• 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
atrasicarius said:
The difference is, killing the guy is homicide and killing the zygote isn't.
Click to expand...

In this context, it's merely a legal distinction that really has no bearing on who - morally - has the stronger case.
 
Last edited:
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. 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...
Your analogy, a woman’s body to a house, begs to be extended ”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.” So the people inside the house don’t have to leave. It is now their house and you no longer have any rights to the house for your purposes, but you must continue to maintain the house so the people in the house can have everything they should have. And this is at your expense and your risk. Yup, your analogy models this case very well.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Your analogy, a woman’s body to a house, begs to be extended ”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.” So the people inside the house don’t have to leave. It is now their house and you no longer have any rights to the house for your purposes, but you must continue to maintain the house so the people in the house can have everything they should have. And this is at your expense and your risk. Yup, your analogy models this case very well.
Click to expand...

Actually, the poll posed the comparison of the woman's body to a house. Basically, the question is "do you have the right to kill whatever you find in your own personal property?"

I'd like to compare the body to a boat. I'm on a 9 month sailing trip on a small vessle to another continent. I find a 1-year old who's been left there without my permission. The infant is going to inconvenience me greatly (crying, hassle, food, fellow shipmates making fun of me for having to care for it). And, while the chance is very slim, the child could put my life at risk at some time if I want to keep it safe (not yet, but it could happen on a long trip). I think everyone would agree that I'm completely in the right to throw the 1 year old to the sharks, correct? I mean, what kind of fool would suggest that I have an obligation to try to get the kid to safety?

I don't say any of this to try to prove that a mom shouldn't have a choice (not the appropriate poll). But, the idea that the rights and discussion considered with abortion revolve around property rights doesn't hold up under meager scrutiny - it's only supported by the most militant pro-choice supporter (oh, yes, including the Supreme Court).

If you want to say it's not life - that makes sense. If you want to say life itself isn't particularly important, that could make sense, too. But to say that abortion is the same as an eviction is ridiculous (my humble opinion).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom