Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on May 02, 2006, 12:24:00 pm
-
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm
-
Very interesting. I think if someone wants to sacrify himself for another person, he should have the right to do so.
-
Is it bad that I voted "Yes" for each one without hesitation?
-
Well, in two of those situations hesitation would case the death of people, but in the other two, taking a moment to think about it would be advisable, IMO.
-
My opinions about these mentioned dilemmae.
#1. The violinist is *not* comparable with a fetus. A fetus is not capable of sentient life, and if it is terminated early enough, it will never be. No harm done. Things become different when the fetus becomes a baby (that is, not yet born but having all the organs on the right place and having cerebral activity). A child at this stage should not be aborted any more, and in most countries it is actually outlawed after this point, save for cases where both the life of mum and baby are endangered.
At this point, however, the thing that separates the unborn child (not fetus any more) from the violinist is the following: The mother had the chance to take the test and abort the fetus before this point - she didn't, so she has already made her choice - to give birth. About the violinist, one is not given any kind of choice beforehand, so the situations just aren't analogous enough for this thought test to have any significant relevance about opinions of abortion.
Shortly, I'd have no obligation to stay connected - whether I'd do so would greatly depend on many other things than the survival of the violinist, mainly my current life situation and how good the violinist is. Probably I'd stay connected if I'd be allowed to stay in contact with my close ones.
#2. I'd definitely flip the switch. This is simple arithmethics and doesn't require complex philosophical analysis. The death of the single person cannot be seen as intentional murder IMO - at most it could be seen as a manslaughter, but even so - the choice not to act could equally be seen as five involuntary manslaughters. And in both cases, the true reason wor all this happening is criminal incompetence of the railroad workers, or perhaps a mechanical failure, or anything you don't have control over.
#3. This is the most interesting one.
I'd definitely not push the Fat Man because I still can't know for sure whether he'll stop the trolley or not. The trolley could keep going and kill the five people in addition to te Fat Man. At worst, it could result in the trolley flipping and causing its gasoline load to detonate, killing not only the Fat Man but also the five man further, me, and perhaps dozens of bystanders waiting for their turn to decide the Fat Man's fate.
#4. No caver could possibly be that stupid. Not only do they have a possibility to go through beginning from the smallest one, they also have the means of making the hole bigger from the very beginning.
What a bunch of morons, really. Thus I'd hope that they detonate that fricking dynamite and get buried alive when the roof collapses. What they should've done is to send those who fit through away first, then use the TNT to expand the hole and wish it wouldn't collapse the whole cave system upon them.
All in all, these situations are actually only relevant as they are - they are almost impossible to connect to real life situations.
-
I voted yes on all of them, the one with the Fat Man is exactly the same as the one preceding it in my view.
-
Could you be more elaborate?
Why do you think the #2 and #3 are effectively the same? I don't think they are. It's all about possibilities IMO. On #2 you have two choices: a chance of 5 people dying and a chance of 1 person dying. A chance of 1 person dying would be less bad than chance of 5 people dying; therefore flipping the swithc would be a "right" choice.
However, on #3 you have also two choices: a chance of 5 people dying and certainty of one death. I wouldn't push the Fat Man because there would be a slight chance that the five people would notice the trolley and get off the track in time to prevent the accident. Of course that just shows that these thought test are just that, and very weakly (if at all) applicable to reality.
So, I'd not dare to doom the Fat Man to certain death under the trolley, even if it would reduce the chances of the five people dying. Because a chance of death is not a certain death, pushing the man under the trolley is not analogous with flipping the switch. I challenge you to counter this logics.
-
I look at it that, in the case of the Fat Man, you have no right to make those decisions for other people. I'd rather throw myself in front of it and just buy those people time than premeditate the concept of pushing someone else to their certain death. Remember, if the people don't die, there's no way of proving that they might have (Much like people who save the world never get enough recognition, because, obviously, there's still a world, so who says it was really in that much danger?)
Even then, I'd probably chicken out, but there you go.
-
Voted no in everyone. If life is priceless, five times priceless is still priceless. So in that twisted kind of logic 1=5.
People should decide their own fates, not that of other people.
-
Could you be more elaborate?
Why do you think the #2 and #3 are effectively the same? I don't think they are. It's all about possibilities IMO. On #2 you have two choices: a chance of 5 people dying and a chance of 1 person dying. A chance of 1 person dying would be less bad than chance of 5 people dying; therefore flipping the swithc would be a "right" choice.
However, on #3 you have also two choices: a chance of 5 people dying and certainty of one death. I wouldn't push the Fat Man because there would be a slight chance that the five people would notice the trolley and get off the track in time to prevent the accident. Of course that just shows that these thought test are just that, and very weakly (if at all) applicable to reality.
So, I'd not dare to doom the Fat Man to certain death under the trolley, even if it would reduce the chances of the five people dying. Because a chance of death is not a certain death, pushing the man under the trolley is not analogous with flipping the switch. I challenge you to counter this logics.
He would certainly block the trolley
-
Well they presented a simple scenario. You don't have to wonder whether the Fat Man would stop the trolley, he would. And you don't have to wonder whether you could - you couldn't. In that case, it's only a matter of people being averse to doing the dirty work themselves, since almost everyone answers Yes to Question 2. Flip a switch or push a Fat Man, the result is the same, only your promixity to the deed is different.
Voted no in everyone. If life is priceless, five times priceless is still priceless. So in that twisted kind of logic 1=5.
Actually, I came up with the opposite conclusion some time ago. Let's say that you hear 1000 people have died in an earthquake in India. You are certainly distressed and mourn the loss of life. Now let's say that you hear 1001 people have been killed. Is you mourning any greater because of that one person? Likely not. So that person is worthless. And if his value is 0, then everyone else's value is 0, and human life is valueless. In that case, 1000=1001, and the only way that equation can be equal is by putting 0 on both sides.
Not necessarily something I agree with, but it's an interesting thought.
-
Exactly, simply shouting 'Look out!!' might have saved everyone. It does tend to present the options in such a way as to suggest that these are the only choices you have. There is no 'Correct or Incorrect' answer.
Most legal systems, in fact, would demand that you did nothing. By doing nothing, 5 people may get killed in a horrible accident, if you flip the switch, you have murdered one person and would be prosecuted for it.
-
The Violinist analogy is too flawed.
1. It plays on your emotions by saying that you were kidnapped, and therefore makes you dislike the Music Appreciation Society, and makes you want to go against their wishes in order to spite them.
2. AFAIK, you do not need to spend your entire pregnancy in a bed at a hospital hooked up to a machine. This imagery put forth by the story is horrifying, and makes you want to leave the situation more.
The story pushes you in the direction that the writer wants you to go.
-
Ah, let's be mathematic-philosophical then.
I think we can consider human consciense as restricted entity, yes? So, this in itself defines a maximum value of "priceless", thus making it smaller than mathematical constant known as "infinity".
Thus, if we mark "priceless" as "p", we end up with following unequation:
1*p < 5*p | (...) / p
note that becuse we just defined "priceless" being "non-infinite" due to limitations of human mind, "p"s contract off and the equation shows us that
1<5
which is, frankly, true.
Even if we want to view "priceless" as "infinity", we can take on the concept of Limes, which helps to understand this kind of things.
Let us say that a value of life closes the infinity without limits. Thus, a value of life is
V = Lim x
x->Infinity
Thus, comparision can be made:
1 V < 5 V
Lim x < 5*Lim x
x->Infinity x->Infinity
Here we can see that whereas x does get closer and closer to infinity, the comparision can still be made because regardless of how high the curve gets, 5 times almost infinity is more than almost infinity. Thus, five lifes is more valuable, even if a value of a single life would close infinity without bounds.
If, however, we take a position of a hypothetical God observing the situation and for some reason feeling intereted enough to compare the values of five lifes to a single life, he'd probably take one glance, define the value of human life from His viewpoint as infinitely small, closing to zero, and form a following equation:
V = Lim 1/x
x->Infinity
Lim 1/x < 5 *Lim 1/x
x->Infinity x->Infinity
Even at this case, we notice that even when the value of a life observed from God's viewpoint closes zero without limits, at certain given value five times the value is still greater than the value itself.
So, mathematically and philosophically it is insufficient to say that 5 times infinite is infinite, because human mind doesn't comprehend infinities well enough to handle them properly without help of Limes, the magical thing that enagbles the differential equations to work and other nice stuff like that. Nice little thing it is.
Anyway, 5 lifes > 1 life, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
:lol: :p :rolleyes: :nervous:
Kie: The Fat Man would certainly block the trolley (what kinda crap light trolley is that? How would I ever manage to heave a fat enough man to stop a frickin' trolley to the track in the first place?), but there can not be certainty about the five people dying. Except in a think test.
-
Ah, let's be mathematic-philosophical then.
I think we can consider human consciense as restricted entity, yes? So, this in itself defines a maximum value of "priceless", thus making it smaller than mathematical constant known as "infinity".
Thus, if we mark "priceless" as "p", we end up with following unequation:
1*p < 5*p | (...) / p
note that becuse we just defined "priceless" being "non-infinite" due to limitations of human mind, "p"s contract off and the equation shows us that
1<5
which is, frankly, true.
Even if we want to view "priceless" as "infinity", we can take on the concept of Limes, which helps to understand this kind of things.
Let us say that a value of life closes the infinity without limits. Thus, a value of life is
V = Lim x
x->Infinity
Thus, comparision can be made:
1 V < 5 V
Lim x < 5*Lim x
x->Infinity x->Infinity
Here we can see that whereas x does get closer and closer to infinity, the comparision can still be made because regardless of how high the curve gets, 5 times almost infinity is more than almost infinity. Thus, five lifes is more valuable, even if a value of a single life would close infinity without bounds.
If, however, we take a position of a hypothetical God observing the situation and for some reason feeling intereted enough to compare the values of five lifes to a single life, he'd probably take one glance, define the value of human life from His viewpoint as infinitely small, closing to zero, and form a following equation:
V = Lim 1/x
x->Infinity
Lim 1/x < 5 *Lim 1/x
x->Infinity x->Infinity
Even at this case, we notice that even when the value of a life observed from God's viewpoint closes zero without limits, at certain given value five times the value is still greater than the value itself.
So, mathematically and philosophically it is insufficient to say that 5 times infinite is infinite, because human mind doesn't comprehend infinities well enough to handle them properly without help of Limes, the magical thing that enagbles the differential equations to work and other nice stuff like that. Nice little thing it is.
Anyway, 5 lifes > 1 life, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
:lol: :p :rolleyes: :nervous:
Kie: The Fat Man would certainly block the trolley (what kinda crap light trolley is that? How would I ever manage to heave a fat enough man to stop a frickin' trolley to the track in the first place?), but there can not be certainty about the five people dying. Except in a think test.
Limit towards infinite != value in infinite
(Yes, I'm being an ass) :p
-
The Violinist analogy is too flawed.
1. It plays on your emotions by saying that you were kidnapped, and therefore makes you dislike the Music Appreciation Society, and makes you want to go against their wishes in order to spite them.
2. AFAIK, you do not need to spend your entire pregnancy in a bed at a hospital hooked up to a machine. This imagery put forth by the story is horrifying, and makes you want to leave the situation more.
The story pushes you in the direction that the writer wants you to go.
Well, it is an analogy. I'd imagine point 1 relates the the issue of an unwanted pregnancy, and point 2 attempts to address the fact that pregnancy has long term physical effects. I think the sentience/cogniscence issue Herra Tohtori mentioned is the most important one, though.
-
Ghostavo: Limit towards infinite != value in infinite
Yes, I know, but it doesn't change the fact that if you start tracking two curves - y=x and y=5x, x being a value of single life, you notice that y=5x is always higher than y=x, and the real problem is that you never get to infinity, so substituting infinite value as a value of human life is not really feasible, as I already said in first example.
Be it very big, but value of life cannot be infinite by definition of the universe itself, and boundaries of our conscience. Priceless it may be, but again, we define priceless inside our own limitations.
Oh, and don't bother being an ass. It's good for other people's circulation. :D
Be the human value anything whatsoever, it doesn't change the fundamental difference between the "flip switch" and "fat man" situations.
On "flip switch" I save five lifes and put one life in a similar risk as those five people used to be, by choosing to act.
On "fat man" scenario I save five lifes, but doom one life onto certain death or at least serious injury by choosing to act. In my opinion, there is a certain difference between the situations. After-wisdom doesn't help; I cannot know for sure will the five people be on the tracks when the trolley gets there. Neither can I know will the lonely person still be standing there when the turned trolley would get there. But I can know for sure that the trolley will hit the fat man if i manage to dump him off the platform. Don't forget that he must be quite heavy to be able to block a train trolley.
On neither of these scenarios can I surely know that the trolley does any damage in the end. And that is the more important point than whether human life has a value of zero, infinite or somewhere between.
-
On neither of these scenarios can I surely know that the trolley does any damage in the end. And that is the more important point than whether human life has a value of zero, infinite or somewhere between.
The point of the scenarios RE: the tram is knowing - or trying to know - how you would react in that exact scenario if you had exact knowledge & certainty of the consequences. It is not intended to be realistic in the sense of uncertainty about outcomes, it is a test of how you value those outcomes given the actions required for each and the consequential responsibility you would feel you held.
-
Limit towards infinite != value in infinite
Actually values of functions at "infinity" are almost always simply defined as just that. :p
-
Limit towards infinite != value in infinite
Actually values of functions at "infinity" are almost always simply defined as just that. :p
Gah... this is the last time I mix a philosophical issue with math.
Anyway my point is since since both values are too high (IMO) to be regarded as real values (no joke :p), they can be considered equal for all pratical purposes
Damn you people and your fancy limits and derivatives :p
-
The point of the scenarios RE: the tram is knowing - or trying to know - how you would react in that exact scenario if you had exact knowledge & certainty of the consequences. It is not intended to be realistic in the sense of uncertainty about outcomes, it is a test of how you value those outcomes given the actions required for each and the consequential responsibility you would feel you held.
Yep, they are overly simplified scenarios, I can agree to that. And that's why I think they fail to do what they should (to collect information about ethic decision making in theoretical situations), because they are thoretica lsituations badly hooked to real world. By tho poll results I think it's safe to say that almost all who come across this problem first think it like that - through possibilities, trying to automatically find holes out of the horrendous situation.
In this example I said it cannot be known that the trolley will hit the group of five, or the single man. And there is no way a person could actually have full knowledge of the consequences during the decision. And, as people tend to link imaginary situations to real life, they handle the thinking test that way, too. Most people automatically realize that by turning the switch they reduce a possibility of accident and also reduce the worst possible outcome. They (like I) also find it very disturbing idea to personally push the fat man to the tracks to stop the five men from dying. That is also because they automatically understand that if they push the man down, he is certainly dead, but there might yet be a possibility that the five men hear the trolley and get out of the way.
A better example would be like this (nothing personal, Carl - you just happened to snag my lunch yesterday ;) ) :
Carl, our resident Shivan, has in his mingled mind made a plot to measure the ethic build of human race. He has emprisoned all HLP forumites in a Sathanas - exept for you and [a random HLP forumite]. He explains to you through ETAK that you can easily save all other HLP forumites - but you must personally kill [a random HLP forumite].
What do you do? If you refuse to kill [a random HLP forumite], Carl the Shivan sets the Sathanas off to a nearby sun, destroying all the HLP forumites exept yourself and [a random HLP forumite], leaving you vulnerable to vicious n00b attacks asking about FS3 and with endless questions about getting some mission or a model to work... (well, there's always karajorma's faq so it wouldn't be so bad, but still).
On the other hand, if you do Carl the Shivan's bidding and kill [a random HLP forumite], all other forumites are saved from the Sathanas and are able to return to forums. You know Carl the Shivan does not lie to you, because he has no need to.
EDIT(for audience's request): You have been almost totally paralyzed by a Shivan drug (their version of spacecrack) and you can only move your right index finger to press button A that kills [random HLP forumite] and B that sets him free and causes the death of everyone else on HLP.
(did you really think Carl would be that easy an opponent? Really, "attack a shivan", we saw that in Hallfight. :D Also, the captured HLP forumites are under the influence of the same Shivan drug so they too can't do a thing (except wave their index fingers and occasionally middle fingers, too).
What is your fateful decision? :drevil:
-
Yep, they are overly simplified scenarios, I can agree to that. And that's why I think they fail to do what they should (to collect information about ethic decision making in theoretical situations), because they are thoretica lsituations badly hooked to real world. By tho poll results I think it's safe to say that almost all who come across this problem first think it like that - through possibilities, trying to automatically find holes out of the horrendous situation.
In this example I said it cannot be known that the trolley will hit the group of five, or the single man. And there is no way a person could actually have full knowledge of the consequences during the decision. And, as people tend to link imaginary situations to real life, they handle the thinking test that way, too. Most people automatically realize that by turning the switch they reduce a possibility of accident and also reduce the worst possible outcome. They (like I) also find it very disturbing idea to personally push the fat man to the tracks to stop the five men from dying. That is also because they automatically understand that if they push the man down, he is certainly dead, but there might yet be a possibility that the five men hear the trolley and get out of the way.
You're citing a problem with people not properly reading the test, though. The whole purpose of the scenarios is to avoid the sort of clouded 'what if' type thinking. Whether or not the human mind is capable of reading direct scenarios as direct is arguable part of the cognition process; in any case the test is intended to expose (not so much a test, just handy terminology) your weighting of known consequences against personal contribution. It's directly targeting how we view the difference between direct action and inaction (i.e. killing a fat bloke directly, or pulling a switch) and weight that against our responsibility for the conesquences. By introducing any uncertainty as the description, you are actually subverting that purpose of the test; although your description is exactly the same as the fat-man test, you've just put it in an outlandish context that obscures the seriousness of such a scenario and thus the direct comprehension.
-
I actually remember reading an article about the exactly same test (effectively) a few years back.
It was cited that most people would indeed without hesitation flip the switch, but also that most wouldn't push the fat man unfer the trolley. This was interpreted that the people haven't got so much difficulties with causing a death indirectly by switching the track of the trolley, but are very disturbed by pushing the man onto death personally. But I think it's actually more like that people identify themselves in the situation and automatically analyze it along real-life standards. And this leads in most cases to seen end result - most people choosing to flip the switch but not to push the man.
I don't think it's conscious or intentional. I didn't realize how I decided that way until I started debating about it. Perhaps the researchers have made the example too close to real life, so that people automatically have the ability to consider the hidden possibilities in the scene, even though the actual example doesn't state them existing.
Nice little abstract thingsies might be much better suited for this, but of course they wouldn't be so emotion-inducing.
-
1. no, I shouldn't be obligated to stay, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't, provided there was something in it for me
2. I said no, however the question is should you push switch, not would you flip it, which present different dilemnas. No, you shouldn't condemn one person to death to save 5 people, but that's not to say I wouldn't
3. No, again, similar to number 2, only this time playing a more active role in killing the one person.
4. Yes, if you are dumb enough to send the fattest guy up first and he gets stuck, blast his ass out of there.
-
Personally, I put a very low value on human life, so i'd not only leave the violinist to die, i'd steal his violin. Not only would I not flip the switch, and i'd push the fat guy only after the tram had passed, and then i'd pick the valuables off the corpses. Regarding the guy in the cave, well, i'd shove that dynamite right up his arse if it meant saving my own.
-
What is your fateful decision? :drevil:
That this question is even worse than the original one. What if you attack the Shivan? What if you evacuate. What if you sieze control of the Sathanas.
-
#2. I'd definitely flip the switch. This is simple arithmethics and doesn't require complex philosophical analysis. The death of the single person cannot be seen as intentional murder IMO - at most it could be seen as a manslaughter, but even so - the choice not to act could equally be seen as five involuntary manslaughters. And in both cases, the true reason wor all this happening is criminal incompetence of the railroad workers, or perhaps a mechanical failure, or anything you don't have control over.
It's scary that you approach the problems this way. Are you a lawyer or an American?
ROFL @ Mefustae. You dirty bastard, I'd hate to have my life resting in your hands! :p
-
#2. I'd definitely flip the switch. This is simple arithmethics and doesn't require complex philosophical analysis. The death of the single person cannot be seen as intentional murder IMO - at most it could be seen as a manslaughter, but even so - the choice not to act could equally be seen as five involuntary manslaughters. And in both cases, the true reason wor all this happening is criminal incompetence of the railroad workers, or perhaps a mechanical failure, or anything you don't have control over.
It's scary that you approach the problems this way. Are you a lawyer or an American?
Are you referring to the fact I view the problem from the point of arithmancy or that I was kinda responding to the claim that flipping the switch would be intentional murder? :D
Actually I'm neither American or a lawyer, but if needed I can think like one. Not that I do it often, it tends to expose one to mental illness, as demonstrated by current US establishment, many of whom are both... :nervous:
[EDIT: Clarification: I'm not really concerned about getting my ass sued about what I'd do or do not. I wouldn't probably hold myself responsible for any death occurring - be it five or one - as I would have had no part in getting the trolley loose in the first place. So if I did all I could to minimize damage (that is, in my point of view, to flip the switch) I think I shouldn't blame myself for the one death that occurred instead of five.
However I can't know a. what I would really do in a situation like that and b. what I would feel like afterwards. I would definitely feel bad for the one dead, but I shouldn't blame myself for his/her death. Note, shouldn't. I still might, but I can't know that before I get into situation like that.
This is actually what I meant by my comment of flipping the switch not being an intentional murder. I don't see it even as a manslaughter, but I just stated that it could at most be viewed as such, from certain point of view. Most of all I see choosing to revert the trolley as choosing the lesser bad out of two.]
-
Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of racist slam America with the obvious lawyer - usa connection. :p
I find it frightening that you jumped to a kind of "how would I be sued / liable" rather than "how will I live with myself / how can I accept this action".
-
I think that this kind of "tests" don't have much of value.
One can "theorize" how he/she would act, but at the instant of a real situation the choice could be very different. And the ethics is all about acting, not about thinking.
Edit: though I admit such tests can have value on personal level, as tools of introspection
-
That's the thing. If you try to decide how you would act beforehand there is a good chance that given a split second to decide you will act the way you decided to act previously.
-
Voted no for each one. Non-interference deprives you of any responsibility should, say, the 5 men who escape the train track then fall off a bridge and die, while the man you choose to sacrifice would have otherwise implemented world peace the next day. Or the fickle violinist starts a nuclear holocaust because of a few bad reviews. In other words, best not to **** with destiny - on the off chance that there is one. ;)
-
Can someone explain to me when a fetus becomes a baby? 8 months? 7 months? 6 months? etc. and so forth.
If you're against abortions on 8 month old children, how can you make the judgement call to terminate at 2 months?
-
Can someone explain to me when a fetus becomes a baby? 8 months? 7 months? 6 months? etc. and so forth.
IMO, the difference is once it exits the mother and draws its first breath. I also believe that's the legal standing as well... or I may be thinking of something else. Anyway, it's a fluid line to draw.
If you're against abortions on 8 month old children, how can you make the judgement call to terminate at 2 months?
Very easily. There is massive development in a short period of a foetus and soforth, and the difference between 2 and 8 months is considerably large. Hell, the Bible defines life as starting at around 18 days [the whole Leviticus-blood-thing for those of you uninformed], so there are many schools of thought on the subject, thus leaving it open to interpretation. In what hands should we put that interpretation? None other than the mother's, as who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do while it's still technically a part of them?
Personally, i'm in support of termination up to about 16 years. That way, you know damn well the kid will work his arse off at school and doing chores, with his mum actively threatening to 'abort' him if he doesn't.
-
Medically speaken, a potential child is an embryo at early stages of development, then becomes a fetus and remains so until birth, but I think many doctors even talk about a baby from quite early on.
I think a common point of view is that an abortion is not feasible when the fetus reaches stage where it can possibly survive outside mother with medical treatment.
Other possibility to define the transitional time is when higher brain functions begin.
From quite early on, the heartbeat of a fetus is controlled by brain stem. Some time from that, small brain starts to send random signals to developing muscles. It takes yet more time before something else also begins to move in baby's head. For example, active cerebral cortex is a requirement to feel, say, pain, or actually anything else.
In short, when the cerebral cortex of a fetus becomes active, he or she then has a reality matrix of one kind, and that just keeps developing until death. From that point I think abortion should only be made if the life of mother is endangered.
-
Here's a stance: Pro-Life, with a choice.
I'm not for aborting babies, no-one is, but taking away the choice??
-
Here's a radical idea? Why can't people be responsible and not have sex if they don't want babies?
I understand the possibility of an abortion in rape/incest cases, and even then, adoption would be a better option.
-
Personally, i'm in support of termination up to about 16 years. That way, you know damn well the kid will work his arse off at school and doing chores, with his mum actively threatening to 'abort' him if he doesn't.
:lol:
Seconded. :yes:
-
Can someone explain to me when a fetus becomes a baby? 8 months? 7 months? 6 months? etc. and so forth.
If you're against abortions on 8 month old children, how can you make the judgement call to terminate at 2 months?
My (and the legal/medical) definition is when that foetus gains the capacity to feel, think, and act; i.e. the cognitive qualities that (from our perspective at least) set humans seperate from animals and hence worthy of protection. This secondly relates to our definition of death, namely the absence of regular brain EEGs, and I don't see why we should have double standards for life and death.
Offhand, I believe that takes place at about 20 weeks (I'll need to check this), when the brain cells form to connect the spine to the brain and make it possible for the foetus to feel sensory impulses.
Here's a radical idea? Why can't people be responsible and not have sex if they don't want babies?
I understand the possibility of an abortion in rape/incest cases, and even then, adoption would be a better option.
Sex is a natural part of human courtship; it's an effective method for determining mate fitness prior to the actual reproductive act. So it's very much part of our wired behaviour to have sex without reproductive intent.
-
Examples are stupid at best..
They are incredibly far fetched and stupid, not to mention they FORCE you to take one of only tow decission - and there's NEVER just two.
But for arguments sake, let's see...
1. I was kidnaped, so I do not fele no obligation whatsoever. If they asked me nicely it would be a differnt thing. It's hard to answer it tough, as I really can't tell if I would leave the man or not.
2. Don't know. I don't really have the right to sacrifice another - numbers are irrelevant.
3. A Definate no.
4. If I really did something THAT stupid, then I deserve to die.. Alltough hard to belive that anyone would survive a dynamite blast in such a small, closed space...
-
Examples are stupid at best..
They are incredibly far fetched and stupid, not to mention they FORCE you to take one of only tow decission - and there's NEVER just two.
The whole point is giving you only a stark choice, where you can't hide behind ambiguity or assumption. Although you've seemingly excercised option 3 here; avoiding making any choice.