1) Which is more precious to you: the life (or possibility) of a fetus or the life of a convicted serial killer.

2) Which is more precious to you: the life (or possibility) of a fetus or the life of a convicted serial rapist?

9/16/2008 12:10:00 AM

what kind of twisted question is that?

9/16/2008 12:12:02 AM

a good question

9/16/2008 12:12:31 AM

What if a woman who went around killing men after raping them found out that she was pregnant but was recently caught and sentenced to death?

9/16/2008 12:20:45 AM

was she hot as fuck?

9/16/2008 12:21:26 AM

what kind of a twisted and a no-brainer question is that?

of course a fetus.

9/16/2008 12:52:13 AM

too many people on Earth. Kill 'em both.

9/16/2008 1:57:14 AM

Depends.

9/16/2008 2:37:04 AM

9/16/2008 5:16:55 AM

Quote :

"Which is more precious to you: the life (or possibility) of a fetus or the life of a convicted serial killer."

because they are likely more intelligent than the the barbarian serial rapist who is purely guided by animalistic instinct.

9/16/2008 6:10:06 AM

why do either of them have to be precious

9/16/2008 12:03:25 PM

"Possible" life is not that of an independent being able to survive on it's own.

Murderers and rapists can survive without assistance from another human being. They have rights. Therefore, I'd say that the life of a murderer or rapist is more valuable than that of a parasite.

9/16/2008 12:34:24 PM

^ I hope you never become a mother one day.

9/16/2008 5:20:08 PM

9/16/2008 5:41:08 PM

Quote :

"why do either of them have to be precious "

Unless its family then to me its not.

9/16/2008 6:40:23 PM

I guess this is some sort of twisted question of trying to trip up liberals who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

I guess that means they would pick a serial rapist's life over a fetus's! HURRRRRRR

9/16/2008 7:48:06 PM

^ that is, frankly, what they do. They fight tooth and nail to save the life of a murderer, but say fuck that fetus. I like the juxtaposition

9/16/2008 11:25:57 PM

save the murderer and kill the fetus would be a perfectly valid answer to this thread.

9/16/2008 11:27:56 PM

am i allowed to kill it if it is only a zygote?

i say fight murder with murder at the expense of the taxpayers OR overthrow the justice system (it is corrupt anyway) amend (or just erase) the current constitutional and/or judicial safeguards and axe them (the rapists and serial killers. are we including your run-of-the-mill murderer in this analysis, btw?) on the spot (thus saving $$$ and perhaps even creating a deterrent effect).

as for the zygotes/embryos/fetuses (did i miss anything?? blastocyst...does that exist?) let them be born. but if they are born in poverty or to a teenage mother or a single mother etc they MAY not receive any help (but they will still be alive and free and born with the same opportunities as everyone else). they may be perpetually disadvantaged, they may be born addicted to cocaine, they may be bounced around from foster home to foster home, and i'm sure worse things happen (but we're all born equal with the same opportunities, in the land of the free...home of the brave). and well, since socioeconomic status (often) correlates to crime, the fetus may end up in the electric chair at some point him(her)self. (freakonomics much)

except if you are rich. if you are rich you can probably hire a lawyer to get you out of anything (or at least life in prison. it helps if you are white, too) and you can also hire someone to raise your kids for you.

9/17/2008 5:39:02 PM

Quote :

"^ that is, frankly, what they do. They fight tooth and nail to save the life of a murderer, but say fuck that fetus. I like the juxtaposition"

You're incredibly simplifying two incredibly complex issues with a pointless hypothetical that will never occur. This is no way to make an argument. You know that, right?

9/17/2008 5:44:10 PM

Or you could replace fetus/murderer with:

"which is more precious, the life of a fetus, or a soldier in an unjustified war?"

or, "which is more precious, the life of a fetus, or that same fetus in the form of an infant"

or(even though I know how this one would be answered), "which is more precious, the life of a fetus, or the life of an animal that is hunted for sport"

They seem like ridiculous, hypothetical questions but there are some people I would love to ask them to and force them to elaborate on the answers.

9/17/2008 9:35:16 PM

If the fetus is at a point where it has brain-wave activity, it's more valuable than the killer or the rapist.

If you mean any unborn potential life, then if it has no brainwave activity yet then the killer or the rapist.

9/18/2008 7:51:12 PM

its all relative brah

9/18/2008 8:00:09 PM

Not really

Things have some measure of moral standing when something can matter to them

Not hard to understand but then again I don't spend my entire day posting on the wolf web so I don't have a good grasp on the psychology in play here

9/18/2008 8:02:15 PM

choice > life

Quote :

"I don't spend my entire day posting on the wolf web"

well when you beg the mods to suspend your account, thats not really an issue for you is it

9/18/2008 8:03:19 PM

pro death penalty.
pro choice.

so whatevs

9/18/2008 8:05:57 PM

^at least you're consistent (kind of)

9/18/2008 8:06:37 PM

Quote :

"^at least you're consistent"

pro-choice
anti-death penalty

It's consistent unless you're too fucking dense to see it. Death penalty = destruction of a human life. Abortion = destruction of a potential human life.

No brain waves + no prior brain waves = not a human life.

Unless you have a more scientific measure for when moral standing starts?

9/18/2008 8:08:34 PM

the only problem I have is that death sentencing is inconsistent and killing fetuses is not.

edit: also the high cost of death penalty proceedings makes it alittle silly to me.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 8:12 PM. Reason : !]

9/18/2008 8:10:24 PM

^^the world would be a better place if your parents had been pro-choice

^seriously...whats wrong with just lining them up and shooting them in the head...cheaper, quicker, same end result

9/18/2008 8:12:44 PM

Quote :

"^^the world would be a better place if your parents had been pro-choice"

Weak and predictable burn

And no, it wouldn't.

Besides, you come up with that measure yet since you have a degree in a SCIENTIFIC CONCENTRATION

9/18/2008 8:13:59 PM

Quote :

"And no, it wouldn't."

utterly weak comeback

i'll bet your philosophy major really helped you get a good job

9/18/2008 8:15:12 PM

I'm doing pretty good for myself at the moment but what do I know*



*(other than a shitload more than you about practically everything)

9/18/2008 8:16:15 PM

i'm smarter than you are

9/18/2008 8:16:41 PM

if we just lined people up and shot them we would deduce our democracy to nothing.

so horrible idea.

however it seems to be working pretty well in china

9/18/2008 8:16:50 PM

^only difference i see is its taking away potential appeal time

i dont know if it would be a deterrent for crime but it would prevent the govt for paying for someone on death row to live for 10 years

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 8:18 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 8:17:42 PM

You get the gold star

But we should return back to the point of the thread -- I think I'm really offering the position aaron was trying to tease out, which is somebody who thinks it "depends".

I think it depends on whether or not brain activity has started in the developing child or not. Not sure if aaron finds that rotten or not, or if he'd rather afford moral weights to creatures without mental lives that are higher than some humans.

9/18/2008 8:18:21 PM

so what your saying is that China's trial system is better than that in the USA.

and seriously Str8 stfu about abortion shit. Your argument is going to get you no where.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 8:20 PM. Reason : !]

9/18/2008 8:19:22 PM

I'm sorry, what

Quote :

" Question: fetus or murderer"

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 8:20:14 PM

^^no not at all

i'm saying post trial and sentencing, it would be much cheaper to put a bullet in someone's head instead of paying for them to live and eat for 5 years before we lethally inject them and kill them anyway

and i'm saying the only difference in doing that versus what we do now (aside from much cheaper) is it would cut into their appeal time

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 8:20:18 PM

but the appeal is what weeds out all the "isms" that cause trials to be imperfect.

Im not a fan of having 12 "peers" determine the fate of a man and then offing him. It seems very biblical and im not a fan of biblical stuff. I try and distance myself from theocratic ideals.

9/18/2008 8:22:24 PM

Quote :

"and i'm saying the only difference in doing that versus what we do now (aside from much cheaper) is it would cut into their appeal time"

Sounds just enough.

9/18/2008 8:23:08 PM

nobody said it was fair, i said that would be the only difference aside from cost

no need to put words in my mouth to make yourself feel better about how good a person you are

9/18/2008 8:24:08 PM

well a trial has to be fair.

thats kinda the point.

9/18/2008 8:25:07 PM

Quote :

"post trial"

9/18/2008 8:25:27 PM

Quote :

"I hope you never become a mother one day."

God forbid someone rational ever become a mother.

9/18/2008 8:28:22 PM

if the ONLY thing you're looking at is brainwaves and the technicality of rights, then yes murderers technically have more rights (although the question was which is more precious, not who has more rights)

if you look at EVERYTHING and still decide the life of a person who has taken lives of others is more valuable to you than the life of something that is completely innocent, then I disagree and I think you have your priorities fucked up

9/18/2008 8:31:10 PM

Quote :

"if you look at EVERYTHING and still decide the life of a person who has taken lives of others is more valuable to you than the life of something that is completely innocent, then I disagree and I think you have your priorities fucked up"

How is something without mental states innocent or guilty at all? It's a category error. You can't apply either term, and to do so presupposes it has moral standing (which is what's at question here).

9/18/2008 8:46:00 PM

Quote :

"How is something without mental states innocent or guilty at all?"

its never done anything wrong or bad, so it cant be as guilty as a serial killer

like i mentioned and you acknowledged, if you look at it STRICTLY by technicalities and brain waves, your opinion is correct

if you look at right and wrong, i believe my opinion is correct

also, try convincing someone who is 3 months pregnant that the thing moving around and kicker her isnt alive

9/18/2008 8:51:43 PM

Quote :

"How is something without mental states innocent or guilty at all? It's a category error."

Well said.

Tree, I think the technicalities have to be factored into what's right and wrong.

9/18/2008 8:53:16 PM