atheism and children

[Clueless Morgan]

That's a false analogy.

I think you are missing the point that in an ectopic pregnancy the embryo has to be aborted in order for the mother to survive at all, so if we put this in terms of your analogy it would be more like the terrorist telling the mother "I'm going to kill your kid no matter what, but you have a choice of either taking a cyanide pill or having me flay you alive" and even that doesn't work as a cogent analogy of an ectopic pregnancy.

(BTW, your analogy also equates the doctor treating the woman with the ectopic pregnancy to a terrorist.   )

Perhaps you misunderstood the analogy. I am saying that the terrorists would kill both her and her child if she did not kill her child herself. So yes, the child would die regardless. It just depends on whether she does it or not. And if she does, she gets to live. If not, she dies right along with her kid.

If the child would die regardless then the either/or dilemma isn't "you either kill your kid or you die with him," it's "Your kid will die.  Either you kill your kid and you get to live, or I  kill your kid and then I kill you."

Which is still not a great analogy, because, as you clarified in your later post, you're saying that the terrorist is the ectopic pregnancy - but the pregnancy and the embryo cannot be separated in the way you have made it out in your analogy.  The embryo causes the pregnancy.  The pregnancy cannot happen without the embryo.  So in the analogy, it would be more accurate to say that the child is the terrorist.

Perhaps, though, we can come up with a better analogy (and I admit up front that even this analogy has its problems - all analogies do).

Let's say that there are two people (Persons A and B) who are sharing bodily fluids through IVs.  Let's even say that Person A is literally being kept alive by the fluids they get from Person B.  And let's say that Person A contracts a fatal blood disease that will certainly kill them.  Is it immoral for Person B to sever the IV lines between themselves and Person A before Person B contracts the fatal disease and dies as well?

I contend that it is not immoral.  Person B may have consented to helping to keep Person A alive, but that does not mean that Person B then also consented to letting Person A endanger their life.  Person B is not under an obligation to find a roundabout way of severing the IV lines if they can just yank them out of their arm.

Let's take the analogy a little bit further, though.

Let's say that it's not as easy as yanking an IV out of your arm.  Let's say that the two people are connected such that it would take something like surgery to disconnect them.  And let's say that the action Person B would have to take is to inject Person A with a medication directly to their heart that would stop it from beating (thus they couldn't pump blood to Person B and neither infect them with the fatal disease, nor pump the heart-stopping medication back to them (it's a thought experiment, can we go with it?))  Is it immoral for Person B to inject Person A with this medication, effectively killing Person A (in a way more direct manner than simply yanking out an IV) and saving Person B's life?

I still say it's not.  Person A does not have the right to endanger Person B's life, and Person B has the right to take direct lethal action against Person A in order to save their own life, and you have agreed with this sentiment.

Well obviously it's not about the weapon. I was using an example of a scenario. When a person is coming after you, trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself regardless of whether or not that person is consciously aware of the fact that they are trying to kill you. That is up for the courts and medical professionals to decide. I have already explained that I think this is different from a baby growing in the wrong place. Don't know what else to tell ya if you honestly don't see the difference that I see.

But you're still speaking in terms of intent, that this person, regardless of the manner in which they endanger your life, is trying to kill you, which I completely disagree about, and think is an incorrect framing of the situation.  I no more think an embryo is trying to kill its mother by implanting in her Fallopian tube than I think a mentally retarded individual is trying to kill someone by, let's say, sitting on their chest and suffocating the other person if they have no understanding of death, harm or the potential consequences of their actions.  In the analogy above, Person A did not intend to contract this fatal blood disease, but they did.  And Person A might not even have intended to endanger Person B's life, but they are.  There is no "try" about it, there is no intent to kill in these situations.  They are accidents of biology.

I think you know what I mean, but let me rephrase it for you then:

It's up to the jury to figure out if this person is innocent for reason of insanity or not, but you still have the right to defend yourself against someone who is trying to kill you, even if they're insane and don't even realize they're doing it.

(There's that phrase again: trying to kill...   )

I do think I understand what you mean, but I also understand that introducing the term "murder" into a discussion about ectopic pregnancy is 100% incorrect in terms of what the word actually means - no woman who aborts an ectopic pregnancy would EVER be convicted of murder - in either the first or the second degree.  For that matter, no person who kills another sentient and sapient adult who was an imminent threat to their own life would be convicted of murder, either.

And if you don't mean to use this term in its actual definition then I contend you're using it hyperbolicly, as an appeal to emotion and as a way to shut down my criticism of your position.  If this is not your intent, and I don't think it is, then I suggest the term "murder" not be used again in a discussion about ectopic pregnancy.

Lol. Well for the record, the smilies to you are meant to express friendliness and to show that I am not angry. I am not using them sarcastically. Glad you brought that up so I could make that clear, but if it bothers you, I won't do it anymore. 

As for your question, it depends. If I feel I am being talked down to, I may stop responding if I start to get sick of it. You have the right to do the same, of course.

My point is that whether the smilies annoy me or not, they don't change whether or not you are making valid and sound arguments in defense of your position so critiquing your use of them has no bearing on the discussion.

Don't change your style simply to accommodate me; you do you, CL.

As for you perceiving my posts as condescending or talking down to you, I can't control the tone you inbue my posts with, all I can say is that I am not intending to talk down to you - this is just the way my thoughts get expressed when I type.  It may be the case that my posts come off as condescending generally, or it may be the case that you read them as being condescending because you disagree with my position, I honestly don't know. (Any readers of this thread care to weigh in?)

I'm not done with the discussion yet, though, and hope it continues.  I'll try to keep my posts short(er), though - I can get wordy, and I know it.  

[Catholic_Lady]

Perhaps you misunderstood the analogy. I am saying that the terrorists would kill both her and her child if she did not kill her child herself. So yes, the child would die regardless. It just depends on whether she does it or not. And if she does, she gets to live. If not, she dies right along with her kid.

If the child would die regardless then the either/or dilemma isn't "you either kill your kid or you die with him," it's "Your kid will die.  Either you kill your kid and you get to live, or I  kill your kid and then I kill you."

Which is still not a great analogy, because, as you clarified in your later post, you're saying that the terrorist is the ectopic pregnancy - but the pregnancy and the embryo cannot be separated in the way you have made it out in your analogy.  The embryo causes the pregnancy.  The pregnancy cannot happen without the embryo.  So in the analogy, it would be more accurate to say that the child is the terrorist.

Perhaps, though, we can come up with a better analogy (and I admit up front that even this analogy has its problems - all analogies do).

Let's say that there are two people (Persons A and B) who are sharing bodily fluids through IVs.  Let's even say that Person A is literally being kept alive by the fluids they get from Person B.  And let's say that Person A contracts a fatal blood disease that will certainly kill them.  Is it immoral for Person B to sever the IV lines between themselves and Person A before Person B contracts the fatal disease and dies as well?

I contend that it is not immoral.  Person B may have consented to helping to keep Person A alive, but that does not mean that Person B then also consented to letting Person A endanger their life.  Person B is not under an obligation to find a roundabout way of severing the IV lines if they can just yank them out of their arm.

Let's take the analogy a little bit further, though.

Let's say that it's not as easy as yanking an IV out of your arm.  Let's say that the two people are connected such that it would take something like surgery to disconnect them.  And let's say that the action Person B would have to take is to inject Person A with a medication directly to their heart that would stop it from beating (thus they couldn't pump blood to Person B and neither infect them with the fatal disease, nor pump the heart-stopping medication back to them (it's a thought experiment, can we go with it?))  Is it immoral for Person B to inject Person A with this medication, effectively killing Person A (in a way more direct manner than simply yanking out an IV) and saving Person B's life?

I still say it's not.  Person A does not have the right to endanger Person B's life, and Person B has the right to take direct lethal action against Person A in order to save their own life, and you have agreed with this sentiment.

I say it absolutely is immoral to do so. And therein lies our differences.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well obviously it's not about the weapon. I was using an example of a scenario. When a person is coming after you, trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself regardless of whether or not that person is consciously aware of the fact that they are trying to kill you. That is up for the courts and medical professionals to decide. I have already explained that I think this is different from a baby growing in the wrong place. Don't know what else to tell ya if you honestly don't see the difference that I see.

But you're still speaking in terms of intent, that this person, regardless of the manner in which they endanger your life, is trying to kill you, which I completely disagree about, and think is an incorrect framing of the situation.  I no more think an embryo is trying to kill its mother by implanting in her Fallopian tube than I think a mentally retarded individual is trying to kill someone by, let's say, sitting on their chest and suffocating the other person if they have no understanding of death, harm or the potential consequences of their actions.  In the analogy above, Person A did not intend to contract this fatal blood disease, but they did.  And Person A might not even have intended to endanger Person B's life, but they are.  There is no "try" about it, there is no intent to kill in these situations.  They are accidents of biology.

Did you miss the part where I wrote "When a person is coming after you, trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself regardless of whether or not that person is consciously aware of the fact that they are trying to kill you."

I think I make myself perfectly clear that I understand it may not be a consciously intended act.

You see the scenario of a baby growing in the wrong place, and a person connected to another person contracting a disease, as the same thing as an insane person running after you with a knife, or repeatedly bashing your head into a wall, or shooting at you, or whatever example you want to use. I cannot understand your view that these scenarios are the same, anymore than you can understand my views that they are different. It just is what it is.

[Clueless Morgan]

I say it absolutely is immoral to do so. And therein lies our differences.

Nuance that for me: Which part do you think is immoral?

Do you think that Person A actually does have the right to endanger Person B's life?  (It's been my impression for a while that you don't think they do.)

Do you think that because Person B consents to being hooked up to Person A that they also consent to Person A endangering their life?

Do you think that it's immoral to pull out the IVs?

Or is it the directly injecting Person A with the medication?

But you're still speaking in terms of intent, that this person, regardless of the manner in which they endanger your life, is trying to kill you, which I completely disagree about, and think is an incorrect framing of the situation.  I no more think an embryo is trying to kill its mother by implanting in her Fallopian tube than I think a mentally retarded individual is trying to kill someone by, let's say, sitting on their chest and suffocating the other person if they have no understanding of death, harm or the potential consequences of their actions.  In the analogy above, Person A did not intend to contract this fatal blood disease, but they did.  And Person A might not even have intended to endanger Person B's life, but they are.  There is no "try" about it, there is no intent to kill in these situations.  They are accidents of biology.

Did you miss the part where I wrote "When a person is coming after you, trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself regardless of whether or not that person is consciously aware of the fact that they are trying to kill you."

I think I make myself perfectly clear that I understand it may not be a consciously intended act.

What I'm getting from this is that a person can try or intend to kill you, but just not realize that they are trying or intending to kill you.  How do you have an unintended intent?  That is what I don't understand.  

I agree that actions can have unintended, unforeseen consequences, but we call those outcomes accidents, not "unconscious intentions."

You see the scenario of a baby growing in the wrong place, and a person connected to another person contracting a disease, as the same thing as an insane person running after you with a knife, or repeatedly bashing your head into a wall, or shooting at you, or whatever example you want to use. I cannot understand your view that these scenarios are the same, anymore than you can understand my views that they are different. It just is what it is.

Wow, hello Mr. Strawman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And, yes, I intend the above statement to be read condescendingly because you are absolutely misrepresenting my position in a dishonest fashion and I'm a little pissed off about it right now.  If you want to stop replying to me after this, so be it, but if I can appeal to your sense of honesty, may I ask you to at least finish reading this post before you blow me off:

I have NEVER said that I see "an insane person running after you with a knife, or repeatedly bashing your head into a wall, or shooting at you, or whatever" as the same as an ectopic pregnancy.  YOU are the one who has been using examples of "insane people" running around with knives and guns and bashing heads against walls.

Let's review the sorts of things I have posted about, shall we?  I'll even do the work for you:
(Formatting doesn't copy so follow the link to see the original, formatted post; bolding of the quotes here is for my emphasis in this post)


From Post #503

Self defense against an instigator, yes, absolutely. But purposely killing an innocent person, a very young person at that, no.

What if the instigator is someone who you would consider an "innocent" or someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand what they are doing?  For example, a profoundly mentally ill person, who has the emotional capacity and self control of a young child but the physical strength of an adult (think Lennie from Of Mice and Men)

From Post #516

And I don't understand why you would categorize the death of an innocent as "tragic but not immoral" (which, again, I agree with you about) but then say conception divorced from sex and taking place in a petri dish by doctors IS immoral.

I don't understand it.

From Post #532

I disagree with your assumption that a mentally impaired person inherently intends to kill someone if they, in fact, succeed in doing so.  Are you saying, then, that a mentally impaired adult with the cognitive and emotional maturity of a young child should be allowed to kill you if their actions toward you could not be categorized as "vicious" or if it cannot be demonstrated that they were intentionally trying to kill you? It's not even clear to me that a person of such mental capacity would even really understand what they're doing, let alone that they would be trying to kill you.

I also have a problem with you categorizing all such actions as vicious attacks.  Categorizing them in such a manner implies that the person performing the action is doing so maliciously or that they are intending to be cruel when, in the case of an adult who is afflicted with a mental impairment, imparting that person with the intention or motive to maliciously attack another person could very well be overstating that person's cognitive abilities.

From Post #540

We're not talking about what weapon this mentally impaired innocent might use against you, if they even have an implement in their hand at all, we're talk about intent.

From Post #561

I no more think an embryo is trying to kill its mother by implanting in her Fallopian tube than I think a mentally retarded individual is trying to kill someone by, let's say, sitting on their chest and suffocating the other person if they have no understanding of death, harm or the potential consequences of their actions.

So where, I ask, is all of MY discussion of "insane people" bashing heads against walls or running around with knives or shooting people?

WHERE????



And in the interest of fairness, let's review YOUR contributions:
(again, my bolding here)

From Post #504

Insane/mentally ill or not, if an instigator is coming after you, trying to kill you (or someone else), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. If that amount of force results in their death, it is tragic but not immoral IMHO.

From Post #523

What I believe is that if someone is coming after you with a knife, for example, and you can stop them by knocking them out, or running away and calling the cops, you should do that. But if the situation is such that the only way you can stop them from killing you is by shooting them, if your shot kills them, I don't think that's immoral on your part. Though it should be the absolute last resort. But yes, the idea is to always try to preserve life.
[snip]
The baby is not an instigator who is trying to kill you, while the person viciously attacking you is, regardless of whether they would be deemed innocent by reason of insanity or not. They may be innocent for reason of insanity as far as the law and jail time is concerned, but they are still not innocent of trying to kill you.

From Post #537

I'm not saying they realize they're doing it, or that they understand what they're doing. But nonetheless, a person running after you with a knife, trying to stab you to death, is still a person running after you with a knife trying to stab you to death. It's up to the jury to figure out if this person is innocent for reason of insanity or not, but you still have the right to defend yourself against someone who is trying to murder you, even if they're insane and don't even realize they're doing it.

From Post #545

I think you know what I mean, but let me rephrase it for you then:

It's up to the jury to figure out if this person is innocent for reason of insanity or not, but you still have the right to defend yourself against someone who is trying to kill you, even if they're insane and don't even realize they're doing it.

So let's not kid ourselves, Catholic_Lady.  I am not the one introducing knife-wielding, head-bashing, "vicious" "insane people" into the conversation.  And if you honestly do not understand that there is a difference between having a mental impairment or mental retardation and being insane, then educate yourself.

In the interest of cementing my image as an asshole to you, Imma throw your own words back in your face:

it's important that we actually listen to what the other says.

I have been trying to do that.  I have not intended to misquote you, I was not and (if this conversation actually survives this post which, at this point (if you're actually still reading this) is probably unlikely) will not try and trick you, and I fully allow you your right to nuance, reframe, or restate your position as many times as it takes you to say something in a way that I gain an understanding of your position.  I may not always "get it right" but I am at least trying.

[Catholic_Lady]

I say it absolutely is immoral to do so. And therein lies our differences.

Nuance that for me: Which part do you think is immoral?

Do you think that Person A actually does have the right to endanger Person B's life?  (It's been my impression for a while that you don't think they do.)

Do you think that because Person B consents to being hooked up to Person A that they also consent to Person A endangering their life?

Do you think that it's immoral to pull out the IVs?

Or is it the directly injecting Person A with the medication?

1. Killing person A

2. No.

3. No.

4. No.

5. Yes.

[Catholic_Lady]

Did you miss the part where I wrote "When a person is coming after you, trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself regardless of whether or not that person is consciously aware of the fact that they are trying to kill you."

I think I make myself perfectly clear that I understand it may not be a consciously intended act.

What I'm getting from this is that a person can try or intend to kill you, but just not realize that they are trying or intending to kill you.  How do you have an unintended intent?  That is what I don't understand.  

I agree that actions can have unintended, unforeseen consequences, but we call those outcomes accidents, not "unconscious intentions."

They can physically be intending to kill you in the sense that they may be bashing your head through the walls, or stabbing you repeatedly, or whatever else. Whether they are mentally conscious enough to realize the actions they are taking, is for professionals/courts to decide.

[Catholic_Lady]

You see the scenario of a baby growing in the wrong place, and a person connected to another person contracting a disease, as the same thing as an insane person running after you with a knife, or repeatedly bashing your head into a wall, or shooting at you, or whatever example you want to use. I cannot understand your view that these scenarios are the same, anymore than you can understand my views that they are different. It just is what it is.

Wow, hello Mr. Strawman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And, yes, I intend the above statement to be read condescendingly because you are absolutely misrepresenting my position in a dishonest fashion and I'm a little pissed off about it right now.  If you want to stop replying to me after this, so be it, but if I can appeal to your sense of honesty, may I ask you to at least finish reading this post before you blow me off:

I have NEVER said that I see "an insane person running after you with a knife, or repeatedly bashing your head into a wall, or shooting at you, or whatever" as the same as an ectopic pregnancy.  YOU are the one who has been using examples of "insane people" running around with knives and guns and bashing heads against walls.

Let's review the sorts of things I have posted about, shall we?  I'll even do the work for you:
(Formatting doesn't copy so follow the link to see the original, formatted post; bolding of the quotes here is for my emphasis in this post)


From Post #503

I did not realize I was straw manning you, and honestly gathered that you saw the 2 scenarios as equivalent. For that, I apologize. People here have straw manned me many times, but I never answer back with assuming they realize they're doing it, accuse them of doing it on purpose, and then proceed to talk down to them.

I guess this means our conversation is over.

[Justtristo]

I voted B because I cannot see myself being married or in a long lasting relationship, let alone having children. 

Even if I were a Christian I would hold much the same opinions in this regard.

[Cecelia]

I have children. I didn't want them when I first got pregnant. We weren't ready for them. I didn't get an abortion because I know that I'd have felt guilty if I did. Especially since I was pregnant with Triplets. I love my children dearly. I'm not sure that I made the right choice, but I'm happy now with the choice I made even though it wasn't the ideal choice at the time.

Honestly, I was scared to have an abortion at the time. Most of the pro-choice people I knew held the opinion that they were pro-choice, but they'd never have an abortion. I don't hold that opinion myself. I didn't choose to have an abortion with either of my pregnancies, but that was because the first time I was worried what others would think of me, and the second time because we planned it out.

I love children. All my nephews and nieces. I think it's a responsible choice not to have children, especially if you aren't ready for them.

We've raised our daughters to be free-thinkers. We do our best not to push our beliefs on them, and at the same time not allow our families push their beliefs on them. Which hasn't always been easy. I think it helps though that one of my best friends is a Lesbian. Whenever a Christian talks about god, and about how gays shouldn't have a right to get married, our daughters remember that we have a Lesbian friend, and they wonder why people wouldn't want her to be able to get married.