Turbo said:
A woman’s abusive ex-boyfriend gets drunk, shows up at her house, and rapes her while their 3-year-old son sleeps in the next room. Afterwards, she decides that she regrets having brought this slimeball’s child into the world, and just the sight of their son (who is the spitting image of his father) disgusts her. So in her anguish she makes an “impulse decision” to kill him. Would you not condemn her for that either?
Yes, this would be questionable at the very least, by three years old the mother would have for the most part already bonded maternally with the child and hopefully loved him already,
So, sometimes it’s okay to murder someone so long as you are haven’t “bonded with” or “loved” the victim? Is that what you are asserting?
If a rape victim in her distressed state, decides that killing her attacker’s 3-year-old daughter (whom she had never met) would ease her suffering,
would you not condemn her for that either?
I anticipate that you’ll argue that would be wrong because the rapist’s daughter has loving relationships with other people (grandparents, neighbors, etc.) In that case:
If a rape victim, in her distressed state, takes out her aggression by murdering a homeless man with no family nor a friend in the world,
would you not condemn her for that either?
you and i may think that life starts at conception doesn't mean everybody else does,
I don’t “think” that life starts at fertilization, I
know it. It is a fact, no matter how many people refuse to recognize it.
Would it be “realistic” to tolerate the slaughter of Jews or the enslavement of blacks because not everyone agrees that Jews and blacks are fully human?
No, it's not my experience, it's my sisters, and I stand by my statement of not condemning a person who has done such, what is it that constitutes suffering in your book? Not beiong allowed to develop to the point of being aware? There is certainly no suffering involved in the taking of the Plan B drug,
Suffering is not limited to the experience of physical pain, and murder is wrong whether or not the victim endures physical pain as he or she is being killed.
Do babies killed by Plan B exist beyond their death. (Do they have an afterlife?)
Can people experience any suffering in the afterlife?
Do murder victims in heaven know that they were murdered?
If yes, what is generally the attitude of murder victims toward their unrepentant murderers?
(This is and open Book test.
)
I am not making excuses for 'child killing'....
Yes, you are. Your excuses (so far) include:
- The killer was not thinking clearly, experiencing trauma, shock and/or fear.
- The killer had not bonded or loved her victim.
- Not everyone in the world affirms the personhood of the victim.
- There is some risk to the killer’s life several months from now if she does not kill her baby.
- There is some risk to the mother’s health if she does not kill her baby.
- The baby will not experience physical pain as he or she is being killed.
(And of course, you also excuse being an accomplice (i.e. abortionist, parent, etc.) in any of these cases.)
and just how sure are you that a baby can be 'viably removed' in all of these cases?
Not at all sure. But I am sure that some can. And just because a patient may die, that doesn’t justify killing that patient.
And just what if the child can't carry the baby till it's 'viable' and suffers greatly as a result as well as the loss of the baby?
That beats becoming a murderer and wondering if her child might have lived.
It's not just a 'chance' of risk, it IS a risk for one so young to be forced to endure pregnancy.....
The very word “risk” implies chance, so I suppose it is redundant of me to say “chance of risk.” But you are advocating killing the unborn child before any complications arise, as though being 11 years old is in and of itself a risk even at the early stages of pregnancy. Yet I have shown you many documented cases in which pregnant 11-year-olds managed to bear healthy children without harm to themselves.
Turbo said:
Two patients. Triage. Try to save both. Remember that? You claimed to agree with it.
I do when there is no danger initially with the pregnancy, if complications occur through a normal pregnancy then all should be done to protect both the mother and the child
At what point exactly is the unborn child suddenly worth protecting?
Earlier you said that from conception a child is fully human and has equal rights, but the above statement contradicts that one.
It doesn't take a genius to know that 11 years old is a dangerous age to be risking pregnancy, the body is not developed enough to be able to safely cope, every 11 year old who undertakes pregnancy is at risk....
Isn’t there
some risk associated with
every pregnancy? (And every abortion, for that matter?)
And you say 'countless'? I would hope that the proportion of 11 year olds falling pregnant is lower than what you seem to surmise.
I’m not talking just about the children of 11-year-olds, but about every child whose slaughter you condone.
Turbo said:
Here is a list of at least 18 people you are asserting could have rightly been slaughtered before they were born. You should repent.
And how many others have lost their babies, suffered physical damage etc? Stats can work both ways....
Those weren’t stats, they’re actual people who you say could have rightly been killed before they were born.
Which is
worse: being injured or becoming a murderer?
It is NOT wrong to assume that a woman of a certain age who undertakes a pregnancy is taking a risk!
What is that “certain age?”
Fill in the blanks:
It should be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child if she is younger that ____ or older than ____.
It is true, you should surely be aware that the risks of both underage and elderly pregnancy arre hardly just possibilities, the riske are there from the START.....
What risks are there at the start?
Whatever the risk, it is not as great as the risk to the baby during an abortion. The risk of death is roughly 100%. (And in those extremely rare cases when the baby has survived an abortion, the abortionist considers it a “failure.”)
Your definition of 'condoning' is not supporting the prosecution of rape victims who undertake such, that is not mine.....
As I showed, mine is the same as what’s printed in dictionaries. What’s yours?
Regarding your condoning of a starving woman eating her starving child, you wrote:
Well first off I never said anything about advocating killing the child,
Yes, you did.
My question was:
Hypothetically speaking: If a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to eat her 2-year-old, would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
This was a modification of the question you asked me:
hypothetically speaking - if a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to have an actual abortion would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
Yes, I should have written “
kill and eat” for clarity’s sake. But of course I was asking about killing one’s two-year-old. If the child is already dead, then it is not analogous to abortion and the question would be irrelevant.
But you did not misunderstand me. You knew I was asking about
killing a child in order to eat.
Here you wrote:
Then I said if the only means of survival was for the mother to do this then she would be justified – on the proviso being that both the mother and child are doomed.
A child who is “doomed” is not already dead, but is “
marked for certain death.” (That is, unless this is another case where
your definition of a word is different than what’s in dictionaries.)
I wouldn’t [advocate killing the child].
Well, I’m glad you’ve come to your senses on this one. :thumb:
So, if you recognize that it is never right to deliberately kill one’s born child, why don’t you believe the same about one’s unborn child, which you have claimed to believe has equal value and rights as anyone who has already born?
although here is a question back which I've asked other people but have yet to get an answer for, supposing in this hypothetical situation the woman has other children who are dependant on her for their survival, would she be justified in eating the remains then if it gave her a chance to be there for her other children....?
I don’t see how that would really help the situation, but I don’t see that as something that should be criminal, either.
But what is done with the remains of someone who died of natural causes has nothing to do with abortion.
Just HOW sure are you that even in our socieities that 'viable' removals are 100% option?
They aren’t, and I never suggested otherwise. Sometimes babies die. But that doesn’t justify deliberately killing them.
so I will ask you again - supposing a woman's life is in danger if she proceeds with a highly risky pregnancy and the odds are that she will die as a result, there is only abortion that could save her, should she at least have the choice?
No. Your question is bogus. There is never a need to cut up or burn or tear apart or stab or lethally inject a baby before removal.
Why can’t you recognize this, yet you are (now) able to recognize that a woman is never justified in killing her toddler in order to eat?
