abortion vs holocaust (page 51)

jgnat

I realize unstop would like to nail me down on my stance, to shake me off the fence so to speak, but there's a reason I won't weigh in with an opinion. It's none of my business. I firmly believe the decision is between the mother and the doctor, and the doctor's ethical guidelines are sufficient. I don't want to be in the examination room.

I am reminded of a famous quote by our former Prime Minister. "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." - PET 1967

At the same time, I think the teen pregnancy rate and the abortion rate in the US is shameful, and actions can be taken to reduce both. But it won't be through the measures ravens is offering. That has an epic fail rate.

Bring the teen pregnancy rate down and the abortion rate will correspondingly drop.

Remember the "tough on crime" era with Reagan? You know what it bought the US? The highest incarceration rate in the WORLD. Doen't that bring the US awfully close to a police state?

unstopableravens

bohm: sorry i missed where i called anyone stupid. you claim i called you guys to stupid to see that, where did i say anyone was stupid? if i did i would like to see it. thanks

bohm

Unstop: well, i assume you still believe the main difference between us and the nazis is we do not know we are doing wrong?

presumably, a person need to be a tiny bit stupid to participate in a holocaust without knowing it.

cofty

Unstop - Letting the fetus die is NOT an option. If the mother's life is to be saved the surgeon MUST terminate the life of the fetus and remove it.

The alternative is to watch mother die.

Stop being a moral coward and give a clear answer.

unstopableravens

cofty: i told you all im going to say about that, my answer was clear, you are acting very cowardly, listen very closely you ask many many questions ,i answer you, i ask you questions you do not answer ,you do this all the time, you say stuff like i dont deseve an opinion and yet you never answer much yourself. you drag stuff into the mud trying to twist words so i agree with what your saying.

cofty

Unstop - You started this thread with the intransigent position that life begins at conception and it should not be deliberately terminated under any circumstances.

I have given you a scenario where refusing to deliberately terminate the life of a fetus will result in the death of the mother.

26 pages on and you have still refused to answer the very simple question.

You have continually changed the question and hidden behind an illustration that has no application at all.

Grow a moral backbone, stop embarassing yourself and answer it directly.

valkyrie

USR - despite your choice of semantics, the embryro or fetus dies in the choice to preserve the life of the woman, by primacy.

Since you are already stipulated that the above is an 'acceptable' (if regrettable) scenario for ending fetal development, you factually rank the value of one life (the woman) over a developing life (the fetus).

- So, by what criteria do you dare to rank the relative value of lives?

- If your mandate to value the woman's life over that of the fetus is situational [strong potential for death of the woman if pregnancy is continued], you already agree that their value is relative... to the observer's idea of importance.

- Then, why should you (or others like you) be the ones to establish that measuring line for each woman?

jgnat

The answer is clear all right. The surgeon is not to break any eggs to make an omelet. Good thing USR is not on the legislation writing committee.

Can I take from your silence on the subject, USR, that you have NO IDEA why pregnancy and abortion rates are HIGHER in the socially conservative US states?

You have NO IDEA why one in four teenage girls deliver in Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal under all circumstances?

tec

He already answered that question, Cofty. If you are still speaking about the eptopic pregnancy, that is.

That pregnancy has NO chance of carrying to term, and WILL result in the death of the mother and the baby.

He has already said that yes, that is acceptable.

He just hasn't said it in the way you want him to say it. But it is clear to everyone else (I think) that Unstop has said that this is acceptable.

I mean, it is not even a real question. There is no real choice in this... doing nothing, both die FOR SURE... doing something, one still dies (no change there), but the other lives.

Ask a different question if you want a different answer. Even though I think his answer to a question of whether it is mother OR baby... that the choice should be baby lives. He is completely entitled to that opinion; but that choice should rest in the hands of the one who would be sacrificing her life so that another may live.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

He has already said that yes, that is acceptable. - Tammy

No he hasn't. He said...

saving the mother is fine as long as the baby is not purposly killed

This is not an option. You can't save the mother without deliberately/purposefully/wilfully killing/terminating/aborting the fetus/baby.

He has an impossible dilemma for a fundamenalist.

A. If he refuses the right to choose an abortion he condemns the mother

This is a real choice. It was the situation in Catholic Eire and Malta until recently and is still the situation in Vatican City.

or

B. If he agrees to save the mother's life he is agreeing to an abortion under these specific circumstances.

He started this thread and I want a straight answer.

abortion vs holocaust

Share this