Alas, Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
I would like to nominate this as one of the most off topic threads ever!
Click to expand...
It can’t be, we haven’t even been able to invoke Godwin’s Law yet, and since the topic involves abortion, that is really quite remarkable :).

–
Bill
 
mchale said:
It can’t be, we haven’t even been able to invoke Godwin’s Law yet, and since the topic involves abortion, that is really quite remarkable :).

–
Bill
Click to expand...
Would it be moral to shoot down a plane driven by Nazi’'s that was targeting an abortion clinic?😃
 
mchale said:
If the plane was so close to the Empire State Building that we knew it was going to hit it even though no one is at the controls we can draw two simple conclusions.
  1. Lots of people are going to die regardless of the scenario since shooting a plane down anywhere over Manhattan will result in thousands of deaths.
  2. You are not going to have time to do it anyway.
–
Bill
Click to expand...
It’s on auto pilot and they’ve figured out where it’s going to steer itself. The cabin doors are secured so nobody can get in.
 
mchale said:
So what you are suggesting here is that if a doctor decides you only have a week to live, they can happily kill you to harvest your organs? After all, they will add years to the life of multiple people and you only had a few days left anyway.

The problem with your position is that almost any means, no matter how morally objectionable can be justified if a net benefit can be derived.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
I’m not directly causing the death of another person by having my organs in my body.
 
Abortion. Indeed, Alas.
Too serious a topic to stand alone without the hijacking?

Dumb and dumber.

What a shame.
 
estesbob said:
I would like to nominate this as one of the most off topic threads ever!
Click to expand...
The claim was made that ‘killing one person who is going to die to save another person who is going to die is wrong all the time’ and we’ve been working with that.
 
tjm190 said:
The claim was made that ‘killing one person who is going to die to save another person who is going to die is wrong all the time’ and we’ve been working with that.
Click to expand...
Folks have been PLAYING, not “working.”
The thread addresses abortion.
Catholic site, Catholic teaching regarding abortion.

All else: play.
 
catharina said:
For me, no dilemma. Kill another to save myself? NOPE.

Admit I HATE movie references.
(I don’t watch movies very much.)
Click to expand...
Fiction is hardly ever a good guide to morality. In real life, God always provides a way out that doesn’t involve anyone committing sin. There are no “no win” scenarios, in real life.
 
tjm190 said:
The claim was made that ‘killing one person who is going to die to save another person who is going to die is wrong all the time’ and we’ve been working with that.
Click to expand...
It is at best a terrible analogy , at worse moral equivalecy argument of the worst kind.
 
estesbob said:
It is at best a terrible analogy , at worse moral equivalecy argument of the worst kind.
Click to expand...
Out of control plane, for certain going to crash, is going to kill 1000’s on the ground if no action is taken and is within our power to shoot down-

In both cases- We can kill the doomed innocents to save other, or we can allow these things to play themselves out and end up with more dead people then there would have been otherwise.

I fail to see the major problem with the analogy, albeit this is the latest version so you may be responding to a prior analogy.
 
tjm190 said:
Out of control plane, for certain going to crash, is going to kill 1000’s on the ground if no action is taken and is within our power to shoot down-
Click to expand...
If you shoot it down, you are just going to kill different thousands on the ground, and probably mostly children and old people, whereas if it hits the building, it will be mostly adults killed. Shooting the plane down won’t cause it to magically evaporate - the pieces will land on schools and hospitals, sending them up in flames and killing all inside.
 
tjm190 said:
I’m not directly causing the death of another person by having my organs in my body.
Click to expand...
But you already said we could devalue human life that only had a few days left in favor of life that would last for years.

In any case, with respect to the abortion case under consideration, it appears the the fetus was not the direct cause of the mother’s health problems but rather a complicating factor. Or at worst, it was the way the mother’s body was reacting to the pregnancy that was killing the mother. The baby was innocent.

–
Bill
 
jmcrae said:
Fiction is hardly ever a good guide to morality. In real life, God always provides a way out that doesn’t involve anyone committing sin. There are no “no win” scenarios, in real life.
Click to expand...
Yes. Thank you.
 
mchale said:
But you already said we could devalue human life that only had a few days left in favor of life that would last for years.

In any case, with respect to the abortion case under consideration, it appears the the fetus was not the direct cause of the mother’s health problems but rather a complicating factor. Or at worst, it was the way the mother’s body was reacting to the pregnancy that was killing the mother. The baby was innocent. In every sense.​

Bill
Click to expand...
 
mchale said:
But you already said we could devalue human life that only had a few days left in favor of life that would last for years.

In any case, with respect to the abortion case under consideration, it appears the the fetus was not the direct cause of the mother’s health problems but rather a complicating factor. Or at worst, it was the way the mother’s body was reacting to the pregnancy that was killing the mother. The baby was innocent.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
If the mother’s body si reacting negatively to the pregnancy, then it is the baby that is killing the mother. That doesn’t mean the baby is some how guilty of killing the mother, anymore then the man holding onto the guy’s leg in that other example was responsible for potentially killing the man. The presence of the baby is what is killing the mother, albeit due to forces outside anyone’s control.
 
jmcrae said:
If you shoot it down, you are just going to kill different thousands on the ground, and probably mostly children and old people, whereas if it hits the building, it will be mostly adults killed. Shooting the plane down won’t cause it to magically evaporate - the pieces will land on schools and hospitals, sending them up in flames and killing all inside.
Click to expand...
it’s outside the city. Over the atlantic ocean in fact.
 
jmcrae said:
Fiction is hardly ever a good guide to morality. In real life, God always provides a way out that doesn’t involve anyone committing sin. There are no “no win” scenarios, in real life.
Click to expand...
And based on what do you make that claim? What was the ‘win’ option in the scenario this thread is based on?
 
VetA said:
if you preform the abortion you are saying the mother is worth more than the child.
Click to expand...
What if the mother is caring for 3 or 4 other children? What good would be achieved by depriving them of their mother?

I fully agree with the Church’s views on abortion, incidentally, as I am an adoptee myself.

But one wonders… how one would react when faced by a terrible ethical dilemma that is a non-win situation. How could anybody here claim to be able to react with a clear rational head devoid of any emotional baggage? It’s all highly theoretical until you have to walk in those shoes. Fortunately I have never had to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top