Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    If we abided by the moral of prevention of deaths, then what about Abortion? What about euthanesia? What about smoking? What about drinking? What about wars?
    Go on, explain. What about them?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    No, I did not say that, its you.

    Read the post first, before typing please.
    I deleted that post I made, purposefully, because I realised I did not read your whole post properly. No need to quote it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    In my view your logic doesn't make sense.

    You say that we are nobody to impose such morals on people in these situations.

    So, by this logic, if a person had HIV (knowingly), used a needle, and then let his friend use the needle who said "I'm willing to take the risk", without telling him he had HIV before hand, then this would be ok?

    Purely because of the "but he was willing to take the risk, who are you to say that I should refuse him of his request"? After all, technically there was no "lie" involved?

    Personally I think morals about one's responsability for caring about the health/safety of others needs to be enforced.
    No, I was referring to the fact that the infected person, INFORMING the other partener beforehand of the risks involved, to let the other person to decide whether they want to continue.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Would it? So the sharing of infected intravenous needles by drug addicts can be said to be a murder charge then?

    For it to tbe a murder charge, you must show as you said, a premeditated plan. Forgetting to tell that person/pleading ignorance of self afflictions, is pretty hard to prove.

    Otherwise, at best it would be manslaughter. And that is disbutable, as the victim hasn't lost the life yet.
    I don't think that fact that you are HIV positive would be something that you would forget to tell a partner for one. I am mainly refering to cases like a that man a while back who was convicted for infecting two women. I think that murder can aply to someone who is in a long term realtionship has unprotected sex with their partner a lot and doesn't tell them they have HIV.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    I deleted that post I made, purposefully, because I realised I did not read your whole post properly. No need to quote it.
    Well, no need to reply then. Obviously you deleted it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    Go on, explain. What about them?
    OK, under your "prevention of deaths" banner, we must not have abortions, we must not use the pill, we must not do anything that may lead to death, everything must be prevented.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I don't think that fact that you are HIV positive would be something that you would forget to tell a partner for one. I am mainly refering to cases like a that man a while back who was convicted for infecting two women. I think that murder can aply to someone who is in a long term realtionship has unprotected sex with their partner a lot and doesn't tell them they have HIV.
    Yes, only if that infected person KNOWLINGLY has HIV. Some people have HIV, but are not aware of its presence.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    OK, under your "prevention of deaths" banner, we must not have abortions, we must not use the pill, we must not do anything that may lead to death, everything must be prevented.
    "we must not have abortions" - Unless the mother is at risk in having the baby (which I infact accounted for by saying "if it doesn't harm them in doing so"), then yes, I don't think it is necessary.

    "Not use pill" - How can you prevent the death of something that isn't living?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    "we must not have abortions" - Unless the mother is at risk in having the baby (which I infact accounted for by saying "if it doesn't harm them in doing so"), then yes, I don't think it is necessary.

    "Not use pill" - How can you prevent the death of something that isn't living?
    The pill and many other types of medication have a small risk of fatality in the user this could be what is meant by that statement. The morning after pill is an interesting one because some people consider it murder others don't so this also could have be ment.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    "we must not have abortions" - Unless the mother is at risk in having the baby (which I infact accounted for by saying "if it doesn't harm them in doing so"), then yes, I don't think it is necessary.

    "Not use pill" - How can you prevent the death of something that isn't living?
    Not even in a rape/incestous case? Even when the mother is willing for it to be aborted? Theres a phrase that comes to mind in countries where abortions are illegal...backstreet abortions. This has the RISK of killing the mother as well. So its not a viable moral code.


    Potentially living, my friend. How old does the foetus, have to be for you to say that it is alive?

    What about wars? In your analysis, we must all be pacifists.

    You produce an honourable morality code, but has practically no meaning in the real world.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    The pill and many other types of medication have a small risk of fatality in the user this could be what is meant by that statement. The morning after pill is an interesting one because some people consider it murder others don't so this also could have be ment.
    Excellent analysis.

    Indeed, medication to prevent an illness (which may lead to death), may have an unwanted effect in other effects. Including death itself.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Not even in a rape/incestous case? Even when the mother is willing for it to be aborted? Theres a phrase that comes to mind in countries where abortions are illegal...backstreet abortions. This has the RISK of killing the mother as well. So its not a viable moral code.


    Potentially living, my friend. How old does the foetus, have to be for you to say that it is alive?

    What about wars? In your analysis, we must all be pacifists.

    You produce an honourable morality code, but has practically no meaning in the real world.
    "Not even in a rape/incestous case?" - Mental health, could lead to suicide or a reduction in life-span.

    "eres a phrase that comes to mind in countries where abortions are illegal...backstreet abortions. This has the RISK of killing the mother as well. So its not a viable moral code." - ? I said abortions shouldn't happen as they are killing lives - unless the mother is at risk if she had the baby. I don't see what your comment highlights really. I said "abortions shouldn't happen". How is giving an example of abortions happening supposed to highlight a flaw in what I said? :confused:

    That comment would only be effective If i said "abortions should be illegal unless mother at risk if having the child" - I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about morals.

    "How old does the foetus, have to be for you to say that it is alive?" - MRSGREN in full operation (Whatever it was, the 7 letters).

    ", but has practically no meaning in the real world" - I made no reference to the law. I said "no abortions unless serious reason, full stop", not "law says it's illegal, unless serious reason, full stop". There's a difference.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    "Not even in a rape/incestous case?" - Mental health, could lead to suicide or a reduction in life-span.

    "eres a phrase that comes to mind in countries where abortions are illegal...backstreet abortions. This has the RISK of killing the mother as well. So its not a viable moral code." - ? I said abortions shouldn't happen as they are killing lives - unless the mother is at risk if she had the baby. I don't see what your comment highlights really. I said "abortions shouldn't happen". How is giving an example of abortions happening supposed to highlight a flaw in what I said? :confused:

    That comment would only be effective If i said "abortions should be illegal unless mother at risk if having the child" - I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about morals.

    "How old does the foetus, have to be for you to say that it is alive?" - MRSGREN in full operation (Whatever it was, the 7 letters).

    ", but has practically no meaning in the real world" - I made no reference to the law. I said "no abortions unless serious reason, full stop", not "law says it's illegal, unless serious reason, full stop". There's a difference.
    You have to give the girl a choice in the matter, she might be more distraught at having the baby. Could lead to sucide.

    I was talking about a woman who has a healthy foetus, with no chance of harming the mother, but she doesn't want it. You misunderstood my arguments again...

    Again, you havn't defined whether outside intervention to save the baby was necessary.

    I was not referring to the law, whats your obession? I was saying that you had a naieve moral outlook on life.

    You missed my point on wars again.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm guessing you have given up.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    You have to give the girl a choice in the matter, she might be more distraught at having the baby. Could lead to sucide.

    I was talking about a woman who has a healthy foetus, with no chance of harming the mother, but she doesn't want it. You misunderstood my arguments again...

    Again, you havn't defined whether outside intervention to save the baby was necessary.

    I was not referring to the law, whats your obession? I was saying that you had a naieve moral outlook on life.

    You missed my point on wars again.
    You have to give the girl a choice in the matter, she might be more distraught at having the baby. Could lead to sucide. - Do you not take notice of the "unless one is at risk in trying to prevent the death" ?

    "I was talking about a woman who has a healthy foetus, with no chance of harming the mother, but she doesn't want it. You misunderstood my arguments again..." - No I didn't. I specifically said, that IMO, unless there is a serious reason to do so, abortion should not happen. A mother who would commit suicide if she had the baby classifies as a serious reason.

    "I was not referring to the law, whats your obession? I was saying that you had a naieve moral outlook on life." - If you weren't talking about the aw, then your comment highlighted nothing. You just said that backsteet abortions occur when abortion is illegal (a law). I just said that it shouldn't occur, barring a strong reason, full stop, simple. (due to moral)

    "You missed my point on wars again" - The lesser of 2 evils BS? You didn't talk about the war in this thread.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    You have to give the girl a choice in the matter, she might be more distraught at having the baby. Could lead to sucide. - Do you not take notice of the "unless one is at risk in trying to prevent the death" ?

    "I was talking about a woman who has a healthy foetus, with no chance of harming the mother, but she doesn't want it. You misunderstood my arguments again..." - No I didn't. I specifically said, that IMO, unless there is a serious reason to do so, abortion should not happen. A mother who would commit suicide if she had the baby classifies as a serious reason.

    "I was not referring to the law, whats your obession? I was saying that you had a naieve moral outlook on life." - If you weren't talking about the aw, then your comment highlighted nothing. You just said that backsteet abortions occur when abortion is illegal (a law). I just said that it shouldn't occur, barring a strong reason, full stop, simple. (due to moral)

    "You missed my point on wars again" - The lesser of 2 evils BS? You didn't talk about the war in this thread.
    I didn't say anything about sucide, she doesn't want it full stop. This situation breaks down the naieve moral axiom which you have built yourself upon.

    So you have no way of enforcing the "it shouldn't occur"

    Lesser of 2 evils? Meaning people still dying, thats not "prevention of deaths."

    I DID SAY WARS IN MY RPEVIOUS POST, YOU NEED TO READ MORE CAREFULLY
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I need to sleep.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    I need to sleep.
    Rock-a-bye, Philly, on the tree tops, when the wind blows, the cradle will rock.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Please bono, this is a serious debating thread. Do not contamiate it with this "general chat". You have been warned.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    I didn't say anything about sucide, she doesn't want it full stop. This situation breaks down the naieve moral axiom which you have built yourself upon.

    So you have no way of enforcing the "it shouldn't occur"

    Lesser of 2 evils? Meaning people still dying, thats not "prevention of deaths."

    I DID SAY WARS IN MY RPEVIOUS POST, YOU NEED TO READ MORE CAREFULLY
    "I didn't say anything about sucide, she doesn't want it full stop. This situation breaks down the naieve moral axiom which you have built yourself upon." - How exactly? If there is not a substantial risk of her committing suicide, or even depression which will lead to reduced life-span, then I don't see why an abortion should occur.

    The "providing that there isn't a risk in them preventing the death" does not let your arguments brake the moral axiom.

    "Lesser of 2 evils? Meaning people still dying, thats not "prevention of deaths."" - But if people followed the moral that I said should be enforced, then there would be no need to go to war to prevent deaths, would there? This is my point, if people like you say "who are we to judge" then this starts to brake down the moral responsibility that somebody has in society.

    You can't say that my opinion that one should have this moral responsibility is wrong.
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.