abortion vs holocaust (page 48)

mrhhome

Hold on a second. I want to make sure that I understand the dividing lines.

Does everyone agree that the two questions which need to be answered are (1) "When does life begin?" and (2) "Under what circumstances are we justified in ending a life?"

jws

why is it that most athiest are pro choice and most ppl who believe in God or a god are pro life?

Because it's one of the Christian talking points. It's usually something Christians have to be fighting. Abortion, gay marriage, 10 commandments statues being taken down, something to have a tangible demon/devil to fight. It's like Bill O'Reiley's imaginary war on Christmas.

Do you have facts that show most atheists are pro choice? Or that most Christians are pro life? Or are these assumptions?

unstopableravens

jws : you are correct and i should have added that it seems like ..... thanks for pointing that out. i was just thinking and wrote down what came to mind

cofty

Unstop - Now that you have admitted to approving of abortion in the specific circumstances that the mother's life is in danger, are there any other situations where you would consider it to be ethical?

How about if the mother was dependent on medication that would harm the developing child? Chemotherapy for example?

fakesmile

there seems to be a lot of what ifs, so im just gonna chime in here. abortion was the best decision i have been part of. i admit for selfish reasons but also it saved a baby from coming into an immature, unloving, unprepared, and unwanted situation. would it have been better to go ahead and bring another unwanted kid into the word? a child who might turn to crime because i was too young to be a real father? do we need more of those?

edit. i always hear about the sacredness of life. how sacred was the colombine shooter or the menendez bros.?

unstopableravens

cofty: i already made my postion clear, if someone else wants to entertain your question, i am not for any purpusefull killing of a baby, if doctor has to save mom and cant save baby fine , but no killing the baby to save mom

J. Hofer

"killing a baby" is hardly ever the reason why a woman aborts.

cofty

Unstop. How is it possible to have a dilemma explained to you very simply 5 or 6 times and yet you still pretend to not get it?

but no killing the baby to save mom

Then you are condemning the mother to certain death.

1. It is impossible to save the baby - it is too young to be viable.

2. It is impossible to save mum without deliberately terminating the live fetus.

3. The procedure is urgent.

What should be done? Please choose A or B

A. Mum should be allowed to authorise the doctor to terminate the live fetus

B. The mum should not be allowed to choose a termination. She will certainly die when her fallopian tube ruptures. At that point the baby will also die.

The question is not going away.

adamah

fakesmile said-

a child who might turn to crime because i was too young to be a real father? do we need more of those?

Anti-abortion activists would like to erase the inconvenient truth, but that's exactly what some statisticians think is a factor which explains the drop in crime experienced in the 1990's: more abortions were performed in the 1970's after Roe vs Wade, when otherwise those fetuses would've grown up to be precocious muggers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

unstopableravens

cofty: unlike you i answer questions, i told you my postion, if the baby dies than it is to die, i just dont believe in killing one to save another, if you need to only save one than fine, if the baby is going to die and you have to remove it than fine, but the purpose is not to kill. i have been more than patient with you. your turn answer some questions.

abortion vs holocaust

Share this