mothers belly? will the baby grew to hate the perents? no,yeah u think what harm is done,but basicly,none. Who are we to judge.
Once it is born though,its a differnt story.
what do u call when u decided to kill someone who is brain dead? im for that too.
Its a turtred life,if the person does NOT wants to live. or cannot make the choice,then the family needs to do it for them.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 06:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Its true people shouldnt mistake with humane life,but what life does embrio have before birth?
The same as you and me.
Quote:
does any of u remmber what u ware doing in ur mothers belly?
Sometimes I don't remember what I dreamed last night but that doesn't mean I wasn't alive then! 
Quote:
what do u call when u decided to kill someone who is brain dead? im for that too.
Please make the difference between the two cases. For this brain dead situation, you are not responsible for bringing him into coma, wheras for abortion, you are directly responsible that the fetus exists.
Quote:
Its a turtred life,if the person does NOT wants to live. or cannot make the choice,then the family needs to do it for them.
That's only if the family did not bring the respective person into coma, but for abortion, the so-called family is responsible for bringing the fetus -- now he must 'suffer' because of them.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
