Thank you for joining this thread to present these important questions. We know how much you desire to know the truth and meaning about life. Men have been asking these same questions since the beginning of time…keep “asking… seeking… knocking…” you’ll find your way, my friend. I know you are longing for light and peace, I will pray for you.
gal,
BTW, Both of my daughters are adopted.WE’RE GLAD YOU WERE BORN!!! God bless you, your dear wife, and your beloved child!
I thank both of you for being supportive even when we are in a state of disagreement.Thank you for joining this thread to present these important questions. We know how much you desire to know the truth and meaning about life. Men have been asking these same questions since the beginning of time…keep “asking… seeking… knocking…” you’ll find your way, my friend. I know you are longing for light and peace, I will pray for you.
I admit that my ethical system makes this situation very tricky. I think that if it’s known the patient will recover, the patient should be kept alive (in most cases). The difference between a comatose patient and a fetus is the amount of inconveniences that take place by valuing either. Considering a life valuable before it gains sentience would be catastrophic (killing sperm cells would be immoral). Considering a life that has gained sentience but has lost it since then (and is expected to regain it) causes far fewer problems.
Killing me would only be immoral because I am sentient; I have desires you are contradicting by killing me.
I just looked up sentience and sentient in the dictionary. One definition is “feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.” Another definition is “having sense perception; conscious.” I think it is possible to apply those to a fetus and I know I applied them to my dying Dad. BTW, disagreement can be one of the steps to greater learning.I thank both of you for being supportive even when we are in a state of disagreement.
It is not a straw man because a live human always possesses inherent value.
Again, these are self evident. When is a human every equal to a weed?
You said human life has no inherent value. What does being sentinet have to do with it? It appeasr that you agree that Human life has inherent value-you just want to pick a time that it has value that allows your protection but allows the slaughter of those you feel less worthy.
Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
Many species have sentience, not just humans. Sentience is not the result of being human, it’s the result of having a developed brain. I don’t care if humans agree to it, abusing animals is wrong because you are acting against their interest for no good reason. I will never agree with your human-centric point of view.
So then,you’re argument is that if animals are abused by humans because it is an act against their interest, for no good reason, then why shouldn’t it be the same for humans who abuse/kill humans against their interest (inalienable right)? Maybe you could list the “good” reasons for abusing/killing animals/humans please. Thank you.
So you are a vegan?
The reason that abortion is wrong is that it is the intended killing of an innocent human being–the individual human already exists. A sperm cell is *not *a human being.
Yes, do you?
Well, we are *not *accepting your definition of a person. Since it is wrong, why would we?
Well, because we look at *reality *rather than making up our own definitions. As a result, we can see that the unborn baby killed in the womb by abortion is not a non-person but an actual existing person. There is a big difference between killing an actual existing person and changing one’s mind about having a baby.
That preety much makes further discussion uselss, doesnt it? Lets review your points:
I think one example of a good reason can be found in the Trolley Problem–I would kill one person if it would mean saving five.
Sadly, I am not. However, I have taken steps to restrict my meat-eating. I admit, as I imagine you do when you feel you’ve sinned, that what I do is wrong. No one’s perfect.
"The fact that women see this as their only viable option is something that we all need to pitch in and help fix; however, that is really beside the point."
No, the *actual *point is that so many are committing the sin of extra-marital sexual activity.
**“Staying off your back.” Hmmm. Sounds like you’re promoting the fallacy that women are solely responsible for unplanned pregnancies.
**How does an “abortion mill” have the authority to prohibit another business or individual from advertising their services? Please explain.
**Are you suggesting that abortion is sought only by unmarried women or women having conceived through extra-marital affairs? You know that’s inaccurate, don’t you?
**The “first step” was taken 36 years ago with the passage of Roe and the horrified response by those who never believed it could come to pass. Not much progress has been made since then.