I was discussing guests in a boat - please don’t change the subject =]
Well, I pointed out that friends will not push friends overboard, so I’ve moved along in the dialogue. Trespassers, like a trespassing fetus, can be evicted.
And the rights of a trespasser certainly don’t supersede the rights of an individual.
The boat scenario has nothing to do with abortion - drop the wrong analogy.
I was wondering. These questions above and surely others, I wonder if this is how health insurers and life insurers decipher their product.
I totally agree with that. But it doesn’t apply to abortion because a fetus is not a human being and so has no human rights.
Their DNA says they are a different human being (different from their mother and father), so, that was one of the factors, amongst others, where we veered in our discussion Juan.
A fertilized egg will grow into a bunch of cells with combined genetic information, true, but still there is no human in sight. The technical details about fertilization/genetics don’t really change the overall picture.
It seems as if your opponents think that every problem is a nail, and that the unalienable right of private property supersedes the other two.
Except that it’s completely unlike that. It’s more like removing a person from your house and that person later dies. NYP.
How is that even relevant?
Stop copping out, Max. Stop being a coward. Prove your case. Now.
Now prove that the not-yet-extant can be invited.
It has everything to do with it, the woman is the owner of the boat. The person being thrown overboard is the baby. Can it be more clear?
Wrong. This is why we can’t agree…you have no defintion of what is human and I do.
nah. it’s more detailed than that. for one, note Juan doesn’t think a fetus is another human being - I do. These premises, like others that popped up in the discussion thereby slightly change the interpretation. I don’t know of anybody in this current discussion that is saying property supersedes life. Not even Max. is saying that. Yet based on this different premises it may appear from one to another participant in this discussion that somehow property is superseding life, etc… The extrapolations from the premises - where the rights start, the boundaries of property/life, etc… factor into the dialogue. But from the differing premises the extrapolations of natural rights veer far or nearer from each participant in this discussion.
For instance. I don’t see how a boat/property is killing the trespasser. I don’t see how the boat owner is doing it. Unless and I brought up numerous variables that might be considered blameworthy upon the boat owner or upon the trespasser. I also view property and life and liberty as being the same. It’s called self-ownership. So I think these are conjoined and not accidental.
What you said didn’t really get into what is being discussed here at the moment quite frankly. sorry.
It sounds like great pretext to murder people. Think of it as playing pirate, and making them walk the plank.
Yes that is true and when one person puts another person under their care they willingly create a binding obligation, it is called accountability. Accountability is the other side of the I can do whatever I want coin. You only want one and not the other. See the boat example.
Capital. I think the dialogue may have moved beyond this. Check this.
Let me know what you think.
Your definition is wrong. I too could define anything in any way I please. But it doesn’t follow that my arguments using my definitions are sound. Rather the opposite.