P
PRmerger
Guest
And it still remains: the idea that killing a human person is permissible, provided there is a very good reason to do so.
- Status
I
ichabode
Guest
I am retiring for the night but this one I hear so often. If I were to walk down to my local courthouse on a weekday when people are being tried for various crimes I wonder what the judge would think if I blurted out let the criminal go that crime did not affect me. I would imagine the family members who have been grieved would not think very well of me.
That question is the problem. It is the bad philosophy that what the individual feels is good is the acceptable moral norm, but I would have to agree with John Dunne that no man (embryo or fetus or baby) is an island unto themselves, and that each persons death diminishes me.
I might say to the person that God forbid if they were brutally killed by an attacker, and I read their story in the paper that I would pause. I would say God this person lost their life unjustly please love them and let them know I love them and that I prayed for them today.
I
I_am_learning
Guest
I recently heard someone say that chemical abortions are fine since they don’t directly kill it, apparently this procedure blocks the way from the unborn child to the organs of the mother or something like that, and it follows bodily autonomy perfectly. This person also included something about chemical abortions in connection to not donating organs to someone about to die.
Pretty sure the intent of killing the unborn child remains regardless of the method. The “perfectly followed bodily autonomy” does not make it any less immoral.
Keep in mind this person likes to argue and illogically argue at that, but feedback on such arguments would be appreciated.
Pretty sure the intent of killing the unborn child remains regardless of the method. The “perfectly followed bodily autonomy” does not make it any less immoral.
Keep in mind this person likes to argue and illogically argue at that, but feedback on such arguments would be appreciated.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, use the 2 Year Old Toddler argument.
Ask this person if she thinks it would be moral to kill a 2 yr old by giving him some chemicals that don’t directly kill it but block the way the toddler metabolizes proteins (or something like that).
Would she find that moral, since it’s not directly killing the toddler?
E
Elizium23
Guest
Have you ever heard a victim describe a chemical abortion? It is positively horrific. I wouldn’t wish that kind of tribulation on my worst enemy. Abby Johnson recounts her own experience here. It is harrowing even just to sit and read it on a screen.
By the way, the abortion pill is now completely reversible. Anyone who has taken that first dose may attempt to turn back the clock and save her baby. More information at this website.
I
I_am_learning
Guest
Thanks for that.
Now, I would still like feedback on the organ donating thing. They like to compare abortion to saying no to donating an organ.
Now, I would still like feedback on the organ donating thing. They like to compare abortion to saying no to donating an organ.
I have never heard of this.
How does the argument work?
I
I_am_learning
Guest
Well, I just hear people compare abortion with not wanting to donate an organ to someone. Like say you knew someone was going to die if they did not get a donation from you, and you do not do it. Now, obviously that’s your body, whereas in abortion there’s another human being there. But they do like to argue about that comparison.
J
JimG
Guest
There’s a difference between not being an organ donor, and killing your child. There is no moral imperative to always be an organ donor. There is a moral imperative not to kill.
I found the following article interesting.
When teenagers debate abortion.
It seems to me that the 8th graders get to the heart of the matter rather quickly, not being advanced enough to be sidetracked by nuance.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Funny that they say that. What about this scenario:
a teenager needs a heart transplant and is about to die if she doesn’t get one. There is a potential donor who is a perfect match, but altho he is very old, he is still alive. Would it be ok to kill him to get his heart for the girl? Suppose the perfect match were serving life without possibility of parole in prison? Would it be ok to kill him for his heart?
There is a difference between deliberately setting out to kill someone and not putting oneself at risk to save someone.
V
Vivian42
Guest
*.
I won’t even bother to join this conversation/debate , but seriously…this. I have a hard time believing anyone could be that demented to have this idea. Please, tell me you’re a troll. If not, get off the internet and seriously get help
A baby or toddler does not equate to an embryo or fetus. That hypothetical woman didn’t “murder” anyone. Raping somebody is a real crime in comparison to that (and a really twisted and sick one!!).
As for “in the blood” comment of yours… I doubt any sane man would rape a woman so yeah, that would 100% affect the offspring.
I’ll just stop here. I don’t want to start a debate with you. Just…have those things in mind. What you said is shocking.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
The pro-choice side also has a 2 yr old toddler argument.
If you were in a burning room with a two-year-old toddler and a petri dish of 20 or so zygotes and you could only save one thing in that room (the two year old toddler or the petri dish filled with 20 potential human lives) which thing would you choose to save?
S
St_Francis
Guest
Welcome to CAF, Vivian.
Apparently you do not understand the Catholic position, which is that abortion, an act which directly and deliberately takes an innocent human life, is murder. You find yourself on a site where many, if not most, are “that demented.”
A fetus is to a toddler what a toddler is to an adult. All us adults where once teens, children, toddlers, babies, fetuses…Please, tell me you’re a troll. If not, get off the internet and seriously get help
A baby or toddler does not equate to an embryo or fetus.
A fetus is a human being in a normal early stage. A fetus is alive; he or she is growing. A fetus is an individual human being: he or she had unique human DNA.
A fetus is incapable of committing the sort of crime some might consider worthy of the death penalty–if one is not totally against capstan punishment–and yet it is permitted to take their life.
From a legal standpoint,you are correct, but from a moral and natural law standpoint you are wrong.
How can you defend taking the life of someone who has done no wrong?
Unfortunately, not everyone who rapes is mentally ill. To include among the mentally ill all those who are merely evil is really an injustice to the mentally ill.
I am surprised you never heard anything like that before.
That fails.
We obviously save what we can.
We do not have the facilities necessary to save the petri dish. So we save the toddler.
I am sure that misses the point.
But it nails the real point. That they have to reach deep into fiction to come up with an argument to justify their side.
V
Vivian42
Guest
No, no, no. You misunderstood .My problem is with the comparison he made. Rape is a heinous crime and can’t be associated with abortion. A woman can be traumatized for life after being rape. It’s awful and he sounded like he blamed the victim. Not nice and not pro-life. Oh, and I didn’t call pro-lifers demented, only him.
Shortly put , those are my views: I don’t recognize fetuses or embryos as being fully-developed beings that can manifest any kind of intelligence. They are still developing and in that very early stage they really do not mean anything. Not even nature shows mercy in those early stages as a miscarriage can easily happen. I apologize if this comes off as harsh and unloving but humans barely manage to have a sense of self at the age of around 2-3. The development is very, very slow and the process very complicated. You must realize the difference is exponential. The life of the mother most certainly is superior .
I don’t wish to argue with anyone here. Everybody is entitled to their personal opinion. This is mine, that is yours, full stop. But I can’t watch idly as somebody bashes raped women for being raped!
Thank you for your understanding. I won’t answer if anyone tries to attack me.
Spoken like someone that has never spent more then a couple of hours with nature.
Nature has no mercy on anyone.
Mercy or not granted by ‘nature’ is a poor indication of the value of life.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Oh, dear, I’m sorry I misunderstood you!
Now I understand better what you were trying to say.
However…
How was he “blaming the victim”?
We believe that taking the life of an innocent human being is a worse crime than rape–notice the difference in sentences for the two crimes. Possibly for rhetorical effect, he did not take into account the fact that most rape victims are not very calm which would minimize their culpability, but objectively, murder is a worse crime than rape. While a rape victim would be traumatized, she would at least still be alive. The victim of abortion is not.
How do you derive your criteria for allocating value to various human lives? What makes those criteria better than someone else’s?
YOu said before that you do not want to debate, and here that you do not want to argue. Why then are you posting? You seem to want to challenge other people’s ideas while protecting yourself from the same behavior.
Which you have not shown he has done.
I do not mean any of my comments to be an attack; believe me, CAF is very strict about attacks on this forum so in that respect, you have come to the right place!
T
Theo520
Guest
Thought this worth sharing (if it hasn’t been already)
Former Abortionist Uses Medical Animations To Show What Happens To Baby and Mother During Abortion
Pro-life organization Live Action is showing a video series in which a former abortionist uses medical animations to reveal the harsh reality of abortion for both mother and baby.
Former Abortionist Uses Medical Animations To Show What Happens To Baby and Mother During Abortion
Pro-life organization Live Action is showing a video series in which a former abortionist uses medical animations to reveal the harsh reality of abortion for both mother and baby.
R
Rau
Guest
What does “require abortion mean”? Do you mean that the only course of action available that will save mother is murdering child?
R
Rau
Guest
By “available”, I assume you mean - would be morally acceptable? The teaching of the church would say otherwise, and point out that the morality of acts is not determined solely in the consequences of acts.
- Status