Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

If it succeeds, it will CERTAINLY be worth it. If not, it won't matter in the grand scheme of things, anyway.

That is the thing- it won;t matter. We know that already- a single breeding female is NOT enough to save the human race.

[Az]

it would be the doctor who was doing something wrong

Why is he more wrong for this than the woman? And in the context of rights, why is he wrong at all?

[Theben]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, as MtG has already stated, one single fertile female is NOT neough to save the human race. So trying to rape this woman, or kill her in the hope of another female baby to become the one sole breeder is simply cauisng pain to extend the inevitable, and given who knows what health concerns kids would develop as they kept being breed due to incest- is that trully moral?

He said that in reference to the woman who would die, creating only a single baby with a ~50% of being female (not including chance of viability to breeding age, sustainability of current environment, etc.).

The 2nd agrument allows for multiple births from the woman. I'm not happy about the choices offered, but rather that than the death of the species.
And genetic variation can occur with multiple male partners. Over time, given above average conditions, the race could survive.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, as MtG has already stated, one single fertile female is NOT neough to save the human race. So trying to rape this woman, or kill her in the hope of another female baby to become the one sole breeder is simply cauisng pain to extend the inevitable, and given who knows what health concerns kids would develop as they kept being breed due to incest- is that trully moral?

you have something like 100 men though, so its the best chance this scenario has.

[Theben]

Originally posted by skywalker
My point is within the whole "rights" framework of their thinking -

And in ALL the arguments above, the whole "rights" framework will be tossed out the window. We're talking about survival mode and mentality. Everyone does what they can to ensure the welfare of the group or gets kicked out, most likely.

[Az]

That is the thing- it won;t matter. We know that already- a single breeding female is NOT enough to save the human race.

That's not true.

[Whoha]

If we modify the problem so that the baby can't survive/has an extremely low chance to survive, and will kill the mother quickly(within a week), and the procedure won't sterilize the mother/and won't kill her either, then the thing to do is to C-Section the kid out and hope for the best.

Again Species > 1 person, only in this case the child dies.

[Az]

And in ALL the arguments above, the whole "rights" framework will be tossed out the window. We're talking about survival mode and mentality. Everyone does what they can to ensure the welfare of the group or gets kicked out, most likely.

or raped, in this case.

But I am glad that I am not the only one appreciating the importance of the survival of the species. Thanks guys, you made me believe in humanity again.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Theben


He said that in reference to the woman who would die, creating only a single baby with a ~50% of being female (not including chance of viability to breeding age, sustainability of current environment, etc.).

The 2nd agrument allows for multiple births from the woman. I'm not happy about the choices offered, but rather that than the death of the species.
And genetic variation can occur with multiple male partners. Over time, given above average conditions, the race could survive.

What arguement? Boris gave a simple question- so he already caved in to making it a sure thing the baby would be female- but even then, all of MtG's objections remain valid. You have to keep morphing the scenerio to make it more papatable for this..well, I say no:

there is no way to know the baby will be female, or that it can survive- what kind of diet will it have? have large amounts of baby formula miraculously surivived? Cause if not, baby without any females=fat chance it living long enough.

[MrFun]

Re: Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

Originally posted by curtsibling


1. I am trolling. I have no respect for my fellow posters here.


2. I am not sincerely interested in your answers, and do I appreciate spammers filling up my thread with silliness.

There -- that sounds more like it.

[Theben]

2nd argument.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I suppose my overarching question is why the survival of our species trumps the right of this woman to live. And does that survival apply in other situations, for instance, if the woman wasn't pregnant, just the only one left and perfectly fertile, but refused to breed with the remaining men. Would it be okay to rape her and force her to carry a child to term for the sake of species survival?

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG.

Feel free to send me a PM if you need someone to talk to.

As for the original question.

While on holiday, you and your loved ones (partner/family/etc) are taken kidnapped and captive by terrorists/criminals.
They give you the choice of either shooting your loved ones or yourself – What do you do?

You could be heroic, and try and shoot them, resulting in you and your loved ones being killed anyway.

But would that be murder?

And if forced to shoot yourself, is that still suicide?

Okay. Trying to shoot the kidnappers is not murder. However, I am a pacifist, so that option is not open to me, when presented with the option of giving myself over.

Now, what I would do, is say, yes I will shoot myself but only with the assurance that my family is safe, and that
no harm will come to them. I will ask that they be taken away, and given over to the police.

Then, once they are safe, I would either try to escape and they would shoot me, or I would try to convince them to leave me alone in the shame of my suicide.

Then I fire a gunshot in the corner and try to escape.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We split up.

damn -- sorry

[Ben Kenobi]

M'sieu Godunov:

Thanks to a massive war/famine/catastrophe, etc., the human race has been virtually wiped out except for a small enclave of humanity. By luck, there is only one woman left and the rest are men. The woman is 8 months pregnant, but is having major complications. There is luckily a doctor who diagnoses the situation as thus: The baby is healthy, but the pregnancy will kill the mother if it continues. The woman will be saved by an abortion, but it will damage her uterus beyond repair and end any reproductive hope. The woman wants to have the abortion to save her life, and the doctor has the means of doing it reasonably safely.

So, do you let the woman abort the baby to save her own life, but end humanity in the process, or force her to carry it to term in the hopes the new child will become a progenitor of the next wave of humanity?

Not hard M. Godunov, not hard at all. The woman is 8 months pregnant

At this point, the child is viable outside the womb, and a c-section would save the mother's life, and preserve her fertility, while saving the life of the child.

Curtsibling had a much more difficult question for me.

[Az]

6 months, smarty pants. Or the "rape the woman" scenario.