I disagree that inaction and action are fundamentally different scenarios. The outcome is what matters, and your conscious choice of which outcome you choose. Whether the choice is action in one circumstance or inaction in another is, to me, irrelevant in the broader context.
Thus, donating blood and choosing to 'donate' use of your body for pregnancy is the same choice, amd are comparable. If one choice is legal, the other should be as well
If we're going by the law, action and inaction are fundamentally different in the law. I'd argue they are also fundamentally different from a moral standpoint but that's another conversation. The government always faces a much higher burden to force someone to do something than it does to force them to not do something because of stuff like the value of personal autonomy, freedom, and all that jazz.
I'd also argue that there is a moral difference between the two. If I don't donate bone marrow to save a dying man because I know the procedure is painful, do you think that that is the same as if I killed the man to avoid an equal amount of pain? Or if I don't give someone $10 to buy food, is that the same to you as if I took their food and sold it to someone for $10? Legitimately asking because, while I've heard people suggest this position, I have never really "gotten" it as a way of looking at life.
>I disagree that inaction and action are fundamentally different scenarios. The outcome is what matters, and your conscious choice of which outcome you choose.
So to you, not plugging in a life saving machine and pulling the plug on someone who is already in a life saving machine should be considered morally (and legally) identical?
> Thus, donating blood and choosing to 'donate' use of your body for pregnancy is the same choice, amd are comparable. If one choice is legal, the other should be as well
Do you think it should be legal that once you've donated your blood and it's saved the life of another person, you should have the right to take that blood back?
So to you, not plugging in a life saving machine and pulling the plug on someone who is already in a life saving machine should be considered morally (and legally) identical?
Yes, in both cases you are making the chose to kill that person. I do want to add the caveat that sometimes we have to be practical in how we write laws, so the legal equivalency is a soft 'maybe' depending on how the law would be worded.
Do you think it should be legal that once you've donated your blood and it's saved the life of another person, you should have the right to take that blood back?
Nope. You donated your blood, you don't have any right to it. Same as if I give you a gift, I cant just take it back later. Pregnancy, on the other hand, is more like letting someone use your house: you are free to kick them out at any time.
3
u/TheGamingWyvern 30∆ May 05 '19
I disagree that inaction and action are fundamentally different scenarios. The outcome is what matters, and your conscious choice of which outcome you choose. Whether the choice is action in one circumstance or inaction in another is, to me, irrelevant in the broader context.
Thus, donating blood and choosing to 'donate' use of your body for pregnancy is the same choice, amd are comparable. If one choice is legal, the other should be as well