3 ms·

I've never understood this argument. Why doesn't that apply to feeding and clothing a new born? If you give birth to a child and let them die in the cold that i

by xupybd 10y ago

I've never understood this argument. Why doesn't that apply to feeding and clothing a new born? If you give birth to a child and let them die in the cold that is seen as murder. Why does a parent have to provide for a child before they were born and not after. Also many societies have concepts where people are required to care for others, parents and close relatives. I just don't agree, I think if the violinist has only one chance at life and that one chance has been wasted because he was tethered to you without concent then he should have the right to life. But the people who did it should also go to jail for a very long time.

kofejnik 10y ago
The difference wrt kids is that you have an option to refuse care in the long run, eg by giving up kids for adoption. In the violinist example, if lets say a suitable volunteer is available but needs time to come to the hospital, then yes, you need to stay attached for a short while and disconnecting would be immoral. But if this choice is not given to you, can you be expected to sacrifice an important chunk of your life for someone else? Otherwise, should you be compelled to donate one of your kidneys?