10 ms·
> What right do you have to kill someone just because you are inconvenienced? Bodily autonomy and integrity is not merely an inconvenience. It's a major princi
by dsego 4y ago
> What right do you have to kill someone just because you are inconvenienced?
Bodily autonomy and integrity is not merely an inconvenience. It's a major principle in human rights.
Otherwise you could demand I give you my healthy kidney to save your life, and if I don't I'd be "killing you".
> You aren't required to save their life, but you also can't kill them.
You're not killing the violinist, you merely withdraw life support you're not obligated to give it in any way, they die on their own.
- ars 4y agoTo use your example, you can't demand I give you a kidney, but once you have it (and assuming you immediately die without it), I can't take it back. Body autonomy is great and all, but it doesn't excuse murder. Like I said: I'm not required to save you, but I also can't kill you.
- dsego 4y ago> Body autonomy is great and all, but it doesn't excuse murder. But it's not murder if I wake up in the middle of the procedure, walk away, and you die on the operating table.
- ars 4y agoChanging the scenario midway does not help anyone. Unless you are implying you agree with me, and wish to discuss a new scenario. To me the lines are clear: You don't have to take action to save his life, but you also can not kill him by your actions. i.e. if everyone froze at this moment and did nothing - would he live, or die?
- dsego 4y agoI wasn't changing the scenario.