• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hypothetical: Who has the Stronger Right to Kill?

Please Read the First Post

  • The woman in fact pattern one

    Votes: 7 28.0%

  • The store owner in fact pattern two

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • They both have the right to kill

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • Neither has the right to kill

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • Total voters
    25
In my mind, both are legitimate scenarios, although I won't argue that the first is "killing" unless you buy into that "life begins at conception" crap.

At two weeks...well, first of all let's get rid of the emotional plea and not call it a fetus. Biology has indisputable evidence that it is not a fetus. If you abort, you're doing nothing more dangerous than washing dead skin cells off your body in the shower, or picking at a scab.

As far as the case we've been discussing, the right to someone's property, and own personal safety, should be tantamount, barring extreme circumstances. The fact that this situation had so many variables means that the only constant toward the owner's safety would be subject neutralization. Now if this is hurt, unconscious, or dead, I don't give a damn. When someone breaks into your property with intent for malice and harm - weapon status immaterial - you should be granted the ability to defend your life, liberty, and property.

And as far as I'm concerned, once you violate another's rights, especially maliciously, your rights immediately become compromised.
 
OscarB63 said:
ah...but WHO does she have the greater right to kill? her rapist, who violated her or the innocent fetus who is as much a victim as is she?
Click to expand...

If she killed the rapist when she had the right to, there wouldn't be a fetus for her to have the same right to kill.
 
Krhazy said:
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.
Click to expand...

LET'S STOP RIGHT THERE!!

This is a brilliant example of the demonisation of all and any women seeking abortion

What on this earth or the next does the woman's sexual experience, proclivity or orientation have to do with the case??

I guess any woman wanting an abortion just has to fit into one and only one category

barbie_slut.jpg
 
DashingAmerican said:
Didn't say he didn't have the right to shoot him and if he attacks the owner then by all means he has the right to kill him.
Click to expand...
The discharge of the firearm into the person in question is an exercise of deadly force, regardless if the person dies or not.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
The former clearly has the greater right to kill, being subject to violation of her body, but I'd argue that they are both entirely within their rights to kill. In the latter case, the dealership owner has no way of knowing the intruder's intentions, mental state, or whether or not he is armed. When dealing with unknown persons, one should always assume that they are armed and make no assumptions about their intentions.
Click to expand...

So, the store owner has the right to shoot the intruder. Agreed. But, if the intruder is interupted during the burlary and escapes accidentally leaving his 6 wk old in a baby carrier, the store owner has the right to shoot the child? No one would support that way of thinking.

It's either life or it's not life. If it's not life, it doesn't matter because it's not killing. If it's life, then property rights issues don't justify the obvious over use of force against the obviously helpless.

Children, after birth, are much more inconvenient, expensive, and destructive to personal property than children, before birth. But, few tolerate parents killing their children after they're born. They tolerate it before they are born because general society has deemed (consciously or unconsciously) that it is not life. The portion of society that deems it life, for the most part, realize that "anti-social" behavior will not provide acceptable results.
 
They both have the Right to Kill.

IF the first scenario were the result of a drunken night with her boyfriend where she consented to the sexual act, then she would not have the Right to Kill in my mind, but since she was not consented about the act that created the pregnancy, she does have the Right to Kill so far as I am concerned.

I've already commented in another thread that I have absolutely no issue with how the gentlemen protected the used car lot.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
So, the store owner has the right to shoot the intruder. Agreed. But, if the intruder is interupted during the burlary and escapes accidentally leaving his 6 wk old in a baby carrier, the store owner has the right to shoot the child? No one would support that way of thinking.
Click to expand...

The store owner can call someone else to come pick up the baby and take it off his hands. If this were not the case, I would absolutely support allowing him to shoot it.

GreenvilleGrows said:
It's either life or it's not life. If it's not life, it doesn't matter because it's not killing. If it's life, then property rights issues don't justify the obvious over use of force against the obviously helpless.
Click to expand...

I support the use of deadly force in defense of property rights. And even if I did not, the unborn child-- helpless or not-- is directly inflicting bodily harm upon the woman carrying it. It should only be allowed to continue doing this for as long as she consents to it.

GreenvilleGrows said:
Children, after birth, are much more inconvenient, expensive, and destructive to personal property than children, before birth. But, few tolerate parents killing their children after they're born. They tolerate it before they are born because general society has deemed (consciously or unconsciously) that it is not life. The portion of society that deems it life, for the most part, realize that "anti-social" behavior will not provide acceptable results.
Click to expand...

Children, after birth, can be removed from their parents' homes without harming them.
 
I support the woman having a right to an abortion.

I don't support killing someone in defense of property only.
 
Since we're dealing with a theoretical situation only, I will address this in a philosophical way. If it were happening in front of my face, my reaction could be completely different.

People need to be careful when they talk about the "right to kill". No such right exists, not even in natural law. Rights are assigned to intellectual and social forces only, and they tend to deal with collective relationships, i.e. a bunch of humans living together.

I've heard people talk about "natural rights" when it comes to killing, such as when protecting a child. The only natural right that really exists is: do what you want - you really do have complete freedom. There is no one around to enforce your "right" to kill, other than yourself. If you live in a tribe, then there are other social forces at work, but ultimately this is about your own relationship to the concept.

If you want to kill someone for any reason, no justification is necessary. Yes, you will likely deal with consequences if you live in a tribe, but the notion that it's sacrosanct is self-created. Humans kill all the time and for arbitrary reasons. Not saying it's a good thing, but it's the truth.

When placed in a survival situation, all this sophistry disappears. Instinct is pure action, and the actions don't usually respond to the concept of rights. Violence and killing are the most unconscious of all acts. They just happen. If someone is defending their child to the death, they are not thinking about rights. They want to protect their kid and they will kill anyone who defies that.

So... to summarize all this neatly... no one has the right to kill. They just kill.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's my problem too--trying to compare an innocent party with a guilty one.
 
The store owner has the right to rape the burglar.
 
The difference is, killing the guy is homicide and killing the zygote isn't.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
The store owner can call someone else to come pick up the baby and take it off his hands. If this were not the case, I would absolutely support allowing him to shoot it.

Children, after birth, can be removed from their parents' homes without harming them.
Click to expand...

I applaud the attempt at consistency. But, the campassion considered in the 2nd statement and the lack of compassion in the 1st don't gell well. How long is too long to be bothered by your child or someone elses? A day, month, or 6 months? Kill a child if they inconvenience you for ..... fill in the blank.

I'm not arguing against abortion herein. I'm merely stating that killing a helpless human at any age over property rights doesn't make sense. Threatening anothers's life? Probably justified. I'll give the threatened party the benefit of the doubt. Killing a sleeping 1 year old because they might inconvenience you until other arrangements can be mafe? I'll give the child the benefit of the doubt.

Inconvenience is not the same as danger.
 
This "hypothetical" is ridiculous. It's trying to equate the right of a woman... a promiscuous slut, no less... to choose to terminate a pregancy resulting from a rape, with the cold-blooded lying-in-wait murder of a would-be thief by three men in an outdoor auto lot.

The premise is not only ridiculous, it's dishonest and insulting.
 
I voted no one has the right to kill - first of all the baby isn't part of the woman's body, it's INSIDE her body (if I sent a wrecking crew to demolish a house with people inside and they died, I couldn't use the argument they were part of the house and in my way) with how far science has come in the last 40 years there is no more denying the baby is alive and human. And in the second one there was no threat made on the owner's life, therefore he has no right to kill either.
 
BillDaley said:
I voted no one has the right to kill - first of all the baby isn't part of the woman's body, it's INSIDE her body (if I sent a wrecking crew to demolish a house with people inside and they died, I couldn't use the argument they were part of the house and in my way) with how far science has come in the last 40 years there is no more denying the baby is alive and human.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

BillDaley said:
And in the second one there was no threat made on the owner's life, therefore he has no right to kill either.
Click to expand...

At what point, in your mind, does a threat against the owner exist? I'm not being argumentative - I'd like to know. Brandishing a weapon? Verbal threat?

If you break into someone's home, you are obviously taking the chance that someone will be there whom you will have to harm in order to fulfill whatever act you're there for. Is a business somehow different? The only way I would think someone wasn't endangering my life if they broke into my home or place of work would be if they were already tied up, helpless, and surrendering. I think most people feel that way naturally. Therefore, crooks know that, too. Therefore, crooks know they are threatening occupants when they break in.

Have you ever entered someone's home or building unsure if the owner was there or knew you were there? I have (legally). Usually, it goes something like this... "Hello! Is anyone here? I'm here for (whatever)... Hello!" And, I'm thinking, if someone's here they're going to be frightened or furious until they figure out why I'm here.
 
Krhazy said:
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?neither, of course... 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? about the same... How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
Click to expand...
So we live in a cold hearted kill or be killed world.
Should it be this way ?
NO .....its a lousy world in which we live....but, I believe that man is charged to improve it....using his head.....
Replace the bullets with hard rubber pellets (as an example)
As to the abortion...the fetus is the innocent victim of man's sin and disrespect.
Senseless in trying to reason with a rapist....and he is the one who must be killed, if this is what we are going to be doing.
End of rant....
 
Last edited:
atrasicarius said:
The difference is, killing the guy is homicide and killing the zygote isn't.
Click to expand...
that's only defined by the U.S.'s current law...
I don't believe we are all just interpreting current law, but objective moral rights/code... so this statement is pointless.
 
Chuck Norris has the stronger right to kill.


Chuck-Norris.jpg
 
Krhazy said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would say neither really has a "right" to kill - but if we're comparing relative rights of the two, I would say the store owner has a stronger case.

If case 1 had said mentioned pregnancy being potentially or even probably "life-threatening" instead of just psychological and emotional trauma, then I may have switched my position.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom