Jody Nagel
  (Click to send me e-mail)  
 
Test of Arbitrary Unreasonableness
 
 
  Return to
Jody Nagel's Writings
Return to
Jody Nagel's Jomar Page
Return to
JOMAR Home Page
 
 
 

Test of Arbitrary Unreasonableness
by Jody Nagel
Opinion Challenge
 
 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
TEST OF ARBITRARY UNREASONABLENESS 
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. (The American Declaration of Independence.)
 

Biological Life Cycle
Fertilization span0 Decay
(Non-fully-human portion, undeserving of legal protection, indicated by thick black segment.)
 
 
Which Statements Do You Agree With? (TEST OF ARBITRARY UNREASONABLENESS)

 

 
span1

1. It is ethically sound to grant an adult son or daughter (or his or her legal or medical representative) the right sometimes to kill an elderly parent. To be defined as fully human requires a sense of self worth. This is obtained by being a productive member of society. An elderly person that is non-productive is not fully human and should not expect to receive rights guaranteed by human constitutional law. Such an elderly person should never be allowed to become a financial hardship to his or her own children. I agree that in this situation it is legally defensible to be allowed to murder.
 


 
span2

2. It is ethically sound to grant an adult man (or his legal or medical representative) the right sometimes to kill a teenage child. To be defined as fully human requires a certain genetic biochemistry which gives our species its unique capacity for intelligence. It is obvious that teenagers temporarily develop an abnormally extreme hormonal biochemistry. This biochemistry sometimes negates the teenager's intellectual capacity which renders them less than fully human. An adult man has to endure financial burden to support teenagers, and this imposition should not be required. An adult man suffers medical problems such as stress, high blood pressure, and a greater propensity to have heart attacks because of his teenage child. The adult man should be allowed to avoid these problems by killing his teenager, and such a teenager should not expect to receive rights guaranteed by human constitutional law. I agree that in this situation it is legally defensible to be allowed to murder.
 


 
span3

3. It is ethically sound to grant an adult man or woman (or his or her legal or medical representative) the right sometimes to kill a woman or man of the opposite sex if that other person engages in the activity of being a "Peeping Tom." To be defined as fully human requires me to acknowledge that other humans have the same equal right to be alive as do I. A "Peeping Tom" is not fully human since he or she does not acknowledge that my "Right to Privacy" is valuable. This person should not expect to receive rights guaranteed by human constitutional law. The penalty for someone trespassing on one's Right of Privacy should obviously be the death penalty. A person deserves to have his or her life ended if a breach of Right of Privacy EVER occurs. I agree that in this situation it is legally defensible to be allowed to murder.
 


 
span4

4. It is ethically sound to grant an adult woman (or her legal or medical representative) the right sometimes to kill her own unborn child. To be defined as fully human obviously requires that a person first be born. Right? An unborn infant is not fully human since he or she has not been born. The not-yet-born person should not expect to receive rights guaranteed by human constitutional law. An unborn person should never be forced to become a financial hardship to his or her mother. A pregnant woman suffers medical problems while pregnant, and the pregnant woman should be allowed to avoid these problems by killing her unborn fetus. An unborn fetus impinges on a woman's Right of Privacy, since this unborn person obviously is invading the woman's body. A woman may choose to consider this breach of her privacy (on the part of the unborn person) to be grounds for killing this person. I agree that in this situation it is legally defensible to be allowed to murder.
 

span5

5. It is ethically sound to allow an unborn fetus (or his or her legal or medical representative) to kill his or her pregnant mother if there is any suspicion that the pregnant mother may be planning on killing the unborn child. To be fully human requires possessing a unique set of genes. A pregnant woman possesses within her body two sets of genes, and a highly non-normative hormonal biochemistry. This dehumanizing state does not qualify a pregnant woman to be considered fully human, and she should not expect to receive rights guaranteed by human constitutional law. A fetus-murdering pregnant woman is an obvious threat to the rights of the unborn child, and the unborn child should be allowed to murder this woman and take his or her chances at surviving in a test tube or incubator. Discussion of murdering unborn persons constitutes a form of verbal harassment. Pregnant women engaging in such discussions are liable under the law, and unborn persons (or their legal or medical representatives) are justified in removing this source of irritation. I agree that in this situation it is legally defensible to allow infants to murder.
 
__________________________________________________________________________________
 
If you agree with all five statements, or if you disagree with all five statements, then you are a self-consistent person. If you agree with only some of these statements you are inconsistent and arbitrary.
 
This message is being brought to you by the Faith-Based Ministry:
Atheists Against Choice

 
 
Dr. Jody Nagel
February 1, 2001
 
 
 

  Return to
Jody Nagel's Writings
Return to
Jody Nagel's Jomar Page
Return to
JOMAR Home Page
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 by Jody Nagel. All rights reserved. Call 1-765-759-1013 or Email for additional information.