Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 04:49:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu?  (Read 5645 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: October 27, 2013, 09:21:47 PM »

The violinist argument is a pretty good argument for why one could believe that human life begins at conception and yet still support abortion in cases of rape. Essentially it boils down to the uncomfortable but obviously true fact that the right to life is not all that matters morally, and that forcing another to sustain a life at their own expense can sometimes be immoral even if the only other alternative is letting that life die. I think it applies well to the case of rape but there are some problems with applying it to other cases (which is the intent of the author).
Thomson presumes that individuality is so sacrosanct that killing by refusing to offer help that only you can provide is neither a crime nor a sin. Hence a problem with the violinist argument is that there are plenty of jurisdictions in which being a Good Samaritan is considered obligatory, so clearly Thomson's premise is not universally valid.  But even if it were, would that not also imply that the modern social welfare system funded by taxation is equally problematic. After all, why should the rich be forced to share their wealth?  The violinist example is one that would not sound out of place in an Ayn Rand story.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2013, 12:28:31 AM »
« Edited: October 28, 2013, 02:33:56 PM by True Federalist »


Fwiw, Thompson's response to that criticism:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Military draftees?

Granted we don't currently have a military draft in this country, but it's still in use in some places.  People forced to serve as their country directs for the common good of that county, for a period longer than nine months, and if there happens to be a war going on during their term of service, they are at risk of dying to save others.  We didn't end the draft in this country because we felt it was immoral, but because we came to the conclusion that it was not the most effective way to man the military forces we wanted to have defending us.

As you can see, the argument that requiring an embryo/fetus to be carried to term imposes a level of burden unique to women doesn't hold water with me.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 12 queries.