Because we tend not to do so without a very good reason.
A crime would have been comitted, at least I would assume it would do so not knowing the exactities of the law. I suspect it would be judged to be murder.
In my opinion, no, I have not violated that entity’s rights, because there is no entity. Of course, that tends to be complicated in that I don’t believe in rights except those which are guaranteed by law and the like; I don’t believe in inherent rights. But if I did, I suspect I would assign those rights to persons, and there is no person in that situation (well, besides me). It would certainly trouble me, because many people, the man’s family and friends and the like, would be very upset. Also, i’d be arrested and possibly killed myself, which tends not to be the best motivation to do something. And on a personal level, I doubt I could actually do it, but that’s more of an emotional reaction rather than intellectual.
But they do have programming that will lead to “personhood,” if we define that as one who possesses consciousness or higher brain functions. They just didn’t possess it previously.
I understand you right up to the point where you would treat the temporary flatliner differently (I think that’s what you’re saying), since that entity cannot reflect upon anything. Can you clarify your Blalron.exe point?
Okay. I understand your position. Though I don’t agree with it, it’s at least consistent. I would argue (I’m suspect you can surmise) that such a person does have rights that could be violated. But I acknowledge that for me it’s simply axiomatic that any entity possessing or capable of human consciousness is a person, just as other axioms prevail for others. I’d also speculate, not that this makes my argument, that most people would agree that the flatliner does have rights, that to kill such an being would be to commit a wrong not just to his loved ones, but to him.
The problem for me is the “capable” part. It to me suggests that while certainly that ability may come in time - either with development in the case of a fetus or with medical attention on the part of the flatliner - it is not there currently. And that while the hardware may be there, or may be there with time and the various outside help it requires to work, the software is not yet, and it is the software that I look to when determining personhood.
And i’d agree with your final speculation - my view is definetly uncommon. I’d make my own speculation that my view isn’t just incorrect for many people, but quite repugnant. So no, I have no disagreement to that last part. If anything, the general wishes of the majority are a good argument in my book just as those more specific ones of the family and friends.
Show me where your sincere belief that a foetus is a person trumps my universally acknowledged legal right to autonomy and bodily integrity.
If you believe that abortion is always wrong you condemn 1 in 10,000 women in the first world and 11% of women in the third world to death and many more to long term physical and psychological morbidity.
Because there has been at least one case where a woman was unable to vaginally deliver an early second trimester non-viable foetus due to a uterine abnormality and required hysterotomy- this was after medical induction of uterine contractions (failed medical T.O.P.). The same uterine abnormailty which prevented vaginal delivery of the foetus also prevented a surgical trans-cervical termination of the pregnancy by D&E. Again, this was a wanted pregnancy terminated due to a foetal abnormality discovered at 14 weeks which was incompatible with life.
Universally acknowledged? It’s not “universally” acknowledged in this thread, for Pete’s sake. There are millions of people who believe that woman (and men) have a right to autonomy and bodily integrity (to a certain extent), but that this right is trumped by the unborn’s right to live. I’m not saying there aren’t many who agree with you, but you’re begging the question.
And you don’t have autonomy and bodily integrity in the U.S. even outside the discussion of abortion. There are all kinds of things you can’t do with your body, however much anyone would prefer otherwise.
You do see the point, I assume, that if someone believes differently, the “good for you” is turned around–there are over a million people “condemned” in the U.S. alone every year. They just happen to be unborn.
Yes, I’d agree that most people would be appalled at the prospect of the flatlined guy not being legally protected (or ethically, or whatever). For you, would the general wishes of the majority be sufficient reason to make abortion illegal, if most people were so inclined? Just curious.
inalienable rights (def.) Rights that cannot be justly denied. Rights retained by the people; no matter even if construed to be denied by law or constitution.
Stratocaster is correct. The equal and inalienable rights of all are routinely denied by tyrants. What Stratocaster and those of his mark do not seem to understand is that denial makes those rights no less inalienable.
And that is why there is strife; and that is why we are at war.
We are at war because I’m pro-life? There is strife because of me and “those of my mark”? Sheesh. Kind of makes me think of myself with a bit more respect; I never knew I was that powerful. Kneel, all you vanquished pro-choicers–kneel before my glory! Look on my works, all ye mighty, and despair!
By the way, you join the proud tradition established earlier in this thread of begging the question. What makes this a right that cannot justly be denied? Or is that simply a given for you?
It is not that you are pro-life; it is that you seem to judge and condemn sin as crime.
It is possible to be pro-life and still forgive the sin of abortion.
We are at war against those that judge and condemn sin as crime.
You just happen to judge and condemn and persecute a different sin.
I hold all are born with the inalienable right of liberty. Tyrants do not.
Please Forgive
r~
The mark of the beast is revealed by those that judge and condemn sin.
I am glad if you do, but I am not convinced you know the difference between sin and crime.
Liberty is the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness.
Crime is the denial of liberty.
Murder and robbery are not crime because they are against written Law.
Murder and robbery are crime because they deny liberty.
No law can be justly construed to deny the self-retained rights of the people.
No one has the right to take from another’s body without permission.
All have the right to protect their life and health.
Abortion is a sin; still it seems you would judge and condemn sin as ‘crime’.
In the most general view, it’s usually better to go with a democratic approach, if only for the sake of keeping democracy going. Taking everything into account… i’m honestly not sure. My metric is usually not just what would make most people happy, but what would potentially make most people happy in the future. I’d have to think that yes, that would be acceptable to me, but it would require a very significant majority and exclude attempts to doubly/triply/super-protect that law so that it couldn’t be repealed.
Thank you for the question, by the way. I’ve had to devote considerable time to thinking through it, and I think I may continue to do so.