Irrefutable pro-life argument

[LittleSoldier]

In my jurisdiction mothers who kill their newborn babies generally are charged with infanticide rather than murder.

Would you please explain the difference in terms of law and punishment? I’ve never heard of this before.

From what I have heard in seminars and such, in the USA teenage mothers are rarely charged with any crime at all.

It is legal to leave one’s newborn child at a police or fire station and not even give one’s name. Just hand the baby to someone and walk away with no questions asked. Or place the infant in a box with blankets so that she is protected from the elements and just walk away.

It’s an excellent law.

Yet teenagers keep tossing their live newborns into dumpsters. Maybe there needs to be more advertising of the law through public service announcements and on billboards.

No baby is unwanted.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

It’s some test Darwin started. Personally it’s only his mere opinion since he’s omiting even the fractions of a self awareness in animals and the test has other problems with it as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Oh yeah, it has problems. I listed some in a previous thread, although at that time I didn’t research the actual test.

I find it interesting that human babies fail the test until approximately the eighteenth month of life. But if we assume that:

(1) the test indeed shows the presence of self-awareness, and
(2) beings who do not possess self-awareness are not persons, and
(3) beings who are not persons do not morally have a right to live,

then it is morally acceptable to kill every single infant up to eighteen months of age. It kind of lets King Herod off the hook, at least a bit. After all, if the children he murdered were not yet eighteen months of age, they weren’t even persons.

I guess the Catholic Church will have to change the meaning of “Holy Innocents.” Those under eighteen months of age wouldn’t count as they didn’t even exist.

Of course King Herod would be in a lot of trouble if he had killed magpies. They pass the test.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[flyingfish]

It’s hard to argue with someone with no faith. To believe you are the center of the universe and there is no God would mean you can explain everything around you - NOT ! Jesus Christ cured lepers, raised the dead, and SACRIFICED himself to show us how to live and redeem us. A woman sacrifices ( God’s Will ) her beautiful body when she carries and gives birth to a child.Stretch marks etc… If one doesn’t understand that we need to live for one another and not ourselves , then that person no matter how smart he or she claims they are, has lost their life already and that’s why they are not afaid to kill any form of life.

God Bless,

I will pray for you

This is a very judgmental statement to make about me simply because I lost faith. I don’t go around thinking it’s okay to kill every form of life.

Abortion to me is about the life of the woman. You seem to value the fetus more than the quality of life and even health and life of the woman herself (the Catholic Church does not allow abortion for any reason whatsoever, even if pregnancy has a high chance of damaging the woman’s health or even killing her as say if she has a heart condition).

Even if the fetus is destroying the woman you would say it’s not okay to kill it. When an adult human being is threatening someone’s life (even if unintentionally, such as a confused man coming at you in a car) it’s okay to kill them to save yourself.

 

[flyingfish]

But if we assume that:

(1) the test indeed shows the presence of self-awareness, and
(2) beings who do not possess self-awareness are not persons, and
(3) beings who are not persons do not morally have a right to live,

then it is morally acceptable to kill every single infant up to eighteen months of age.

I don’t understand why you keep saying this, when there is already plenty of precedent about how it’s immoral to kill/destroy non-persons.

Destroying property is immoral, killing animals without justification is immoral etc.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is a very judgmental statement to make about me simply because I lost faith. I don’t go around thinking it’s okay to kill every form of life.

Abortion to me is about the life of the woman. You seem to value the fetus more than the quality of life and even health and life of the woman herself (the Catholic Church does not allow abortion for any reason whatsoever, even if pregnancy has a high chance of damaging the woman’s health or even killing her as say if she has a heart condition).

Even if the fetus is destroying the woman you would say it’s not okay to kill it. When an adult human being is threatening someone’s life (even if unintentionally, such as a confused man coming at you in a car) it’s okay to kill them to save yourself.

I think you are a bit confused about what the Church teaches. She teaches that it is best to save both mother and child, but that if the child dies because life-saving techniques are introduced to save the mother, no abortion is performed, even if the unborn child dies. The Church does not consider this an abortion. I don’t know how I can make it any clearer than that.

Nobody is saying that a woman must die in order to give birth to her unborn child. It just isn’t true.

Let me try another way:

A woman is pregnant.

She develops a life-threatening condition,
or a previously unknown life-threatening condition is discovered.

She will die if she remains pregnant until term.

The Church teaches that it is morally permissible to remove the child
if this will save the mother’s life.

The Church states that this is not an abortion.

It does not meet the Church’s definition of abortion.

The Church’s definition of abortion is removal of the child as a means to kill the child.

If the mother chooses to give her life for the life of her unborn child, that is her decision
and is morally acceptable.

Does this help?

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t understand why you keep saying this, when there is already plenty of precedent about how it’s immoral to kill/destroy non-persons.

Destroying property is immoral, killing animals without justification is immoral etc.

And for the same reason it is immoral to kill an unborn human being.

That is my point.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

The precautionary principle dictates that if you don’t know if it’s a human being or not, you don’t do to it what would kill a human being. Therefore, whoever claims, “you can’t know,” already loses the argument unless he’s willing to legalise reckless homicide .

As for other arguments, life of person whom someone wants to kill > happiness of person wanting to kill, who believes killing another will give happiness.

Homicide is not a tool for achieving individual happiness or even life goals.

I tried to respond to this before and my computer deleted it.

I like your point about the life of the person whom someone wants to kill is of higher value than the happiness of the person who wants to kill the first person.

I’d like to point out the the “hoped-for” happiness of one who wants to kill her unborn child is only temporary.

Here is another way to look at it:

My brother once pulled a man out of a burning car, even though doing so caused burning on my brother’s hands. The life of the man he saved is of much greater importance than the pain my brother went through and the scars he now carries.

We are social beings. We should always do what we can to save and/or improve the lives of those around us or inside us (if we are pregnant women).

If we aren’t willing to help others we are being egocentric and selfish. “The world revolves around me. I am the one who is important and I’m not going to do anything to help anyone else.”

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[flyingfish]

She will die if she remains pregnant until term.

The Church teaches that it is morally permissible to remove the child
if this will save the mother’s life.

So you’re saying that if a woman has a heart condition that makes pregnancy likely to kill her or damage her health, the Church would say it’s acceptable for her to go to Planned Parenthood and have the fetus cut up into little pieces and removed?

If this is true, then I did have a wrong idea about the Church’s teaching all this time.

And for the same reason it is immoral to kill an unborn human being.

That is my point.

However, even if it’s immoral to kill animals for no reason, it is moral to kill them for food. It is moral to destroy property if for example you’re trapped in it and need to get out to live.

Abortion doesn’t happen in a vacuum, it happens because the woman needs to have an abortion to protect her well being.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t understand why you keep saying this, when there is already plenty of precedent about how it’s immoral to kill/destroy non-persons.

Destroying property is immoral, killing animals without justification is immoral etc.

Didn’t you state that without self-awareness an unborn child is not a person and doesn’t exist?

To me, it logically follows that other beings who do not have self-awareness are also not persons and do not exist.

That makes all laws protecting animals without self-awareness moot. We should overturn them. If the animal does not show self-awareness, it does not exist and the killing of it shouldn’t make anyone unhappy or sad. Why is it cruel to kill it? Who is hurt when it dies? It doesn’t have thoughts, or feelings, it doesn’t know it exists, it doesn’t know its being killed.

Who is hurt by it?

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[flyingfish]

Didn’t you state that without self-awareness an unborn child is not a person and doesn’t exist?

To me, it logically follows that other beings who do not have self-awareness are also not persons and do not exist.

That makes all laws protecting animals without self-awareness moot. We should overturn them. If the animal does not show self-awareness, it does not exist and the killing of it shouldn’t make anyone unhappy or sad. Why is it cruel to kill it? Who is hurt when it dies? It doesn’t have thoughts, or feelings, it doesn’t know it exists, it doesn’t know its being killed.

Who is hurt by it?

It logically follows that killing beings who don’t have self awareness should not be murder. However, they can still be valuable to their owners for instance, and destroying them can still be criminal.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6484961].

My brother once pulled a man out of a burning car, even though doing so caused burning on my brother’s hands. The life of the man he saved is of much greater importance than the pain my brother went through and the scars he now carries.

We are social beings. We should always do what we can to save and/or improve the lives of those around us or inside us (if we are pregnant women).

If we aren’t willing to help others we are being egocentric and selfish. “The world revolves around me. I am the one who is important and I’m not going to do anything to help anyone else.”

So Little Soldier, does that mean the govt (we the people) should guarantee everyone a
$ 100.00 minimum wage? Free unlimited healthcare? Free College education? If your brother did not perform such a heroic deed, should he have been prosecuted for failure to act?

Regards

 

[Doc_Keele]

Nobody is saying that a woman must die in order to give birth to her unborn child. It just isn’t true.

Let me try another way:

A woman is pregnant.

She develops a life-threatening condition,
or a previously unknown life-threatening condition is discovered.

She will die if she remains pregnant until term.

The Church teaches that it is morally permissible to remove the child
if this will save the mother’s life.

The Church states that this is not an abortion.

It does not meet the Church’s definition of abortion.

The Church’s definition of abortion is removal of the child as a means to kill the child.

You’re incorrect LS. I have been told many times by people on this forum, and I know also from my perusal of Church documents, that this is not considered permissible by the Church.

 

[adriancombe]

You’re incorrect LS. I have been told many times by people on this forum, and I know also from my perusal of Church documents, that this is not considered permissible by the Church.

It is permissible and perhaps even required if it is in keeping with the principle of double effect. See here:

cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56

 

[Doc_Keele]

It is permissible and perhaps even required if it is in keeping with the principle of double effect. See here:

cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56

Well in the circumstances LS detailed PDE wouldn’t apply, not by the Church’s criteria. You’re wrong.

 

[adriancombe]

Well in the circumstances LS detailed PDE wouldn’t apply, not by the Church’s criteria. You’re wrong.

Did you read the link? Did LS not explain it correctly? I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I wish the “Pro-Life” Catholics here would read what other “Pro-Life” Catholics post, because I have been told many times that a woman cannot have an abortion even to save her life (and been shown the Church documents that spell this out).

 

[banjo]

The common law and the opinions and views of society are not necessarily related.

Good point.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

The argument for pro-choice doesn’t hinge on whether or not the unborn child is a person with rights.

This is an issue you consistently refused to face in another forum. The unborn child has rights when the murderer of its mother is indicted for a double homicide. Why would such an indictment happen if the law did not assume the civil right of the child to live?

Scott Peterson was indicted and convicted for a double homicide in the death of his pregnant wife, Stacey.

Abortionists can commit hundreds of homicides against unborn children and be protected by the law.

This is legal schizophrenia and Orwellian double-speak!

 

[Doc_Keele]

Would you please explain the difference in terms of law and punishment? I’ve never heard of this before.

From what I have heard in seminars and such, in the USA teenage mothers are rarely charged with any crime at all.

It is legal to leave one’s newborn child at a police or fire station and not even give one’s name. Just hand the baby to someone and walk away with no questions asked. Or place the infant in a box with blankets so that she is protected from the elements and just walk away.

It’s an excellent law.

Yet teenagers keep tossing their live newborns into dumpsters. Maybe there needs to be more advertising of the law through public service announcements and on billboards.

No baby is unwanted.

The issue with infanticide is the culpability of the mother. It’s not automatic that the charge will be infanticide. Abandoning a child is a separate issue, but I agree that having the service that a child can be left at a safe haven seems eminently sensible.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

The argument for pro-choice doesn’t hinge on whether or not the unborn child is a person with rights.

This is an issue you consistently refused to face in another forum

No, I never refused to face it Charlemagne

The unborn child has rights when the murderer of its mother is indicted for a double homicide. Why would such an indictment happen if the law did not assume the civil right of the child to live?

Scott Peterson was indicted and convicted for a double homicide in the death of his pregnant wife, Stacey.

Abortionists can commit hundreds of homicides against unborn children and be protected by the law.

This is legal schizophrenia and Orwellian double-speak!

Two points: one, you are employing casuistry based on your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of foetal homicide laws; and two you are using the term schizophrenia in a totally inaccurate fashion