Would you force someone to do something to save someone else?

[charlie sc]

You're answering "No" to my question on if most of the abortion procedures in the video count as direct killing. Your first reason is that since "fetuses have no chance to survive outside the womb under 22 weeks pregnancy," the method of killing doesn't count. So basically, it's the ability to survive outside the womb that determines if it's direct killing? How does this work for the leech example? If a leech is attached to me and I chop it to pieces, is this direct killing? If so, would chopping a fetus to pieces who can't live on its own qualify as direct killing?

If it's true that a leech cannot survive without you as a host and this is considered, then no it's not killing. How could it be?

our other reason is confusing to me. Are you saying that potential risk to the mother makes the act not qualify as killing? In other words, if the mother is not at risk, the abortion procedure is killing; if the mother is at risk, it isn't? Thanks.

What I'm saying is, the mother needs to choose the procedure that's safest for her if she wants an abortion. Why would she put her life on the line when she wants to remove the fetus? This is why her health must be considered and must be considered by her. I could make an example, I guess. Imagine a friend says he wants you help to save someone that's not risk free but dangerous. Now, imagine your friend asks you to save someone that's potentially suicidal. So, let's say there are 2 abortion procedures: one that removes the fetus(after 21 weeks) more safely but is potentially dangerous to the mother VS one that damages the fetus(after 21 weeks) but the mother is much safer, then the moral implications need to be considered. In my opinion, it would not be a good idea to simply assume one over the other. Nonetheless, this is not the bulk of my argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm back! Your response to this post of mine can be on a new thread, like you mentioned, if you want.

Glad you are back. I hope you had a good time. I will respond to this on this thread, and after that, if you want to continue discussing it I can start a new thread. I never start new threads except on the weekends since I do not have much time to respond to posts during my work week.

First, let me explain something. I do not know the Bible all that well, I only know what I have learned from posting to Christians for about six years and that has also precipitated my looking up many verses online and trying to understand how they fit with my beliefs. Most of these verses are related to prophecies for the return of Christ/Messiah but I also know some that are related to the resurrection and eternal life and many of the wonderful parables of Jesus. So hopefully you can bear with me since I do not have the same level of understanding of the Bible that you have, moreover I know even less about the Old Testament. I basically discover things as I post to people on forums and that is how I have been learning.

In some cases, I know what verses are referring to according to my beliefs because some of them are cited in the Baha’i Writings, but in other cases I will just say what I think verses might mean, in light of Baha’i beliefs and what happened before and after Baha’u’llah came.

In Acts 2:17-21, don't the apostles seem to be saying that they were in the last days? Backing up to verses 13-16 gives us the context. Peter is responding to mockers who said, "These men are full of new wine." He replies that "these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." If drunkenness isn't the correct interpretation, what is? He quotes Joel's mention of the "last days," when God would pour out His Spirit--which just happened then, at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4)--showing that last-days prophecy was being fulfilled before their very eyes!

Yes, I believe that Acts 2:13-21 are all referring to the last days, but I do not believe that the last days came at Pentecost, I believe the last days refer to what will happen before and shortly after Christ returns. The last days are the same as the time of the end (Daniel 12) and they ushered in the Messianic Age that Jews have been long awaiting.

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

This verse could mean the new wine that Baha’u’llah brought because every new Revelation from God can be likened to new wine.

You said that Jesus was referring to the Baha’u’llah when speaking of the Comforter. However, in John 14:26, which you referenced, doesn't Jesus explicitly say that the Comforter "is the Holy Ghost"?

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Comforter mentioned in this verse refers to Baha’u’llah, who brought the Holy Spirit to humanity. Since Baha’u’llah brought the Holy Spirit, He was CALLED the Comforter (and the Spirit of truth). In short, Baha’u’llah was the Comforter who brought the Holy Spirit to humanity.

So to understand what Baha’is believe happened more clearly, this verse could say:

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost that Baha’u’llah will bring, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jesus was a Comforter, Baha’u’llah was another Comforter, because both brought the Holy Spirit which is the Bounty of God that comforts people.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

It would help if you understand what Baha’is believe about the Holy Spirit. I just explained this on another thread.

The Baha’i Faith believes in a Trinity, and the detailed explanation is in this chapter: 27: THE TRINITY

Briefly, we believe that there are three separate entities involved: (1) God, (2) the Manifestation of God, and (3) the Holy Spirit, and they work together but they are not all part of God. (The Manifestation of God is also referred to as a Messenger or a Prophet.)

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God. Jesus was a Manifestation of God to whom God sent the Holy Spirit and then Jesus brought the Holy Spirit to Earth. By bringing the Holy Spirit to Earth, Jesus shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Baha’u’llah was also a Manifestation of God, so that process repeated itself when Baha’u’llah came.

Also, in Acts 1:8, Jesus told his apostles, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (emphasis mine). Notice it starts in Jerusalem. As Jesus said in Luke 24:49, "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Wasn't all this fulfilled in Acts 2, when "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (v. 4)?

I do not question that the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost. But that does not mean that the Holy Spirit cannot descend again later. Do you think that the Bounty of God is limited? Do you think that God only sends it once and for all time?

What happened at Pentecost is explained in the Baha’i Writings.

“So the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles means their attraction by the Christ Spirit, whereby they acquired stability and firmness. Through the spirit of the love of God they gained a new life, and they saw Christ living, helping and protecting them. They were like drops, and they became seas; they were like feeble insects, and they became majestic eagles; they were weak and became powerful. They were like mirrors facing the sun; verily, some of the light became manifest in them.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 106-107

You can read the whole chapter here: 24: THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THE APOSTLES

And doesn't Jude say that the faith they followed "was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3, NKJV, emphasis mine)? Thanks.

Jude 3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Context is really important when trying to understand what scriptures mean. I do not now the context of this verse but it can have more than one meaning. It seems to me that it means the faith of Jesus Christ was once and for all delivered to the saints, in which case this is the last time the Holy Spirit would descend upon the apostles of Jesus; but that does not mean it will never descend again in future religious dispensations.

 

[Kilk1]

If it's true that a leech cannot survive without you as a host and this is considered, then no it's not killing. How could it be?

Because chopping it to pieces destroys it, directly ending its life. To "annihilate, destroy" is to kill. If you disagree that you killed the leech in even this scenario, I don't think we're going to find common ground anytime soon.

What I'm saying is, the mother needs to choose the procedure that's safest for her if she wants an abortion. Why would she put her life on the line when she wants to remove the fetus? This is why her health must be considered and must be considered by her. I could make an example, I guess. Imagine a friend says he wants you help to save someone that's not risk free but dangerous. Now, imagine your friend asks you to save someone that's potentially suicidal. So, let's say there are 2 abortion procedures: one that removes the fetus(after 21 weeks) more safely but is potentially dangerous to the mother VS one that damages the fetus(after 21 weeks) but the mother is much safer, then the moral implications need to be considered. In my opinion, it would not be a good idea to simply assume one over the other. Nonetheless, this is not the bulk of my argument.

I see what you're meaning now. Yeah, if choosing between two procedures to abort the fetus after 21 weeks and one is safer, go with the safer one. However, the question of how you should abort is different than the question of whether your should abort.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you answered no to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

Side note: this is about abortion Pro-life vs pro-choice *edited

This is the famous trolley car question. If I knew that throwing someone under the train would stop it from careening off the the hair pin turn as it speeds out of control, thus killing hundreds on board, would I throw that person under the train?

I think not. I think that like everyone else, I would act instinctively, and stupidly, and not be able to do it.

However, in the case of abortion, I would not be killing anyone. I would merely be inconveniencing them for the sake of another life. I'm not talking about a first trimester kid. I'm talking about a sufficiently developed fetus that you can see suck its thumb on an ultrasound, hear its heart beat, monitor its brainwaves.

Is it human? Well, it's not a tomato plant, snail, or cow. Is it alive? Obviously. Is it the woman? No, it has a different set of DNA. It really doesn't have an analogy to anything else. The closer it get to being able to survive outside the womb, the closer it gets to being murder. Even before that cut off, there is still a wrongness to it. There is something about nacient human life that simply necessitates certain rights, even at the inconvenience of the mother.

 

[Kilk1]

Glad you are back. I hope you had a good time. I will respond to this on this thread, and after that, if you want to continue discussing it I can start a new thread. I never start new threads except on the weekends since I do not have much time to respond to posts during my work week.

First, let me explain something. I do not know the Bible all that well, I only know what I have learned from posting to Christians for about six years and that has also precipitated my looking up many verses online and trying to understand how they fit with my beliefs. Most of these verses are related to prophecies for the return of Christ/Messiah but I also know some that are related to the resurrection and eternal life and many of the wonderful parables of Jesus. So hopefully you can bear with me since I do not have the same level of understanding of the Bible that you have, moreover I know even less about the Old Testament. I basically discover things as I post to people on forums and that is how I have been learning.

In some cases, I know what verses are referring to according to my beliefs because some of them are cited in the Baha’i Writings, but in other cases I will just say what I think verses might mean, in light of Baha’i beliefs and what happened before and after Baha’u’llah came.

Yes, I believe that Acts 2:13-21 are all referring to the last days, but I do not believe that the last days came at Pentecost, I believe the last days refer to what will happen before and shortly after Christ returns. The last days are the same as the time of the end (Daniel 12) and they ushered in the Messianic Age that Jews have been long awaiting.

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

This verse could mean the new wine that Baha’u’llah brought because every new Revelation from God can be likened to new wine.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Comforter mentioned in this verse refers to Baha’u’llah, who brought the Holy Spirit to humanity. Since Baha’u’llah brought the Holy Spirit, He was CALLED the Comforter (and the Spirit of truth). In short, Baha’u’llah was the Comforter who brought the Holy Spirit to humanity.

So to understand what Baha’is believe happened more clearly, this verse could say:

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost that Baha’u’llah will bring, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jesus was a Comforter, Baha’u’llah was another Comforter, because both brought the Holy Spirit which is the Bounty of God that comforts people.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

It would help if you understand what Baha’is believe about the Holy Spirit. I just explained this on another thread.

The Baha’i Faith believes in a Trinity, and the detailed explanation is in this chapter: 27: THE TRINITY

Briefly, we believe that there are three separate entities involved: (1) God, (2) the Manifestation of God, and (3) the Holy Spirit, and they work together but they are not all part of God. (The Manifestation of God is also referred to as a Messenger or a Prophet.)

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God. Jesus was a Manifestation of God to whom God sent the Holy Spirit and then Jesus brought the Holy Spirit to Earth. By bringing the Holy Spirit to Earth, Jesus shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Baha’u’llah was also a Manifestation of God, so that process repeated itself when Baha’u’llah came.

I do not question that the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost. But that does not mean that the Holy Spirit cannot descend again later. Do you think that the Bounty of God is limited? Do you think that God only sends it once and for all time?

What happened at Pentecost is explained in the Baha’i Writings.

“So the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles means their attraction by the Christ Spirit, whereby they acquired stability and firmness. Through the spirit of the love of God they gained a new life, and they saw Christ living, helping and protecting them. They were like drops, and they became seas; they were like feeble insects, and they became majestic eagles; they were weak and became powerful. They were like mirrors facing the sun; verily, some of the light became manifest in them.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 106-107

You can read the whole chapter here: 24: THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THE APOSTLES

Jude 3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Context is really important when trying to understand what scriptures mean. I do not now the context of this verse but it can have more than one meaning. It seems to me that it means the faith of Jesus Christ was once and for all delivered to the saints, in which case this is the last time the Holy Spirit would descend upon the apostles of Jesus; but that does not mean it will never descend again in future religious dispensations.

As you said, you can put this in a new thread, and we can continue the discussion a little longer. See you there.

 

[charlie sc]

Because chopping it to pieces destroys it, directly ending its life. To "annihilate, destroy" is to kill. If you disagree that you killed the leech in even this scenario, I don't think we're going to find common ground anytime soon.

So, tell me what do we gain or lose from removing a fetus that's less than 22 weeks old if it's going to die regardless of what we do? I would also like you to consider the procedure itself, not just from the fetuses perspective, but also from the people administering the abortion and the female undergoing the surgery/procedure.

I see what you're meaning now. Yeah, if choosing between two procedures to abort the fetus after 21 weeks and one is safer, go with the safer one. However, the question of how you should abort is different than the question of whether your should abort.

Yes. I think there is a case, assuming the fetus is aware and it's not dangerous for the female, then the safer abortion can have a stronger argument. Though, whether one should abort is directly tied to the OP. If the Fetus can survive, there's a semblance of argument for defining it as murder or killing. Now, we can get to the stage whether it's justified or not. This will depend if people think the female should be forced to save the fetus or force under this circumstance is not allowed.

 

[charlie sc]

This is the famous trolley car question. If I knew that throwing someone under the train would stop it from careening off the the hair pin turn as it speeds out of control, thus killing hundreds on board, would I throw that person under the train?

I think not. I think that like everyone else, I would act instinctively, and stupidly, and not be able to do it.

Not entirely the same thought experiment. The trolley thought experiment has numerous functions and it does not have any wrong answers. Some use it as psychology examples, moral and political. The OP is specifically about logical consistency.

However, in the case of abortion, I would not be killing anyone. I would merely be inconveniencing them for the sake of another life. I'm not talking about a first trimester kid. I'm talking about a sufficiently developed fetus that you can see suck its thumb on an ultrasound, hear its heart beat, monitor its brainwaves.

Is it human? Well, it's not a tomato plant, snail, or cow. Is it alive? Obviously. Is it the woman? No, it has a different set of DNA. It really doesn't have an analogy to anything else. The closer it get to being able to survive outside the womb, the closer it gets to being murder. Even before that cut off, there is still a wrongness to it. There is something about nacient human life that simply necessitates certain rights, even at the inconvenience of the mother.

I don't mind morality by emotional appeal. In fact, I think it's quite strong. Nonetheless, I have to ask, at what point does the female stop having rights to her body. Or, do you think the female should do whatever she wants with her body, even if that means removing a fetus that needs her to survive?

 

[Kilk1]

So, tell me what do we gain or lose from removing a fetus that's less than 22 weeks old if it's going to die regardless of what we do? I would also like you to consider the procedure itself, not just from the fetuses perspective, but also from the people administering the abortion and the female undergoing the surgery/procedure.

Yes. I think there is a case, assuming the fetus is aware and it's not dangerous for the female, then the safer abortion can have a stronger argument. Though, whether one should abort is directly tied to the OP. If the Fetus can survive, there's a semblance of argument for defining it as murder or killing. Now, we can get to the stage whether it's justified or not. This will depend if people think the female should be forced to save the fetus or force under this circumstance is not allowed.

I may have misunderstood what you meant. By saying the fetus will die "regardless of what we do," do you mean that we can't help the fetus, or do you mean that although we can, the fetus will die without help? I've been understanding your mention of survival in the latter context, where abortion is argued to be okay until a fetus is able to survive birth. If you're meaning the former, however, then I might see what you're saying. For example, if a mother would die without having an abortion and the child is guaranteed to die whether there's an abortion or not, then I suppose the route which saves one person would be better than the route which saves none. However, this would be extremely rare. I'm guessing the percentage of abortions must be less than 1% where 1) the mother's life is at risk and 2) the baby will die whether an induced abortion happens or not.

 

[JJ50]

I reckon if the males who oppose abortion were capable of getting pregnant they might not be so antagonistic about terminating pregnancy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't mind morality by emotional appeal. In fact, I think it's quite strong. Nonetheless, I have to ask, at what point does the female stop having rights to her body. Or, do you think the female should do whatever she wants with her body, even if that means removing a fetus that needs her to survive?

Remember that I'm a woman, so it's not like this doesn't impact me personally.

First, when it comes to the life of the mother, she takes precedent over the life of the fetus. I can't agree with the Catholic church that you must try to save both (meaning that they both die).

However, pregnancy is not the life of the mother. It is an inconvenience. Having been pregnant twice, and delivered naturally, I personally know just how great an inconvenience it is, and it is not small. I support a modified Roe v. Wade. Roe drew the line at the point where the fetus became viable. At THAT time, the line was at 24 weeks. Because of the advance of science, the line has been pushed back to 22 weeks, even 21 weeks. Before week 21, abortion should be elective for any reason.

After that, the fetus enters the second stage of development lasting through the 26th week (I'll explain) during which it would be a small felony for doctors, and a misdemeanor with serious consequences for women, but certainly not murder. Exceptions would be made for the life or health of the mother, psychological health, rape, and incest.

At 27 weeks the fetus is capable of feeling pain. It is at a critical stage of sentience. I'm sorry, but I just can't see where a fetus that is born naturally is a baby but one that is born "induced" is medical waste. You can't have it both ways. During this third and final stage of development, abortion would be outlawed except for the life of the mother. It would be considered murder under the law for doctors. For women, it would be the crime of "second degree" infanticide, being committed under emotional duress in a state where the baby seems less real. In the US, infanticide carries a maximum prison term of two years. Second degree infanticide would carry a lesser prison term.

 

[Nakosis]

If you answered no to this question, here is another question: are you pro-life? If it's yes to this question, how do you reconcile your irrationality?

Side note: this is about abortion Pro-life vs pro-choice *edited

Depends on the situation but generally yes. When it comes to my grandkids, I would take steps to ensure their safety even upto calling the police on my own children to ensure their safety.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Depends on the situation but generally yes. When it comes to my grandkids, I would take steps to ensure their safety even upto calling the police on my own children to ensure their safety.

We were very poor when I was raising my kids, and lived in barrio. My son was exposed to a neighborhood where other kids his age routinely robbed homes to get TV's, cell phones, and gaming equipment that they wanted.

One day, my son stole money and bought an X-box. I quite literally took him down to the Police Station and turned him in. The truth is, so great is my objective that my children be good people, that I would rather my son have gone to jail than he get the idea that he could get away with theft.

Of course, it didn't come to that. I secretly worked out with the police officer to merely feign an arrest, and to fake a special "punishment" in lieu of going to jail -- that my son would attend a police camp for kids.

My son hated me for that. I mean really hated me.

But today, he thanks me. And what is more important, he is a very good, morally upstanding person.