E
Elf01
Guest
Not quite. The level of risk makes a differenc to what actions are reasonable. When that action is killing another human that risk should be high.
- Status
H
Hume
Guest
The risks children impose upon mothers are enormous. Enormous.Hume:
Not quite. The level of risk makes a differenc to what actions are reasonable. When that action is killing another human that risk should be high.
The decision to have kids is the largest anyone will likely ever make.
M
MarkRome
Guest
James 1:8.
H
Hume
Guest
I’m not a Christian. As such, the authority of the Christian scriptures upon me is pretty scant.Hume:
James 1:8.
M
MarkRome
Guest
OK, then. That’s fine. But it still applies to you or to anyone. It’s not just for Christians.
H
Hume
Guest
I’m not going to bother looking it up for you. If there’s a point you’d like to make, it’s kinda up to you to make it, sir.Hume:
OK, then. That’s fine. But it still applies to you or to anyone. It’s not just for Christians.
E
Elf01
Guest
I would say the risk varies from pregnancy to pregnancy.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Correct. A huge fallacy with these arguments is if X% of pregnancies involve danger to life of the mother and Y% are the other pregnancies, notice that when you ask people making this argument “so you only support abortion for the X%? And the remaining Y% abortion is immoral?” NOtice they won’t say yes, hence this whole discussion (of risk to mother) is all smoke and mirrors. They don’t genuinely believe any distinction on these grounds.
H
Hume
Guest
The outcomes vary from pregnancy to pregnancy, the the risks are largely the same.Hume:
I would say the risk varies from pregnancy to pregnancy.
Risk factors can slide the scales, but even the healthy, fit 20 year old having her first has a risk of death in the delivery room.
And then there are all the socioeconomic damages a child (particularly an unwanted child) inflicts on the family and greater society.
We HATE to admit it, but a big part of the crime crash of the early 90s was that it was 16 or so years after Roe. A lot of the unwanted problem children that were destined to “graduate” into the next generation of petty criminals simply weren’t there. They had been aborted shortly after Roe became law.
E
Elf01
Guest
Socioeconomic risk doesn’t justify killing.
H
Hume
Guest
Bodily risk certainly does, right? If that’s what it takes to eliminate the risk?Hume:
Socioeconomic risk doesn’t justify killing.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
Risk to life depending on level and immince of threat can justify killing.
H
Hume
Guest
Good deal. So we agree here.Hume:
Risk to life depending on level and immince of threat can justify killing.
We just differ on where that level of imminence lies.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
No you don’t , your post said absence of “risk free enterprise” justifies killing. Its a binary analysis in your post (risk free or not) that justifies killing. No nuance to risk level.
H
Hume
Guest
Of course, because I’m for choice.Hume:
No you don’t , your post said absence of “risk free enterprise” justifies killing. Its a binary analysis in your post (risk free or not) that justifies killing. No nuance to risk level.
I don’t determine the individual risk levels for anyone other than me.
The pregnant woman makes that choice.
H
Hume
Guest
As an aside, stop forcing “all or none” dichotomies where there are none.
That actually IS a logical fallacy. It’s called a “false dichotomy”.
No charge. This time.
That actually IS a logical fallacy. It’s called a “false dichotomy”.
No charge. This time.
E
Elf01
Guest
How often is the risk given as a reason for abortion?
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Well I’m glad you conceded that your posts are contradictory (If absence of “risk free enterprise” is the criteria for killing, “level of imminence” is irrelevant)
H
Hume
Guest
Varies woman to woman.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
absence of “risk free enterprise” as justification for killing was your words, not mine.
you can’t get more “all or none” than absence of “risk free enterprise” as justification to kill
- Status