You've no qualms in aborting the child in cases where the mother's life is in danger?
"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
You've no qualms in aborting the child in cases where the mother's life is in danger?
I don't expect you to.
It's not me I'm concerned about...I'm not a pregnant woman. :chuckle:
If the woman HAS to abort the baby, most likely the baby isn't going to make it even if she didn't abort it since it's going to kill her, hence killing the baby. It's not murder in that case alone, for obvious reasons.
So, in other words..abortion is morally acceptable under certain (according to your) conditions. You've just blown your own idealistic, deontological (B&W) presumption out of the water.
Thus, your argument actually entails the woman's moral choice to abort, not abortion per se. So, why should a woman with an undesired pregnancy care about your moral views regarding her choice?
Hahaha! You're unable to understand what I said so you jump to the conclusion that I just blew my argument.
If the woman is going to die, will not the child die as well? So yeah, argument is still fine & intact. Just because one strict situation that is unavoidable is understandable..does not mean I have to condone all abortions, quip. You're smarter than that.
Try again though.
If the woman is going to die, will not the child die as well? So yeah, argument is still fine & intact. Just because one strict situation that is unavoidable is understandable..does not mean I have to condone all abortions, quip. You're smarter than that.
Try again though.
The death toll of WWII was an upward of 70 million.
The amount of abortions worldwide over three years comes around to that number.
And
You're just making excuses to deny the inevitable truth.
Wait now. You just justified killing one ..."separate human being" over another! Why the sudden switch to the "separate human being" entitled mommy?
You're being wholly inconsistent....to be consistent you should simply pray and hope for the best. No?
The law says if a woman who is pregnant is murdered, it is actually the killing of two human lives, not 1 & a 1/2, quip.
Why should Society let women slide with murdering her own child & punish someone else for commuting the same crime, only difference is who did the killing?
If a husband hires a hitman to kill his wife, is he not an accomplice to her murder?
Why should Society let women slide with murdering her own child & punish someone else for commuting the same crime, only difference is who did the killing?
If a husband hires a hitman to kill his wife, is he not an accomplice to her murder?
Irrelevant red herring.
Answer the questions posed:
You just justified killing one ..."separate human being" over another! Why the sudden switch to the "separate human being" entitled mommy?
You're being wholly inconsistent....to be consistent you should simply pray and hope for the best. No?
No I am not, you're reaching. If there is a situation where if a woman tries to carry her pregnancy to full term, she will die, & the baby will die as well...she can have the abortion, it isn't murder in that case. The baby will die & she will die.
Now if it's possible for the woman to give birth to the baby & she will die doing so, I would think the most moral thing to do is give her life for the child. Intact that should be law. That ought to cut down on the promiscuity in society.
You open your legs, you are aware you can get pregnant. Condoms are not always 100%, and if you cannot buy & stay on your birth control pill regimen...you should HAVE to carry the baby to term.
It's called responsibility over selfishness.
Sure, its murder, murder in the same sense you've been using it up to this point...this seems a quite the convenient time for you to play semantic games.
Anyway, what was your motive for this sudden 180 focus shift from fetus to mother...if indeed both are simply and equally "separate human beings"?
What, pray tell, would hat inevitable truth be?
P.S.
I spoke of the Holocaust death toll, not that of the entire WWII.
Smh...not all killing is murder, you do understand that right? Self-Defense is not murder, for example, it is killing in self defense, not out of malice, selfishness, or hatred, but because you HAD to kill.
Why do I need a motive? I'm just going with the flow of the discussion. Abortion on-demand is a selfish act by definition, on the mother's part. You're not going to sit here & tell me it's a heroic act of self-sacrifice for which women should be praised, are you?
Also, I want to address your "tresspasser" question, I still am not sure if you were talking about the baby or the law as the tresspasser?
There's no self-defense to be had in the previous scenario...there's no malicious intent held on behalf of the fetus, its an entirely natural occurance. You equate abortion with murder thus, you just condoned murder. Simple ....correct?
Why a motive...well, particular acts are not comitted within a vacuum...so answer the question.
So if the mother is going to die & the baby is going to die, if the mother...who can actually sustain her life without the dying baby inside of her...decides to abort the baby who is going to die anyway...is not doing so in self defense of her life, but is actually commuting murder? That is what you're saying.
Protecting one's life in that scenario isn't self defense, how?
Protecting one's life in that scenario isn't self defense, how?
No...that's what you are insinuating. Though, you're also moving the goal post to fit your particular stance.
Nonetheless, you've clearly inferred here that the unborn is not the moral, physical nor pragmatic equal to the mother.
This is a start.
I guess if I have to have a motive for focusing on the mother, it's because she is the only one who gets the choice to opt out of the situation.
I'm pretty sure if the babies who have been aborted had had a choice not to be placed in the care of selfish women who abort them because they say they can't afford to have them...like the option of putting them up for adoption was never even an option, they wouldve. That is selfishness, you cannot call it anything else. I bet Buddha wouldn't approve of your justifying this kind of selfishness especially.
I support the culture of life because it is right & God confirms this. You are supporting a culture of selfishness & death here.
There is no getting around it.
I'm pretty sure if the babies who have been aborted had had a choice not to be placed in the care of selfish women who abort them because they say they can't afford to have them...like the option of putting them up for adoption was never even an option, they wouldve. That is selfishness, you cannot call it anything else. I bet Buddha wouldn't approve of your justifying this kind of selfishness especially.
I support the culture of life because it is right & God confirms this. You are supporting a culture of selfishness & death here.
There is no getting around it.
I didn't insinuate anything, and I didn't move the goal posts, I was just clarifying my stance. Only if the mother & or the baby are going to die, in those instances, do I think abortion is not murder. Pretty simple stuff.
The surgical procedure of abortion is ALWAYS done with the sole intention of killing the unborn baby. The goal should always be to save both the mother and the child.