Pregnancy is not a Disease

  • Thread starter Thread starter psalm90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
Think of a family which cannot support an extra child because of financial reason. Suppose and an unwanted pregnancy happens. Are they allowed for abortion or they should accept the child becoming more poor and raise a kid in a not suitable situation.
Click to expand...
They could consider caring for all the children to whom they’ve given life.
 
Rau said:
They could consider caring for all the children to whom they’ve given life.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying but sometimes we have to make rough decision in our lives. Life is itself rough. Think of all sperm which are realized in an ejaculation. They all die. Even an unfertilized egg dies. What does happen for an egg when it is fertilized by a sperm? Not very much. I know that your belief system says opposite but sometimes it is better to kill a unborn new child in order to save those that you have spent a lots of time.
 
STT said:
I Not very much. I know that your belief system says opposite
Click to expand...
The Science of Biology states that it becomes a human. You are correct that our belief system states that all humans are entitled to human rights, not just certain subsets.
but sometimes it is better to kill a unborn new child in order to save those that you have spent a lots of time.
Click to expand...
Why restrict yourself to an unborn child, why not kill newly born children?
 
STT said:
I understand what you are saying but sometimes we have to make rough decision in our lives. Life is itself rough. Think of all sperm which are realized in an ejaculation. They all die. Even an unfertilized egg dies. What does happen for an egg when it is fertilized by a sperm? Not very much. I know that your belief system says opposite
Click to expand...
:confused: Many cells of the body die at a furious rate and on a continuous basis - my “belief system” has no difficulty with that.
but sometimes it is better to kill a unborn new child in order to save those that you have spent a lots of time.
Click to expand...
What is “better” DOES depend on one’s belief system. The consequentialist judges the merits of actions based on a view about the balance of consequences. Rarely if ever is the consideration in pregnancy - “save the life of this unborn child, or save the life of my other children”? And that thinking can certainly become a slippery slope. One cannot be both Christian and a Consequentialist - since the principles of one are opposed to the principles of the other.
 
"Brendan:
Why restrict yourself to an unborn child, why not kill newly born children?
Click to expand...
STT said:
Because you spend your life and resources for him/her.
Click to expand...
:confused: STT, might your reasoning not come to the conclusion that, in some circumstances, it is better to kill the youngest born for the sake of the others?
 
kingston1 said:
It seems STT thinks the human race is the disease…
Click to expand...
No - I don’t think so. He is not arguing the unborn are sub-human/not human. Just that, consequentialist principles allow “any” action (including killing) if that is thought to have a favourable balance of consequences. Given that premise, it is evident that the prospect of “one too many children” places the most recent child at great risk from his/her parents. It is also evident that the parents may take a decision to act against that child prior to or after birth (according to circumstances).

I imagine his reasoning might stretch to discarding the child judged to contributes least to the family unit, or which is the greatest burden - rather than simply the youngest. Eliminating that burden might be judged to allow a much improved life for the other children.
 
Rau said:
:confused: Many cells of the body die at a furious rate and on a continuous basis - my “belief system” has no difficulty with that.
Click to expand...
A fertilized egg is an embryo which according to your teaching has a soul therefore it should not be killed.
Rau said:
What is “better” DOES depend on one’s belief system. The consequentialist judges the merits of actions based on a view about the balance of consequences. Rarely if ever is the consideration in pregnancy - “save the life of this unborn child, or save the life of my other children”? And that thinking can certainly become a slippery slope. One cannot be both Christian and a Consequentialist - since the principles of one are opposed to the principles of the other.
Click to expand...
You can be Christian and believe that killing is generally immoral. But you can of course understand that killing a child is worst than killing a unborn child so Consequentialism come to play important role once you are forced to make such a decision.
 
Rau said:
:confused: STT, might your reasoning not come to the conclusion that, in some circumstances, it is better to kill the youngest born for the sake of the others?
Click to expand...
No. Surely killing a young child is worst than killing an unborn child.
 
STT said:
A fertilized egg is an embryo which according to your teaching has a soul therefore it should not be killed.
Click to expand...
I thought you were mainly concerned about sperm and unfertilised eggs. I hold that the offspring of human parents - which are their children - are also human, and for that reason, should not be killed.
You can be Christian and believe that killing is generally immoral. But you can of course understand that killing a child is worst than killing a unborn child so Consequentialism come to play important role once you are forced to make such a decision.
Click to expand...
Direct and intentional killing is always immoral for the Christian. Your mistake here is believing that you are in fact “forced” to murder one of your children. No - not forced, but rather “choose”, in light of the perceived balance of consequences.
 
Rau said:
Does it not depend on the consequences, or are you taking an absolute position here?
Click to expand...
We are not talking about morality here since killing a human is immoral whether it is X or Y. We are talking about the fact that killing a child is wrong compared to killing a unborn child. Why? Because its parents spend life, money, etc to raise a kid to that stage.
 
STT said:
We are not talking about morality here since killing a human is immoral whether it is X or Y. We are talking about the fact that killing a child is wrong compared to killing a unborn child. Why? Because its parents spend life, money, etc to raise a kid to that stage.
Click to expand...
I see - an economic argument. And it’s also economics that overrule the moral course, and allow killing one’s child?
 
Rau said:
I see - an economic argument. And it’s also economics that overrule the moral course, and allow killing one’s child?
Click to expand...
Well, you might be in a situation that you have to kill one of your child.
 
STT said:
We are not talking about morality here since killing a human is immoral whether it is X or Y. We are talking about the fact that killing a child is wrong compared to killing a unborn child. Why? Because its parents spend life, money, etc to raise a kid to that stage.
Click to expand...
Wait… you agree that killing a human is immoral, but you believe that killing an unborn child is not immoral.

Have you checked a medical book lately? A fetus is clearly a human. So your statement above is illogical, to be blunt.

Even professional abortion advocates no longer deny that the unborn are scientifically human beings. So their tack now is to say that they are human beings but not human persons.
The problem with that is that it’s not based on science, but on civil law. And civil law (the definition of a “person”) can change with the wind.
 
surritter said:
Wait… you agree that killing a human is immoral, but you believe that killing an unborn child is not immoral.

Have you checked a medical book lately? A fetus is clearly a human. So your statement above is illogical, to be blunt.

Even professional abortion advocates no longer deny that the unborn are scientifically human beings. So their tack now is to say that they are human beings but not human persons.

The problem with that is that it’s not based on science, but on civil law. And civil law (the definition of a “person”) can change with the wind.
Click to expand...
I think you didn’t follow the discussion and that is why you reach to a wrong conclusion about our (me and him/her) discussion.
 
STT said:
We are not talking about morality here since killing a human is immoral whether it is X or Y. We are talking about the fact that killing a child is wrong compared to killing a unborn child. Why? Because its parents spend life, money, etc to raise a kid to that stage.
Click to expand...
So the amount we spend on a child (money, time, effort) determines the value of the child?

Are rich children more valuable than poor? Or perhaps it’s proportional to how much the family has, so a child that has $10,000 poured into raising it by a poor family is more valuable than one with the same amount of money (and time and resources) from a rich family?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top