Hypothetical: You're in a severely dangerous area... say, the North Pole. You're in your warm shelter, which you have absolute ownership over, to do some science project. Scenario A: Some jackass runs over to your shelter with a woman who is restrained. He takes off her protective clothing and throws her in your shelter. Without protective clothing, one will die if in the severe cold of the North Pole. Assume the clothing needs to be perfectly fit, and your size differs greatly from the woman (and you'd also like to keep your protective clothing). You take off her restraints, and she explains that if you let her stay, she will fabricate some protective clothing within a few months. However, she has a severe, contagious disease that you will have to suffer for months if she stays. Do you have the right to throw her out of your shelter, even though she will die? Scenario B: You voluntarily invite this woman to your shelter for dinner. Oddly, her protective clothing is destroyed (cause is irrelevant -- just assume it is not the fault of her or you). Just as in Scenario A, she can make this clothing, but it will take months, and she has that disease. Do you have the right to throw her out of your shelter, even though she will die?
Scenario A - it is the fault of the jackass. The moral choice is yours, but the option of booting the woman out to die is definitely on the table, since the situation was forced upon you. Personally, I think you should suck it up and let her stay. Scenario B. You are stuck with the woman. The choice of how you treat her is yours (do you try to minimize contact in the hopes of not contracting the disease?), but the option of booting the woman out to die is not on the table, since the situation was forced upon her (invitation plus accidental destruction of clothing).
I'm solving this dilemma right now. I'm inviting her to bed. That solves the heat and rent issues. I guess I'll take my chances with her disease - unless she's a dog. Then forget it - OUT, OUT!!!!
Human life trumps property rights. The three-month disease is a little iffier, but in the absence of more specifics on the disease, I'm going to say that human life trumps that, too.
That's not the traditional expression of the disease, to my knowledge. I think that in males it's called satyriasis.
These are both Pro-lifer scenarios to argue against abortion. Did you bother to mention that for the nine months that the woman is blind, deaf, mute, and unable to care for herself at all?
I don't think the metaphor works very well that way. There's a difference between a living woman and a fetus that has not yet been born or taken so much as a single breath.
Not in the mind of pro-lifers. To answer the OP, no one has the right to deprive me of my or anyone else's property against my will. If I want them removed from my property, that's my right.
In both scenarios: - In the eyes of God - NO - In the eyes of Me - NO - In the eyes of neocon socialist - YES. that is why neocon socialists need to hide behind Jesus and the "Christianity". Neocon socialists destroy nations with their wars, and steal people's homes by way of taxation, they will quickly come up with an excuse that the woman is a crackpot. I on the other hand, do not believe in contageous diseases - it's a pharmaceutical myth.
Someone who is deaf is only three fourths of a person? It's not "common sense" since people do have different responses. What is your response?
Is this the sort of (*)(*)(*)(*) that Paul supporters waste their lives on? If you people ever want to get this goofy guy elected, tell him to get back to planet Earth and stop talking such meaningless nonsense. Everything he says is demagogic nonsense, designed to appeal to the naive or ignorant. The reality is hidden in his standard dodge. When pressed on any of his apocalyptically important ideas, he admits that he can't do anything without the cooperation of the Congress and the rest of the country. Which means he will do nothing different. Anyone who thinks that the potus has the power to singlehandedly alter the economy, nevermind the culture, is probably too stupid to be allowed to vote.