is abortion correct when it saves the mother?

[northcity4]

@northcity
Invoking deontology is not an answer to a question about utilitarianism.

However since you seen more in line with deontology let us discuss how it perceives abortion.

Deontology is the ethics composed of Moral Duties and Moral Rights.
Positive Duties are actions that if unfulfilled leave everyone capable of fulfilling them guilt of wrong doing.
Negative Duties are actions that if taken leave the actor guilt of wrong doing.
Positive Rights are like a Positive Duty
Negative Rights are like a Negative Duty (Example: A Negative Right from theft is similar to a Negative duty to not steal)

There are arguments about whether Positive Rights/Positive Duties can exist. Certain theoretical Positive Rights absolutely cannot exist.
(You cannot be entitled to 1/Nth of a scarce resource if there are more than N people)

The deontological discussion on abortion begins with:
What is the characteristic that qualifies a being for Moral Rights? [Moral Personhood]
Is the right to life a Positive Right, a Negative Right or fiction? [Right to Life?]
Then we move into the Violinist example. [The Violinist]

Let's assume for the moment government granted fetus' human rights. How would you describe the woman's motive for killing the child?

-snip-

After some research I also found how to relate the consequences (I forget the name of the material it's called) to this topic.

-snip-

1) Political rights are irrelevant. We are speaking of Deontology (aka Moral Rights)

2) Please stay still. You cannot keep jumping back and forth between Consequence and Act based ethics. Choose one to discuss. Or we could go to Intent based ethics. Just please have a consistent base.

I beg to differ. I think the two matter and go together nicely in this case of abortion...but this is philosophy so I will try my best. Ok, let's assume the Fetus has moral rights for the moment? Does that help?

Fetus has moral rights, here is my take on it, then I would like to hear yours please. 
 
If moral rights exist and the fetus has them, then the mother for sure has no right to abort the baby. Then the deontology person would say something to nature of that the child will suffer greatly if it's born. Plus, children in this area will die 99% of the time before they are even 1 years old. The death will be painful and will only cause problems as now we have to bury the body and the such.

Based purely off deotology, the mom can perform abortion as long as her motives are pure. What I mean by pure is that her motives are not to stop the pain of child birth or not having to care for the child (selfishness), but rather think of the child's well being and understand dying in the womb will be a much more painless and easier death. She does not have to, but she can.

The argument against this is from Kamm's view on what is permissible and what is not. From what I have read on him, if we have time (more like act/rule), then it is impermissible to abort the baby. When human life is concerned, he argues against anyone controlling another person's fate without their explicit permission. Now, in a situation where you don't have a lot of time, thus the trolley example i expressed earlier, killing one guy versus the 5 is permissible because you had no control over the situation, only the end.

But, in abortion, don't we have control over the end? The mom is going to die in this topic. She has time to decide. What Kamm meant by no control was what we might call bad luck. Life happens and we must make certain situations. If you get pregnant, you understand what is going to happen. This is not bad luck. It's still being argued if the mother's illness which is most likely the reason for her death in birth is bad luck as well.

Let's say we have a woman who had unforeseen illnesses that will kill her if she has the baby that are not her fault. Is it still permissible to do the moral act of saving your life over the baby? You have to make the decision. Assuming the mom has pure motives, can she still justify killing the fetus (fetus in this scenario still has moral rights and moral personhood)? In this case still no. It's not permissible to determine the fate of someone else s life without their permission. If you say it is permissible, what would you argue? Can't argue the woman would save more lives if she was alive because it comes at the cost of denying someone else their moral rights. In my mind ATM you would probably argue the woman isn't necessarily more human, but rather worth more to the world.

I made the above example a type of worst case scenario because it also answers the topic regarding rape victims. Unforeseen events happen, but to deny someone their moral right even with pure motives under the circumstances is not permissible.

I tried my best keeping it just on deontology. This involves Kant's ethics regarding motives and Kamm's permissible argument which both are in the deontology zone, not within the consequence zone.

Your thoughts? Not just your thoughts, your version as well please.

[OldTrees]

I got lost.
You started by assuming fetuses have moral rights.
Then you claimed the deontology person would say things about future suffering or a likelihood to die anyways. (False. See deontology)
Then you say that deontology concludes that "If pure motives then abortion is permissible".

You clearly did not understand deontology in this example since you referenced both consequences and intent rather than Duties, Rights or Categorical Imperatives.


I am unfamiliar with Kamm but it seems like you understood her argument. Could you give me a link to the paper? Kamm's argument as applied to abortion relies on two premises that would be good to discuss. One is obvious the question of do fetuses have moral personhood? The second I cannot define until I see the paper. (To make sure I identify the premise accurately.)


However you asked for my version. Please read carefully, I will be using condensed language and not address in this post any of the counterarguments to the arguments I am going to list. I am going to write questions. You are not intended to respond to them.

There are 3 forms of deontology: Duty, Rights and Categorical Imperitives. I will be using the Rights variant for this discussion.

Moral Personhood under Rights Deontology is the characteristic of having Moral Rights. What grants this characteristic? Most agree that Moral Personhood grants a negative right from being murdered. So this question can be answered with a similar question of "Why is Murder Immoral?" Before we can answer that question fully let's list cases where the existence or absence of murder are not controversial, and sometimes controversial. (Excluding Abortion so it does not beg the question)

Self defense in mortal danger? Not murder* (some have exceptions)
Self defense in non mortal danger? Controversial "Was the defense excessive?"
Self defense against an innocent? ("Kill him or I kill you") Very Controversial
Non defense against an innocent? Murder
Suicide? Not murder* (some have exceptions)
Assisted suicide? Not murder
Turning off Life support? Controversial "What was their desire?"
Hunting? Not murder* (some have exceptions)
Hunting for survival? Not murder* (some have exceptions)

Murder ends up having the following definitions (not exhaustive list)
Killing.
Killing when not in danger.
Killing an innocent.
Killing an innocent, when not in danger.
Killing a non consenting innocent.
Killing a non consenting innocent, when not in danger.

Lets examine Consent. How do we determine when a being is non consenting? What is necessary for a being to be capable of being non consenting? Obviously we can talk to a rational conscious being if there is time. So ability to communicate non consent is a sufficient condition. What if they are unable to communicate? Answers vary from automatically consenting/non consenting to pretending it can communicate and predicting its answer. When does the consent matter? Is it the current individual or the future individual that would not exist if killed? If something can never consent is it non consenting? (Cattle)

Based on these answers the fetus is
A moral person because it will be able to consent.
Not a moral person because it cannot consent yet.

So:
1a) Killing a non consenting person is immoral
1b) Killing a non consenting person is immoral when not in danger
2) Killing a consenting person or a non person is not immoral
3a) A fetus is a person unable to communicate and thus non consenting
3b) A fetus is a person unable to communicate and thus non consenting because it is not normal to consent to being killed
3c) A fetus is not a person
4aa) Killing a fetus is immoral
4ba) Killing a fetus is immoral unless the mother is in danger
4ab) Killing a fetus is immoral
4bb) Killing a fetus is immoral unless the mother is in danger
4c) Killing a fetus is not immoral

There are my 5 initial conclusions.

However I have not started to address letting die vs killing yet. Letting die vs killing is covered in the Trolley Argument and related papers. The Violinist argument is that abortion in the case of rape* is letting die rather than killing. Those arguments are famous enough that you should be able to find them and the critique papers.
*Although it can be expanded to all abortion if consent can be retracted

This expands the conclusions to:
1) Abortion (Killing a fetus) is immoral because it was non consenting
2) Abortion (Killing a fetus) is immoral because it was non consenting, except when the mother is in mortal danger
3) Abortion (Killing a fetus) is not immoral because it does not have Moral Personhood yet
4) Abortion in the case of rape (Letting a fetus die) is not immoral because it was letting die

[northcity4]

I got lost.
You started by assuming fetuses have moral rights.
Then you claimed the deontology person would say things about future suffering or a likelihood to die anyways. (False. See deontology)
Then you say that deontology concludes that "If pure motives then abortion is permissible".

You clearly did not understand deontology in this example since you referenced both consequences and intent rather than Duties, Rights or Categorical Imperatives.


I am unfamiliar with Kamm but it seems like you understood her argument. Could you give me a link to the paper? Kamm's argument as applied to abortion relies on two premises that would be good to discuss. One is obvious the question of do fetuses have moral personhood? The second I cannot define until I see the paper. (To make sure I identify the premise accurately.)


However you asked for my version. Please read carefully, I will be using condensed language and not address in this post any of the counterarguments to the arguments I am going to list. I am going to write questions. You are not intended to respond to them.

There are 3 forms of deontology: Duty, Rights and Categorical Imperitives. I will be using the Rights variant for this discussion.

Moral Personhood under Rights Deontology is the characteristic of having Moral Rights. What grants this characteristic? Most agree that Moral Personhood grants a negative right from being murdered. So this question can be answered with a similar question of "Why is Murder Immoral?" Before we can answer that question fully let's list cases where the existence or absence of murder are not controversial, and sometimes controversial. (Excluding Abortion so it does not beg the question)

Self defense in mortal danger? Not murder* (some have exceptions)
Self defense in non mortal danger? Controversial "Was the defense excessive?"
Self defense against an innocent? ("Kill him or I kill you") Very Controversial
Non defense against an innocent? Murder
Suicide? Not murder* (some have exceptions)
Assisted suicide? Not murder
Turning off Life support? Controversial "What was their desire?"
Hunting? Not murder* (some have exceptions)
Hunting for survival? Not murder* (some have exceptions)

Murder ends up having the following definitions (not exhaustive list)
Killing.
Killing when not in danger.
Killing an innocent.
Killing an innocent, when not in danger.
Killing a non consenting innocent.
Killing a non consenting innocent, when not in danger.

Lets examine Consent. How do we determine when a being is non consenting? What is necessary for a being to be capable of being non consenting? Obviously we can talk to a rational conscious being if there is time. So ability to communicate non consent is a sufficient condition. What if they are unable to communicate? Answers vary from automatically consenting/non consenting to pretending it can communicate and predicting its answer. When does the consent matter? Is it the current individual or the future individual that would not exist if killed? If something can never consent is it non consenting? (Cattle)

Based on these answers the fetus is
A moral person because it will be able to consent.
Not a moral person because it cannot consent yet.

So:
1a) Killing a non consenting person is immoral
1b) Killing a non consenting person is immoral when not in danger
2) Killing a consenting person or a non person is not immoral
3a) A fetus is a person unable to communicate and thus non consenting
3b) A fetus is a person unable to communicate and thus non consenting because it is not normal to consent to being killed
3c) A fetus is not a person
4aa) Killing a fetus is immoral
4ba) Killing a fetus is immoral unless the mother is in danger
4ab) Killing a fetus is immoral
4bb) Killing a fetus is immoral unless the mother is in danger
4c) Killing a fetus is not immoral

There are my 5 initial conclusions.

However I have not started to address letting die vs killing yet. Letting die vs killing is covered in the Trolley Argument and related papers. The Violinist argument is that abortion in the case of rape* is letting die rather than killing. Those arguments are famous enough that you should be able to find them and the critique papers.
*Although it can be expanded to all abortion if consent can be retracted

This expands the conclusions to:
1) Abortion (Killing a fetus) is immoral because it was non consenting
2) Abortion (Killing a fetus) is immoral because it was non consenting, except when the mother is in mortal danger
3) Abortion (Killing a fetus) is not immoral because it does not have Moral Personhood yet
4) Abortion in the case of rape (Letting a fetus die) is not immoral because it was letting die

Again these were notes I took as well as the book we used (Something about a look into morals/ethics). I do not have an actual paper. Kamm did write a scholarly article (I'm not sure if we should a paper that long) about discovering any permissible reason to have an abortion. I believe if you look up scholarly articles through google and type in Kamm: creation and abortion, you may find that article. In the first 2 paragraphs she makes it very clear what she is doing in her paper.

Sorry for getting confusing. Let me try to be clear. You last statement about killing the fetus is not immoral because the mom is in mortal danger. You are right, this is allowed by Kant's ethics.

The problem with Kant's ethics which was Kamm pointed out was this would lead to some ugly scenarios. For example, should I kill you in order to save a million people? Without knowing anything else, Kant would allow this.

Kamm noticed the problem this would create if we just let our world run like this which is why I when against what I said with permissibility. In my opinion, Kamm's view is Kant's ethics but much more senseful.

We should be able to have an abortion if the baby is putting the mom in mortal danger according to Kant. Kamm argues that this is not permissible. I assumed moral rights to see how that would play out first of all. Next, I began explaining what you stated on 4c: not immoral to abort the baby if mom is in mortal danger. Then I opposed this through Kamm's view since that she also falls into the Deontology category, does this help?

I did not mention consequences argument. That involves mainly long term arguments. Immediate affects are fine to discuss. Also, intent is exactly what Kant means by motives. If based off motives, any moral person can do crazy things without being immoral. The intent/motive are important to the argument. Also, I did discuss rights a lot. People have duties in life, but at what right do we have the right to perform the duties?---> this is another reason I feel you should be willing to talk about conseqences

[OldTrees]

@northcity4
You need to review Kant. (As in read his paper a few more times)

A woman wished to have an abortion because she is pregnant. She has the maxim "Have an abortion if one is pregnant.". It can only be moral in Kant's eyes if everyone can will this maxim. The first test is of universalize the maxim. No children would be born. The human race would be eliminated. Having an abortion would become impossible. Since the maxim makes the maxim impossible it is an irrational maxim.

So Kant's conclusion to Abortion is that Abortion is immoral because it is irrational.

In your studies of Kant you will learn that there is disagreement about what Kant meant by maxim. Kant always uses simple maxims in his examples. It is unclear if maxims can be made complex. Many more complex maxims cannot be fully universalized (because the added complexity seeks to avoid universalization). This leaves me to believe that only short maxims are given because only short maxims fit the definition of maxim.

In your studies of Kant you will also find his second test. (Which he claims leads to the same conclusions) Do not treat others as merely a means to an end. Killing 1 to save many would be using the 1 as merely a means to the end of saving many. Therefore it is immoral.

You last statement about killing the fetus is not immoral because the mom is in mortal danger. You are right, this is allowed by Kant's ethics.

My last statement refers to 4c or conclusion 4
4c) Abortion is not immoral because a fetus does not have moral personhood yet.

4) Abortion in the case of rape (Letting a fetus die) is not immoral because it was letting die
You misread. I am disappointed.

Next, I began explaining what you stated on 4c: not immoral to abort the baby if mom is in mortal danger.

4c) Abortion is not immoral because a fetus does not have moral personhood yet.

You misread. I am disappointed.

I did not mention consequences argument. That involves mainly long term arguments. Immediate affects are fine to discuss. Also, intent is exactly what Kant means by motives. If based off motives, any moral person can do crazy things without being immoral. The intent/motive are important to the argument. Also, I did discuss rights a lot. People have duties in life, but at what right do we have the right to perform the duties?---> this is another reason I feel you should be willing to talk about conseqences

Then the deontology person would say something to nature of that the child will suffer greatly if it's born. Plus, children in this area will die 99% of the time before they are even 1 years old. The death will be painful and will only cause problems as now we have to bury the body and the such.

These are not relevant details to a deontologist.

Kant judges maxims. This is not quite intent/motive. This is whether you chose a rational action. (Note that it is the action that is rational not the motive that is rational)

Did you discuss rights a lot? No. You mentioned them but did not use them in an argument. See my example above to see how to incorporate sentences into an argument.

People have moral duties. The existence of a moral duty gives you not only the right but also the imperative to follow the moral duty. Otherwise it is not a moral duty. Examples: The Moral duty to not murder gives you the right and the imperative to not murder. The Moral duty of benevolence gives you the right and the imperative to be benevolent.

[northcity4]

I may have misread, but I think you understood my point.

I don't think going over maxims/imperatives are going to get us anywhere. As far as moral duty is concerned...the mother has a moral duty to her children...but to what extent?

Motives: they do matter. I wish you would not throw away the argument of motives. Motives defines murder from killing and determines if stealing is wrong or not.

For you to state from your sources that abortion is not immoral because it does not have moral personhood does not sum up the problem. (If you agree that if the fetus does have moral personhood=abortion immoral any under circumstances, please skip the the very end).

Here are some truths first: 1)fetus' are genetically the same as humans, 2)fetus' can grow up to look just like you and me, think like you and me, feel like you and me, and rationalize like you and me, 3)Most likely, Fetus' do not feel pain if aborted, 4)Still undetermined what allows someone to reason/morality and when a fetus gains this ability...maybe when it's 3yrs old/or maybe when it is 7weeks old.

Fetus' are not human because they cannot suffer, but let's be clear that being born without nerves doesn't make you any less human. Therefore, this suffering must be mental/emotional, suffering from lost loved ones/doing bad on a test. Also, Fetus' cannot reason.

Also, morality=action and motive. Dependent upon two things. Example, I kill my dog. The court wants to know if what I did was wrong. First, the action is kill. Still undecided if it is murder or self-defense until we hear the motive since murder/self-defense both = morality in this equation. If my dog was threatening my life, doing so without me causing it to, self-defense, and if I told the court because I thought it would be fun, I am charged with murdering my dog and get whatever punishment the court does.

In abortion, never ever can the fetus be held responsible for it's actions during pregnancy. Abortion=killing a living thing. What are your reasons? Putting me in mortal danger=motive. Now let's say for the for sake of argument the fetus was doing something unnatural instead of the common illnesses the mother had that would result in death by birth. I like to compare this to the people in Hitler's time. People today ask how could his followers do something so wretched...not killing people, but their methods. The only way it was possible was if they were lied to...told that killing Jews was a good thing, and if they were brought up this way, that would explain a lot.

Action=killing somone. Motive=I was brought up told this was the right thing to do. If that was proven in court, that person could very well walk out free, regardless of how many people killed.

Problem with saying the baby killed the mom is that there are other things, even if not an illness, that would cause a mom to die by birth. So, the fetus=action-->really is no action. Kind of just moves a long with the flow. Motive-->Morally (I use the word Morally since of the example of drunk driving) unconscious. Based on these two facts, it is impossible to tell what a fetus did was immoral or immoral, but because it didn't do anything immoral, it will walk.

Unfortunately for the mom, she commits the action which tells us there is, by theory, a motive, even if the motive was like the Hitler case.

1) Willingly got pregnant: she knew exactly what was going to happen. She was going to have a baby and if life happened (she was going to die)...well life happens. Life cannot be fair for everyone and to make your life fair at the cost of an innocent life is immoral.

2) Raped--->not willingly pregnant. Probably chose not to get pregnant to not have to deal with the situation. Example: Someone is shooting at me. I am going to die. I see this gun locked up next to me and if I take it and use it, I can defend my self. Problem, if the case get's broken, someone randomly in the world will die...similar to that one movie about pressing the red button for money at the cost of human lives.

Do you take the gun to defend yourself? You can, but would it be immoral? Yes, if you knew what the consequences were. If you didn't know the consequences, then you got lucky and your action was neither immoral or moral, but by definition, all we care about is was it immoral if you didn't know and the answer is no.

This is my way of saying even if you get raped, the act of abortion is still immoral since there are no motives good enough that outweigh the cost of a human life.

Problem is: can the fetus be human? Doesn't reason, doesn't feel emotional/mental suffering. Has no care in this world...yet it will grow up to be human. Show me an example where something without the human genetics becomes human. You would have thought by now we would of heard of a chimpanzee having a human baby by now right?

-----> focus here please: the act of abortion is still immoral since there are no motives good enough that outweigh the cost of a human life. This is Kamm's view and has a lot more respect than a lot of philosphers before, even Kant. I suggest we listen to what Kamm here is arguing then: the act of abortion is still immoral since there are no motives good enough that outweigh the cost of an innocent human life.

Arguing if the fetus is human or has moral personhood is where we need to focus please. The above statement has been tested very strongly throughout Kamms notes. This is why today moral personhood needs to be our focus because for abortion, the motive makes the action okay if and only if that fetus is not considered to have moral personhood.

Now, it seems like the fetus does not have moral personhood, but I will look more into that.

In the mean time, if the fetus does not have moral personhood, does the motive now make the action change from immoral to neither immoral or moral (Paying 5$ for a meal is neither immoral nor moral, but again, the immoral is what we care about for right now)

[OldTrees]

Sigh.

I took you for someone that could have a discussion of normative ethics. Unfortunately it seems like you do not know enough and are not listening when I try to inform you. (A tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. It enables greater misunderstanding than ignorance.) Perhaps you are listening but have not learned how to read philosophic texts yet. I don't know. At this point I cannot discuss this topic futher until you either pick an existing normative theory AND understand its variations rather than the common misperceptions. Or you can take some time to craft your own normative theory.

[northcity4]

Sigh.

I took you for someone that could have a discussion of normative ethics. Unfortunately it seems like you do not know enough and are not listening when I try to inform you. (A tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. It enables greater misunderstanding than ignorance.) Perhaps you are listening but have not learned how to read philosophic texts yet. I don't know. At this point I cannot discuss this topic futher until you either pick an existing normative theory AND understand its variations rather than the common misperceptions. Or you can take some time to craft your own normative theory.

I simply asked this one question: is there a situation in which a fetus, assumed possessing moral person hood and human, can be aborted in the topic of abortion without being immoral?

Not that difficult. I have taken my classes, read over philosophers, and been taught in an excellent way, and have learned to 'connect' the dots. This thread is not to discuss different ethics unless necessary and I strongly believe the question above is where we have gotten. Can you or can you not honestly give me a situation for the question?

Right now, I feel like that question is like the formula. What do I mean by that? In early math grades like algebra, you learn the distance of a straight line, but then what about circular lines? What about lines that make really weird shapes?

There is a formula for that as well you learn later.

Know what the cool thing is, the one you learn later isn't just more exact, you can use it in place of the straight line formula as well. The question I asked is worth mentioning. If you want to discuss ethics/or other branches separately, why not start your own thread?

[OldTrees]

Sigh.

I took you for someone that could have a discussion of normative ethics. Unfortunately it seems like you do not know enough and are not listening when I try to inform you. (A tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. It enables greater misunderstanding than ignorance.) Perhaps you are listening but have not learned how to read philosophic texts yet. I don't know. At this point I cannot discuss this topic futher until you either pick an existing normative theory AND understand its variations rather than the common misperceptions. Or you can take some time to craft your own normative theory.

I simply asked this one question: is there a situation in which a fetus, assumed possessing moral person hood and human, can be aborted in the topic of abortion without being immoral?

I already answered this. The answer is yes or no depending on the ethical perspective (even inside deontology). The No answer was obvious. The Yes answer was connected to a reference to the Violinist Argument. (You did look up the Violinist argument didn't you?)

[northcity4]

Sigh.

I took you for someone that could have a discussion of normative ethics. Unfortunately it seems like you do not know enough and are not listening when I try to inform you. (A tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. It enables greater misunderstanding than ignorance.) Perhaps you are listening but have not learned how to read philosophic texts yet. I don't know. At this point I cannot discuss this topic futher until you either pick an existing normative theory AND understand its variations rather than the common misperceptions. Or you can take some time to craft your own normative theory.

I simply asked this one question: is there a situation in which a fetus, assumed possessing moral person hood and human, can be aborted in the topic of abortion without being immoral?

I already answered this. The answer is yes or no depending on the ethical perspective (even inside deontology). The No answer was obvious. The Yes answer was connected to a reference to the Violinist Argument. (You did look up the Violinist argument didn't you?)

O, I am very aware of the violinist argument. Still does not allow you to let him die. Why? Because now you know. In Kant's view and Kamm's, knowing that you could have saved someone at relatively cost (below the price of a human life), then you have a right to....innocent life to be more clear. I don't care if you get kidnapped and have an exact situation. Knowlingly knowing that leaving that violinist will kill him is reason enough to make your action of leaving him to die immoral.

Jarvin argues this is permissible since the use of someone's else's body is not permissible...which is still not a proven theory as there is much debate about it. Something that still has been tested is Kamm's view regarding morality=action+motive.

All I am trying to say is I am still not convinced there is any motive strong enough to let that violinist die. Look how non-human this sounds: sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to use my body without my permission even though you are going to die.

Let me explain: In class we were given a situation of a famine. And of course there is one guy who has tons of food and one of the starving leaders breaks into his house to get food for everyone. Before he reaches the room of the food the owner is standing right there and says 'over my dead body will you get any of my food.' Question, does the leader have the right to murder to save others? To save himself?

To be more on topic with the violinist, does the owner have the right to keep his food and let the people die? It's his food (his body). The law doesn't require he do so in this land. Did you know that if he does not share his food and knowingly knows the people will die=immoral. Since when does the price of human life falter under our rights?

Look, I never saw any place where you made a statement like the last post you did...it never was clear to me which is why I asked.

[OldTrees]

1) Name dropping was never a valid argument. Nor is showing a contradicting proof. To counter the violinist argument you must take issue with either the form or a premise of the argument. Then you must argue that you are right to take issue. However my goal was to inform not convince.

2) Review Positive right to life vs Negative right to life. Then consider the case of indefinite life support for the poor.

[northcity4]

1) Name dropping was never a valid argument. Nor is showing a contradicting proof. To counter the violinist argument you must take issue with either the form or a premise of the argument. Then you must argue that you are right to take issue. However my goal was to inform not convince.

2) Review Positive right to life vs Negative right to life. Then consider the case of indefinite life support for the poor.

My problem with the violinist example is that you see you can save a person's life and choose not to do so. The violinist is not threatening your life, thus he is not being a negative right to life towards you.

From my understanding, life support is expensive. Why waste it on poor people?

1) Define the worth of a human. 2) Do situations lessen the worth of a human? If a cop shoots someone because he is threatening him, it's not because the cop is worth me to society (in their minds he may), but rather the guy he shot not only broke a law, but committed a negative act which threatened someone else's life. 3) As I have just mentioned, desires/our life does should not move on freely knowing you could have saved someone.

Poor people are just as human as we are. They have right's to life just like the rich movie star. To say they caused their situation and thus put themselves in this situation is like saying why should we give medical help to immigrants who cross the borders? This is a great point. It's just causing more money if we help them. With our economy right now in America, doesn't look like this will be able to continue much longer.

There are problems with the above scenarios. The right to life is given to everyone. A negative right to life is usually in the case where you begin threatening the life of other people (hence immigrants may be taking away life from an actual citizen) directly. The problem is that their acts are indirect. They are not directly causing death...although they may have been warned which is worth discussing.
The other problem is that this may be a good thing. I read a couple articles regarding life support and there can be some good in it. If we don't try, maybe we'll never be able to learn how to do it. Kind of like why give up your life for your country? We need people continually doing it if we were ever to reach freedom.

From keeping people on life support, we have learned many new advances in medical science they have enabled us to help people live longer at cheaper costs.

The big problem here is that in order to 100% justify killing someone, they would have to be having a negative right to life against you. In the case of a baby being born, this is not a negative right since the act is not direct. Further more, the baby is not acting at all (pushed), so I wouldn't say for right now that this helps justifies the mother's position.

Now, if the baby could actually reason and stop itself from being born (or at least delay for some other way such as opening the stomach) and was told what it is causing, it has now lost it's innocence to continuing what it was doing. Maybe innocence is worth discussing?

[OldTrees]

1) Name dropping was never a valid argument. Nor is showing a contradicting proof. To counter the violinist argument you must take issue with either the form or a premise of the argument. Then you must argue that you are right to take issue. However my goal was to inform not convince.

2) Review Positive right to life vs Negative right to life. Then consider the case of indefinite life support for the poor.

My problem with the violinist example is that you see you can save a person's life and choose not to do so. The violinist is not threatening your life, thus he is not being a negative right to life towards you.

Wow. You missed the argument by a hair.

The Violinist argument is that:
The violinist has a negative right to life. (Thus killing the violinist is immoral but letting the violinist die is permissible.)
Disconnecting the violinist is letting the violinist die.
Disconnecting the violinist is permissible.



A positive right to life implies that if you die everyone that could have prevented your death is guilty if immoral action. If people have a positive right to life then (give the capacity of today's life support) everyone is entitled to literally indefinite  life support. It is clearly impossible to provide unending life support for an exponentially growing pool of people. At some point there will be enough for 1 person but not enough for everyone. This point is when we can see the positive right to life contradicting itself. Hence why the right to life is assumed to be a negative right.