Quote:The trolley problem is never easy. However it does point out the distinction between not saving another human, and actively causing them violence resulting in death. I would say that your bodily autonomy ends with your body, and when you start talking about killing another. This would be the difference between a lack of saving, vs killing. For instance, if someone instead of not saving the dying man, shoots them, it is still murder.

Nope autonomy is absolute .If it goes on in her body he absolute say regardless of weather it results in death or not  . Anything less is equal to to rape or forced organ extraction .

(May 14, 2018 at 7:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Do you believe that it is moral to force someone to put their life at risk if not doing so means that someone else will die?  At what limit are you not willing to put that morality into practice?  Is it moral for me to force you to give up a kidney if it will save someone else's life?   Can we force you to give up a lung to save another person?  It's not like you don't have two of them.

The trolley problem is never easy.  However it does point out the distinction between not saving another human, and actively causing them violence resulting in death. I would say that your bodily autonomy ends with your body, and when you start talking about killing another.   This would be the difference between a lack of saving, vs killing.   For instance, if someone instead of not saving the dying man, shoots them, it is still murder.

Notice it is you dictating to others about what is going on with theirs.

The justification ultimate comes down to you fictional god is fictionalized as having said a glob of tissue inside her has a separate “soul”.

(May 14, 2018 at 9:54 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 7:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The trolley problem is never easy.  However it does point out the distinction between not saving another human, and actively causing them violence resulting in death. I would say that your bodily autonomy ends with your body, and when you start talking about killing another.   This would be the difference between a lack of saving, vs killing.   For instance, if someone instead of not saving the dying man, shoots them, it is still murder.

Notice it is you dictating to others about what is going on with theirs.

The justification ultimate comes down to you fictional god is fictionalized as having said a glob of tissue inside her has a separate “soul”.

No... I don’t think you are listening at all, because that is wrong. I think that you make up straw men, and try to attack what you think is my motivation to avoid the questions and discussion.

(May 14, 2018 at 7:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The trolley problem is never easy.  However it does point out the distinction between not saving another human, and actively causing them violence resulting in death. I would say that your bodily autonomy ends with your body, and when you start talking about killing another.   This would be the difference between a lack of saving, vs killing.   For instance, if someone instead of not saving the dying man, shoots them, it is still murder.

So........... where do you stand on ETOH/drug abuse pregnant women that cause fetal mortality? P women who do not eat properly even though they have the means to. P women who neglect prenatal care?  P women who ignore pregnancy related disease states (HTN, diabetes, ..........)?

All of these behaviors can result in fetal/neonatal mortality. Would you hold the woman criminally responsible? Would you have correct behavior forced upon them?

(May 14, 2018 at 10:24 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 7:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The trolley problem is never easy.  However it does point out the distinction between not saving another human, and actively causing them violence resulting in death. I would say that your bodily autonomy ends with your body, and when you start talking about killing another.   This would be the difference between a lack of saving, vs killing.   For instance, if someone instead of not saving the dying man, shoots them, it is still murder.

So........... where do you stand on ETOH/drug abuse pregnant women that cause fetal mortality? P women who do not eat properly even though they have the means to. P women who neglect prenatal care?  P women who ignore pregnancy related disease states (HTN, diabetes, ..........)?

All of these behaviors can result in fetal/neonatal mortality. Would you hold the woman criminally responsible? Would you have correct behavior forced upon them?

That gets a lot more complicated, and I think that it would very much depend on the details. I could see drugs being considered neglect, the same as they would after the baby is born. Micro managing diet; probably less so. I think that rightfully so, we are intolerant towards those who are inconsiderate to the baby growing within them. How about you... do you think that a mom doing crack should be encouraged?

(May 14, 2018 at 7:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Do you believe that it is moral to force someone to put their life at risk if not doing so means that someone else will die?  At what limit are you not willing to put that morality into practice?  Is it moral for me to force you to give up a kidney if it will save someone else's life?   Can we force you to give up a lung to save another person?  It's not like you don't have two of them.

The trolley problem is never easy.  However it does point out the distinction between not saving another human, and actively causing them violence resulting in death. I would say that your bodily autonomy ends with your body, and when you start talking about killing another.   This would be the difference between a lack of saving, vs killing.   For instance, if someone instead of not saving the dying man, shoots them, it is still murder.

No, it doesn't actually point that out. It shows that in the trolley problem, for some reason we don't understand, one action is viewed differently from another. We have no conscious introspection as to the reason why, and no principle derived from ethics seems to point the way to an answer. We don't know why we have an intuition that one instance has a significant moral distinction to the other. You're simply trading on our ignorance to make a claim that you cannot justify by an appeal to any moral theory. Regardless, the case in question does not parallel the one at issue, as you would be equally outraged if instead of killing the fetus, doctors simply removed the fetus and allowed it to die of natural causes. So you're simply being disingenuous by claiming that the difference lies in the act of terminating the life. That's not your real sticking point. And since it isn't, you're once again faced with providing a justification for treating the two cases differently, the case of being forced to give up a lung or a kidney, and that of being forced to carry a non-viable fetus to term.

(May 14, 2018 at 6:25 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: The point is that this is nonviable life. Only a potential. You can't/don't get to enforce your beliefs/morality on another human based on potential.

---

(May 14, 2018 at 5:58 pm)The Industrial Atheist Wrote: I hope you're right, but they may manage to force hundreds or thousands of unwanted births in the meantime!

The last I read the law was going to be challenged prior to the July enactment(?) date. They won't be able to do anything until the challenge is resolved.

Thank science!

(May 14, 2018 at 1:14 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 12:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yep.  When it is enforced by maniacs waving their fucking bibles and spouting bullshit about some fucking imaginary god, I do.  Look in a mirror pal.  You'll see yourself.

Is it just an angry atheists thing?    Because I don't what you say here, following from what you said previously.

---

(May 14, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The difference is you would celebrate mother’s day as a slave plantation owner would celebrate farmer’s day, where as we celebrate mother’s day as a society without slavey would celebrate farmer’s day.

What?   I think that you are imposing a lot of bias here, and your view of the other side is grossly inaccurate.   But then again, I don't see that the abortion issue has anything to do with oppressing women/mothers.   I think that it is about not supporting the killing of innocent babies with poor justification and reasons  to do so.

When innocent babies are killed, it's called murder and there are laws against that. An abortion doesn't kill a baby, no matter how much you want to throw emotionally charged imagery around.

(May 14, 2018 at 10:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 7:04 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The trolley problem is never easy.  However it does point out the distinction between not saving another human, and actively causing them violence resulting in death. I would say that your bodily autonomy ends with your body, and when you start talking about killing another.   This would be the difference between a lack of saving, vs killing.   For instance, if someone instead of not saving the dying man, shoots them, it is still murder.

No, it doesn't actually point that out. It shows that in the trolley problem, for some reason we don't understand, one action is viewed differently from another. We have no conscious introspection as to the reason why, and no principle derived from ethics seems to point the way to an answer. We don't know why we have an intuition that one instance has a significant moral distinction to the other. You're simply trading on our ignorance to make a claim that you cannot justify by an appeal to any moral theory. Regardless, the case in question does not parallel the one at issue, as you would be equally outraged if instead of killing the fetus, doctors simply removed the fetus and allowed it to die of natural causes. So you're simply being disingenuous by claiming that the difference lies in the act of terminating the life. That's not your real sticking point. And since it isn't, you're once again faced with providing a justification for treating the two cases differently, the case of being forced to give up a lung or a kidney, and that of being forced to carry a non-viable fetus to term.

So do you not think that doctors removing the baby, and letting it die, is killing it? Do you think it is wrong to intentially harm and kill another without some moral justification? I don’t think that if a person locked someone in a room and let them die from “natural causes” would be any less murder; do you?

(May 14, 2018 at 10:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 10:24 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: So........... where do you stand on ETOH/drug abuse pregnant women that cause fetal mortality? P women who do not eat properly even though they have the means to. P women who neglect prenatal care?  P women who ignore pregnancy related disease states (HTN, diabetes, ..........)?

All of these behaviors can result in fetal/neonatal mortality. Would you hold the woman criminally responsible? Would you have correct behavior forced upon them?

That gets a lot more complicated, and I think that it would very much depend on the details. I could see drugs being considered neglect, the same as they would after the baby is born. Micro managing diet; probably less so.  I think that rightfully so, we are intolerant towards those who  are inconsiderate to the baby growing within them. How about you... do you think that a mom doing crack should be encouraged?

Not encouraged, but not forced behavior either. It comes down to a persons individual rights, pregnant or not.