Excommunication result of Brazil Girl's abortion

[St_Francis]

eh?

The child was not in danger *at the time, *but you think that the fact that she would have had difficulties in the future justified killing her unborn babies *then. *

Apparently not.

It’s not as if we were advocating killing the mother when the baby’s life is in danger, so yes, for us the two lives are of equal value.

You let a rigid moral absolutism prevent mitigation of a tragedy.

Say an important cancer researcher was going to die within a week if he didn’t get a heart transplant, and he had an identical twin brother with cancer who was going to die in several weeks.

You could mitigate the tragedy of the scientist’s death by killing the brother for his heart, couldn’t you? But would you?

Not sure what your point is here,

That there is a difference between someone’s dying and someone’s being murdered.

No so actually, StF - intuition is often mentioned in philosophical articles. Not listening to intuition leads one to bizarre positions eg saying salpingectomy is not direct abortion but salpingostomy is.

Well, since I agree with that position, I would say that intuition is not all that reliable when it comes to moral issues. I have found educated logical thinking to work best.

The problem is that when one thinks only of the result and not of the means to obtain the result, the two results look alike, so it is thought that the morality is the same. However, as you can see by my example above, the means does make a difference as to the morality of the action.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Like I say, the Hippocratic Oath isn’t sworn for various reasons - so discussing it is pretty pointless.
Can you say what the point in procrastinating 1 minute would be?
NO.
This really is getting nowhere NCJ. If you haven’t got anything new and relevant to say, maybe we should leave it here?

Well you might be right you will not give even one minute for life…so maybe we should let this drop. I doubt I could have convinced Dr. Kevorkian either. Those that either cherish death or like to play God don’t usually give up their beliefs that easily.

Margaret Sanger would be proud of you, as you have defended the right to kill the unborn even for one single minute. Your obstinate is pretty impressive and you should be proud of yourself, not one minute, one day, or one week, or a month.

The High School debate seems to be finished I know that I cherish life and still believe that those that will not look at alternatives to abortions, during these modern times, are wrong and may have to answer for their decisions, but for some reason I do not think you feel the same. Do you believe that we will face a judgement some day?

Winning is everything right? You can do a lot in a single minute you know? In fact I would imagine you can think of a lot of things in one minute…millions of them. Then again you can chew gum and think of daisies too. I guess it really depends on what you are concerned with in life don’t you think?

 

[Doc_Keele]

The child was not in danger *at the time, *but you think that the fact that she would have had difficulties in the future justified killing her unborn babies *then. *

YES.

It’s not as if we were advocating killing the mother when the baby’s life is in danger, so yes, for us the two lives are of equal value

Right, the mother is the foetus’ life support system? The mother is allowed to die when she could be saved by warding an unjust threat to her life.

Say an important cancer researcher was going to die within a week if he didn’t get a heart transplant, and he had an identical twin brother with cancer who was going to die in several weeks.
You could mitigate the tragedy of the scientist’s death by killing the brother for his heart, couldn’t you? But would you?

Not the same situation at all though. The mother faces a threat that has no objective moral justification from the foetus.

That there is a difference between someone’s dying and someone’s being murdered

Which we all know.

Well, since I agree with that position, I would say that intuition is not all that reliable when it comes to moral issues. I have found educated logical thinking to work best

Well there’s plenty of times where people use educated logical thinking and simple intuition shows they have erred. So I have to disagree. And many philosophers take the same position.

The problem is that when one thinks only of the result and not of the means to obtain the result, the two results look alike, so it is thought that the morality is the same. However, as you can see by my example above, the means does make a difference as to the morality of the action

It all depends on what moral theory you adhere to. The moral absolutism of the Church is not the only way and the problems are demonstrated time after time.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Who’s ever said that girls of that age cannot give birth? Not me.
There’s chain smokers who live to be 90 - it doesn’t prove that smoking isn’t bad for me:shrug:

You are the one that put out the site…to "K"ill or not to kill that is the question.

On a side note will you be happy if your posts convince a 13 year old she is also too young to have a child and should kill it? What about a 15 year old? How about a 17 year old that wants to go to college? or a 20 something that is not married, or a 30 something that already has two children? what about the 50 year old that is afraid of a Down Syndrome child.

I think we have just justified all abortions all the time right? Any convenient reason is acceptable is it not Dr. “K” ?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well you might be right you will not give even one minute for life…so maybe we should let this drop. I doubt I could have convinced Dr. Kevorkian either. Those that either cherish death or like to play God don’t usually give up their beliefs that easily.

Margaret Sanger would be proud of you, as you have defended the right to kill the unborn even for one single minute. Your obstinate is pretty impressive and you should be proud of yourself, not one minute, one day, or one week, or a month.

The High School debate seems to be finished I know that I cherish life and still believe that those that will not look at alternatives to abortions, during these modern times, are wrong and may have to answer for their decisions, but for some reason I do not think you feel the same. Do you believe that we will face a judgement some day?

Winning is everything right? You can do a lot in a single minute you know? In fact I would imagine you can think of a lot of things in one minute…millions of them. Then again you can chew gum and think of daisies too. I guess it really depends on what you are concerned with in life don’t you think?

Wow, an entire post just filled with rhetoric! Good going!

I don’t think you require any answers to the rhetorical questions in this post

 

[Doc_Keele]

You are the one that put out the site…to "K"ill or not to kill that is the question.

On a side note will you be happy if your posts convince a 13 year old she is also too young to have a child and should kill it? What about a 15 year old? How about a 17 year old that wants to go to college? or a 20 something that is not married, or a 30 something that already has two children? what about the 50 year old that is afraid of a Down Syndrome child.

I think we have just justified all abortions all the time right? Any convenient reason is acceptable is it not Dr. “K” ?

Now after a post entirely composed of rhetoric a post composed almost entirely of straw man arguments! Excellent work! Neat trick trying to make out that anyone who isn’t a hardline pro-lifer is in favour of abortion on demand. That deserves an award for the most audacious straw man argument yet…no, wait it’s used regularly on this site. Sorry:shrug:

Is this a series of posts? Which logical fallacy are you going to pick next?

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Now after a post entirely composed of rhetoric a post composed almost entirely of straw man arguments! Excellent work! Neat trick trying to make out that anyone who isn’t a hardline pro-lifer is in favour of abortion on demand. That deserves an award for the most audacious straw man argument yet…no, wait it’s used regularly on this site. Sorry:shrug:

Is this a series of posts? Which logical fallacy are you going to pick next?

Since this is not High School debate 101 I will leave the master to himself.
I hope you have fun Debating yourself…

Take care Dr. Kill

God Bless you brother.

 

[St_Francis]

YES.

I can understand, altho disagree with the morality of, an abortion in the throes of desperately trying to save the mother’s life, but when there is no imminent danger? The twins were far enough along that they would have been viable in just a few weeks; had the mother’s condition remained good, *all three lives *could have been saved.

How can you possibly justify an abortion at a time when her life was not in danger?

Right, the mother is the foetus’ life support system? The mother is allowed to die when she could be saved by warding an unjust threat to her life.

The baby is not an unjust threat to her life, some aspect of the situation is a threat, into which the issue of justice does not fall. People are threatened by physical conditions all the time, and people die from them too. This is sad, but does not justify taking an innocent human life.

Not the same situation at all though. The mother faces a threat that has no objective moral justification from the foetus.

OK, I see that you meant to write: The mother faces a threat from the foetus that has no objective moral justification.

But I still don’t understand what you mean.

I still don’t see what you mean by this.

Which we all know.

You wrote: Token efforts to save non-viable babies intuitively don’t alter the morality of the act.

You seemed not to understand the difference between making an effort to save the babies and killing them off. What I gathered from this was that if you end up with a dead baby, it doesn’t matter how the baby died, whether by murder or by health situation. I was trying to explain the difference to you.

Well there’s plenty of times where people use educated logical thinking and simple intuition shows they have erred. So I have to disagree. And **many philosophers **take the same position.

And who are some of these philosophers?

It all depends on what moral theory you adhere to. The moral absolutism of the Church is not the only way and the problems are demonstrated time after time.

Well, as a Catholic, and as a Christian, I adhere to the morality given to us by the Creator of morality, in which there are no problems.

Those who think there are problems with His morality generally simply do not like the outcomes of following it, but Christ Himself said *If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. *He never said anything about its being easy.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

I can understand, although disagree with the morality of, an abortion in the throes of desperately trying to save the mother’s life, but when there is no imminent danger? The twins were far enough along that they would have been viable in just a few weeks; had the mother’s condition remained good, *all three lives *could have been saved.
How can you possibly justify an abortion at a time when her life was not in danger?.

Because he wanted them to die. I finally figured out it has nothing to do with viability for him, but rather the desire to end the lives. He will not flex his position for a minute let alone a week. Even if you could give him a 98% survival expectancy rate for the mother he would not care. If you presented that argument he would brush it off or say you gave him a Red Herring or Straw-man, this is just an exercise in his own ego and ability to use “Logic” to debate on the side of?? What ever pulls his trigger… Probably make some comment about me being insensitive while he argues for death…

T

he baby is not an unjust threat to her life, some aspect of the situation is a threat, into which the issue of justice does not fall. People are threatened by physical conditions all the time, and people die from them too. This is sad, but does not justify taking an innocent human life…

Again for him this is just an excuse to exercise his brain muscle… he desires to prove his ability to ignore, crush, deflect or curtail your position. If the debate were on saving dandelions and he was against it…he would be against it…

OK, I see that you meant to write: The mother faces a threat from the fetus that has no objective moral justification.

But I still don’t understand what you mean…

He is full of bull Objective Moral Justification? Life Dr. Kill… life is plenty of Moral Justification. If that fetus could talk I am sure it would be able to justify its life. That fact that the law allows him to kill is it right. The Nazi’s had the law on their side was it right, and cant give us the pathetic “That’s a straw man argument” he needs to defend or justify, in a Christ like way his justification to kill and innocent life. Either that or he should shed his pathetic excuses of following Christ. I certainly cannot find a single place in my King James, or my Catholic Bible where Christ killed children have you been able to find any place where we can follow Christ and Kill innocents? Is he right?..I think he needs to show us how he is following Christ in this belief? What book in the new testament is he on that takes him with Christ down this road, or is this just a Man’s belief not part of being a Christian?

You wrote: Token efforts to save non-viable babies intuitively don’t alter the morality of the act…

What dung…

You seemed not to understand the difference between making an effort to save the babies and killing them off. What I gathered from this was that if you end up with a dead baby, it doesn’t matter how the baby died, whether by murder or by health situation. I was trying to explain the difference to you…

He does not care, note his previous posts which clearly show his intent is to kill the kids regardless of the life condition of the Mother.

Well, as a Catholic, and as a Christian, I adhere to the morality given to us by the Creator of morality, in which there are no problems…

He does not… different set of Christian beliefs… must be a New Age, rewrote the bible and Christs teachings Christian…

T

hose who think there are problems with His morality generally simply do not like the outcomes of following it, but Christ Himself said *If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. *He never said anything about its being easy.

Some people only want easy… Dr. Kill prefers death… seems to be easier for him, or maybe he is just a practicing debater…

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the pregnancy, which was in its 15th week, posed a serious risk to the girl, who weighs 80 pounds.

You made it about size… hence Pygmies… you opened up this size matters can of worms and when the Pygmies came out to play…you went home…with your marbles…

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Who’s ever said that girls of that age cannot give birth? Not me.
There’s chain smokers who live to be 90 - it doesn’t prove that smoking isn’t bad for me:shrug:

The Tobacco Institute argued that point for years and got away with it… Kind of like the side that argues that a 15 week old Fetus does not feel pain… when its arm is ripped off, eventually it will be proved that this is unjust, unfortunately 100’s of millions will have been Keeled by then.

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK that’s just rude (and libellous) NCJ - if you really can’t have a civilised debate then I’ll leave you to have pseudo-intellectual debates with your Pro-Life buddies:thumbsup:

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Cease with the personal bickering and remain on topic,

 

[Doc_Keele]

But that is what your argument is resting upon, no?

No, giving a prognosis is the domain of medicine, but speculating about artificial wombs is the domain (for now) of science fiction

We are talking about two human lives, made in the image and likeness of God. The doctor’s efforts should be towards trying to save *both *lives, not killing off one of his patients. What about the mother means that her rights are deemed to automatically trump the baby’s? Their rights are *equal. *

The relationship between the mother as life support for the foetus dictates the rights of each. If thehe mother cannot be saved if both the mother and child can’t be saved then practically speaking the foetus’ rights trump the mother’s.

Hmmm, if there is a patient close to death and I go in and shoot him, the result is the same: in both cases they would be dead. But you can see that the morality of each example differs

Not a good analogy, because there is no causal relationship unlike with foetus and mother.

And I would have thought that a person interested in, iirc, logical and philosophical discussion would not rely on intuition (while not accepting that it is intuitively difficult to understand the difference between trying to save someone and killing them off).

Well my teachers of philosophy emphasized (as do many articles on philosophy) the role of intuition in determining that an answer reached by deduction is wrong.