Search results

It challenges the entire question of what a right to life means, coming to the conclusion that it is more likely a right to not be killed unjustly. Not true. As I believe is explained in the article the fetus forces its self on the mother, it's not as if the mother chooses the fetus. To say...

Well I think murder is the wrong word, I'd rather say 'unjust'. Yes, whether it is unjust is in the end, up to you. But I think you should go through your thinking to come to exactly why you think it is unjust to see if perhaps the reason why you think it is unjust can be responded to adequately...

I think the article Ive been spamming puts it quite right. You have a right to not have your life taken from you, unjustly. Is abortion just killing? It could not be said in the circumstances discussed in the article, that the mother has done anything unjustly. Therefore - at least for the...

That's a bit silly imo. Did you read the full article? Perhaps you missed some of it.If a burgular breaks into a womans house, even tho she has put in place locks/bars on her windows to attempt to prevent them from getting in, if he gets in anyway, does that mean she allowed him access into her...

So you're saying that you in fact do not feel an exception should be made for cases of rape/incest, but that the political environment makes it so that such a law is impossible? I would really like you to read http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

But if abortion is wrong because it's a living creature and therefore has a right to life, it seems rather odd to make the exception in the case of rape/incest, as if your right to life has diminished because you are the product of rape/incest. See my question rests on the idea that like Bshoc...

Er yea... If I make 40-50,000 my first year out of study, I'll be quite happy. As for law in the US it is a graduate-only field of study, so chances are there's less law students overall in the US.

The silliest thing is that I specifically told him that the argument used allows that it is alive at the point of conception and that it has a right to life. Why is it that all of a sudden you do not have a right to life if your life is the product of incest/rape?

Er actually, if you read the article... it assumes that life begins at conception and that the fetus is a human with rights. Maybe you should read the dang article then and do exactly as I explained, to show what your objections really are. The Article...

There was a msn conversation about this earlier. While I agreed that allowing men to terminate their legal rights to the child as an 'out' (much as a woman can abort for an out) seems on the surface to be fair, there are practical problems. Often the man is needed to support the woman/child...

Fine, let's say that abortion is essentially taking the life of an innocent person. Read http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm please. Again, this is easily outlined in that article I provided. There are a whole bunch of criticisms (and rather well reasoned counters...

Well as for the "right to life" meaning that abortion is morally wrong, I think you need to read this -> http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm With reguard to Bshoc's boasting about 'winning' that I noticed he edited in. I think he should realise that even if he is...

As far as those questions go, I believe alot of them are addressed/gone through in this article: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

There's alot of awesome threads over on those forums. Particularily if you've ever wondered whether something is real or not... For example the polygraph, audiophile stuff (i.e. music is better on records), psychics and all other silly supernatural junk.

For anyone interested in a continuation of this debate (I would especially like Bshoc to join in, you seem like a fairly smart guy and this is a forum full of what I'd consider to be fairly smart people), I have started a thread over at the JREF forums where people have a bit more of an idea on...

While I have not read any of john (sp --') mill's work (as far as I know, I read alot of laymen essays instead of the direct source material often), I try to answer questions as they come to me and justify my position. I do not have all knowledge in the world, as no one does, so when confronted...

Allow me to explain this further, the axiom's used to promote his theory can be challenged. I actually read up on it. The interesting thing I found was that utilitarian's seemed to be unphased by the theory (with almost no references about it, either a cover-up or they had a reason to not...

Not everything has to go along with Arrows impossibility theory. http://legaltheorylexicon.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_legaltheorylexicon_archive.html Actually it's still rather big I think you'll find, just because it's no longer strong utilitarianism doesn't mean it is no longer even...

No one can tell us anything about the OBJECTIVE REALITY, however as I explained before (but you've yet to understand) the information which people give us should form our known-reality, as it is the best information we have at hand. Perhaps in the future it will be wrong, but for now it is the...

Well we'd guess that they have average happiness and therefore would not change the overall happiness of the world. Meaning that there is no added happiness but there is potential added unhappiness. I see no reason to imagine that fetus's if born would add GREATER average happiness to the world...