KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) so you believe your choice not to help is more important than human life. That someone's right to life is less important than someone;s choice to do nothing? I believe you did not answer my question, but I did answer yours. Do you agree or disagree that if we have rights over doctors, over other human beings, that they are slaves? Edited April 17, 2014 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I believe you did not answer my question, but I did answer yours. Do you agree or disagree that if we have rights over doctors, over other human beings, that they are slaves? see above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 absolutely i disagree with your statement. right to life superceeds someone's choice of doing nothing. right to life is a basic human right that every person deserves as given by God I does not sound like you disagree with the statement but rather you are trying to justify slavery of doctors, because the right to life supersedes their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I believe you did not answer my question, but I did answer yours. Do you agree or disagree that if we have rights over doctors, over other human beings, that they are slaves? not when it comes to one of the most basic human rights as right to life. I believe no one has the right to refuse help to someone about to die. Be it as simple as calling 911 or handing them a phone they can not reach, a person does not have the right to refuse help to someone who is dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 not when it comes to one of the most basic human rights as right to life. I believe no one has the right to refuse help to someone about to die. Be it as simple as calling 911 or handing them a phone they can not reach, a person does not have the right to refuse help to someone who is dying. Ah yes thank you, doctors are slaves under certain parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I does not sound like you disagree with the statement but rather you are trying to justify slavery of doctors, because the right to life supersedes their rights. i don't hold this opinion of help for others just to doctors but to every person who is capable to help a dying person. It is a basic human right given by God for the right to life. To go against that is infringing on someone basic human right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 refusing help to a dying person is similar to actively killing them which we agree is denying someone a basic human right. you can not murder someone actively or passively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Having a moral obligation to help someone in need is not the same as a person having rights to or over another person. One is the charity chosen by free will the other is slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Having a moral obligation to help someone in need is not the same as a person having rights to or over another person. One is the charity chosen by free will the other is slavery. Do I have a right to kill whomever I want without repurcutions? If not, then you essentially agree with my point. Actively killing someone although different in nature is the same as passively killing someone. Either way, your taking away someone's basic right to life through your actions. Its not slavery to not allow people to kill whomever they want without repurcutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I already responded to that. But again, we'll see if your opinion changes if you're ever gunshot and need immediate medical attention. I saw your reply. It's like saying "sure, you are against abortion now, but let's see if your mind changes if your younger sister gets pregnant." Ultimately, emotions shouldn't affect reason to the point that we can't see what is right or wrong. I certainly hope medical personnel would take compassion on me or a loved one if we ever needed medical attention and couldn't pay for it, but me putting a gun to their head and forcing them to do it would still be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I saw your reply. It's like saying "sure, you are against abortion now, but let's see if your mind changes if your younger sister gets pregnant." Ultimately, emotions shouldn't affect reason to the point that we can't see what is right or wrong. I certainly hope medical personnel would take compassion on me or a loved one if we ever needed medical attention and couldn't pay for it, but me putting a gun to their head and forcing them to do it would still be wrong. is it wrong for any person to passively kill someone else? Is it wrong for a doctor to refuse care to someone and instead sit there and watch the person die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Do I have a right to kill whomever I want without repurcutions? If not, then you essentially agree with my point. Actively killing someone although different in nature is the same as passively killing someone. Either way, your taking away someone's basic right to life through your actions. Its not slavery to not allow people to kill whomever they want without repurcutions. Again I believe one has a moral obligation to help someone out of charity. But we cannot claim rights over another person. Murdering someone is also in effect to claim rights over other person, a right over their life and to end it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Again I believe one has a moral obligation to help someone out of charity. But we cannot claim rights over another person. Murdering someone is also in effect to claim rights over other person, a right over their life and to end it. which is what your doing by passively killing someone. its no different than if your in a burning building and i lock the door and stand in front of it and won't move. i am not actively killing you by standing in front of and blocking the only exit, so i should now be able to claim if your forcing me to move, your forcing me to become a slave. Passively killing someone is still murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 which is what your doing by passively killing someone. its no different than if your in a burning building and i lock the door and stand in front of it and won't move.i am not actively killing you by standing in front of and blocking the only exit, so i should now be able to claim if your forcing me to move, your forcing me to become a slave. Passively killing someone is still murder. I understand what you are trying to say. However you are in error, and the example you've given would in fact be direct and intended murder. The example above would not be all that different than forcing a pillow on someone's face and preventing them from breathing by preventing them from moving the pillow. By standing in front of the door one would be directly murdering the person within by forcing the door to stay closed and preventing the person from moving said door.If I were to take up your position I would attempt to use a better example of 'passively killing'. Say I am rushed to the ER because I am having a heart attack, the doctors refuse to follow their moral obligation to save me, and allow me to die. That example would be a much better one for the point you are trying to get across.However, it would not be murder nor would the doctors have killed me, passively or otherwise. What killed me was the heart attack, not the negligent doctors. They would be guilty of severe criminal negligence, but not murder not passively killing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 those who seek care should compensate a doctor but an unconscious gun shot victim should not be denied care or have care withheld because he can not pay before hand for his care. I think no force should be used to make the doctor treat the dying person but if they refuse they should be subject to not only lawsuits by the affected family but also punishment by jail time. Just as I believe a normal lay person should have the same punishment if they find a dying person in the middle of the road and choose to do nothing and watch them die. I believe they are responsible for that persons death if they choose not to call 911 and just watch the person die. Same with the doctor. I believe if someone brings a dying person to a doctor in the hospital and he refuses care and just sits there and watches him die, he is in part responsible for that persons death and should receive punishment. Okay. You believe that if someone fail to render aid, he may be thrown in a cage. What if he resists? What level of force do you believe is the limit? If he resists, would you say it's not worth it to take his life, or would you leave lethal force on the table? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now