Legalise abortion

Zulu wrote: »

It appears you've missed my point. Perhaps reread and consider before clicking the ":rolleyes:".

Again, your point is irrelevant to the hypothetical I put forward. Obviously he is aware of what is happening to him in the hypothetical, and no one mentioned anyone killing anyone.

How you think you have demonstrated the flaw in my logic is beyond me. It is like saying you would choose to save men first on the Titanic to be told that your logic is flawed because sometimes people die in their sleep.

Here I was thinking you missed my point - clearly you simply didn't understand it. I'm not sure how to be more concise, so I'll try to give a little more detail to aid your comprehension.
Your premise for not killing the 30 year old in your hypothetical example was that they'd understand they were going to be killed. However, one could kill a 30 year old without them understanding they were going to die, hence your logic is flawed.

Zulu wrote: »

Your premise for not killing the 30 year old in your hypothetical example was that they'd understand they were going to be killed. However, one could kill a 30 year old without them understanding they were going to die, hence your logic is flawed.

No, hence the hypothetical changes (as I already said)

In a hypothetical where they are being killed say in their sleep then the situation is different and I would use completely different criteria for determining if I saved the baby or the 30 year old.

It is (a quite nonsensical) strawman to assert that my logic would be universal across all hypotheticals since I never gave that impression and nor would it.

Ahh, it changes, I see.

Not much of an example then isn't it?

Zulu wrote: »

Ahh, it changes, I see.

Not much of an example then isn't it?

It is a perfectly fine example for what it is explaining, which was a small side note to the other discussion. I didn't expect anyone to try and infer a life philosophy out of it :pac:

If I was on a sinking ship and I had a 30 year old man and a screaming baby and I could only save one I would save the 30 year old. To me his life is more worthy of saving because he is conscious and afraid and aware of his fear and has greater experience and memory. Where as the baby is, while probably unconsciously afraid, not consciously afraid, has few if any memories and an under developed personality.

I'm curious what the rational for the alternative is?

I'd save the child myself. The 30 year old has had the oppertunity to experience life.

Zulu wrote: »

I'd save the child myself. The 30 year old has had the oppertunity to experience life.

But if the infant has not experienced life then what is lost by its death? There are an infant number of being that never experience life, that never seemed a problem for me.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is a perfectly fine example for what it is explaining, which was a small side note to the other discussion. I didn't expect anyone to try and infer a life philosophy out of it :pac:

If I was on a sinking ship and I had a 30 year old man and a screaming baby and I could only save one I would save the 30 year old. To me his life is more worthy of saving because he is conscious and afraid and aware of his fear and has greater experience and memory. Where as the baby is, while probably unconsciously afraid, not consciously afraid, has few if any memories and an under developed personality.

I'm curious what the rational for the alternative is?

What if you knew the 30 year old had a history of raping infants?

metrovelvet wrote: »

What if you knew the 30 year old had a history of raping infants?

Er, ok. Then I would probably save the infant. But what if I knew the infant was going to grow up to be Hitler ... oh the hypotheticals!

Wicknight wrote: »

But if the infant has not experienced life then what is lost by its death?

Life. I would have thought that was obvious.

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, ok. Then I would probably save the infant. But what if I knew the infant was going to grow up to be Hitler ... oh the hypotheticals!

Why? According to you its ok to kill an infant because they aren't aware but somehow its not ok to rape one? Why are they aware of being raped but not of being killed? Would you save the life of a 30 year old who killed infants?

The logic is sound, it just changes, because it's a hypothetical.

Come on Metrovelvet, keep up!

Zulu wrote: »

The logic is sound, it just changes, because it's a hypothetical.

Come on Metrovelvet, keep up!

Groan

The logic is applied to a specific hypothetical. It is nonsensical to say that it should be applied to a different hypothetical.

Its like saying do you prepare cats or dogs and how does that logic apply to quantum mechanics ...

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why? According to you its ok to kill an infant because they aren't aware but somehow its not ok to rape one? Why are they aware of being raped but not of being killed? Would you save the life of a 30 year old who killed infants?

Please point out where I said it was ok to kill an infant.:rolleyes:

Perhaps you and Zulu would like to get together and discuss all the things I'm not actually saying but you wish I were so you can persist with this faux outrage without wasting my time.

No one's wasting your time but yourself! It's the internet - you don't need to post.

Rest assured, there's a significant possibility that only the three of us remain reading this thread seeing as it's been dragged so far from its original point. The hypothetical nonsense doesn't help either.

Your posts are getting too gilbert and sullivan for me WK.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your posts are getting too gilbert and sullivan for me WK.

Please point out where I said it was ok to kill an infant.

Zulu wrote: »

No one's wasting your time but yourself! It's the internet - you don't need to post.

Rest assured, there's a significant possibility that only the three of us remain reading this thread seeing as it's been dragged so far from its original point. The hypothetical nonsense doesn't help either.

It is wasting my time because I would much rather spend my time discussing the topic, not spending my time correcting you and metrovelvet after you misrepresent me.

It would be much easier if I put forward my position and you guys put forward your positions and we discuss that, rather than spending all your time trying, rather unsuccessfully, to trap me in some kind of logical paradox.

Wicknight wrote: »

Please point out where I said it was ok to kill an infant.

You said youd kill an infant before a 30 year old because they wouldnt be aware. I wonder if infant rapists tell themselves the same crap.

I cannot make the call between a thirty year old and an infant. They both have the same rights, to choose one life over another would be an arbitrary choice and not one i would be in a position to make.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You said youd kill an infant before a 30 year old because they wouldnt be aware.

No I didn't. I said I would save the 30 year old. I'm not killing the infant. Do I really need to explain the difference to you?

metrovelvet wrote: »

I cannot make the call between a thirty year old and an infant. They both have the same rights, to choose one life over another would be an arbitrary choice and not one i would be in a position to make.

Brilliant, you don't save either and they both die.

You know what. Nevermind. Its like arguing with an ionesco play.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is wasting my time because I would much rather spend my time discussing the topic.

Well then, discuss it and stop posting hypothetical nonsense .

Zulu wrote: »

Well then, discuss it and stop posting hypothetical nonsense .

I was discussing it until both of you decided to try and trap me based on you misunderstanding something I said in a small part, that wasn't even that important, of a much longer post the rest of which was ignored.

It really isn't my fault that you both came out with egg on your face. Take it like a man and move on, both of you.

In fact when was the last time either of you posted an actual point related to this topic, rather than simply trying to trap and berate me?

Oh get over the persecution complex!

Listen, people are going to question nonsensical hypothetical points. This isn't because they are out to get you, it's because you're not making any sense.

dvpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

I cannot make the call between a thirty year old and an infant. They both have the same rights, to choose one life over another would be an arbitrary choice and not one i would be in a position to make.

Reminded me a bit of this thought experiment. I'd be more inclined to choose the infant over the adult on the basis that the potential lifetime available to the infant is greater.

dvpower wrote: »

Reminded me a bit of this thought experiment. I'd be more inclined to choose the infant over the adult on the basis that the potential lifetime available to the infant is greater.

Wow. Does that at all indicate anything to about your stance on abortion? If you had to choose between mother and child youd choose the one with more years ahead?

dvpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Wow. Does that at all indicate anything to about your stance on abortion? If you had to choose between mother and child youd choose the one with more years ahead?

Nope.

Its probably not an unreasonable rule of thumb for people who are born. So in choosing between, say an eighty year old, with not many years left on the clock and a child, I'd choose the child. Of course, these thought experiments are usually highly contrived and you have to assume that all other things are equal (like the child is a future tyrant and the elderly person is just about to discover a cure for cancer).

I wouldn't confer the same status to the unborn as I do to the born, so I wouldn't choose an unborn child over a mother (at least not on this reasoning).