re: #747 jamesfirecat

if you don’t take one you’re not really arguing in my eyes, you’re just nit picking my argument without bringing anything to the table

This isn’t football. It’s not about winning or losing, it’s about learning and developing better ideas.

You’ve presented an argument, which you apparently believe to be the holy grail of abortion arguments. I think your argument is deeply flawed, and I’ve argued why I think it’s deeply flawed. In particular, I’ve argued that regardless of what stance I might choose to take, your argument would not influence that stance. Your argument is not merely flawed in the sense that there is a possible alternative. Your argument is flawed in the sense that basically EVERY common alternative stands up well against it. In this case, I bring more to the table by not taking a position (and showing your argument’s weakness against many positions) than by taking one.

His body is so warn down that it can not survive on its own, and yet am I truly “Killing him” when I pull the plug that connects us?

Yes, you’re killing him, and it’s intentional, and he’s a human (B, C, and D). Legal precedent is on my side here, big-time. Your only out is “A” — did you do it in a lawful way? If so, it’s justifiable homicide; if not, murder.

Are we “killing” people if we refuse to help them?

That depends on the circumstances. And it depends on your particular philosophy. Similarly for “intent” and “unlawful”, the other components for murder (I’ve assumed “human” is a given.) Like I said, your argument is not merely flawed in the sense that it allows for an alternative, it’s flawed in the sense that virtually everybody’s position is a viable alternative.

… our most private of private possessions that can never under any circumstances be used by another without your permission.

… I believe that its impossible to argue ethically otherwise, without making us HAVE to give of our bodies to every poor sod who comes to our doors

Yet I have just argued otherwise, time and time again, provided they already have access to those organs. I have demonstrated how people could argue otherwise from several different perspectives. I’ve shown how people can give principled answers to each individual question you’ve posed but in ways you don’t expect.

If “private property” isn’t private in the sense that we can defend it and deny others access to it

We can defend our bikes and deny others access to them — but if someone steals my bike, I don’t have the right to kill him. I can’t kill him for trying to steal it, either (except possibly in Texas.)

Your organs are your private property. You can defend them and deny others access to them. But once someone else has access to them, you don’t have a blank check to kill that person in order to regain them. The issue remains exactly as complex, controversial, and multifaceted as abortion does. Which means there are no easy answers, no magic pill to convince the other side they’re wrong, just lots of people trying to do what’s right based on very different understandings, ideas, and priorities.