Most of my family couldn’t have a good faith argument if they tried. They think they are arguing in good faith but it’s just logical fallacies all the way.
Surprisingly they are quite left. Like they arrived at mostly the correct conclusions mostly by accident.
deciding what others can or cannot do is a whole other moral discussion.
Cause then it is no longer connected to your body? Why would the same logic apply here? I am confused what argument you are trying to make
I disagree on that. It is a example of the emergency room variation of the trolley problem, as can be read further on here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem?wprov=sfti1#Variations
Yup in practice it is probably less risky and less invasive to do it early for the host. But that is a separate question. I thought you meant to question the classic “when would it be considered murder” so that is what I responded to.
To answer your question. They consider the argument of “where do you draw the line” to be a red herring.
Consider the following: if a person is in need for a kidney transplant, or else he would die, would it be ethical to force someone to donate their kidney against their will? I think not.
Same applies to abortions. You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process. And not having an option to abort would be to take away your bodily autonomy.
As for the line, I think that the person making that choice is the one that draws that line. It is not for us to decide.
Lol I know that place. Funny finding it on here.
I mean, I would technically still be welcome there. But no longer believing does mean I can’t really feel connected with that group. And thus losing community. Maybe “trapped” was a strong word to use here, but trying to discuss the flaws was just met with equally flawed arguments. Just look up the “five mindfulness trainings” from plum village and it should be easy to see how they can become problematic when followed to the letter.
I have been on both sides on this. I was trapped in a Buddhist group. Considering that the teachings where flawed or wrong would basically mean that I would lose out on that community. Believe me, the sense of belonging can be euphoric in a religion.
Of course, changing your view in isolation is quite easy. It becomes harder when a big part of your life requires you to believe.
Also, when I was younger my need to “be right “ was quite strong. I had severe self confidence issues, so “being right” was the one thing I latched on to. Admitting being wrong gets really hard once your self confidence is that shaky.
I am doing much better now.
I tried it. For months and months. But I always ended up with either a bad shave, or a bloodied face. Apparently my skin is to weak for this stuff. So I am back to expensive cartridges.
Oh my god. It took me a while to figure out what this meant. I guess I was wooshed while attempting to point out a non existent woosh.
Ain’t that just welfare? I thought UBI means that you will get the money, even if you work.
TBH my perspective might be skewed cause I am qualified for disability income, but I choose to work anyway. So I naturally tend to assume that others would do the same.
Woosh. He meant 2001: a space odyssey
Yep, I switched to kagi a while back and couldn’t be happier with the results. If you don’t want to be the product, maybe consider paying for search?
I thought left also meant protection against unregulated markets? Without regulations it is just going to be capitalismplusplus.
I had not yet considered that. I am not sure if I agree but you have given me something to think about. Thanks