Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
then I call the ambulance.
I think that you may have forgotten that we are talking about morality, not legality. We are not talking about whether the do not has the legal right to with draw, but whether they have the moral right to do so.
that wasn't my point. My point was that the patient agrees to the whole procedure. Including their lack of rights.
Every year, people around here die from blood loss after being injured during a hurricane. Power is out. Roads are flooded. Winds are high. Phones may either be out or overloaded. You don't always get to call an ambulance.
And my point is that the patient does not always get to consent. Unconscious people cannot consent. Infants cannot consent. And that the person providing bodily support is not obligated to provide support, or to continue doing so once support has begun.
I would never ever start my personal blood donation on the street.
you started off with your neighbor. An adult - a consenting adult.
Ok. You have gone fully evasive. This is like when people try to defend slavery in the blble. They will say anything to avoid the issue that God endorsed slavery.
Ah yes.
Prove it
It’s not discrediting. It’s not hate. It’s demonstrating the potential for immorality even if two people consent. Do you disagree?
Is it safe to assume you do not find it immoral and thus you have to add immorality to it in order to declare it immoral?
The op by itself is of course not immoral. Obviously so. So I added an additional element to make it interesting. Unfortunately, some snowflakes couldn’t handle it.
Fair enough.
I never claimed otherwise.
The point is: the patient agrees beforehand that the donor may stop anytime. Both donor and patient agree to the rules of the procedure, before it even gets started.
before I start ...let me add to my point: unborn life doesn not agree in a way that you can discern to anything coming close to its death.
No. The situation needs clarification. Are both the participating adults unencumbered? Are they unmarried? If married, do they have permission of their spouses? Otherwise whoever has not is committing a breach of trust. Such act may impinge on the relationship of those who are married. It may lead to divorce. It will impinge on the welfare of their children. What kind of example these people will be putting up before their families or society? There are many more questions like this, and I can continue, but I hope you get my drift. Whether they are adults or not, it is best to remain within the bound of family and society. I would not term it as moral. This is because of my orthodoxy, age and culture, but I do not regret them.
No. The situation needs clarification. Are both the participating adults unencumbered? Are they unmarried? If married, do they have permission of their spouses? Otherwise whoever has not is committing a breach of trust. Such act may impinge on the relationship of those who are married. It may lead to divorce. It will impinge on the welfare of their children. What kind of example these people will be putting up before their families or society? There are many more questions like this, and I can continue, but I hope you get my drift. Whether they are adults or not, it is best to remain within the bound of family and society. I would not term it as moral. This is because of my orthodoxy, age and culture, but I do not regret them.
I do agree, and it’s obvious. That’s why I changed the fact pattern. To have a discussion about something not so obvious. Get it now? It’s not bigotry. It’s not hatred.