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.