Abortion is morally wrong

[Jackalope]

A father requests his children that, if he should ever end up having an incurable and chronically painful disease in the future, that he be allowed to undergo euthanasia.

Years later, it happens. The father is struck with such a disease. But neither the children nor the doctors in the area want to give what he asked for because of conscience. Even though the father desperately wants his life to end.

Which right to support now?

I believe rasetsu has adequately addressed your first example, so I'm going to focus on this one. We'll assume for sake of argument that both rights do in fact exist.

Which right to support? Both of them, of course. The children and the physician have their right to conscience. The father likewise has his right to die with dignity. What he *does not* have is the right to impose duty on another person against their conscience.

What you appear to be arguing for here is that the right to die with dignity implies that one has the right to require a *particular person* to kill him, or assist him in killing himself. Whom precisely is infringing on whom's rights here?

The father in this case will simply have to find someone who is willing to assist. In this context, a right to die with dignity only means that a third party cannot act to infringe upon that right - not that they can be compelled to duty.

...and that is where I make my determination as to where rights fall in the priority hierarchy - a right that would impose a duty upon another party (a "positive" right) loses to one that only requires the other party to not infringe upon the right (a "negative" right).

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_an...ive_rights and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_rights

[Jackalope]

Actually, I suspect even Cthulhu will agree that we're not just discussing legal rights in the US. But I'll see what he says.

I would agree that we're not necessarily speaking of legal rights at all - but I will agree that legal frameworks provide for a meaningful frame of reference.

[GrandizerII]

A father requests his children that, if he should ever end up having an incurable and chronically painful disease in the future, that he be allowed to undergo euthanasia.

Years later, it happens. The father is struck with such a disease. But neither the children nor the doctors in the area want to give what he asked for because of conscience. Even though the father desperately wants his life to end.

Which right to support now?

I believe rasetsu has adequately addressed your first example, so I'm going to focus on this one. We'll assume for sake of argument that both rights do in fact exist.

Which right to support? Both of them, of course. The children and the physician have their right to conscience. The father likewise has his right to die with dignity. What he *does not* have is the right to impose duty on another person against their conscience.

What you appear to be arguing for here is that the right to die with dignity implies that one has the right to require a *particular person* to kill him, or assist him in killing himself. Whom precisely is infringing on whom's rights here?

The father in this case will simply have to find someone who is willing to assist. In this context, a right to die with dignity only means that a third party cannot act to infringe upon that right - not that they can be compelled to duty.

...and that is where I make my determination as to where rights fall in the priority hierarchy - a right that would impose a duty upon another party loses to one that only requires the other party to not infringe upon the right.

And I believe that the person, given the right reasons such as feeling severe chronic pain and knowing there's no cure and such (in other words, justifiable enough), should be allowed to undergo euthanasia if it's the only way to relieve their suffering and if that's what they desire. Otherwise, you'd just be prolonging their suffering. I base this on empathy rather than on some concern that some professionals are being "imposed" to do a big favor for someone else that only they can provide.

What about the other example? Should the father have a right to instill thoughts about eternal hell in their children because that's what their conscience tells them?

And no one should dismiss them as rights that shouldn't be taken seriously, because any right that is conceptualized should be considered. Just because they're not currently legal right in some nation doesn't mean they could never be. So I have to disagree that your friend has adequately justified why we shouldn't consider them seriously.

---

Actually, I suspect even Cthulhu will agree that we're not just discussing legal rights in the US. But I'll see what he says.

I would agree that we're not necessarily speaking of legal rights at all - but I will agree that legal frameworks provide for a meaningful frame of reference.

All rights conceptualized can be potentially legal rights. So that is enough to consider them when providing examples of conflict of rights.

[Jackalope]

And I believe that the person, given the right reasons such as feeling severe chronic pain and knowing there's no cure and such (in other words, justifiable enough), should be allowed to undergo euthanasia if it's the only way to relieve their suffering and if that's what they desire. Otherwise, you'd just be prolonging their suffering.

I don't disagree.

I base this on empathy rather than on some concern that some professionals are being "imposed" to do a big favor for someone else that only they can provide.

Are you suggesting that assisting someone to kill themselves when you have a strong moral compunction that such an act is morally wrong is NOT a huge imposition?

Engage that empathy that you claim to possess and put yourself in the person's shoes whom you would require to be the killer.

What about the other example? Should the father have a right to instill thoughts about eternal hell in their children because that's what their conscience tells them?

I've already said that I think rasetsu has addressed this one adequately. I have nothing to add in the matter.

And no one should dismiss them as rights that shouldn't be taken seriously, because any right that is conceptualized should be considered. Just because they're not currently legal right in some nation doesn't mean they could never be. So I have to disagree that your friend has adequately justified why we shouldn't consider them seriously.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see no reason to take your suggestion that we criminalize the teaching of personal belief systems to one's children. You claimed you weren't advocating for thoughtcrime. If that's not what this is, I don't know what the fuck is.

Given that I live in a country with an *overwhelming* Christian majority, if anyone's beliefs were going to be subject to legal sanction, it's far more likely to be mine than theirs.

[GrandizerII]

And I believe that the person, given the right reasons such as feeling severe chronic pain and knowing there's no cure and such (in other words, justifiable enough), should be allowed to undergo euthanasia if it's the only way to relieve their suffering and if that's what they desire. Otherwise, you'd just be prolonging their suffering.

I don't disagree.

I base this on empathy rather than on some concern that some professionals are being "imposed" to do a big favor for someone else that only they can provide.

Are you suggesting that assisting someone to kill themselves when you have a strong moral compunction that such an act is morally wrong is NOT a huge imposition?

Engage that empathy that you claim to possess and put yourself in the person's shoes whom you would require to be the killer.

What about the other example? Should the father have a right to instill thoughts about eternal hell in their children because that's what their conscience tells them?

I've already said that I think rasetsu has addressed this one adequately. I have nothing to add in the matter.

And no one should dismiss them as rights that shouldn't be taken seriously, because any right that is conceptualized should be considered. Just because they're not currently legal right in some nation doesn't mean they could never be. So I have to disagree that your friend has adequately justified why we shouldn't consider them seriously.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see no reason to take your suggestion that we criminalize the teaching of personal belief systems to one's children. You claimed you weren't advocating for thoughtcrime. If that's not what this is, I don't know what the fuck is.

Given that I live in a country with an *overwhelming* Christian majority, if anyone's beliefs were going to be subject to legal sanction, it's far more likely to be mine than theirs.

Yeah, that's what should've been the case from the beginning. Agree to disagree. But you wanted the discussion to keep going. So I complied.

[Whateverist]

Re: the origional post. I'd say that abortion is at least morally regrettable. I wouldn't say it is the worst possible state of affairs morally. Meh.

[isaac_albert]

i wouldn't even consider it killing because there's no proof that it has a consciousness at that point.

also - it's definitely not genetically fully formed in the way that a human being is genetically fully formed.

Laikashuman, this contention isn't relevant to the discussion. just because a patient whose suffering from a 14 year coma isn't conscious, doesn't mean it isn't classified as killing/murder to take their life. the ethical issues with is would be insurmountable.

[FatAndFaithless]

i wouldn't even consider it killing because there's no proof that it has a consciousness at that point.
Laikashuman, this contention isn't relevant to the discussion. just because a patient whose suffering from a 14 year coma isn't conscious, doesn't mean it isn't classified as killing/murder to take their life. the ethical issues with is would be insurmountable.
also - it's definitely not genetically fully formed in the way that a human being is genetically fully formed.

Bold statements like this need bold evidence as well.

Dude, replying to something on page 5 of a 79 page thread...

[downbeatplumb]

Representative Trent Franks (AZ) wants to ban all abortions because “The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.” he's a fucking asshole.

Fixed that.

My congressman.... one of the shittiest ever.

Well in a way thats true, joseph fritzl raped his daughter repeatedly for 24 years which resulted in only seven children.

When you look at it like that it isn't really much of a point though is it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case

[FatAndFaithless]

This might sound selfish but i am for because imagining being pregnant and stuck with it for months just doesn't sound appealing to me. I'm not a girl, but i support it simply because i would probably have done it out of some reason to be honest

How is that selfish? Saying that a woman shouldn't be forced to edure an unwanted pregnancy isn't selfish.