Wrong (again)! Check your local statutes, in many jurisdictions knowingly failing to report child neglect or failing to intervene to prevent it is a crime. Beyond that though there is the morality of the example I gave . If you can't see that one position is vastly more immoral than the other (letting the child starve) there's no point in going further.
Yes, so this applies to someone who is witnessing the neglect. This has nothing to do with a parent who decides against stealing to feed their child. Which, again, NOT illegal. But again, stealing and letting the child starve are not the only options. You're acting as though it is a binary choice. It's not.
The example I gave was a scenario where the objective was to identify the lesser of two evils and moral questions underlying the two choices available. Just like the trolley car problem (look it up if don't know what that is). You had the two options given, and no more than that - so choose one or the other. What you don't do is get to change the scenario because you don't like either the options given. That's not how such exercises work. So choose or go away.
Okay, well if it's a moral thought experiment, then you shouldn't have framed it in the context of "crime." You said: In this thought experiment of yours, if those were the only two choices, then the lesser of two evils would be to keep the kid alive by stealing food. But the difference between your scenario and the trolley car scenario, is that in the latter, there literally is no other option, so it works as a thought experiment. Your does not. Anyway, it's understandable that you framed it in the context of crime, as that is what we were discussing. You deviated with the thought experiment and therefore I got confused.
And at this point I think we are done. I am well aware of the difference between the Trolley Car 'thought experiment' and the scenario I proposed. The point is that my question gave everyone a binary choice and you (obviously) chose the correct one. The point was though to highlight a situation where a crime (theft) while legally deserving punishment might, I repeat might be morally justifiable and hence the requirement that anyone considering passing judgement on a crime needs to be aware of the pertinent facts before doing so. And yet again now we are going around in circles.
Really? I can't see why. I engaged with your thought experiment and I think I reasonably explained why I was confused. Yes I get that, and I was just wondering if you apply the same logic to other crimes, such as rape. It seems though that you would NOT say that rape, while legally deserving punishment might, be morally justifiable and hence the requirement that anyone considering passing judgement on a crime needs to be aware of the pertinent facts before doing so. And that's the correct position. Also, why aren't you using the 'quote' feature so that I get a reply alert? You were doing it, then you stopped. I saw your last two replies by sheare chance.
What is this? The seventh evasion. I said you answered it but didn't understand what you were answering to. see post #4186 Okay, I can say I was "wrong". Now it is your turn Mr. Dodge.
Yeah, and I'm feeding into that. I told him earlier his strategy seems to be to wear the other person down with inanities until they give up in frustration and then he claims himself a winner.
Bowerbird said: ↑ Been there done that After a while you just get sick and tired of chasing the same metaphorical monkey around the same damn palm tree it goes beyond debate and edges into attention seeking BINGO! You both nailed it ...
Yes you said that I answered it, but you did not admit that you were wrong to INITIALLY say that I "refused to answer" here:
I just did....dodge number eight. "I have not been "dodging" them, I fully intend on answering them and indeed I look forward to it." You were anxious to answer them earlier, was that a lie? How is choosing an abortion after a forced pregnancy not "a matter of what happens to my body is within my control and mine alone"? The woman, by the way, is in control "of what happens" to her body because she is choosing to take a pill or undergo a medical procedure. And How is the fetus, that is the product of a rape, any less an innocent life form than in any other unwanted pregnancy?
.........his strategy seems to be to wear the other person down with inanities ... and meaningless "points".... ""it goes beyond debate and edges into attention seeking"""
You just simply cannot admit when you are wrong! That gives a pretty good insight into your character.
You admitted that I answered you, not that you were WRONG in your initial reply to my answer. Yet you cannot admit that you were wrong. It's okay to admit your mistakes.
Okay, looking back now I can see that I totally missed that you said that in an earlier reply. My apologies. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. Stand by for my responses to your questions.
How can it be in your control if you are not doing the abortion yourself? And wouldn't you say the same if it was NOT rape? It's not. Again, she is not IN CONTROL of her body during the abortion. Some person, usually a MAN, is digging around inside of her body.
This is like pulling teeth. What nonsense is this? If a woman chooses to get breast implants, dye her hair or get a tattoo she is exercising bodily autonomy. She is controlling what happens to her body. Tell me how she is not? So you are okay with killing an innocent victim?
Bodily autonomy refers to the fundamental right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies and health without external interference. This includes the right to bodily integrity, which means that individuals have the right to control what happens to their own bodies, including the right to refuse medical treatment or procedures, to use contraception or seek an abortion, and to make decisions about end-of-life care. Bodily autonomy is considered a basic human right and is recognized in many international human rights documents and laws. It is closely related to the concept of individual liberty and the right to privacy. The principle of bodily autonomy is often invoked in discussions related to reproductive rights, medical ethics, and personal autonomy. Why thank you ChatopenAI
Remember: .........his strategy seems to be to wear the other person down with inanities ... and meaningless "points".... ""it goes beyond debate and edges into attention seeking""".....and going around in meaningless circles.
Not a formal definition. There is none. Anyway, the part about the right to refuse medical treatment, I absolutely agree is bodily autonomy.
