3RU7AL

I've been outside in snow storms as have everyone I know, we are all still alive.

Yes I do have a personal responsibility.

Many arguments on this site treat either claim as the end of their burden and the thinking stop right there.

it was simplified

Since fallacious arguments can still be true,

Every good argument is built on very specific meanings of every term found in the thesis.

and could dive in and save him, then I do have have a moral obligation to save this person.

"the fetus inside me is a stranger to you"

But their death IS almost guaranteed if I don't save them from abortion.

I don't have a personal responsibility to a stranger if their death isn't almost guaranteed if I don't save them.

someone else could potentially save them

Abortion, if it is done properly, GUARANTEES the death of the unborn child.

Also, the difference with doctors is they have a *responsibility* to take care of a patient, it is their job.

I am not justifying anything with ad populum reasoning that is a straw-man. I am saying the claim I made was self-evident and the complete lack of controversy reflects that.

significantly controversial

But I thought libertarians believe you can do whatever you want.

That still shows controversy, what about that 28%?

Refer me to anybody, law maker, social warrior, ANYBODY who feels not donating a liver to someone to save their life should receive decades/ life in prison or the death penalty like pushing someone into a wood chipper would.

Viability being relevant IS controversial and not a social norm.

This is uncontroversial as it is self-evident.

Certain claims are self-evident and don't require justification. 

I used them to show how uncontroversial and self-evident the claim I was making was.

Obviously yes, because you are responsible for the child being there. Much the same is for the case of abortion. 

Why would viability be relevant to the moral right of an innocent human to not be killed? I fail to see how viability has any relevance.

Democrats should not be compromising on that at all. 

The only relavant facet of my moral ontology is the notion that, prima facie, a human beings right to life is superior to one's liberty.

Maybe, but to liberate is not to force people to get vaccinated.

Instead of reading off your script and bread trailing, could you just tell me what conclusion you are trying to get at? 

Viability is irrelevant.

suggesting that someone is evil for believing something rather than critiquing their beliefs.

It's nice to know only a small minority of Americans care about the partisan theatre and have finally told politicians to kindly fuck off when they patronizingly tell voters what they are SUPPOSSED to care about.

I am not a legalist in totality, although, as I said, there is a correlation when it comes to the most severe moral atrocities. Also, I thought it was common sense that not donating your liver to save someone is far less of a moral atrocity then pushing someone into a wood chipper. However, if you wish to shift the debate to moral realism vs moral relativism then that's a rabbit hole I would rather not go down. It has been fun however. 

What evidence? The fact that killing an innocent human carries with it a sentence of multiple years in prison, if not life, or even the death penalty and is regarded as one of the worst crimes one can commit.

Such punishment's are not had for not donating your liver; it is not even considered a crime (let alone a bad one).

This shows that us that society view actively killing someone as far worse morally than merely refraining to save someone from death if you can. If this was not the case, we would not have such consequences for the former in comparison to the latter.

There is not always a 1 to 1 comparison, but the law does tightly correlate with morality. This is why stealing and rape are illegal; they are morally repulsive (just like murder), while failing to donate organs even though people need them to live is not illegal.

It looks like no one changes their mind much.  I the think it's rare, but I also suspect folks just don't vocalize much when they r swayed.

I change my mind more than I do a good job expressing

And Tim Pool, who is no Trump lover lol!.

These people justify Trump's behavior and the security + political threats he created based on the fact that he is delusional and willfully rejects all the facts presented to him by everyone around him.

and I'm also interested to see if anyone can think of examples of this on the left.

Morally it is worse to take an action that kills someone (like pushing someone into a woodchipper) than it is to merely refrain from taking an action that saves them (like refusing to donate a liver).

There is no way to practically regulate killing the unborn by self-induced abortion.

For instance, you didn't defend your pig point the moment I called you out on it.

The path to a result matters when determining criminality. 

"they are indistinguishable without MANDATORY "tests and scans" (for all miscarriages, including unreported miscarriages) AND some investigation to determine MOTIVE"

That makes no sense, if it is unreported how could anyone know about it? 

***I asked you to respond with one comment and one comment only, so please do that it is getting annoying***

In other words, there is a lot of logic to my own morality but the foundation is as simple as feelings and subjective empathy.

Unless you are suggesting we legally mandate veganism,

Why do you think Schumer felt the need to say he wouldn't compromise on the bill even though that ensured it would not pass?

The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants. Should we really be killing baby pigs?