Science and Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
If abortion was a moral act, why are so few physicians abortionists? Is it because they are repulsed by the act of aborting a child? How then do other physicians justify the act, profit from it, and apparently are not repulsed by their vocation? They are, after all, practitioners of the science of medicine, and must know that what they are killing is a human being in the first stages of life.
Click to expand...
Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions? Or is it merely that those writing the laws understand that if women were going to jail, the vast majority of Americans would violently object? Many anti-abortion supporters appear to have a bit of hypocrisy in this respect: It’s murder, but she’ll get her punishment from God. It’s murder, but it depends on her state of mind. It’s murder, but the penalty should be … counseling?
 
liquidpele

*But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. *

What has this to do with the topic of this thread? If you want to talk about the mother’s accountability, please start another thread and I’ll join you there. Fair enough?

The question I am addressing is why no one holds the physician, a scientist, accountable for the morality of his acts, when he, for money, cold bloodedly tears apart a human being in the womb. If the science of medicine is to be considered a partner in the setting of moral standards, we have to assume that scientists have a moral sense to begin with. The vast majority of physicians hate abortion and will not sell their souls for millions of dollars doing abortions by the thousands, as the late Dr. Tiller did. Yet these same physicians seem reluctant to speak out in public or organize petitions among themselves to censure abortionists and the act of abortion. You talk about hypocrisy. What about the hypocrisy of the medical profession?

*It’s murder, but the penalty should be … counseling? *

What do you propose humane doctors should do … offer counseling to their abortionist colleagues … after they have already killed hundreds or thousands of human beings, including humans who were on their way out of the birth canal?

Maybe we should clarify from the start where you stand?

Is abortion the taking of an innocent life? And in the case of abortionists, is it the taking of innocent life for money? Does that sound at all to you like murder for hire?
 
In 1973 the Supreme Court issued its decision on Roe v Wade. Justice Blackmun, speaking for the majority, wrote: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” Was that really a difficult decision in 1973? Wasn’t science in a position to verify then that life begins with a zygote, who has the same genetic structure as an adult human, 46 chromosomes, half from the mother, half from the father? If the biologists of that era were never consulted, perhaps there would be an excuse for Roe v Wade. But if they were consulted, what biologist could have said the zygot was not human? If they were not consulted, why didn’t the biologists offer this information as a “friend of the Court”? Was the biological community without scruples? Also, if the biologists were not consulted, why didn’t the Supreme Court ask for guidance from the scientific community?
:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top