General Question

flo's avatar

Can you say the items that were slated to be put together to save lives are not the final product, therefore it's ok to destruct them?

Asked by flo (12901points) July 5th, 2019

Let’s say the item that will be used to save lives/cure a disease is called xyz, and the different components of this item are called a, b, and c, If someone destructs the a and the b and the c, on purpose, so that there will be no xyz, will the people who cause the destruction say that it hasn’t become xyz yet, so it’s ok, to destruct a, b and c?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

janbb's avatar

Why do I have the feeling that this is somehow about abortion?

(PS The word is “destroy” not “destruct.”)

flo's avatar

@janbb I suppose so, re. the words “destruct” and “destroy”.

canidmajor's avatar

Well, yes, I would imagine they would say (as per the wording of your Q) that it was OK to destroy them.

chyna's avatar

@flo Why don’t you ever just ask your questions straight out? Why do you think you have to be so vague and mysterious to the point that we really never know what you are asking?

elbanditoroso's avatar

Although I agree with @janbb ‘s suspicion that this is going to be another anti-abortion screed, I’ll answer on the off chance that you have a serious question, @flo.

The problem with your supposition is that substance a b and c may have dozens or even hundred of legitimate, non-controversial uses. Take Botox for example. In larger concentrations it is fatal – it is, after all, botulinus toxin. It is almost 100% fatal if administered to a person (or if caught as a virus). But in small quantities, it is used for cosmetic reasons, So the same substance has good and bad purposes.

It’s not just drugs or chemicals. Take a hand scythe link: Used improperly, it could easily decapitate someone – it’s a murder weapon. Used properly, it’s good for agriculture and providing nourishment.

So to get back to your hypothetical – destroying the component parts of something because the might possibly potentially maybe be used for something you disapprove of – particularly something that has benefits to others – is immoral.

kritiper's avatar

Destroy? Possibly as in devour?

flo's avatar

’‘To save lives/cure diseases.’’

canidmajor's avatar

Oh, for Pete’s sake, @flo, do give a real example. It’s a big world. If one person can destroy all of the components A, B, and C that exist, then they won’t do much good. And you ask, specifically, what the destroyers would say.
Clean it up. Make a real point. Please. I implore you.

flo's avatar

@canidmajor People can post their own OP based on what they read (add their own senarios etc.) on any given thread, and /or answer other OPs similar to them.

canidmajor's avatar

Yes, dear, we know that. If you want cogent, intelligent posts on your thread, post a cogent, intelligent Q.

Oh, never mind.

janbb's avatar

@flo Do you want answers to your questions or do you just want to be belligerent? If most people are not understanding what you want, doesn’t it behoove you to try to be clearer?

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther