Conquer Club

Dukasaur wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, here's the scenario. Some guy's daughter is very sick, and her father needs about $3 million for the surgery. Should the father be allowed to trade himself (i.e. his own property) for a life of servitude?

Yes and no.

Speaking from a purely ethical point of view, it's pretty open-and-shut. Yes. It's his life, and he has the unconditional right to do what he wants with it, including shooting himself, getting a sex change, joining the Church of the Golden Fleecing, tattooing pimpdave's avatar on his forehead, and yes, selling himself into slavery.

Speaking from a pragmatic point of view, this is one of those things that makes me very worried. Worried enough to bend ethics in favour of pragmatism. Allowing slavery, like allowing euthanasia, opens the door to a whole boatload of potential frauds. After all, that's what the old shanghai gangs were all about, right? Get some poor slug drunk to the point that his judgement disappears, make him mark an X on a piece of paper that he can barely see much less comprehend, pay him a bounty to convince yourself that you're not doing anything wrong, and bank on the fact that none of his immediate relatives is an attorney or knows what habeas corpus means.

Like legal euthanasia, voluntary slavery is one of those areas where I'm willing to condone an unethical standpoint because the ethically correct standpoint is just too vulnerable to unethical exploitation.

Night Strike wrote:When society condones the aborting of the unborn, it makes it very easy to justify the aborting of the previously born. Welcome to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century progressives.

Night Strike wrote:When society condones the aborting of the unborn, it makes it very easy to justify the aborting of the previously born. Welcome to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century progressives.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:When society condones the aborting of the unborn, it makes it very easy to justify the aborting of the previously born. Welcome to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century progressives.

That's right, Strike. Our goal through not having to make people suffer during the rest of their mortal life is genetic elitism.

You got that one right on the head!

-rd

1. Clump of cells, hours after impregnation? Yep, it has a fundamental right to life, SAVE IT'S LIFE.
2. Comatose cancer patient hours before death? Yep, he has a fundamental right to life, SAVE HIS LIFE.
3. Full grown healthy adult convicted of murder? Nope, no fundamental right to life, FRY HIM.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:When society condones the aborting of the unborn, it makes it very easy to justify the aborting of the previously born. Welcome to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century progressives.

That's right, Strike. Our goal through not having to make people suffer during the rest of their mortal life is genetic elitism.

You got that one right on the head!

-rd

I couldn't have said that more sarcastically myself, nicely done.

It always struck me as particularly amusing that people actually think:

1. Clump of cells, hours after impregnation? Yep, it has a fundamental right to life, SAVE IT'S LIFE.
2. Comatose cancer patient hours before death? Yep, he has a fundamental right to life, SAVE HIS LIFE.
3. Full grown healthy adult convicted of murder? Nope, no fundamental right to life, FRY HIM.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:It always struck me as particularly amusing that people actually think:

1. Clump of cells, hours after impregnation? Yep, it has a fundamental right to life, SAVE IT'S LIFE.
2. Comatose cancer patient hours before death? Yep, he has a fundamental right to life, SAVE HIS LIFE.
3. Full grown healthy adult convicted of murder? Nope, no fundamental right to life, FRY HIM.

Night Strike wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:It always struck me as particularly amusing that people actually think:

1. Clump of cells, hours after impregnation? Yep, it has a fundamental right to life, SAVE IT'S LIFE.
2. Comatose cancer patient hours before death? Yep, he has a fundamental right to life, SAVE HIS LIFE.
3. Full grown healthy adult convicted of murder? Nope, no fundamental right to life, FRY HIM.

Why would that amuse you? The first two are innocent beings so no one should have the power to take their lives. The 3rd one chose to kill an innocent person, so why should their life be protected? The 3rd one made a choice to kill, the other two did not. It's a pretty clear distinction.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:It always struck me as particularly amusing that people actually think:

1. Clump of cells, hours after impregnation? Yep, it has a fundamental right to life, SAVE IT'S LIFE.
2. Comatose cancer patient hours before death? Yep, he has a fundamental right to life, SAVE HIS LIFE.
3. Full grown healthy adult convicted of murder? Nope, no fundamental right to life, FRY HIM.

Why would that amuse you? The first two are innocent beings so no one should have the power to take their lives. The 3rd one chose to kill an innocent person, so why should their life be protected? The 3rd one made a choice to kill, the other two did not. It's a pretty clear distinction.

Haggis didn't say anything about the third person making a choice to kill. He said "convicted of murder". I hope you understand the difference.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:It always struck me as particularly amusing that people actually think:

1. Clump of cells, hours after impregnation? Yep, it has a fundamental right to life, SAVE IT'S LIFE.
2. Comatose cancer patient hours before death? Yep, he has a fundamental right to life, SAVE HIS LIFE.
3. Full grown healthy adult convicted of murder? Nope, no fundamental right to life, FRY HIM.

Why would that amuse you? The first two are innocent beings so no one should have the power to take their lives. The 3rd one chose to kill an innocent person, so why should their life be protected? The 3rd one made a choice to kill, the other two did not. It's a pretty clear distinction.

Haggis didn't say anything about the third person making a choice to kill. He said "convicted of murder". I hope you understand the difference.

99% of the people convicted of murder have actually committed murder.
100% of the unborn have not committed murder (or made any other choice that harms someone).

Yet it's ok to kill the unborn when they are completely innocent.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:It always struck me as particularly amusing that people actually think:

1. Clump of cells, hours after impregnation? Yep, it has a fundamental right to life, SAVE IT'S LIFE.
2. Comatose cancer patient hours before death? Yep, he has a fundamental right to life, SAVE HIS LIFE.
3. Full grown healthy adult convicted of murder? Nope, no fundamental right to life, FRY HIM.

Why would that amuse you? The first two are innocent beings so no one should have the power to take their lives. The 3rd one chose to kill an innocent person, so why should their life be protected? The 3rd one made a choice to kill, the other two did not. It's a pretty clear distinction.

Haggis didn't say anything about the third person making a choice to kill. He said "convicted of murder". I hope you understand the difference.

99% of the people convicted of murder have actually committed murder.
100% of the unborn have not committed murder (or made any other choice that harms someone).

Yet it's ok to kill the unborn when they are completely innocent.

Is it ok to kill 1 in every 100 people convicted of murder for a crime they didn't commit? Your stats.

Night Strike wrote:My stats are an over-simplification to prove a point. It's probably closer to 99.9%. And no innocent person should be killed, whether they are unborn, going about their normal day, or wrongly convicted of a crime. That's why we have a judicial process that gets better on a daily basis: to make sure the correct people are convicted. However, I do know that a supporter of abortion supports killing an innocent human every time an abortion is committed.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Night Strike wrote:My stats are an over-simplification to prove a point. It's probably closer to 99.9%. And no innocent person should be killed, whether they are unborn, going about their normal day, or wrongly convicted of a crime. That's why we have a judicial process that gets better on a daily basis: to make sure the correct people are convicted. However, I do know that a supporter of abortion supports killing an innocent human every time an abortion is committed.

You do understand why supporters of abortions support abortions, right? You mentioning "innocent" is kind of silly when that whole argument is about when the clump of cells becomes a person.
A couple of hours after impregnation the embryo would only be "innocent" inasmuch as a rock is "innocent".

Anyway, the point is that you fight ardently to protect humans with questionable person status, like embryos and brain dead comatose patients, but have no problem murdering humans whose person status is not in question, like people convicted of murder.
The right to life isn't really fundamental when 12 jurors in a box can decide to take it away from you, is it?

Further source of irony: you guys go on all day about small government but support the state's right to legally murder it's citizens ...

shieldgenerator7 wrote:IDK, I think it's more ironic that this thread devolved from euthanasia into another abortion / state's rights thread

Night Strike wrote:Capital punishment is not murder because the person dying is not innocent of a crime. The state has the power to punish crimes, which is the job they're actually tasked with doing. Supporting a small government means you DO institute a system that makes sure that people who take away the rights of others are punished. Plus, capital punishment is actually allowed for in the Constitution itself (specifically for treason, not even for killing another person). The 12 jurors are following due process as the Constitution outlines. The murderer is not. And the abortioner is not either.

Suicide - Yes
Assisted Suicide - Yes
Euthanasia - No

shieldgenerator7 wrote:If you help a friend commit euthenasia, is it considered the same thing as murder?

Symmetry wrote:

shieldgenerator7 wrote:If you help a friend commit euthenasia, is it considered the same thing as murder?

You phrased the question the wrong way. Suicide- helping a friend to commit suicide. Euthanasia is when they can't do it themselves. There's a fair history of suicides in my family, and a lot of sickness.

I would assist someone to die on their own terms. Nobody who wants to die should die alone. And nobody should take that decision alone.

shieldgenerator7 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

shieldgenerator7 wrote:If you help a friend commit euthenasia, is it considered the same thing as murder?

You phrased the question the wrong way. Suicide- helping a friend to commit suicide. Euthanasia is when they can't do it themselves. There's a fair history of suicides in my family, and a lot of sickness.

I would assist someone to die on their own terms. Nobody who wants to die should die alone. And nobody should take that decision alone.

you're right, it's a big decision, a big life-changing decision that effects everyone around you.

Maybe instead of having them kill themselves they can go to prison t=like the people on death row and do public service work. If they just wanted to ruin their lives or end their lives going here would mean the end for them socially, but they could still be doing good for society, and if they ever decided that euthanasia was a bad idea, they could undo that decision, whereas if they actually killed themselves there would be no going back short of cloning or reviving (such as in Star Trek).

This brings up another question: do most poeple decide for euthenasia because they want attention or are just sick of living?