Me Myself
Back to my username
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.
That sounds sensical to me.
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?
Not at all. I find it a bit funny because I felt exactly that way with your "babies arent pilots" statement.
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?
Of course not. A zygote is a human being in its first stages, ovaries and sperms are not.
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.
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.