Reply With Quote
So is abortion (particularly late term) capital murder then?
Lol just a warning for manslaughter
So is abortion (particularly late term) capital murder then?
Either way, you terminated the property you created. Should be perfectly legal if both parents consent.
Following your line of comparative reasoning, women should get a warning on the first abortion and risk criminal prosecution on the next one.
Lol
Are your parents still alive?
Mother is, she is very dear to me
Blake, dropping the mouse.
The abortion angle is more interesting than people give it credit for. Judith Thompson went through philosophical gymnastics to establish that fetuses have only a positive right to life and that the mother was not obligated to sacrifice her negative right to liberty to meet it. Essentially, the mother had a right to expel the child from her person and regain control of her body even if as a consequence, the fetus died.
So children dying by being left in a car, especially accidentally, seems to fall into this category. It's more akin to Thompson's examples if the mother lets her kid starve to death, but the debate should be the same regardless. In both cases, the child isn't being killed -- they're just being left to die. And if that is only a violation of positive rights, then the parents shouldn't be punished. , even if they do it on purpose, their liberty would theoretically win out over the kid's "right" to have someone take them out of the car.
Obviously, we wouldn't go for that in the real world. Most of us think the parents should be punished, definitely in the case of willful neglect. But if that's the case, then the Thompson argument is dead in the water, and the place where the abortion debate has settle should move again.
Awesome! So there is still a chance that she can destroy her "creation".
I don't think it's that connected though. In one case, you are talking about a child that is still a part of the woman's body. They are connected and one affects the other.
In the case of the morons that leave their kids in the car, they are no longer connected in the same sense. The mother isn't fighting to regain control of her body because the child is already born.
Thompson definitely did argue about the woman's right to her body, but her violinist example was also to show that there wasn't a point to establishing a normative line. Once you start saying a woman has the obligation simply because the child is born, you get back into the original debate.
That they aren't connected can be seen as an even bigger reason why the mother isn't fault. Like, you don't have to give a homeless person money, even if they'll die without it, but you have to buy your kids food. Why is that? Why does a parent have a legal obligation to keep their children alive, and why is that not the case before the kid is born?
I thought it was "property"
In my head, I'm thinking of Dr. Frankenstein.
I didn't say they weren't connected at all. Only that the connection isn't the same. We still have legal obligations even if moral obligations are thrown out the window. The mother is obligated to make sure that the child is taken care of since she made the decision to bring it into the world. It doesn't mean she has to stick around. Plenty of people try to adopt children. The homeless person doesn't have ties to you. The children are here as a direct result of a decision that was made by the mother/father.
If Thompson's argument is correct, then we are all excluded from responsibility. I shouldn't have to pay bills or taxes because I didn't choose to be born. I never asked to be given life. That decision was made for me.
I'm trying to have a dialectic, not a debate. I agree it's not one-to-one, but I think the central issues in the Thompson thought experiment are the same. And that's big, because that her argument broke the abortion debate wide open. And it never sat well with me. I think it's reasonable to assume that carrying the baby to term implies that the mother is obligated to do what she can to keep it alive, especially if she doesn't adopt it out. However, the father doesn't get that choice, since the male very prominently gets ignored in the decision to have the child. It's just a crazy situation.
Well that's mostly covered in contract theory. You give up some positive rights so that the government can protect your negative rights. You don't have to pay taxes if you off yourself or even ostracize yourself from anything having to do with society. But you can't expect to have anything relating to modern human comfort and not sacrifice for it.If Thompson's argument is correct, then we are all excluded from responsibility. I shouldn't have to pay bills or taxes because I didn't choose to be born. I never asked to be given life. That decision was made for me.
I don't know. I watch those off the grid shows and only a certain number of people are allowed to do that. In certain states, it's not even allowed and the ones that are doing it legally have to stop after a certain number of years. You aren't really given that option.
Avante would never forget about a kid. Gotta give props where props are due tbh
I read somewhere that it's illegal to live off the grid in Texas. Not sure how true that is.
I have no idea what you're watching, but if you decide to just go over to the Alaska wilderness and starve to death, no one would stop you. Now if you mean that you can't live off government land for free, I could see that.
You need to watch those shows. They are on A&E or Discovery or something like that. They are pretty cool.
That could be true. But I don't know. I'm skeptical.
Gotta hand it to the Mexicans, they haul the whole tribe everywhere they go.
Why couldnt that got MS parents forget to leave his ass in the car?
i know quite a bit of mx families that should employ this technique. damn football teams created out of the loins of 2 people. jesus christ!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions