Would you force someone to do something to save someone else?

[charlie sc]

If you answered no to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

Side note: this is about abortion Pro-life vs pro-choice *edited

 

[Father Heathen]

In the prolifer's mind, isn't that what they believe they're already doing?

 

[Samana Johann]

Wisdom over Justice might help for understanding and right means to help, which is something voluntary.

 

[RESOLUTION]

If you answered yes to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

No one should need to force someone to save the life of another. As for pro-life can anyone not be who is a living being except murderers of course. Do you want to ask an actual question on a topic instead of going around the houses and actually saying nothing.

 

[JJ50]

If you answered yes to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

I am not pro-life. I believe one should take all reasonable precautions to prevent getting pregnant, but if that fails it is far better to have a termination preferably in the first trimester than bring an unwanted child into this world.

No woman should ever be forced to continue with a pregnancy if she doesn't wish to do so.

 

[charlie sc]

In the prolifer's mind, isn't that what they believe they're already doing?

They believe they're doing what?

 

[charlie sc]

No one should need to force someone to save the life of another.

Then, in what circumstances is it enforcable?

As for pro-life can anyone not be who is a living being except murderers of course

What?

Do you want to ask an actual question on a topic instead of going around the houses and actually saying nothing.

It's a simple logical contradiction, which is unavoidable if one answered yes to both. Ok I'll add more. Done.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Bit of a false dichotomy there. For example, I support "forcing" people to pull over to make way for an ambulance. I don't support forcing people to donate a kidney, even though both acts might save someone. Dealing with nuanced social and ethical issues rarely takes a single vaguely worded generic question.

 

[charlie sc]

Bit of a false dichotomy there. For example, I support "forcing" people to pull over to make way for an ambulance.

Possibly. However, this particular example, you gave, is not used to directly save another life. Understandably, laws exist, normally, to better society and therefore improve/save lives, but it's not used to directly save someone. Perhaps you can think of another and better example to prove you point?

don't support forcing people to donate a kidney, even though both acts might save someone. Dealing with nuanced social and ethical issues rarely takes a single vaguely worded generic question.

Indeed. However, it's not meant to deal with nuanced issues. I'm curious how someone can reconcile a logical contradiction if they answered no to the first and yes to the second. This is not meant to go in-depth. Keeping it as simple as possible is probably better for this reason.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

In the prolifer's mind, isn't that what they believe they're already doing?

Well, that's certainly the conscious rationalisation. IMHO, to most anti-abortion "pro-lifers", it's far more about criminalising human sexuality, and retaining pregnancy as threat and punishment for premarital sex and especially for being a "loose woman", although I'm happy to acknowledge this is largely subconscious for many. Thought experiments like "the fertility clinic fire" go a long way to support this idea, IMHO.

NB There is a difference between being prolife and being an anti-abortion "prolifer", IMHO, although we don't really have commonly accepted terms that distinguish the two. I conider myself prolife, and personally oppose abortion. I often find myself at odds with anti-abortion "pro-lifers", however.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Possibly. However, this particular example, you gave, is not used to directly save another life. Understandably, laws exist, normally, to better society and therefore improve/save lives, but it's not used to directly save someone. Perhaps you can think of another and better example to prove you point?

Good samaritan laws? Duty of care laws? Depraved indifference laws?

Indeed. However, it's not meant to deal with nuanced issues. I'm curious how someone can reconcile a logical contradiction if they answered no to the first and yes to the second. This is not meant to go in-depth. Keeping it as simple as possible is probably better for this reason.

It's not a simple issue, is the problem

 

[Father Heathen]

Well, that's certainly the conscious rationalisation. IMHO, to most anti-abortion "pro-lifers", it's far more about criminalising human sexuality, and retaining pregnancy as threat and punishment for premarital sex and especially for being a "loose woman", although I'm happy to acknowledge this is largely subconscious for many. Thought experiments like "the fertility clinic fire" go a long way to support this idea, IMHO.

NB There is a difference between being prolife and being an anti-abortion "prolifer", IMHO, although we don't really have commonly accepted terms that distinguish the two. I conider myself prolife, and personally oppose abortion. I often find myself at odds with anti-abortion "pro-lifers", however.

I know, especially considering how most prolifers seem to suddenly stop giving a **** about them once they're actually born, based on their adamant support for a myriad of platforms and policies that certainly aren't in children's best interest.

 

[Father Heathen]

They believe they're doing what?

ffs, you're the thread author.

 

[charlie sc]

Good samaritan laws?

This law appears to be used for the protection of the people trying to help. Not to enforce someone to do something.

Duty of care laws?

This law appears to be about protecting or at least consideing others when you did something that's potentially harmfully. This is more about not hurting others.

Depraved indifference laws?

This law appears to be about not doing something when they know the thing they're doing is harmful.

In these examples, no one is bound or forced to do something to save someone else.

 

[BSM1]

Bit of a false dichotomy there. For example, I support "forcing" people to pull over to make way for an ambulance. I don't support forcing people to donate a kidney, even though both acts might save someone. Dealing with nuanced social and ethical issues rarely takes a single vaguely worded generic question.

Good example. Let me further it by pointing out that hindering an ambulance violates the rights of others; forcing someone to give up parts of their body does not,

 

[1213]

If you answered no to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

I don’t think I would force anyone to do anything.

In case of abortion, I hope children would be loved, not murdered. It is really sad that humans are so evil that they murder babies in hope that their life would be better, if they sacrifice their child for Hedonism. And I think it is sick how some people defend murder.

But, if you support abortion, is it ok, if God aborts all evil people?

 

[JJ50]

I think one should have to opt out of an organ donation rather than opt in, that is the case here in Wales.

 

[JJ50]

I don’t think I would force anyone to do anything.

In case of abortion, I hope children would be loved, not murdered. It is really sad that humans are so evil that they murder babies in hope that their life would be better, if they sacrifice their child for Hedonism. And I think it is sick how some people defend murder.

But, if you support abortion, is it ok, if God aborts all evil people?

It should abort itself first as it is the evil one in chief.

 

[BSM1]

I don’t think I would force anyone to do anything.

In case of abortion, I hope children would be loved, not murdered. It is really sad that humans are so evil that they murder babies in hope that their life would be better, if they sacrifice their child for Hedonism. And I think it is sick how some people defend murder.

But, if you support abortion, is it ok, if God aborts all evil people?

Do you think abortion is murder?

 

[RESOLUTION]

Then, in what circumstances is it enforcable?

It isn't applicable there are no circumstances in which you can force someone to save anothers life. Even Christ was not forced into saving the world.
He chose to do it..

[/QUOTE]
What?[/QUOTE] The problem when you start off from your own personal take on a topic is that it can become very tunnel vision. Where you ask a question which is designed to force
an answer you want rather than a persons personal views. If you want pro-life to be about abortion then say so. When it comes to abortion a baby is already alive in the womb and it does not need
saving by another. The woman has a choice to keep or kill the baby within her. My reply would be this. :- In an age where unwanted pregnancy is not an issue why get pregnant to kill it? People should be made to pay for their abortions if there is no assault or underage pregnancy. Women having unwanted pregnancy is not acceptable. They should be made to pay if they want an abortion as contraception is available.

It's a simple logical contradiction, which is unavoidable if one answered yes to both. Ok I'll add more. Done.

Ethical questions surrounding abortion show that it is no longer any reason for any unwanted pregnancy outside rape and abusive partners. Also children underage sex. I see the point in abortion for those but not for people who have the means to avoid pregnancy - getting pregnant. Make them pay full cost of abortion then it might make them stop getting pregnant the right way.Do we have the right to tell others what to do with their body? NO but we have the right to make them pay for what they have done if they ignore the proper way to avoid it.