@F_alk:
@Deviant:Scripter:
Why? On which moral basis is it worse to kill something that cannot think yet
…is that in your professional medical opinion? :roll: I’d like to know how you plan to prove that this baby can’t think yet.
I do not have a professional medical opinion as i am not working in the medical field. But: For sensory impressions and to think you need nerves, and more than one. Thus, as long as the unborn human is more a bunch of cells (kind of un-diversified stem cells and no nerve cells), it cannot think or even feel anything.
Interestingly enough this applies to many of my patients who still have a very significant number of neurons - and yet they can not think or feel anything (or breath apart from a respirator). Given these people’s burden on society - should they be allowed to keep living? A very unaggressive approach would be to simply not keep them alive - something we all might repudiate if thought he had a chance at life. Yet we are actively killing someone in the same state and this option is embraced by the pro-baby-death coalitions.
How can you accept civilian casualties in war.
I’m curious to know why you don’t make the distinction between an INTENTIONAL murder of an innocent child, and the accidental death of a civilian.
Easy, because you don’t either….
i will quote you:
The baby didn’t commit any crime, do any harm to you, or deserve death in any way.
The civilian did the same. Maybe the civilian is not killed on purpose, but his death is taken into account, it’s accepted as something “inevitable”. The deaths of all the citizens of the cities during the terror bombing in WW2, or when the nukes where used…. these were not accidental.
…Better the civilian shuts up and dies for the greater cause, right?..
Or is it the old Stalin saying: “One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is statistics?”
i agree with D:S on this one. Both the civilian and the baby are innocent. They are guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In my mind they are both evil and tragic occurrances.
Are you so programmed to think that abortion is the “right” of a woman that you fail to see that the entire objective is to take an innocent life. Whereas, a civilian casualty of war is an unfortunate side-effect in the process of saving many more lives.
Which right do you have to declare whose right is more important than others? If i said, well sorry, your right is second to this persons right… you certainly would say: “oh yes, how could i not see that…”
Well, it is the civilians right to die in a war, it is the generals right to decide which soldier doesn’t die (but not sending him to the front), it is the bomber pilots right to decide which child loses his parents, it is the terrorists right to decide whose husband dies, etc. etc. you seem to accept those, but not the one other thing.
The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.
right
On wars saving lives, well you believe that from your heart. I couldn’t convince you the earth was round if you believed it from the heart to be flat.
others of us believe that lives are valuable regardless of their age from our heart. Does this make me similarly dogmatic? Maybe.
you more looked like someone to take out two eyes of your enemy for the one he took from you.
You look more like the person to question why I took his eyes out in return, rather than why the instigator deserved it in the first place. :roll:
You do not say i am wrong with what i think of you.
And you are not that wrong. If you take out anothers eye in return, then “we” (all the ones not in that conflict) need to look wether it was “in return”, or wether you actually are the first to take out the eye.
Second, you need to have a look a game-theory.
I’m of the “you were once told an eye-for-an-eye but i say to you love your enemies (etc.)” school. Pre-emptive eye-taking is inappropriate. Is this what abortion is? Or are we talking about hostilities in Iraq?
You have the right to avenge yourself and do violence, but noone else has?
Do this sound completely barbaric to anybody else? F_alk, who are you avenging by committing an abortion?
I was going onto the bigger picture. Sorry if i didn’t make that clear enough. The point is “who has the right to decide when to do violence”. When and how do you “gain” that right? You gain it for self-defense, and most often as “revenge” (see “war against terrorism” etc)…. well, except you are a woman, then you are not allowed to act violently in response…
It should be targeted on the rapist first. But: if the rape leads to a pregancy, how can you force the woman to give birth to a child of the rapist? To nurture it and let it grow, that “thing” that she didn’t want, that reminds her of the rape and humiliation, that is made of half the genes of the rapist…
How can you force her to suffer more and longer, and what do you do to undo/justify these extra sufferings? People get millions of bucks because their coffee is sold hot to them, and they are too stupid to handle it. How much worth is it to force a woman to bear this kind of child, or permant denial-of-rights (what if she planned (before the rape) to do something that could now harm the kid) …
One must consider:
- bad things happen to people. Regardless of if we planned it that way, we must live with the consequences - be it paraplegia of a ski-ing accident or a random shooting - it’s not fair and it’s not right. At the same time, is this victim permitted to take their misfortunes out on another person - their doctor, an orderly, or some person who pisses them off - by killing or otherwise hurting them?
- 9 months vs. life. One might suggest that if the woman by having the child would die then abortion might be more acceptable - that her right might well equal or even supercede that of the child. At the same time, given that she finds out about the pregnancy usually within a month, begins to show by 5-6 months and labors for typically less than 8-24 hours - is this an appropriate exchange for the death of a child?
