View Poll Results: Please Read the First Post

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • The woman in fact pattern one

    10 22.73%
  • The store owner in fact pattern two

    9 20.45%
  • They both have the right to kill

    17 38.64%
  • Neither has the right to kill

    8 18.18%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    10-10-15 @ 01:31 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    fact pattern one: the fetus is completely innocent
    fact pattern two: the guy is a thief

    If you had to choose one, which deserves to die more?
    Occam's razor if I ever saw it.

    I like this kind of black and white moral thinking.

    Unfortunately, the question wasn't who had more of a right to live, but who had more of a right to kill?

  2. #12
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Razor View Post
    Occam's razor if I ever saw it.

    I like this kind of black and white moral thinking.

    Unfortunately, the question wasn't who had more of a right to live, but who had more of a right to kill?
    the store owner. because the thief had every intention of depriving him of his property.

    however, if you replace "fetus" with "rapist" in fact pattern one, the the woman who was raped would have more right to kill.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Neither has a strong right to kill. In both instances it would be a barbaric inhumane killing and neither is merited.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

    FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

    The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?

    Too many problems with this attempt. For one, it is comparing an innocent party to a guilty party. For another, too many unproveable and/or unknowable assumptions.

    No thanks, I'll pass.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #15
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Too many problems with this attempt. For one, it is comparing an innocent party to a guilty party. For another, too many unproveable and/or unknowable assumptions.

    No thanks, I'll pass.
    my first thought was that this is a bait thread. trying to paint pro-lifers as hypocrites for refusing to call the guys who shot the drug addict burglar "murderers"
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  6. #16
    Advisor GreenvilleGrows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    My version of reality
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    566

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Razor View Post
    Well, in your hypothetical, no it isn't.

    However, you are actually quite wrong..

    But if that intruder left a viable fetus within the woman hiding in the closet, it's a different story.

    The argument for the Pro Abortion Rights crowd has been and is, and has prevailed on the basis of property rights and property law.

    A quick search of google confirms this...

    Abortion as Eviction: Property Rights, the Child and the Womb Part ...
    zealfortruth.org/.../abortion-as-eviction-property-rights-the-child-an... - CachedDec 5, 2007 Dr. Block's views on abortion follow this basic framework holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. ...
    The Pro-Rights Abortion Position | The Next Right

    While you may take exception to this, apparently the supreme court finds that it's not quite as dubious as you find it.
    Well, the links didn't come through for the sources you mentioned, but I found the first one. The interesting thing is that in that article, the author supporting abortion as "evictionism" basically uses my comparison. Except he says that it's fine to "evict" the baby human from your private property (regardless of age). He essentially says that youth are slaughtered all the time, why make a distinction? I actually think his logic is consistent even though repulsive. Regardless of what the Supreme Court might say, I think they'd have a problem from me evicting a baby human into a -20 degree night, or off a housebout into a lake, or out of a moving airplane just because they were trespassers in my personal property.

    Logic only comes back into play through 2 arguments. Either 1.) the life inside a woman's body isn't life, yet; or 2.) it's ok to kill someone at any age if they're on your property and unwanted. The 2nd argument is a hard one to maintain ("Yes, I pushed him into oncoming traffic, officer, but he was standing in my yard eating my last bag of cheetos").

    The Supreme Court can say what they want. I'm sure I disagree with a lot of other things they've said over the years, too. They are a political body who interpret law through the eyes of social will.
    The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    10-10-15 @ 01:31 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenvilleGrows View Post
    Well, the links didn't come through for the sources you mentioned, but I found the first one. The interesting thing is that in that article, the author supporting abortion as "evictionism" basically uses my comparison. Except he says that it's fine to "evict" the baby human from your private property (regardless of age). He essentially says that youth are slaughtered all the time, why make a distinction? I actually think his logic is consistent even though repulsive. Regardless of what the Supreme Court might say, I think they'd have a problem from me evicting a baby human into a -20 degree night, or off a housebout into a lake, or out of a moving airplane just because they were trespassers in my personal property.

    Logic only comes back into play through 2 arguments. Either 1.) the life inside a woman's body isn't life, yet; or 2.) it's ok to kill someone at any age if they're on your property and unwanted. The 2nd argument is a hard one to maintain ("Yes, I pushed him into oncoming traffic, officer, but he was standing in my yard eating my last bag of cheetos").

    The Supreme Court can say what they want. I'm sure I disagree with a lot of other things they've said over the years, too. They are a political body who interpret law through the eyes of social will.
    Yes well, I haven't stated my personal position... just responding to someone that said it was irrelevant to this topic. From a legal standpoint, it is the topic.

  8. #18
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 12:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
    Here we have an innocent unborn child who has done nothing to anyone. It has not violated anyone's rights. The woman, while she did take measures to minimize her risk, knew that no birth control method is 100% reliable and knowingly accepted that risk when she engaged in sex (as did her partner, who should also be held responsible for caring for the life he helped create).

    The bottom line is the right to life is the most basic and fundemental right and the child did nothing to warrant nullifying that right.

    FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

    The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
    The junkie thief on the other hand has violated the property rights of someone else. Since he does not respect the rights of others, society has no obligationt to respect his rights. We do have concepts of due process and fair trials, but that is not to protect the rights of criminals, but the rights of innocents who may be accused of a crime (here there is no doubt he's guilty) and also serves an important check on the government's near monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Without those safeguards, the government could imprison or execute anyone for any reason.

    The store owner here is not the government. Rather he is an individual defending his right to benefit from the fruits of his labor (i.e. property rights). He doesn't know if the thief is armed or not. He doesn't know if his intentions are to simply rob him or perhaps to do greater harm. Trying to apprehend or detain the thief could potentially put the store owner at risk for harm. The fact that the owner can easily cover the loss is not relevant. That doesn't make him a more acceptable target for crime.

    If we believe in property rights, we must also believe in the right to defend our property. And such measures are ultimately backed up by the use of force. If the owner tells the thief to freeze, but cannot legally use force to detain the thief, what is to stop the thief from ignoring his orders and continuing with the robbery? Do we expect the owner to watch the thief rob him blind, while he impotently stands there despite having a gun in his hands? Or do we expect the owner to give the initiative to the thief, waiting for him to make the first threatening move before the owner can use force to defend himself?

    When you violate the rights of others, you become fair game for retaliation from those who would seek to stop you (in the heat of the moment, this does not excuse vigilante attempts to track down the thief after the fact). Due process and fair trial rights of the thief are not violated, because those are checks on government authority not checks on the rights of individuals to defend themselves and their property.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  9. #19
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit

    FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.

    FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.

    The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
    While I think the woman has the choice to abort the child. I'd press her more to put it up for adoption. There would be extreme minimal reasoning in aborting the child considering it is presenting no harm.

    The business owner has no right to kill the thief, but has a definite right to hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  10. #20
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 12:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by DashingAmerican View Post
    While I think the woman has the choice to abort the child. I'd press her more to put it up for adoption. There would be extreme minimal reasoning in aborting the child considering it is presenting no harm.

    The business owner has no right to kill the thief, but has a definite right to hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive.
    And what happens if the thief ignores the owner's oders to freeze? If the owner doesn't have the right to fire the weapon, why listen to him? If you can't fire a gun, its basically a big stick. Not very scary.

    Not to mention, what happens if the thief decides to attack? Or dives for cover and then pulls his own gun? The owner has the advantage with the gun presumable already drawn and aimed, but why needlessly put yourself at risk (no matter how minimal)?

    If you believe in property rights, then it's only logical that we also have the right to defend our property. And that means using force (including lethal) to enforce those rights.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •