|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 08, 2008 05:26 PM |
|
|
The idea is that without hiring him, he would still starve! Unlike the fetus, which without conception, does not 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 05:46 PM |
|
|
The comparison is to feeding the fetus, not to conceiving it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 06:39 PM |
|
|
I thought it went like this:
Guy is employed = Fetus is conceived
Guy works = Fetus is fed
Guy is fired = Fetus is let to starve?
So basically, you see if the Guy was Bill Gates before being employed, he wouldn't suffer from being fired. However if he was poor, then he does. What is interesting however is that the Boss has no relationship with that guy -- and this is talking before he is even employed! I mean, the boss didn't really put him in the society where he starves, someone else did. (unless the guy is a cavemen and dragged by the boss to society, which would be an entirely different situation!)
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 07:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bill Gates
Bill Gates will allways and must be the boss in any dimension so long he creates Microsoft. FAIL!
*draws back the tie statement*
Ok. The mother does not really have a personal reliationship with the fetus, its just growing inside her body til it are ready to be born.
The real relationship starts after that, maybe equal to a promotion of greater levels?
I would love to enforce a law that bans fireing people so long abortion is not legal enogh(lets say its banned, or it have to be decided "weither or not it will happen" by a group picked by the goverment).
PS: The group exist in most country's but they only come in after a certain amount of weeks(quite some i think).
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 07:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok. The mother does not really have a personal reliationship with the fetus, its just growing inside her body til it are ready to be born.
The mother has that relationship when she conceives the fetus
Quote:
I would love to enforce a law that bans fireing people so long abortion is not legal enogh(lets say its banned, or it have to be decided "weither or not it will happen" by a group picked by the goverment).
The boss has no 'relationship' with that guy, unless he dragged him into the society or condition in which he starves (which is obviously not the case in the example).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Guy is employed = Fetus is conceived
Guy works = Fetus is fed
Guy is fired = Fetus is let to starve?
Ah, yes, that's right. It's not my analogy, so... 
Quote:
So basically, you see if the Guy was Bill Gates before being employed, he wouldn't suffer from being fired. However if he was poor, then he does.
But what if while he was working, he suddennly became poor and dependent. Or if he started out poor and nearly starving, and you gave him a job and made him dependent on you.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 08:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Guy is employed = Fetus is conceived
Guy works = Fetus is fed
Guy is fired = Fetus is let to starve?
Ah, yes, that's right. It's not my analogy, so...
Ok then I missed the point of it.
Quote:
But what if while he was working, he suddennly became poor and dependent. Or if he started out poor and nearly starving, and you gave him a job and made him dependent on you.
But I doubt that the 'suddenly' part is because he was employed (personal affairs are not the boss' business). You may have made him dependent on you, but remember that he was not into the let's say, miserable situation, because of the boss in this case
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 09:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But I doubt that the 'suddenly' part is because he was employed
It can happen suddenly, out of nowhere. It CAN happen, but is not that likely.
The scenarion is that is happens, and that is the case.
Its like being a lawyer in the high court, and you talk about lemonade when the case is about juice.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 09:58 PM |
|
|
|
Yes it can happen 'suddenly' but not because he was employed or because of his boss.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 08, 2008 11:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes it can happen 'suddenly' but not because he was employed or because of his boss.
The point is: This is what the argument is about: "the boss fireing his employ".
What factors is around it, is not even importent. Exepct the fact the employ needed the job.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 01:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But I doubt that the 'suddenly' part is because he was employed
Well, what if he was working, and something happened while he was gone? Like to his children, or something. And the medical costs impovershed him. If he was at home, he could've prevented whatever happened (let's say that the kids were playing with a knife and cut themselves very badly). But he wasn't, because he was at work. And now he's dependent.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 02:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What factors is around it, is not even importent. Exepct the fact the employ needed the job.
The 'firing' stuff isn't important unless the boss was involved with the employee's personal problems, which he isn't. Whether he fires him or not is not relevant unless he is 'associated' with him in a way or responsible for him.
Quote:
Well, what if he was working, and something happened while he was gone? Like to his children, or something. And the medical costs impovershed him. If he was at home, he could've prevented whatever happened (let's say that the kids were playing with a knife and cut themselves very badly). But he wasn't, because he was at work. And now he's dependent.
Yeah but he wasn't forced to work, thus whatever happened at home is absolutely not the boss' fault. And whether the employee has some retarded kids doesn't have anything to do with the boss, UNLESS the boss is the one who brought the kids into that situation (e.g: he used that virus as in the example!), but obviously he didn't...
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 09:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What factors is around it, is not even importent. Exepct the fact the employ needed the job.
The 'firing' stuff isn't important unless the boss was involved with the employee's personal problems
Then accidental pregnancy should totaly allow abortion. It is that simple.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 09:33 PM |
|
|
Hmm, isn't the mother (and the guy) the one responsible for the accident, or is there someone else involved? 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2008 10:52 PM |
|
|
Certainly not, because the fetus is not present at the time of the accident.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 02:56 PM |
|
|
You did not get what I said
The accident = breaking the condom or whatever.
And since there's no one else to blame except the mother & guy, then they are responsible for this accident. What you said only strengthens my point
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 04:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And since there's no one else to blame except the mother & guy, then they are responsible for this accident. What you said only strengthens my point
But you are not banning bosses from fireing employs that needs the pay.
You are against the idea of abortion, when the abortion will save the mothers attempt to become someting in society?! It was a accident, and how can you kill someting with no mind and is not "really" alive?
And you cannot blame anybody in a real accident, blaming belongs to the concept of Sin. Its very ugly. If there was a earthquake at X, and some buildings collapsed............. we can then blame the goverment for not ording the companies who buildt them to build them so they would not collapse like a cardhouse. In this situation somebody can be blamed.
However when a condoms brakes, there is nobody to blame. If there was allready planned to have a baby sooner or later, there will be no abortion.
If the mother however is in a high-level school that got a insane stress level, and she NEEDS the education........... the pregnancy would ruin the education to a point of noreturn, and the schoolarship would become a debt if she fails the schoolyear.
You would not mind fireing a employ that needs the pay very much, why is it then that you go against the will of the pregnant. The rigths of her own body, to let her decide on her own.
You are for a free market and people are allowed to have full rigths, why are you against abortion then? People that want to achive someting and get pregnant, will in +90% of the cases have their achiveable dreams will be shattered into dust.
Sorry for typing so much, but i wanted to do so.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 04:19 PM |
|
|
I'll use quote wars, and you know why? Because whatever I write in each part is a repetition, just so you'll know (if you don't want quote wars, then I'm sorry and will never do it again for this repetition-case).
Quote:
But you are not banning bosses from fireing employs that needs the pay.
Because the boss has no connection to the previous life of the employee
Quote:
And you cannot blame anybody in a real accident, blaming belongs to the concept of Sin. Its very ugly. If there was a earthquake at X, and some buildings collapsed............. we can then blame the goverment for not ording the companies who buildt them to build them so they would not collapse like a cardhouse. In this situation somebody can be blamed.
just as in the case of abortion.
Quote:
However when a condoms brakes, there is nobody to blame. If there was allready planned to have a baby sooner or later, there will be no abortion.
The condom doesn't "brake" by itself
Quote:
If the mother however is in a high-level school that got a insane stress level, and she NEEDS the education........... the pregnancy would ruin the education to a point of noreturn, and the schoolarship would become a debt if she fails the schoolyear.
If she NEEDS the education, then she doesn't have sex, if there is a chance for the fetus, period.
Let me spell it out. If the pregnancy would ruin her education, it is a fair sentence to me, because after all it was her fault. Simple.
Why should an innocent fetus be blamed and suffer (abortion) because someone else (the mother) made the accident?
The mother is not the VICTIM here (losing the education and all that), the fetus is. I can't understand how you can have sympathy for her when it was only her fault that the accident happened -- that is, the accident doesn't happen by itself.
And it was no "duty" accident either (such as education). The mother wants to "get away" with this easily, by simply putting the blame on the fetus (trespassing her body). Mind you, when she is responsible for the accident, then she is blamed.
Quote:
You would not mind fireing a employ that needs the pay very much, why is it then that you go against the will of the pregnant.
Oh, if the employee was responsible for his attitude (e.g: he disgraced the boss), then it is perfectly fine for the boss to fire him.
If the employee wanted to have some "fun" in his office and blew something up (accident), it is perfectly fine for the boss to fire him, period.
Quote:
The rigths of her own body, to let her decide on her own.
You are for a free market and people are allowed to have full rigths, why are you against abortion then? People that want to achive someting and get pregnant, will in +90% of the cases have their achiveable dreams will be shattered into dust.
Because I am against murder too, you know.. I wouldn't call it a "free economy".
what I wrote above is stuff I said 5 pages ago, so it's kinda pointless to argue with it if you have done in the past.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 04:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The accident = breaking the condom or whatever
Exactly. The fetus isn't there at the time of the accident, so its rights are not violated by it.
Quote:
Why should an innocent fetus be blamed and suffer (abortion) because someone else (the mother) made the accident?
Do you ever get the feeling that we're just going around in circles? Again, at what point are the fetus's rights violated? Conception? It isn't there before conception, so even if life were inherently negative (which it isn't), its rights can't be violated at that point because it doesn't exist. At the point of getting the fetus out of the mother? The mother has no obligation to carry the fetus to term. She has made no such contract with anybody. When the fetus starves? The fetus has no right to anybody else's food. You may argue that it is the mother's obligation to feed the fetus, because she is the one who put him into that situation. But at what point is the fetus put into that situation, then?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2008 04:43 PM |
|
|
Well we already discussed the things with "rights" even in the Moral Philosophy thread, and I told you they are based on the law, which is relative (thus subjective). Rights are not violated at a single instant in time.
Quote:
You may argue that it is the mother's obligation to feed the fetus, because she is the one who put him into that situation. But at what point is the fetus put into that situation, then?
When? When he lives obviously!
I mean, if I take sperm, and an egg, and artificially fertilize it, then whoever gets out of there is put there by me -- obviously, even if I feed it. Fortunately, babies don't want to suicide (at least until they can feed themselves), thus the mother has to feed them (since that's what they want; and since she was the one who put them in that situation).
I'm not talking about subjective rights. I'm talking about the direct impact one person has over another. (please read "direct" carefully). That is, a fetus can't starve if it isn't conceived. Thus, the mother (and the guy) are directly responsible if the fetus starves. It's an impact on its life. A direct one (not a competition where it is indirect).
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
