06-13-2023, 07:47 PM
(06-13-2023, 07:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you're describing is the exact same thing as walking by and seeing a person hanging from a cliff. If you don't help them you can be described as contributing to their death by not helping, but you did not cause their death. This is different then causing them to hang from the cliff in the first place. In answer to your question, my answer is, no. No one should be compelled to assist or aid anyone, even if it may cause that person's death. I am huge on personal freedom, I think taking away a person's freedom is the absolute worse thing you can do to them. That's why I think life imprisonment with no parole is a far worse punishment than the death penalty.
If we apply this logic to abortion it would be along the line of, your baby is going to die unless you submit to a very risky medical procedure and the mother refuses. This is wildly different then having an elective abortion, even if the end result is the same.
I'm not sure I agree that it is the same. In the cliff scenario, you are not actively helping them. You are aware that they need assistance, but you have not rendered them any aid. It is a death by inaction. However, in my described scenario, you are rendering them aid, albeit against your will. You have been connected and are providing them with your blood. Now, you have the choice to discontinue that aid but with the knowledge that doing so will kill them. You are playing a more active role in their death should you make that choice.
