|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 01, 2008 04:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It wasn't a mistake because you see, it was "good" for the society
No, it wasn't. They didn't realize that it would be better for society to let them into society than to enslave them.
Quote:
Just like a 2 year old?
Two-year-olds are part of society. You can interact with them and they can interact with you.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 04:54 PM |
|
|
Read my 'disease' analogy 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 05:05 PM |
|
|
As for the diseased 2-year-old, the person who gave him the disease has the responsiblity to take care of him/her or pay for his/her treatment (assuming that such a person exists). But that is because the 2-year-old was already part of society, so the person has to pay for removing him/her from society (albeit temporarily). The fetus, on the other hand, was never part of it to begin with.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 05:15 PM |
|
|
|
What if he/she was born with the disease?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 05:23 PM |
|
|
Hah! Good question. I suppose then the parents would have the responsibility to take care of it, since under normal circumstances it would have been part of society. But a fetus isn't part of society under any circumstances.
Also, I advise you to read and comment on this article. I don't necessarily agree with all the points made in it, but it is interesting nevertheless.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 05:48 PM |
|
|
The fetus is part of the society. A box inside another one are both in society. If the 'diseased' baby can't interact but needs to be treated for 9 months, then that's it, it doesn't mean the mother can murder him. She has an obligation because she gave him life.
As for the article, it is ridiculous because it does not take into account the 'offender' part. Let me quote some of it:Quote:
No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.
Basically we can't force someone that makes an accident and beats up another guy (accident) to take care of him? 
I'm tired of people that say the fetus appears out of the blue without the mother's will. The fetus is the victim, not the mother, because she has done something (for her own self) that brought him to that condition, she is obligated to take care of him. Just like someone that makes an accident.
As for the society thing, really I don't think we'll ever come to something constructive if you can't back up your arguments except say that "The fetus is not part of the society. Period"  (when you know how subjective that is and I disagree obviously)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 05:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The fetus is part of the society. A box inside another one are both in society.
Society is not a room. Society is more like the outdoors. Your house is outdoors, but you don't say that you're outdoors when you're in your house!
Quote:
She has an obligation because she gave him life.
But she's not the one who gave him the disease, is she? (I'm assuming that she isn't.)
Quote:
Basically we can't force someone that makes an accident and beats up another guy (accident) to take care of him?
Yes, we can, because he did violate somebody else's rights first.
Quote:
The fetus is the victim, not the mother, because she has done something (for her own self) that brought him to that condition, she is obligated to take care of him. Just like someone that makes an accident.
She has done something to her own self that caused a fetus to appear inside of her. But why would she be obligated to take care of it? She made no contract with it to do so. In fact, she doesn't even want it there. When you give someone a computer, you're not obligated to give them electricity so they can use it, are you?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm tired of people that say the fetus appears out of the blue without the mother's will. The fetus is the victim, not the mother, because she has done something (for her own self) that brought him to that condition, she is obligated to take care of him. Just like someone that makes an accident.
Nope, since she didn't do anything "negative" on the fetus (or you could say she didn't violate its rights)
You beat a guy -> you do a "negative" action on him (or violate his rights if you want more with the "law")
You give "life" to a fetus -> you do a "positive" action (or you could even consider a "neutral" action - the result is still that it's NOT the same thing with beating a guy). And you don't violate anyone's rights.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 06:03 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:06, 01 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Society is not a room. Society is more like the outdoors. Your house is outdoors, but you don't say that you're outdoors when you're in your house!
The mother is in society, so the fetus is too, unless you mean that the interior of the mother is a house?
Quote:
But she's not the one who gave him the disease, is she? (I'm assuming that she isn't.)
She gave him the 'disease' because he can't live on his own until 9 months. She also gave him life, but life with disease is not good life at all (consider it more like torture/torment). That's why she has to 'feed' him 9 months until he gets out of the disease.
Quote:
Yes, we can, because he did violate somebody else's rights first.
And the mother does that to the fetus with abortion...
no wait, fetuses don't have rights.. yeah really hard to argue if you keep that point without backup apart from your opinion/society opinion.
Quote:
She has done something to her own self that caused a fetus to appear inside of her. But why would she be obligated to take care of it? She made no contract with it to do so. In fact, she doesn't even want it there. When you give someone a computer, you're not obligated to give them electricity so they can use it, are you?
If she gave someone a computer, and that computer affected his life, and will affect his life NEGATIVELY if he doesn't get electricity (abortion = negative for the fetus), then she has an obligation.
She gave him the computer. Without electricity, it's a 'negative' gift (because he 'suffers' for that in a way, I'm trying to use this analogy with abortion). Then she is obligated to give him electricity.
I know it sounds weird but giving life to a fetus and then aborting is a 'negative' gift, not a positive one. I'm trying to get the analogy to match with this one, unfortunately the computer one isn't close.
@Asheera:Quote:
You give "life" to a fetus -> you do a "positive" action (or you could even consider a "neutral" action - the result is still that it's NOT the same thing with beating a guy). And you don't violate anyone's rights.
We're getting into that positive action debate again. I won't repeat myself, but the reason/consequence of your action matters.
If you save someone's life knowing that he is going to be tortured, THAT is not a positive action AT ALL. It's actually pretty negative, if you know what I mean. Like stopping someone to suicide if he knows he is going to suffer.
The baby doesn't want to get aborted. That means, when you brought him to life, you also 'stopped' him from 'suiciding' (not having a life that is). NEGATIVE action.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The mother is in society, so the fetus is too, unless you mean that the interior of the mother is a house?
Yes, I'd say that'd be an accurate application of my analogy.
Quote:
She gave him the 'disease' because he can't live on his own until 9 months.
I understand that she's the one who gave it life, but is she the one who gave him the disease? I mean, was it one of her specific intentional actions that caused the disease?
Quote:
If she gave someone a computer, and that computer affected his life, and will affect his life NEGATIVELY if he doesn't get electricity (abortion = negative for the fetus), then she has an obligation.
Actually, there is a way to apply this analogy. I give someone a computer, but they don't have electricity, so they are disappointed that they can't use it (disappointment is a negative emotional impact). Does that mean, however, that I have the obligation to remove their disappointment, having given them the computer?
Or take an even more ridiculous example. You give a finger puppet to a kid with no arms. You intended to be kind (let's say you didn't know that the kid had no arms), but the kid understands it as your making fun of him, so he feels insulted. Does that mean that you have the obligation to make prosthetic arms and hands for him so he can use the puppet?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 06:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I understand that she's the one who gave it life, but is she the one who gave him the disease? I mean, was it one of her specific intentional actions that caused the disease?
She gave him both -- let's call the disease 'dependency'. She gave him life, but she also made him dependent on her for 9 months. She has to take care of him, because he would otherwise suffer.
Quote:
Actually, there is a way to apply this analogy. I give someone a computer, but they don't have electricity, so they are disappointed that they can't use it (disappointment is a negative emotional impact). Does that mean, however, that I have the obligation to remove their disappointment, having given them the computer?
'emotional' is kinda hard to measure, it's hard to apply "violate rights" here.
Quote:
Or take an even more ridiculous example. You give a finger puppet to a kid with no arms. You intended to be kind (let's say you didn't know that the kid had no arms), but the kid understands it as your making fun of him, so he feels insulted. Does that mean that you have the obligation to make prosthetic arms and hands for him so he can use the puppet?
I thought insulting someone was violating his rights or property or something? This 'non-fatal' thing isn't punishable but only with a warning (you did not know he is going to take it as an insult). If you KNEW he was going to take it as an insult (as in the fetus case, he doesn't want to be aborted, and you know that), then IMO you violated his rights or insulted him on purpose.
of course an insult =/= a killing but it's just an analogy
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 07:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
She gave him both -- let's call the disease 'dependency'. She gave him life, but she also made him dependent on her for 9 months. She has to take care of him, because he would otherwise suffer.
All right, she has to take care of him because if it weren't for her giving it the disease, it would be a normal baby. But a dehabilitating disease and life are quite different things.
Quote:
'emotional' is kinda hard to measure, it's hard to apply "violate rights" here
But you have to admit that your actions have caused them a negative emotional impact.
Quote:
I thought insulting someone was violating his rights or property or something?
I don't know if it is, and that's a separate venue for discussion.
Quote:
you violated his rights or insulted him on purpose
And so you should have to make prosthetic arms for him so he could use the finger puppet? Because it would be unfair of you to take the finger puppet away, since you gave it to him.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 07:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All right, she has to take care of him because if it weren't for her giving it the disease, it would be a normal baby.
Nono actually otherwise he would not be at all -- not live. But let's see:
1) not live at all
2) live with a disease, and then mother kills you (aborts you) before you are 'healed' of the disease
Quote:
But you have to admit that your actions have caused them a negative emotional impact.
Obviously but I can't use arguments like violating 'rights' because emotional impacts are not that easy measurable.
Quote:
And so you should have to make prosthetic arms for him so he could use the finger puppet? Because it would be unfair of you to take the finger puppet away, since you gave it to him.
Actually, if you know that would insult him, you shouldn't give him anything at all (that is, not conceive the fetus, analogy). If you insulted him, your responsibility to make him 'feel good' (take care of the baby). Of course you can also close his mouth by killing him, if the law doesn't stop you (as in the fetus case).
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 07:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2) live with a disease, and then mother kills you leaves you to die (aborts you) before you are 'healed' of the disease
That's better
Quote:
Of course you can also close his mouth by killing him, if the law doesn't stop you (as in the fetus case).
Ok, I say this one more time:
When you abort, you don't kill the fetus, you simply leave it to die
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 07:32 PM |
|
|
*sigh*
same thing..
still torture it is
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 07:34 PM |
|
|
You know what torture is, hmm? Since the fetus doesn't have a brain and a nervous system, it can't feel pain either physically or mentally, so it is NOT torture.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 07:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nono actually otherwise he would not be at all -- not live.
No, I mean that if not for her giving him the disease, he would have been born a normal baby.
Quote:
Obviously but I can't use arguments like violating 'rights' because emotional impacts are not that easy measurable.
No, no, wait, by your logic, shouldn't you be responsible for the consequences of your actions? You have harmed him emotionally (the degree, though, is hard to measure). Shouldn't you make it up to him somehow?
Quote:
Actually, if you know that would insult him, you shouldn't give him anything at all
No, you didn't insult him intentionally, but you should've known the risks of children not having arms before you got him the finger puppet. You know, there are kids with no arms in the world. What if this one was one of them? But you chose to take that risk and gave him a finger puppet, and now he feels very insulted. What can you do? You can't take the finger puppet away, since it's his now. And you can't just do nothing, because you have to take responsibility for your actions, shouldn't you? Saying, "I didn't know your kid had no arms" is like saying, "I didn't know the condom would break." You knew the risks, and you still went on with the action.
Quote:
still torture it is
No, it's not. It's only torture if you are doing something to them, not abstaining from doing something. Does that mean that I'm torturing starving children in Africa by not giving them food right now?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 07:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I mean that if not for her giving him the disease, he would have been born a normal baby.
He wouldn't have been born at all 
Quote:
No, no, wait, by your logic, shouldn't you be responsible for the consequences of your actions? You have harmed him emotionally (the degree, though, is hard to measure). Shouldn't you make it up to him somehow?
Exactly. What kind of sentence do you have, depending how 'emotionally' impacted he has been? That's pretty subjective, very hard to measure.
Quote:
What can you do? You can't take the finger puppet away, since it's his now. And you can't just do nothing, because you have to take responsibility for your actions, shouldn't you? Saying, "I didn't know your kid had no arms" is like saying, "I didn't know the condom would break." You knew the risks, and you still went on with the action.
Obviously I say you have to make up for him somehow, because you did insult him. You can't just ignore that, that's like ignoring an accident! So tell me, when you unintentionally hit someone with a car (and doesn't die), isn't your responsibility FIRST to call 911 or bring him yourself to the hospital? You have to make up for him, even if you did it unintentionally.
Quote:
No, it's not. It's only torture if you are doing something to them, not abstaining from doing something. Does that mean that I'm torturing starving children in Africa by not giving them food right now?
If you GAVE THEM that life, or you forced them there, then yes. Like I said, the fetus doesn't appear out of the blue.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 08:09 PM |
|
|
Ok, Death, two interesting quotes from mvass' article posted earlier.
Quote:
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die.
NOTE: don't start with "You gave life to the fetus, you take care of it", because the above text is about parent and a child, and as far as I know, the parent did give life to the child
Quote:
Similarly, in a future world where babies may be born in extra-uterine devices ("test tubes"), again the parents would have the legal right to "pull the plug" on the fetuses or, rather, to refuse to pay to continue the plug in place.
This is EXACTLY what abortion does.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, Death, two interesting quotes from mvass' article posted earlier.
I already explained how ridiculous that is. Please don't make me repeat myself, but here goes anyway:
Quote:
But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
I disagree. The parent should not have the legal right not to feed the child. Why? Because he gave the child life -- he can't let him die (see below). Of course, he needs to supply the necessary components for the child to live. Why? Because the child can't even have an income, by this "so-perfect" law. Seriously this sounds like a criminal attacking a helpless person -- you attack the child (as he can't work) by not feeding him, the child that you gave life to.
Let's take the suicide example again. Suppose that the child can 'suicide' before he is born, and trust me he wants to do that if you are going to let him starve. Wouldn't you do it? Would you rather die of hunger?
So by giving him this miserable life to starve to death -- it's like you violate the right for him to take his own life, so to speak. Giving him life for a moment, then deciding that you let him starve is much worse than not existing at all. Why do you think people rather die than be tortured?
You give him a miserable life, you violate his rights. Plain and simple. How do we decide if it's miserable? Let the child decide (since we are talking about a child right now). If the child suffers of hunger, obviously you violated his right when you gave him life.
It's like giving him something really. He can be either insulted or happy. He is insulted if you let him starve. He is happy if you supply food to him (as he CANNOT). The latter case does not violate his rights because he lets you do it (children want to live with food).
Miserable = a life which you would not want (i.e starve to death). Simple as that.
As long as the child dies because of hunger, then that is objective proof that he suffered -- thus you violated his rights. It's not subjective (like: "I hate you because you don't buy me a computer")
Quote:
Similarly, in a future world where babies may be born in extra-uterine devices ("test tubes"), again the parents would have the legal right to "pull the plug" on the fetuses or, rather, to refuse to pay to continue the plug in place.
I disagree completely. For one, you can't give them life and then refuse to feed them -- that is torture. See above with the 'violate' rights thing.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
