FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law.
The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.
Don't fight the hypothetical.You have no way of knowing what someone's intentions are.
You have no way of knowing this and neither does the thief.
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit
FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.
The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
You have no way of knowing this and neither does the thief. And besides that it doesn't matter if you can or can not replace your property, you have the right to defend yourself and property against thieves.
FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit
FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.
The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
Simply put said:I agree that both have the right to protect themselves against any intrusion or threat upon their property (or body). But would you say that if an intruder broke into your property (and was killed justly, or arrested, or escaped), and then you found out they left their 1 year old child hiding in the closet you had the right to kill the child? I doubt it. It's not an adequate comparison.
There may be discussions worth having as to when life starts. But, property issues isn't a reasonable part of the discussion.
I agree that both have the right to protect themselves against any intrusion or threat upon their property (or body). But would you say that if an intruder broke into your property (and was killed justly, or arrested, or escaped), and then you found out they left their 1 year old child hiding in the closet you had the right to kill the child? I doubt it. It's not an adequate comparison.
There may be discussions worth having as to when life starts. But, property issues isn't a reasonable part of the discussion.
fact pattern one: the fetus is completely innocent
fact pattern two: the guy is a thief
If you had to choose one, which deserves to die more?
Occam's razor if I ever saw it.
I like this kind of black and white moral thinking.
Unfortunately, the question wasn't who had more of a right to live, but who had more of a right to kill?
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit
FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.
The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
Too many problems with this attempt. For one, it is comparing an innocent party to a guilty party. For another, too many unproveable and/or unknowable assumptions.
No thanks, I'll pass.
Well, in your hypothetical, no it isn't.
However, you are actually quite wrong..
But if that intruder left a viable fetus within the woman hiding in the closet, it's a different story.
The argument for the Pro Abortion Rights crowd has been and is, and has prevailed on the basis of property rights and property law.
A quick search of google confirms this...
Abortion as Eviction: Property Rights, the Child and the Womb – Part ...
zealfortruth.org/.../abortion-as-eviction-property-rights-the-child-an... - CachedDec 5, 2007 – Dr. Block's views on abortion follow this basic framework – holding private property rights as the ultimate judge between two individuals. ...
The Pro-Rights Abortion Position | The Next Right
While you may take exception to this, apparently the supreme court finds that it's not quite as dubious as you find it.
Well, the links didn't come through for the sources you mentioned, but I found the first one. The interesting thing is that in that article, the author supporting abortion as "evictionism" basically uses my comparison. Except he says that it's fine to "evict" the baby human from your private property (regardless of age). He essentially says that youth are slaughtered all the time, why make a distinction? I actually think his logic is consistent even though repulsive. Regardless of what the Supreme Court might say, I think they'd have a problem from me evicting a baby human into a -20 degree night, or off a housebout into a lake, or out of a moving airplane just because they were trespassers in my personal property.
Logic only comes back into play through 2 arguments. Either 1.) the life inside a woman's body isn't life, yet; or 2.) it's ok to kill someone at any age if they're on your property and unwanted. The 2nd argument is a hard one to maintain ("Yes, I pushed him into oncoming traffic, officer, but he was standing in my yard eating my last bag of cheetos").
The Supreme Court can say what they want. I'm sure I disagree with a lot of other things they've said over the years, too. They are a political body who interpret law through the eyes of social will.
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit
FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.
The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit
FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.
The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
While I think the woman has the choice to abort the child. I'd press her more to put it up for adoption. There would be extreme minimal reasoning in aborting the child considering it is presenting no harm.
The business owner has no right to kill the thief, but has a definite right to hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive.
And what happens if the thief ignores the owner's oders to freeze? If the owner doesn't have the right to fire the weapon, why listen to him? If you can't fire a gun, its basically a big stick. Not very scary.
Not to mention, what happens if the thief decides to attack? Or dives for cover and then pulls his own gun? The owner has the advantage with the gun presumable already drawn and aimed, but why needlessly put yourself at risk (no matter how minimal)?
If you believe in property rights, then it's only logical that we also have the right to defend our property. And that means using force (including lethal) to enforce those rights.
Inspired by the responses by both conservatives and liberals in: Burglar's family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit
FACT PATTERN ONE: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The fetus certainly has no evil intentions, but its unwanted presence in the woman's body is causing her moderate-to-serious emotional and psychological trauma. The fetus is two weeks old. She is seeking an abortion. The woman is known to be sexually promiscuous but has taken care to prevent pregnancy while engaging in consensual sex in the past. She has no family to take care of the child for her or help her but has sufficient money and means to raise it herself without sending herself into significant debt.
FACT PATTERN TWO: A thief climbs over a fence and into the parking lot of a car dealership, intending to steal money or property to pay for his serious drug addiction. He has no intention of hurting anyone -- he believes the property to be empty of employees for the night. As such, he is armed with only a small pocket-knife which he carries on his person at all times. Unbeknownst to him, the store owner is sitting in his office and sees the guy come over the fence. Sensing that the guy is probably a thief, the owner pulls out his shot-gun, barrels out of the building. He wants to shoot the man for trespassing. He thinks the guy might have a gun but is mostly just furious the thief would dare attempt to steal from him. The thief has been on his property for all of forty seconds. The thief has no family to miss him or to ensure that he stays in compliance with the law. The store owner has a wife and kids and enough money to cover losses due to theft without sending his company or himself into significant debt.
The poll question is: who has the stronger right to kill? Why? Also, which right should be valued more highly -- the right to control of one's property, or the right to control of one's body? How does culpability play into this question? And anything else you would like to add?
Didn't say he didn't have the right to shoot him and if he attacks the owner then by all means he has the right to kill him.
The former clearly has the greater right to kill, being subject to violation of her body,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?