Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

  • 11-09-2015 1:41am
    #1
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,836 ✭✭✭✭


    I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.


«134567…334

Comments

  • #2
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.
    So, if they allowed for abortion in other cases less girls under 14 would become pregnant?
    Perhaps addressing the cause rather than the result would be more helpful?


  • #3
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Absolam wrote: »
    So, if they allowed for abortion in other cases less girls under 14 would become pregnant?
    Perhaps addressing the cause rather than the result would be more helpful?

    Having a child so early in their life can cause problems with fertility later on in their life for these girls, not to mention the normal risks associated with pregnancy.

    Of course the people (usually family members I expect) who raped them should be punished but they should have the option of abortion rather than be forced to have a child just because the imaginary sky fairy says so.


  • #4
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Having a child so early in their life can cause problems with fertility later on in their life for these girls, not to mention the normal risks associated with pregnancy. Of course the people (usually family members I expect) who raped them should be punished but they should have the option of abortion rather than be forced to have a child just because the imaginary sky fairy says so.
    I think addressing the cause would be taking action to reduce/prevent prevalent rape in the first place, rather than coping with the results afterwards. An all round more humane approach I would have thought. I do take your point though; punishing rapists could help with reducing rape (assuming it's not happening already, though if it is then apparently not), but I don't really see how legalising abortion would.
    I don't think the Paraguayan legislation makes any reference to imaginary sky fairies though; I'm pretty sure it cites the authority by which the Penal Code has effect as the National Congress? I'm translating, obviously, but national congress definitely seems more likely to be accurate than imaginary sky fairy.


  • #5
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Have you anything to counter the story itself other than your usual outburst of snark?

    Wahabi regime backed newspapers indulging in a bit of shia bashing is whats going on there, and thus "story" is indeed a good word for it until something more reliable reports on the matter.


  • #6
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think addressing the cause would be taking action to reduce/prevent prevalent rape in the first place, rather than coping with the results afterwards.
    Here's a crazy thought: the two aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe we should aim to reduce child rape, while also ensuring that victims of child rape don't have the trauma compounded by unwanted pregnancy.

    Too rational?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.
    I was surprised at the statistic thrown in there
    In England and Wales, with a population of 57 million, eight times greater than Paraguay's, there were 1,378 conceptions by girls aged 14 and younger in 2013.
    Its like they think 1,378 is a small number.


  • #8
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    In other news Saudi Arabia responds to the Syrian refugee crisis by promising to build 200 mosques in Germany....allegedly

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/10/refugee-crisis-richard-dawkins-saudi-arabia-mosques-in-germany_n_8115492.html?1441893686
    It would not surprise me. Most of the funding for the major Islamic centre planned for north Dublin seems to be coming from Saudi. Although they don't exactly shout it from the rooftops.


  • #9
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    recedite wrote: »
    I was surprised at the statistic thrown in there Its like they think 1,378 is a small number.

    As a percentage. its 0.01% (Paraguay) vs 0.00249% (Britain). Large number certainly, but considerably lower per head.


  • #10
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,814 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk.

    So, eh, exactly like Ireland then.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #11
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,814 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    recedite wrote: »
    It would not surprise me. Most of the funding for the major Islamic centre planned for north Dublin seems to be coming from Saudi. Although they don't exactly shout it from the rooftops.

    We should f**k them foreign funded proselytisers out of the country. But in fairness we'd then have to f**k the Roman church out of it too. Win win.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,814 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Nodin wrote: »
    As a percentage. its 0.01% (Paraguay) vs 0.00249% (Britain). Large number certainly, but considerably lower per head.

    Four times lower. Not that much, for a supposedly enlightened and developed nation is it?
    I hope nobody was misled into thinking that nought point nought nought something percent means that it's somehow not a problem.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #13
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Here's a crazy thought: the two aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe we should aim to reduce child rape, while also ensuring that victims of child rape don't have the trauma compounded by unwanted pregnancy. Too rational?
    Perhaps a little more rational than suggesting that permissive abortion would mean less children get pregnant.
    Of course, there are those like myself who would suggest killing some people in order to remove trauma from others is not rational; perhaps we could find a way to remove their trauma without killing anyone (and the best way to do that would be to ensure the rape doesn't happen in the first place).

    To forestall turning this thread into the Abortion thread, I'll happily stipulate that those who advocate liberalising Paraguays abortion regime don't consider abortion to be killing anyone; my inclination is to think that many in Paraguay probably do, hence the existing legislation.


  • #14
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Absolam wrote: »
    Perhaps a little more rational than suggesting that permissive abortion would mean less children get pregnant.
    Maybe, if anyone other than yourself had suggested that. Arguing with yourself is far from rational.

    Abortion doesn't mean fewer people get pregnant; it means fewer people are forced to remain pregnant against their will.
    To forestall turning this thread into the Abortion thread, I'll happily stipulate that those who advocate liberalising Paraguays abortion regime don't consider abortion to be killing anyone; my inclination is to think that many in Paraguay probably do, hence the existing legislation.

    Maybe fewer people would think of abortion as "killing people" if fewer other people insisted on using such a horribly misleading term as an excuse for forcing women and girls to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.


  • #15
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    recedite wrote: »
    Its a bit tenuous calling that "sending a message". Surely the blasphemy law is more directly relevant here.
    But if the blasphemy law was invoked, then either the pastor, or the muslims, or the blasphemy law itself would end up suffering a defeat.
    I've been searching for an update on Pastor McConnell, as he was supposed to appear in court on Sept. 3rd. There is nothing mentioned on the NI courts service website, but Pastor Paul Burns reports on his facebook page that he was there in Laganside court, and is now calling for more support on Oct 1st, so maybe the case was postponed?
    Yet all Pastor McConnell has done is preach the Gospel about sin and state the Bible’s position of there being only one Saviour – Jesus Christ, God’s son for all of humanity, Muslims included.
    If we find preaching the Gospel offensive, then this means, as Christians, we have lost our human rights to publicly proclaim the truths of the Bible.
    By supporting the pastor in force on October 1, the people will send a clear message of the resolute commitment to oppose any legislation the Government may seek to impose on the Christian people of Northern Ireland.
    PASTOR PAUL S. BURNS
    Adullam Christian Fellowship Church, Belfast
    Its a very interesting scenario IMO, because it pits the teachings of one "true religion" against another. From outside the religions, we can clearly see that all of them are inherently blasphemous relative to each other. But will they admit that in court themselves, and if so does that mean that "blasphemy" itself as an offense is untenable in a multi-cultural society?

    Bizarrely, the main crown prosecution witness Dr Al-Wazzan is a supporter of IS.
    Ironic, considering the crown itself executed a couple of UK citizens in IS last week using an extra-judicial "reaper drone" attack, which was arguably an illegal killing.
    In his statement to the PSNI, Dr Al-Wazzan denounces the pastor’s “terrible comments” and describes his “general sweeping statements” as “offensive and disgusting”.
    In January Dr Al-Wazzan himself was embroiled in controversy when he said that Islamic State, which has carried out mass executions and forced millions of people to flee their homes, had been a positive force in Mosul, his home city in Iraq.
    “Since the Islamic State took over, it has become the most peaceful city in the world,” he told BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback.
    “Yes, there are other things going wrong there… they are murdering people, I agree, but you can go from east to west of the city without fear.”
    His comments provoked public outrage and Dr Al-Wazzan later withdrew them and apologised.
    In his statement to the PSNI about Pastor McConnell, Dr Al-Wazzan claims that many Muslims in Northern Ireland are professionals while the pastor’s congregation “may include impressionable, uneducated people”.
    I'm really hoping the two main protagonists in this case don't settle their differences quietly out of court. Luckily they both appear to be inflexible fundamentalists, and it looks like neither will back down.


  • #16
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin



    “Since the Islamic State took over, it has become the most peaceful city in
    the world,” he told BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback.
    “Yes, there are other things going wrong there… they are murdering people, I agree, but you can go from east to west of the city without fear.”

    Yes, graveyards are peaceful places, as are places where people are scared to leave their homes, or places from which everybody has run off because of a shower of loopers taking over.

    Presumably you can go from the east to the west of the city without fear if you aren't worried about being murdered or are not actually being murdered, which is nice, really.


  • #17
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Maybe, if anyone other than yourself had suggested that. Arguing with yourself is far from rational. Abortion doesn't mean fewer people get pregnant; it means fewer people are forced to remain pregnant against their will.
    No? PopePalpatine definitely seems to be conflating the number of children who become pregnant with the illiberal abortion legislation when he says "a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day."
    Personally, I agree it's preposterous to imagine the number of people who become pregnant has anything to do with how difficult it is to have an abortion though.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Maybe fewer people would think of abortion as "killing people" if fewer other people insisted on using such a horribly misleading term as an excuse for forcing women and girls to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
    I don't think so; I think you have the thought process backwards. Some people can't justify allowing women to choose not to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because the only way to do so involves killing people. And again, to further try and forestall turning this thread into the Abortion thread, I'll happily stipulate that those who advocate a liberal abortion regime anywhere don't consider abortion to be killing anyone, or they presumably wouldn't advocate it.


  • #18
    emmet02
    Registered Users Posts: 24,815 ✭✭✭✭emmet02


    @Absolam, does it make sense to have this discussion in two places? Do you wish to quote in my last post from the other thread and answer here?

    Or else, it might make more sense for OscarBravo to answer the above in that thread?

    Saves on duplication.


  • #19
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Absolam wrote: »
    Personally, I agree it's preposterous to imagine the number of people who become pregnant has anything to do with how difficult it is to have an abortion though.
    Obviously. Difficulty in securing an abortion won't impact the numeber of children getting pregnant by rape, but it might impact the number of those pregnancies that get reported. The 700 figure is, to borrow from the great Donald Rumsfeld, known. We have a known unknown, which is the number that are pregnant but don't appear in the figures because the family keeps it quiet, perhaps so they can try to arrange a backstreet abortion.

    There are a number of children under 14 that get pregnant. The 700 is a subset of that number. We don't know what that number is. It does not seem unreasonable that it is greater than 700. I know that is one of my children under 14 was raped and got pregnant she would not, necessarily, be part of the 700 as I have the means to ensure she could get an abortion if that was the right thing to do in the circumstances. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that other parents that care for their own children more than the embryo of a rapist, and have the means to do something about it would act similarly.

    Therefore, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the real figure could be more than 700. You are the only one talking about actual pregnancies. Everyone else is, quite obviously, talking about the number reported or recorded.



    MrP


  • #20
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    emmet02 wrote: »
    @Absolam, does it make sense to have this discussion in two places? Do you wish to quote in my last post from the other thread and answer here? Or else, it might make more sense for OscarBravo to answer the above in that thread? Saves on duplication.
    Presuming that PopePalpatine decided to post the same information in two threads in a slightly different fashion in order to see how the differences played out, I'm happy to go along with the fact that different points are being discussed in each, to be honest.


  • #21
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Obviously. Difficulty in securing an abortion won't impact the numeber of children getting pregnant by rape, but it might impact the number of those pregnancies that get reported. The 700 figure is, to borrow from the great Donald Rumsfeld, known. We have a known unknown, which is the number that are pregnant but don't appear in the figures because the family keeps it quiet, perhaps so they can try to arrange a backstreet abortion.
    It's true, it might, though that's a far cry from it would.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    There are a number of children under 14 that get pregnant. The 700 is a subset of that number. We don't know what that number is. It does not seem unreasonable that it is greater than 700. I know that is one of my children under 14 was raped and got pregnant she would not, necessarily, be part of the 700 as I have the means to ensure she could get an abortion if that was the right thing to do in the circumstances. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that other parents that care for their own children more than the embryo of a rapist, and have the means to do something about it would act similarly.
    I don't think it's unreasonable either, though I am conscious that Paraguay is a different society with different values from those common in Europe; we can't assume that a substantial proportion of Paraguayan parents would condone taking the life of an unborn child even in such terrible circumstances, particularly when you consider Paraguayan society's position on abortion.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Therefore, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the real figure could be more than 700. You are the only one talking about actual pregnancies. Everyone else is, quite obviously, talking about the number reported or recorded.
    I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that it must be more than 700 either, but that's beside the point I think, since I wasn't debating whether the number of real pregnancies is higher or lower than the number recorded. Only that the epidemic of child pregnancies is not caused by Paraguays abortion law, and addressing the cause is better than treating the symptoms, particularly when that treatment requires the killing of innocents.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Absolam wrote: »
    ...addressing the cause is better than treating the symptoms...

    There's that false dichotomy again. And you're still pretending that an embryo is a person in order to compound the problem of children being forcibly impregnated with the problem of forcing them to remain pregnant.


  • #23
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's that false dichotomy again. And you're still pretending that an embryo is a person in order to compound the problem of children being forcibly impregnated with the problem of forcing them to remain pregnant.

    I really don't think so; I'm not saying the two are opposite, or mutually exclusive, simply that addressing the cause is better than treating the symptoms. I don't think anyone is really prepared to argue that aborting the child of a pregnant raped teenager is better than preventing her rape, are they?

    I think you know better than to think that someone who believes an embryo (or zygote/bastocyst/foetus /baby, let's not restrict ourselves) is a person is pretending, but I'm certainly not looking to compound the problem; I pretty specifically said we should try to stop the problem from happening when I said we should try to address the cause. That's not compounding it, it's preventing it. Killing someone, now there's an argument to be made that that's compounding the problem.


  • #24
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,789 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Absolam wrote: »
    I really don't think so; I'm not saying the two are opposite, or mutually exclusive, simply that addressing the cause is better than treating the symptoms. I don't think anyone is really prepared to argue that aborting the child of a pregnant raped teenager is better than preventing her rape, are they?
    Of course nobody's prepared to argue in favour of that proposition, which makes it all the more puzzling that you feel the need to keep arguing against it.

    So, for the avoidance of doubt, let's all agree to agree that it would be better if children weren't raped in the first place? OK? OK.

    Now, with that out of the way, we move on to the unfortunate fact that, despite how much better it would be if it didn't happen, children do get raped, and many of them end up with unwanted pregnancies. Abortion wouldn't prevent the rape, but it would prevent the secondary tragedy of children being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
    Killing someone, now there's an argument to be made that that's compounding the problem.
    Only if, through a clever sleight of hand, you change the subject so that the problem is no longer forcing children to be pregnant.


  • #25
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,836 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    emmet02 wrote: »
    @Absolam, does it make sense to have this discussion in two places? Do you wish to quote in my last post from the other thread and answer here?

    Or else, it might make more sense for OscarBravo to answer the above in that thread?

    Saves on duplication.

    Duplication makes obfuscation easier. :/


  • #26
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Of course nobody's prepared to argue in favour of that proposition, which makes it all the more puzzling that you feel the need to keep arguing against it. So, for the avoidance of doubt, let's all agree to agree that it would be better if children weren't raped in the first place? OK? OK.
    I didn't argue against it though; you argued against the notion that addressing the cause is better than treating the symptoms saying it was a false dichotomy.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Now, with that out of the way, we move on to the unfortunate fact that, despite how much better it would be if it didn't happen, children do get raped, and many of them end up with unwanted pregnancies. Abortion wouldn't prevent the rape, but it would prevent the secondary tragedy of children being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Only if, through a clever sleight of hand, you change the subject so that the problem is no longer forcing children to be pregnant.
    I'd suggest the sleight of hand is attributing the act of forcing children to be pregnant to a lack of abortion rather than to an act of rape. The rape forces the children into pregnancy, not the lack of abortion.

    I do however take the point that providing abortion would allow a means to no longer be pregnant; it won't ameliorate the rape but it will remove one of the symptoms and as you say it would prevent the secondary tragedy of children being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Though it would also cause the secondary tragedy of killing someone in order to do so; a tragedy which is in my opinion greater than the initial tragedy of rape. An opinion I'm certain you don't share, but one which many Paraguayans might, hence their abortion legislation.


  • #27
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Absolam wrote: »
    I didn't argue against it though; you argued against the notion that addressing the cause is better than treating the symptoms saying it was a false dichotomy.

    I'd suggest the sleight of hand is attributing the act of forcing children to be pregnant to a lack of abortion rather than to an act of rape. The rape forces the children into pregnancy, not the lack of abortion.

    I do however take the point that providing abortion would allow a means to no longer be pregnant; it won't ameliorate the rape but it will remove one of the symptoms and as you say it would prevent the secondary tragedy of children being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Though it would also cause the secondary tragedy of killing someone in order to do so; a tragedy which is in my opinion greater than the initial tragedy of rape. An opinion I'm certain you don't share, but one which many Paraguayans might, hence their abortion legislation.

    Are you actually saying that terminating something which does not have a functioning brain or nervous system is WORSE than raping a 10 year old and then forcing her to give birth which can cause her injuries which can render her infertile, and cause problems with her underdeveloped pelvis which can render her disabled?

    That's fcking inhuman.


  • #28
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    kylith wrote: »
    Are you actually saying that terminating something which does not have a functioning brain or nervous system is WORSE than raping a 10 year old and then forcing her to give birth which can cause her injuries which can render her infertile, and cause problems with her underdeveloped pelvis which can render her disabled?
    Well, I'm saying that terminating the life of the person she's carrying, regardless of how developed that person is at the time is worse than compelling someone to give birth which can cause her injuries which can render her infertile, and cause problems with her underdeveloped pelvis which can render her disabled? I'm setting apart the rape, since that particular evil is a precondition of both options here though I understand why you'd want to lump it in with one and not the other.
    kylith wrote: »
    That's fcking inhuman.
    I suppose that's a matter of opinion.... my opinion is killing an innocent is inhuman. Or at least, not what humans should aspire to.


  • #29
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, I'm saying that terminating the life of the person she's carrying, regardless of how developed that person is at the time is worse than compelling someone to give birth which can cause her injuries which can render her infertile, and cause problems with her underdeveloped pelvis which can render her disabled? I'm setting apart the rape, since that particular evil is a precondition of both options here though I understand why you'd want to lump it in with one and not the other.

    I suppose that's a matter of opinion.... my opinion is killing an innocent is inhuman. Or at least, not what humans should aspire to.

    Perhaps I phrased it badly, in my total shock at what you'd said.

    Terminating a pregnancy which has the potential to maim or kill the mother is WORSE than rape, even the rape of a child. This is what you're saying? If you were given the option of performing an abortion at 12 weeks or raping a 12 year old you'd rape the kid? Because if so I'm going to have to stick to my 'inhuman' statement.


  • #30
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    kylith wrote: »
    Perhaps I phrased it badly, in my total shock at what you'd said.

    Terminating a pregnancy which has the potential to maim or kill the mother is WORSE than rape, even the rape of a child. This is what you're saying? If you were given the option of performing an abortion at 12 weeks or raping a 12 year old you'd rape the kid? Because if so I'm going to have to stick to my 'inhuman' statement.
    Killing someone is worse than raping someone. When did we have an either or? If you're someone who is prepared to choose to either perform an abortion at 12 weeks or rape a 12 year old, perhaps you might look a little closer to home for your definition of inhuman.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Absolam wrote: »
    Killing someone is worse than raping someone. When did we have an either or? If you're someone who is prepared to choose to either perform an abortion at 12 weeks or rape a 12 year old, perhaps you might look a little closer to home for your definition of inhuman.

    Christ, you are hard work. So what we have here is a thought experiment, I am fairly sure you are quite aware of this. Just to clarify what you already know, putting forward a thought experiment, or answering it, does not mean:
    • you are the type of person prepared to carry out the acts mentioned in the thought experiment; or
    • you would like to carry out either of the acts mentioned in the thought experiment; or
    • you necessarily agree with any or all of the acts mentioned in the thought experiment.
    So lets try this again, and I will try to be a specific as possible.

    Absolam, I have a thought experiment. For the avoidance of doubt, a thought experiment is a hypothetical scenario followed by a number of choices. Taking part in the thought experiment in know way suggests that you approve of, or would like to, actually do any of the things suggested in the thought experiment in real life. The though experiment is simply a tool designed to encourage though on a particular topic.

    The scenario in the thought experiment is self contained. The options given as part of the thought experiment are a full and complete list of the possible answers. The purpose of the thought experiment is not, necessarily, to come up with a solution to a particular problem, but is merely to ascertain which of the options available is either most appealing or, more frequently, and is the case in the following, which is the least unappealing. The key thing is, you must choose one of the options.

    Here is the scenario:

    War has broken out in Europe, you, along with all of your relatives have been captured and are currently being held in an internment camp. The commandant of the camp is a particularly evil person and has presented you with a horrible dilemma. Before you are two 12 year old girls. The girl on the left, you are informed, is 12 weeks pregnant, the pregnancy being the result of a gang rape she suffered at the hands of 6 of the camp guards. The other girl is naked and tied to a bed.

    The commandant has lined all of your relatives, as well as anyone you have spoken to since you were brought to the camp some weeks ago, against a wall faced by 10 guards armed with machine guns.

    You are given a choice. Give the pregnant girl a tablet which will cause her to miscarriage or rape the other girl. If you choose to do neither all of your friends and family, as well as the two girls will be executed.

    Which would you do?

    MrP


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement