Fair enough.
Justice Kavanaugh’s first test on abortion comes this week
- Thread starter Catholic Crusader
- Start date
Fair enough.
This brings us to the question of cases where lives are at stake- one can save either the mother or the baby, at the expense of the other. Who do you save?
Please don't hide behind the "fact" that this situation is rare or "never happens". It did happen in the past, and likely happens to this day in less developed parts of the world. Even as a thought experiment it is useful. Is the unborn child's life of the same value as that of the mother?
Ah, but then you need to define "person". What are the characteristics of "human life" of "person"?
Why shouldn't, on these rare occasions, the attempt be made to save BOTH lives? Also, why use such rare occasions as an excuse for abortions when most are done for the reason of convenience.
No, it doesn't. You asked how we should define what is a "human life" and were given an answer.
It's time to apply that answer, not change the topic.
There is never a scenario where one has to kill one to save the other.
No, it's not.
Yes.
:up:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Personhood is conferred by God at conception. It is only those seeking to dehumanize classes of people who define according to traits.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
no, it doesn't
I define human life as 1. human and 2. alive
based on this definition, I have no trouble seeing that abortion is the ending of a human life
your response to that was "It depends on how you define "human life"."
How do you define human life to avoid the fact that abortion is the ending of a human life?
do you deny that the developing embryo or fetus is human?
do you deny that it's alive?
Zeke
Well-known member
Joe public citizens liberal or conservative aren't under the protection of governments restraint by constitutional law, only the sovereign private sector have that protection, so the supreme court can't actually hear the public out cry when their privileges are revoked or expanded while under foreign contract law for the debt to foreign bankers 1933, under administrators not constitutional judges, so like voting its all a big show to keep the illusion going that Joe public can assert rights it gave away at birth, certified and registration under contract to uncle scam Galatians 4:1. Abortion is a private affair of choice that is no body else's business ya or nay unless you have that privilege taken away then the administrators decide for the public sector not the supreme court of the land/body/Luke 17:21.
Are you against rape? Should I/others decide not to conform to your moral dictate, against rape?
Slower: Laws are an imposition, a dictation, of morality.
And by the word "moron," in the dictionary, is your photo.
Depends on your response to my question:
Is it ever OK to deliberately kill a child?
Are you a sovereign citizen?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if I force an abortion on a woman against her will, what is it?
Please note:
I am not promoting abortion, or claiming it is OK, or excusing it on the basis of these "rare occasions". Not at all. I am trying to show that abortion is criminal, without being exactly the same as murder.
The reason I came up with this example is that the matter is discussed in ancient Jewish legal texts. There the call is made to save the mother's life, even if it means killing the child.
Yes, it is always best to try and save both lives, but it isn't always possible, and the problem was more acute in ancient times- and in poor countries in the world today. Dying in childbirth was very common before modern times, and is still common in some countries.
There is never a reason to stop delivering the baby in order to kill him.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Not true. If both the mother AND child will die otherwise- there is a reason.
Absolutely true.
1. There is no way to guarantee that either will die, unless you're going to take a pair of scissors to one.
2. The treatment for emergency-level complication in a pregnancy is delivery. Delivery is not intentional killing of the child. There is never a need to stop delivering the child in order to kill him. You just deliver him. Then you care for him as best you can.
You are speaking as a medical expert?
Perhaps as an expert on 5th century medicine?
Or an expert on midwives of the Central African Republic?
I expected this reaction. Which is why my original post included this:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
one might argue that the unborn child's life is of greater value than the mother, as the unborn child has his whole life in front of him
to illustrate: you come across a bad car wreck on an isolated road. The car holds two occupants - a middle-aged woman and a young child. Circumstances are such that you can only rescue either the mother or the child but not both. Which do you choose?
I believe most people would choose the child.
ever watch will smith's I Robot?