• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

  • Total voters
    42
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Sunstone said:
I know some folks really are pro-life in the sense that their positions are consistently pro-life, and nothing but pro-life, across the board. But then you get the folks that mask themselves as pro-life, but whose positions are such that they could be more accurately called, anti-choice. It would be illogical to deny the existence of the latter simply because the former exists.
Click to expand...

That sounds sensical to me.

Sunstone said:
It seems to me that you think debate is merely rhetoric, because you consistently post statements that make no logical sense, but which are merely rhetorical in nature. Were you taught to do that in school? Just curious. I've heard some people are educated to "debate" the way you "debate". I'm genuinely interested if you were taught to do it the way you do it, or if it's something you came up with on your own?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I find it a bit funny because I felt exactly that way with your "babies arent pilots" statement.

Debater Slayer said:
So, what you're saying is that you don't really consider it murder to terminate a to-be-life (in your opinion) unless fertilization occurs inside a woman's body--then it becomes a crime to end a pregnancy? Is that an accurate summary of your stance?
Click to expand...

Of course not. A zygote is a human being in its first stages, ovaries and sperms are not.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Why does "direct" matter? The effect is the same either way (provided we equate the wounded person with the fetus, of course).

You aren't arguing for Catholic-style "double effect" doctrine, are you?



So am I. I'm saying that it's immoral to try to force that person to stay and hold the wound against their will.
Click to expand...

1-I dont understand at all the catholic something thing you said.

2-Its immoral not to save someones life if you are in front of such person and can do it.
 
W

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
For the people who believe a zygote is a person, I have a question for you, if a laboratory was on fire and you could either save one person or 100 zygotes which one would you choose to save?
 
adi2d

adi2d

Active Member
Me Myself said:
Yes.

God is moral, immoral and amoral.

I dont find any relevance to that in this discussion though.
Click to expand...


The only relevance was to reply to the poster that brought up morals


So what is this "right to life" I keep reading about here?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Me Myself said:
1-I dont understand at all the catholic something thing you said.
Click to expand...

Principle of double effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this context, I was thinking of how it's applied to ectopic pregancies: the embryo has implanted in the fallopian tube. It cannot survive to full term, and if it's left there, it can kill the woman.

The Catholic Church forbids abortion in all cases, so in their view, it's impermissible to simply remove the embryo. However, since there's nothing "innately immoral" about removing a fallopian tube, they consider it permissible to remove the tube (with the embryo attached) even though it will certainly lead to the death of the embryo. They make a distinction like you do between "directly killing" the embryo and merely leaving it to die. They do this despite the embryo ends up just as dead either way, and there are greater negative consequences their way.

2-Its immoral not to save someones life if you are in front of such person and can do it.
Click to expand...
You're speaking to a different point. In this context, the person has decided not to save the person's life. Is it moral to force them to do it against their will? That's what you're proposing here; I'm asking if YOUR position is moral.
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Principle of double effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this context, I was thinking of how it's applied to ectopic pregancies: the embryo has implanted in the fallopian tube. It cannot survive to full term, and if it's left there, it can kill the woman.

The Catholic Church forbids abortion in all cases, so in their view, it's impermissible to simply remove the embryo. However, since there's nothing "innately immoral" about removing a fallopian tube, they consider it permissible to remove the tube (with the embryo attached) even though it will certainly lead to the death of the embryo. They make a distinction like you do between "directly killing" the embryo and merely leaving it to die. They do this despite the embryo ends up just as dead either way, and there are greater negative consequences their way.
Click to expand...

I dont really understand that line of thought.


9-10ths_Penguin said:
You're speaking to a different point. In this context, the person has decided not to save the person's life. Is it moral to force them to do it against their will? That's what you're proposing here; I'm asking if YOUR position is moral.
Click to expand...

The problem is that unless a case of rape, you put the person in its state of dependence to you in the first place, which changes the whole moral panorama.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Me Myself said:
I dont really understand that line of thought.
Click to expand...
It's what happens when we try to make moral distinctions between "direct killing" and letting someone die.

The problem is that unless a case of rape, you put the person in its state of dependence to you in the first place, which changes the whole moral panorama.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking about them; I'm asking about YOU. Say a pregnant woman has decided that she disagrees with your position and wants an abortion. What makes it moral for YOU to force her to continue the pregnancy against her will?
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
9-10ths_Penguin said:
It's what happens when we try to make moral distinctions between "direct killing" and letting someone die.



I'm not asking about them; I'm asking about YOU. Say a pregnant woman has decided that she disagrees with your position and wants an abortion. What makes it moral for YOU to force her to continue the pregnancy against her will?
Click to expand...

How would I force her?
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
9-10ths_Penguin said:
You tell me. What are you proposing?

If the answer is "nothing", then you're pro-choice... but given your arguments so far, I'm guessing this is unlikely.
Click to expand...

I cant do anything to prevent her from killing her unborn.

If anything, it would be propaganda. There is not much more one can do.

I would completely support legal punishment if it worked though. The justification is simple: you made an innocent life depend on you in the first place. Now, of course you shouldnt kill it.
 
adi2d

adi2d

Active Member
Me Myself said:
Depending on context both or neither could be.
Click to expand...

True. I assumed "to death" added to both
A surgeon stabs a patient and not feeding someone on a diet can be good thing

Oh no. I think we just showed robin right. Its all subjective!!







I'm joking of course. Robin is never right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top