atheism and children

[Clueless Morgan]

I like friendly discussions with people who respect each other and know how to exchange different opinions without getting upset at the person who thinks differently.

Just so things are clear, I have yet to be upset with you for thinking differently than I do.  I just don't understand your thought process and how you have come to hold the positions that you do. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I just  think saying "you can kill someone who might kill you" sounds very different from saying you have the right to exert only as much force as is necessary to stop someone who is trying to kill you. The former is not how I would describe my views on this, as it sounds much more liberal and merciless than the latter.

Whether it is more or less "merciless" than how you would phrase it, the meaning is exactly the same.  Whether you couch the phrase in the language of "use only enough force" or not, you're effectively say that if someone's actions against you would result in your death, you have the right to kill them if that's what it takes to save your own life.  It's exactly the same difference between saying "We are pursuing tactical air strikes against enemy combatants" and "Let's bomb them fuckers back to the stone age."  You may not like it, but the meaning of these phrases is the same.

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.

Well, it seems like what you're saying is that you should pursue your goal (saving your own life) with the least amount of harm to all parties (knocking them out, running away, calling the cops, etc.).  But when it comes to ectopic pregnancies, you say that the woman should avoid the intervention that does the least amount of harm to herself (the medical approach of taking pills that would directly abort the embryo in her Fallopian tube) in favor of the more invasive surgical option and all because you must avoid directly aborting the embryo... for some reason...

That makes no sense to me.

If the end result of either approach is the unavoidable termination of a pregnancy, then, to me, the best choice of how to proceed would be the least invasive procedure one could do with the fewest side effects and the lowest chance of complications to the only one who has a chance of surviving the procedure, the mother, and in at least some cases of ectopic pregnancy, that approach would be medical intervention.

I don't think this is the same scenario as an embryo implanting on the Fallopian tube. 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.

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.

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.

So, again, you're saying that you can only mortally defend your own life if it can be demonstrated that the person has the intent to kill you?

Since I think one innocent human life is worth the same as any other innocent human life, I can't support killing one to save the other. If there is a problem involving the pregnancy, a doctor can try to do whatever they can to treat whatever the problem is. If the treatment ends in the unintended death of the mother's child (such as removal of a damaged tube), that's not immoral. But if the baby is specifically targeted to be killed, I do find that immoral. One is an unintended consequence/side effect, the other is a direct intent to kill another person.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the only treatment is to abort the pregnancy.  The only consideration once the ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed, to me, is what is the least invasive course of action to take that will result in the fewest potential complications for the woman who must undergo the treatment?

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke.

Why?

I understand giving kudos in the context of "Dude, that was funny!" or "I agree!" or "This post makes a good point!" or even "I'm giving you kudos as a way of indicating that I have read your post" (which is kind of how I took a lot of your kudos, except that this would be a very inconsistent explanation of them) but giving kudos jokingly or sarcastically?  That I just don't get.

Is the recipient supposed to know it's a joke??