atheism and children

[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.