Can raped girls abort?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roy5 said:
Difficult issue, but
Click to expand...
Yeah… see… this is one of the greatest things about CAF. This is a vehicle where people can learn how to better live Catholic lives. 🙂

This is a bad situation you’ve described, but it still doesn’t excuse ending a human life.

Period.

While raising the child MAY have been difficult, it wasn’t a life risk for the mother.

The mother could have (and SHOULD have) been born and given up for adoption.

The whole ‘spontaneous abortions happen’ argument: That’s just a clinical term for a MISCARRIAGE. It happens naturally. As in GOD does it. We, you and me and the rest of us mere mortals, are not god. 😦

We don’t get to say who gets to live or die.

PERIOD.

No matter how sad the story may seem. Someone said that girl with Downs Syndrome couldn’t have the child, but it wasn’t GOD who said it. He allowed them to have the abortion, but that’s because we all have free will. But it was a wrong action based on what we are taught and instructed through the church.

Every day, some one tries to say that someone else shouldn’t have a child because of some circumstance. Every day, people learn of someone who lived a great life and to make great contributions to the world despite being one of these kids that someone, a human, said shouldn’t have been conceived.

This is what makes my God a great and wonderful god. He is all knowing! 👍
 
jmcrae said:
Good. As a next step, you might also refrain from defending or promoting those who do.

🙂 :hug3: :console:
Click to expand...
I am merely stating that there are reasons why people support the pro-choice on principled grounds. I don’t approve of their position, but I try and understand it.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I am merely stating that there are reasons why people support the pro-choice on principled grounds. I don’t approve of their position, but I try and understand it.
Click to expand...
In this particular discussion, you also seem to be promoting it as a valid point of view. If you don’t consider it to be a valid point of view, you should be more clear about that.

It isn’t a “principle” - it’s a living child.
 
jmcrae said:
In this particular discussion, you also seem to be promoting it as a valid point of view. If you don’t consider it to be a valid point of view, you should be more clear about that
Click to expand...
Why should it make any difference?
It isn’t a “principle” - it’s a living child.
Click to expand...
Eh?
Let’s not go down this rhetorical avenue, it does nothing for me.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Why should it make any difference?

Eh?
Let’s not go down this rhetorical avenue, it does nothing for me.
Click to expand...
“Rhetorical”?

You mean that actually calling something by a correct name somehow is 'rhetorical?"🤷

The child is a child. . .or if you prefer, the human being is a human being whether said human being is in the very **earliest stages of life or the very latest stages. A child in the womb is as much a child as the oldest living human beings are still ‘older adults’.

**That child in the womb has as much potential to be (given time) the infant, the toddler, the school-age child, the teen, the young adult, the mature adult, the elderly and the very elderly adult.

So calling a child in the womb a child is perfectly sane, sensible and logical. . .and not a whit ‘rhetorical’. When the child leaves the womb the child will be termed ‘infant’ or child because that is the name we give to our ‘youngest’ humans. So why do you find the use of the word ‘child’ a rhetorical device?
 
Doc_Keele said:
Why should it make any difference?
Click to expand...
Because someone could be swayed to think, “Well, a smart guy with a doctoral degree thinks it’s okay to have an abortion, so it must not be completely bad,” and then they go out and they kill their child.
 
jmcrae said:
Because someone could be swayed to think, “Well, a smart guy with a doctoral degree thinks it’s okay to have an abortion, so it must not be completely bad,” and then they go out and they kill their child.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s likely.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
“Rhetorical”?

You mean that actually calling something by a correct name somehow is 'rhetorical?"🤷

The child is a child. . .or if you prefer, the human being is a human being whether said human being is in the very **earliest stages of life or the very latest stages. A child in the womb is as much a child as the oldest living human beings are still ‘older adults’.

**That child in the womb has as much potential to be (given time) the infant, the toddler, the school-age child, the teen, the young adult, the mature adult, the elderly and the very elderly adult.

So calling a child in the womb a child is perfectly sane, sensible and logical. . .and not a whit ‘rhetorical’. When the child leaves the womb the child will be termed ‘infant’ or child because that is the name we give to our ‘youngest’ humans. So why do you find the use of the word ‘child’ a rhetorical device?
Click to expand...
Another who manages to completely miss the point.
Try getting a bit less emotional.
 
Right. It’s a question of the perception of authority or ‘expert’ status.

Just as one would more likely listen to or accept the word of a professed lawyer on a legal issue as opposed to the ‘man or woman on the street’, one would think that the word of a doctor would carry more ‘weight’ on a medical issue than the word of the ‘average’ person.

Now while I might trust my doctor to know the ‘medical’ reasons for procedures, though, it is becoming more and more apparent that doctors, just like the rest of us, might not check out the ‘whole’ process but that they separate the fact that a procedure ‘can be’ done from whether the procedure "should be’ done.

It used to be, back in the old days, that people had a much more homogenous ‘ethos.’ Even as short a time as 50 years ago, abortion was seen–by the doctors and nurses as much as by the ‘average’ Joe–as a morally evil procedure. But doctors --perhaps relying on the ‘word’ of the lawyers who orchestrated ‘legal’ abortions – then came to ‘accept’ abortions as no longer being morally evil --because now they were LEGAL. Doctors (not being perfect) have in many cases (just like lawyers, and indeed just like 'average Joes) fallen victim to the false idea that ‘legality’ confers morality.
 
Well medical law has its own peculiarities, medical ethics and the law in the UK are in some areas almost co-existent.
Lawyers certainly don’t confuse legality with morality. Neither do doctors.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Another who manages to completely miss the point.
Try getting a bit less emotional.
Click to expand...
What point did I miss?

Oh, and just FYI–accusing a person of being too ‘emotional’ is a very hackneyed attempt at promotion of logical fallacies. Are you ready to actually address questions now?
 
So doc, what exactly is ‘rhetorical’ about addressing a child in the womb as a child?
 
Given that I haven’t actually said that calling the foetus a child is rhetorical, I am confused as to why you’re asking me this?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
What point did I miss?

Oh, and just FYI–accusing a person of being too ‘emotional’ is a very hackneyed attempt at promotion of logical fallacies. Are you ready to actually address questions now?
Click to expand...
No, just trying to get you to use a formal argument rather than appeals to emotion.
 
Then perhaps you can explain your post here

Why should it make any difference?
Code: 
Quote:
 	 		 			 				It isn't a "principle" - it's a living child.
Eh?
Let’s not go down this rhetorical avenue, it does nothing for me.

Are you not here referring to the point of the child in the womb being a living child --and the use of the words ‘living child’–as a ‘rhetorical device’ that you didn’t 'want to pursue?".
 
jmcrae made the remark about a living child but where it came from I’ve no idea
how this got blown up into me denying the nature of the unborn child, I also have no idea

this is the sort of thing that drives me mad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top