Political Crossfire Forums

[Casualtie]

so you absolutists think abortion is wrong in any case whatsoever eh? well consider this:

a mother is pregnant with an expected child. after several tests it has been determined that the baby will be born severely retarded, with no chance of "recovery."

in addition to this, the baby is developing in an area in the woman that will also make it certain that the woman will die during the birth process. is abortion o.k. in this situation?

even if you think its still wrong to abort the baby add this: due to the babies mental disability it has about only a 70% chance of living through birth and a 50% chance of living past the age of three. is o.k. now?

yes it is o.k. because it would be choosing the lesser of two evils. you don't want to risk the healthy mother's life for the life of a mentally disabled child who will struggle through his/her entire life. even the catholic church, the most absolutist group of people in the world, have exceptions in which abortion is acceptable. so there you go.. are you still an absolutist?

[LostSoul3412]

You're preaching to the choir. Most whom argue for the "pro-life" movement grant exceptions in an effort to save the life of the mother.

[Prog]

Casualtie wrote: so you absolutists think abortion is wrong in any case whatsoever eh? well consider this:

a mother is pregnant with an expected child. after several tests it has been determined that the baby will be born severely retarded, with no chance of "recovery."

in addition to this, the baby is developing in an area in the woman that will also make it certain that the woman will die during the birth process. is abortion o.k. in this situation?

even if you think its still wrong to abort the baby add this: due to the babies mental disability it has about only a 70% chance of living through birth and a 50% chance of living past the age of three. is o.k. now?

yes it is o.k. because it would be choosing the lesser of two evils. you don't want to risk the healthy mother's life for the life of a mentally disabled child who will struggle through his/her entire life. even the catholic church, the most absolutist group of people in the world, have exceptions in which abortion is acceptable. so there you go.. are you still an absolutist?

Remove the references involving the mother's life and you will get the responses you are looking for.

[Lumina]

Casualtie wrote: so you absolutists think abortion is wrong in any case whatsoever eh? well consider this:

a mother is pregnant with an expected child. after several tests it has been determined that the baby will be born severely retarded, with no chance of "recovery."

in addition to this, the baby is developing in an area in the woman that will also make it certain that the woman will die during the birth process. is abortion o.k. in this situation?

even if you think its still wrong to abort the baby add this: due to the babies mental disability it has about only a 70% chance of living through birth and a 50% chance of living past the age of three. is o.k. now?

yes it is o.k. because it would be choosing the lesser of two evils. you don't want to risk the healthy mother's life for the life of a mentally disabled child who will struggle through his/her entire life. even the catholic church, the most absolutist group of people in the world, have exceptions in which abortion is acceptable. so there you go.. are you still an absolutist?

Who are "you absolutists"?

Do you mean by "developing in an area" ectopic pregnancy?

Are you familiar with the stats re the hypotheticals you've posited here?

[ChuckBerry]

Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Each human life has worth and value equal to all others. The mothers desire to give birth cannot be broken down into percentages and probabilities. If one has faith, they believe that the outcome will be God's will, wherever the chips may fall.

[Blinky]

Lumina wrote:
Are you familiar with the stats re the hypotheticals you've posited here?


Are you reluctant to comment because its unlikely?

[Blinky]

CCD wrote: Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Each human life has worth and value equal to all others. The mothers desire to give birth cannot be broken down into percentages and probabilities. If one has faith, they believe that the outcome will be God's will, wherever the chips may fall.

And if one doesn't have faith in god?

[ChuckBerry]

Blinky wrote: CCD wrote: Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Each human life has worth and value equal to all others. The mothers desire to give birth cannot be broken down into percentages and probabilities. If one has faith, they believe that the outcome will be God's will, wherever the chips may fall.

And if one doesn't have faith in god?

Then I suppose you could slaughter as many undesirables as your heart desired.

[LostSoul3412]

CCD wrote: Then I suppose you could slaughter as many undesirables as your heart desired.

:roll:

Yes, because religion is the only source of philosophy.

[agentkgb]

CCD wrote: Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Each human life has worth and value equal to all others. The mothers desire to give birth cannot be broken down into percentages and probabilities.
That doesn't make the probabilities irrelevant.

[Casualtie]

however unlikely it may be, it still has a possiblity. all you need to be a consequenstialist is one example in which abortion would be permited.

absolutists believe abortions is wrong in any case no matter what. there should be no deliberate taking of a human life. but in this case, it would be to save the life one who is most likely to live, therefore making it more likey to actually save a life (that doesn't make much sense the way i put it). in the military its called triage.

[Casualtie]

CCD wrote: Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Each human life has worth and value equal to all others. The mothers desire to give birth cannot be broken down into percentages and probabilities. If one has faith, they believe that the outcome will be God's will, wherever the chips may fall.

thats not true. the retarded babies life is not equal to the mothers in that there is a less chance the baby would live. it would be more logical go save the mother's life considering with the abortion it is 100% positive that the mother will live

[ChuckBerry]

LostSoul3412 wrote: CCD wrote: Then I suppose you could slaughter as many undesirables as your heart desired.

:roll:

Yes, because religion is the only source of philosophy.

And what does this have to do with the argument at hand? What is proposed is a system of valuation of human life that puts one above the other. From that premise flows most of the tyranny the earth has seen.

[ChuckBerry]

Casualtie wrote: CCD wrote: Inherent in your calculus is that the life of an otherwise healthy mother is more worthy of preservation than the life of a retarded child.

Each human life has worth and value equal to all others. The mothers desire to give birth cannot be broken down into percentages and probabilities. If one has faith, they believe that the outcome will be God's will, wherever the chips may fall.

thats not true. the retarded babies life is not equal to the mothers in that there is a less chance the baby would live. it would be more logical go save the mother's life considering with the abortion it is 100% positive that the mother will live

Which removes the will of God from the equation. If you are prepared to do that, fine. I'm not.

[Blinky]

CCD wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: CCD wrote: Then I suppose you could slaughter as many undesirables as your heart desired.

:roll:

Yes, because religion is the only source of philosophy.

And what does this have to do with the argument at hand? What is proposed is a system of valuation of human life that puts one above the other. From that premise flows most of the tyranny the earth has seen.

No it isn't. What is proposed is a system that takes into consideration variables with the aim of saving a life - the woman's.
If it is unlikely that the baby would survive to age 3, as was suggested, then I for one would say that the woman's life was worth preserving.
If it were your sister/wife/mother that were to die in order to give birth to a child that will most likely not survive, you have said that you're faith in divine plan would prevent you from seeking an abortion. To others, who do not believe in divine plans, the other option would be best.
Its not a slaughter of an undesirable any more than forcing a woman to die in childbirth is slaughter.

[Lumina]

I'd still appreciate a definition of "absolutist" that provides meaningful stats on how many of those who are pro-life are ranked in this category.
TIA.

[ChuckBerry]

Blinky wrote: CCD wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: CCD wrote: Then I suppose you could slaughter as many undesirables as your heart desired.

:roll:

Yes, because religion is the only source of philosophy.

And what does this have to do with the argument at hand? What is proposed is a system of valuation of human life that puts one above the other. From that premise flows most of the tyranny the earth has seen.

No it isn't. What is proposed is a system that takes into consideration variables with the aim of saving a life - the woman's.
If it is unlikely that the baby would survive to age 3, as was suggested, then I for one would say that the woman's life was worth preserving.
If it were your sister/wife/mother that were to die in order to give birth to a child that will most likely not survive, you have said that you're faith in divine plan would prevent you from seeking an abortion. To others, who do not believe in divine plans, the other option would be best.
Its not a slaughter of an undesirable any more than forcing a woman to die in childbirth is slaughter.

It doesn't matter which way you spin it or how fast you spin it....you still attempt to apply a calculus where one life is valued more highly than another. Your example presumes perfect foreknowledge....you KNOW that the woman will die. That is where you and I differ. I do not know that because I am not God.

[Varyag]

Why do pro-death people like to present outlandish, extremely rare or outright impossible scenarios to support their cause? Becuase 99% of abortions are carried out on healthy children by mothers who were not raped.

[Blinky]

CCD wrote: Blinky wrote: CCD wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: CCD wrote: Then I suppose you could slaughter as many undesirables as your heart desired.

:roll:

Yes, because religion is the only source of philosophy.

And what does this have to do with the argument at hand? What is proposed is a system of valuation of human life that puts one above the other. From that premise flows most of the tyranny the earth has seen.

No it isn't. What is proposed is a system that takes into consideration variables with the aim of saving a life - the woman's.
If it is unlikely that the baby would survive to age 3, as was suggested, then I for one would say that the woman's life was worth preserving.
If it were your sister/wife/mother that were to die in order to give birth to a child that will most likely not survive, you have said that you're faith in divine plan would prevent you from seeking an abortion. To others, who do not believe in divine plans, the other option would be best.
Its not a slaughter of an undesirable any more than forcing a woman to die in childbirth is slaughter.

It doesn't matter which way you spin it or how fast you spin it....you still attempt to apply a calculus where one life is valued more highly than another. Your example presumes perfect foreknowledge....you KNOW that the woman will die. That is where you and I differ. I do not know that because I am not God.

And I'm not a doctor so I can't say what condition was initially described. But there are certainties, even in medicine. If your head is cut off, for example, you will die. God or no god.
You're using all this talk of calculus to detract from having to admit a morally contadictory opinion on a hypothetical situation.

[ChuckBerry]

Blinky wrote:
You're using all this talk of calculus to detract from having to admit a morally contadictory opinion on a hypothetical situation.

I have not contradicted myself morally.