You wake up and....

[Rufus Gwertigan]

i ask advice before I buy a phone, you think I wouldn't ask advice before being responsible for someones death?

Edited January 18, 2013 by Rufus Gwertigan

[nightcrawler13]

A life is not a commodity. By taking advice you are trying to transfer the responsibility onto someone else.

[mrtourette]

Yeah my point was the same as Rufus'. On the flipside if you asked advice regarding an abortion and others convinced you it was the right thing would that make it morally OK or mean that you would then be able to continue guilt-free?

If anything I agree with you but that approach should be taken EVERY time, not just when you are struggling to manage your conscience. No matter who you wake up with attached to your body (what a preposterous line ) the situation should be thoughtfully considered on it's own merits, there shouldn't be an instant "save them is good, let them die is bad" rule that you apply.

Edited January 18, 2013 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

I am really quite shocked by how many people would just 'let him die' when it was the Dalai Lama, so I imagine if it was a convicted criminal of terrible crimes, everyone would have no issues with it??

Edited January 18, 2013 by mrtourette

[nightcrawler13]

Everyone has no issues with it now, it's you that has the issue. Most people would let both die, you'd save one and not the other. Are you OK with doing that?

I guess the issue that most people don't value the Dalai Llama, if it was a loved one then it would obviously be different as the personal sacrifice would be rewarded.

Edited January 18, 2013 by nightcrawler13

[Rufus Gwertigan]

nope

i'm saying that I would be confused in such a situation, just as I think it is okay for an abortion to take place but have moral issues with it, would need to understand the situation further and would take advice from others before making that decision. That is not 'trying to transfer the responsibility to someone else', as it is me who makes the decision.

I couldn't let an innocent man die, I could possibly let an extremely guilty man die, but I say possibly as to be honest I'm not sure I could even do that, I don't even kill slugs for goodness sake, how could I kill a man without hearing a thousand other opinions to help quantify my own?

I am really quite shocked by how many people would just 'let him die' when it was the Dalai Lama, so I imagine if it was a convicted criminal of terrible crimes, everyone would have no issues with it??

[nightcrawler13]

Nsh you are wrong. Why would you need advice on whether to key someone live ir die. I am disappointed that you are willing to put a value on life. What if it was a drug addict ir a guy on the street? You don't need advice for a famous guy but do for everyone else? You either value life or you don't. There is no economy brand in this.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

stop being a troll Rufus

as I've said, it has nothing to do with the Dalai Lama, but you are choosing to ignore that. I wouldn't let him die, a violinist, bus driver, tramp, drug addict, David Cameron or even you die

I said I would have to consider it because people were all ready bringing examples like Hitler into the situation

Edited January 18, 2013 by Rufus Gwertigan

[mrtourette]

It's not about the Dalai Lama, as I explained I chose him as an example as there is no reason to dislike him. I could have just said "a man who you are unrelated to and have no reason to dislike"

I do have an issue with letting a person die to make my life easier, and would have to get moral guidance before I could ever let it happen even if they were a terrible person

You do not

different strokes, different folks eh?

Edited January 18, 2013 by mrtourette

[feral chile]

A life is not a commodity. By taking advice you are trying to transfer the responsibility onto someone else.

[AcademicPistol]

Now that would make an interesting thought experiment. "You have woken up with the Dalai lama rimming your arse"

[feral chile]

Nsh you are wrong. Why would you need advice on whether to key someone live ir die. I am disappointed that you are willing to put a value on life. What if it was a drug addict ir a guy on the street? You don't need advice for a famous guy but do for everyone else? You either value life or you don't. There is no economy brand in this.

Edited January 19, 2013 by feral chile

[Guest]

I can't understand how keeping someone alive (or letting them die), can be compared to whether a mother should or shouldn't terminate a life that they have concieved, and how all the emotional differences involved are at all connected..?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

It's all to do with obligation and duty. You've had this obligation thrust upon you - does that place you under an obligation to prevent this person from dying?

I don't know what I'd do in that situation - hypothetically, I'd say I'd put the needs of my family first and say no. But I'd also say no to an abortion, because that life would be part of me, and in most cases I'd have been responsible for my situation, so there would be an obligation.

It's whether you feel you'd have an obligation to a stranger.

Of course, knowing you'd let someone die who you could have saved would be a huge thing in real life, so I might not be able to bring myself to do it.

[feral chile]

The whole exercise is biased and designed to illicit an anti abortion reply. However once the patient is changed to someone nasty who people will be more inclined to let die it changes things.

NC was shocked at the number if people willing to ket him die, and even said that was not nice. Once people are honest the whole argument falls apart. I would not be hooked to a bloke for 9 months. Being pregnant is entirely different.

[mrtourette]

I can't understand how keeping someone alive (or letting them die), can be compared to whether a mother should or shouldn't terminate a life that they have concieved, and how all the emotional differences involved are at all connected..?

[Guest]

I think the comparison is supposed to be the inconvenience of having somone attached to you for nine months (whether it be an adult or an unborn child).

And no the emotional differences are not connected at all, it's a very narrow hypothetical situation that dismisses nearly all of the actual points of consideration in either situation and instead focuses on whether there's a difference between what someone (the adult) has achieved and what the child may achieve, and whether either would affect the decision and be considered as the same thing.

I think the ultimate aim is to point out the hypocrisy in saving the adult because it's the right thing but still being pro-choice (sort of 'if it's the right thing to save the adult then why isn't it the right thing to save the baby?') but it falls flat on it's arse as very few people would unconditionally save the adult or be so happy to dismiss the many other factors in such a decision that the test appears keen to ignore.

[feral chile]

I think the ultimate aim is to point out the hypocrisy in saving the adult because it's the right thing but still being pro-choice (sort of 'if it's the right thing to save the adult then why isn't it the right thing to save the baby?') but it falls flat on it's arse as very few people would unconditionally save the adult or be so happy to dismiss the many other factors in such a decision that the test appears keen to ignore.

Edited January 22, 2013 by feral chile

[Gre]

I would have loved to have seen the reaction to this question on Take Me Out

[Guest]

It's the other way round actually - Thomson expected people to baulk at the idea of accepting the responsibility and inconvenience of supporting an adult for 9months. It was meant to be an argument against the right to life anti abortionists, separating out the right to life from the right to have your life sustained by the use of another person.

They're very differrent situations though - saving the life of an adult stranger is pretty abstract, while a pregnancy is very personal. And therefore, I feel, outside the remit of moral dilemma type ethical debate.

I've been involved in some rather heated discussions with people regarding abortion, people have very strong and emotional views around it.

[feral chile]

kind of highlights what a pointless ethical/moral question it is, if it doesn't work for either the pro or anti abortionists stance

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I think since there's only a medical definition of when abortion is possible, based on viability outside the womb, it's best left to each individual, as they're the ones with a relationship to what's growing in the womb, and how they view and feel about it.

It's an extremely emotive subject, and what might be an abstract philosophical debate to one person might be an extremely personal, sensitive issue for another.

[fred quimby]

fetus trespassing in the womb.

[feral chile]

there is a phrase you don't hear every day

Edited January 22, 2013 by feral chile

[fred quimby]

I've also heard it referred to as a parasite.

By my GP, while discussing my pregnancy.