User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: One-on-One: Abortion - red77 & Turbo

  1. #1
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1015

    One-on-One: Abortion - red77 & Turbo

    red77, thanks for agreeing to participate in this thread.

    I want to talk about your stance on abortion, particularly your belief that a child's age and whether the child's father is a criminal can make it okay for a mother to kill her child.

    Let's get things started with some questions:

    Why are you against abortion generally?

    When you say that you are against certain abortions, do you mean that those abortions should be illegal?

    Does the age/stage of development of a pre-born baby play a role in whether it acceptable to kill him or her?

    Is it right to punish a son for his father's crime?

    Should the victim of a crime be given a pass to commit a crime if that victim believes it will lessen his/her suffering resulting the first crime? Example: If someone steals my iPod, should I be allowed to steal someone elses iPod?

  2. #2
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    red77, thanks for agreeing to participate in this thread.
    No problem, I hope we have a constructive debate

    I want to talk about your stance on abortion, particularly your belief that a child's age and whether the child's father is a criminal can make it okay for a mother to kill her child.



    Let's get things started with some questions:
    Fire away

    Why are you against abortion generally?
    Because I hold to the sanctity of life, the unborn have rights

    When you say that you are against certain abortions, do you mean that those abortions should be illegal?
    I'm against all abortion except in the cases of the mothers life being put at risk and in certain cases of rape victims which I will explain in more detail after answering these questions, I do think that abortion should be illegal except in cases where it's medically neceassary to save a mothers life for example

    Does the age/stage of development of a pre-born baby play a role in whether it acceptable to kill him or her?
    No, obviously it's more horrific when a baby is physically torn apart but on the issue as to where it becomes acceptable to abort a growing life i believe that from conception it's unacceptable

    Is it right to punish a son for his father's crime?
    No

    Should the victim of a crime be given a pass to commit a crime if that victim believes it will lessen his/her suffering resulting the first crime? Example: If someone steals my iPod, should I be allowed to steal someone elses iPod?
    No, relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong

    I hope this has gone some way to answering your first questions, what i'd like to do now is to give an outlay of why I believe that in certain cases abortion whilst awful is sometimes necessary (I hope this is ok for one on one's, if there's any set rules to follow then just shout)

    I don't actually condone abortion for all victims of rape, I think it's a very tricky area for a number of reasons. Nori once pointed out the psychological effects and guilt that can happen after terminating and I would prefer the woman to go through with the pregnancy, what i don't want to do though is condemn a victim of rape who after enduring what is an unspeakable act of violation - and hardly thinking straight has the plan 9 drug.....I don't condone it but I cannot judge someone who has gone through this type of trauma

    The age of the victim also plays a part, supposing the victim is 11 and falls pregnant as a result of such an attack, is it morally right to expect her to go through with it when it could be physically dangerous apart from anything else? the same with women who are old enough where it can actually be dangerous for them to conceive? in these cases I think that abortion has to be an option....

    And for any woman whose life is put in danger by a pregnancy (tubal pregnancies for example) i believe that abortion has to be an option, if the woman makes the choice to take a risk and carry on then thats one thing, but in no way should she be forced to endanger her own life, the sanctity of the woman's life is just as important IMO

    Anyway, to finish off I'll ask a question in return

    Are there any conditions where you think that abortion should at least be an option - such as the mother's life being in danger for example?

  3. #3
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1015
    Red, thanks for the straight answers!

    I’ll start by answering your question:
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    Are there any conditions where you think that abortion should at least be an option - such as the mother's life being in danger for example?
    If “abortion” means to deliberately and actively kill a pre-born baby (as the word has come to mean in the past forty years), then no.

    If “abortion” means to remove a baby (that may not be viable) from his/her mother, then yes.

    When there are complications during a pregnancy (at any stage), a doctor should recognize that he is treating two patients and his goal should be to save both. Sometimes that isn’t possible. Typically in these cases, the options are to save either the mother, or neither: Because the baby needs the mother to live, if the mother dies, the baby will die too.

    So what it boils down to is a triage situation. If a mother’s life is at stake, her baby may need to be removed to save her. But there is no reason to dismember or burn or poison the baby. The goal should be to save the baby. When that is impossible, the baby can at least be made comfortable and shown love until he or she dies, just as we (should) do with other terminal patients.

    The baby may not be viable, but “viability” is coming earlier and earlier. Even when doctors try and fail to save patients, there are lessons learned that help save future patients. If our culture didn’t regard unborn babies as disposable, maybe we would be able to re-implant ectopic pregnancies by now.

    Some people (namely “fool”) accuse pro-lifers of using double-speak for wanting to dissociate these triage situations, when a non-viable baby is removed intact. But because the word “abortion” has become synonymous with setting out to kill the baby, ripping it to pieces, etc., I see it as double-speak to insist on using the term “abortion” for these cases. On June 20th, my wife was induced to go into labor to reduce risk to both her and our baby. Her pregnancy was “aborted.” But should we go around telling people that she had an abortion? I think not, because everyone who heard that would misunderstand our meaning. (Sorry, fool.)

    Ultimately, the “life of the mother” argument is a red herring trotted out by pro-aborts. They argue in favor of therapeutic abortions when what they’re really promoting elective abortions. Don’t fall for it. Back when abortion was illegal, mothers were not being forced to die along with their babies when there were complications.


    On to your responses to my questions:
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    Because I hold to the sanctity of life, the unborn have rights
    Good. Do they have the same rights as the born?

    I'm against all abortion except in the cases of the mothers life being put at risk and in certain cases of rape victims which I will explain in more detail after answering these questions, I do think that abortion should be illegal except in cases where it's medically neceassary to save a mothers life for example
    OK, thanks for the clarification.

    No... on the issue as to where it becomes acceptable to abort a growing life i believe that from conception it's unacceptable
    Good.

    Is it right to punish a son for his father's crime?
    No
    Correct.

    Should the victim of a crime be given a pass to commit a crime if that victim believes it will lessen his/her suffering resulting the first crime? Example: If someone steals my iPod, should I be allowed to steal someone elses iPod?
    No, relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong
    That is correct. Recognizing this, you should change your position on elective abortions for rape victims.


    You say, "relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong." Therefore, relieving suffing resulting from a rape by murdering one's own child is wrong.

    Is there anything left to discuss?

  4. #4
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    Red, thanks for the straight answers!

    I’ll start by answering your question:
    No problem, thanks for your own detailed response

    If “abortion” means to deliberately and actively kill a pre-born baby (as the word has come to mean in the past forty years), then no.

    If “abortion” means to remove a baby (that may not be viable) from his/her mother, then yes.

    When there are complications during a pregnancy (at any stage), a doctor should recognize that he is treating two patients and his goal should be to save both. Sometimes that isn’t possible. Typically in these cases, the options are to save either the mother, or neither: Because the baby needs the mother to live, if the mother dies, the baby will die too.

    So what it boils down to is a triage situation. If a mother’s life is at stake, her baby may need to be removed to save her. But there is no reason to dismember or burn or poison the baby. The goal should be to save the baby. When that is impossible, the baby can at least be made comfortable and shown love until he or she dies, just as we (should) do with other terminal patients.

    The baby may not be viable, but “viability” is coming earlier and earlier. Even when doctors try and fail to save patients, there are lessons learned that help save future patients. If our culture didn’t regard unborn babies as disposable, maybe we would be able to re-implant ectopic pregnancies by now.

    Some people (namely “fool”) accuse pro-lifers of using double-speak for wanting to dissociate these triage situations, when a non-viable baby is removed intact. But because the word “abortion” has become synonymous with setting out to kill the baby, ripping it to pieces, etc., I see it as double-speak to insist on using the term “abortion” for these cases. On June 20th, my wife was induced to go into labor to reduce risk to both her and our baby. Her pregnancy was “aborted.” But should we go around telling people that she had an abortion? I think not, because everyone who heard that would misunderstand our meaning. (Sorry, fool.)

    Ultimately, the “life of the mother” argument is a red herring trotted out by pro-aborts. They argue in favor of therapeutic abortions when what they’re really promoting elective abortions. Don’t fall for it. Back when abortion was illegal, mothers were not being forced to die along with their babies when there were complications.
    We're not too far off the same page on this one, I should have clarified that I also believe that every possible attempt be made to save both mother and child before any 'abortion', is it always medically possible to 'remove' the baby without causing risk to the mother? I would hope that it is and in which case i would also advocate the same as you, removal definnitely rather than the act of abortion as we call it today, I was actually interested as to whether you agreed that when the life of the mother is at stake then she shouldnt be forced to continue a risky pregnancy, it seems that you do in which case I'm glad, there is a question I have related to this one but i'll address it at the end of the post as I think it would be more relevant...
    I'm sorry that you and your wife also had to go through such an ordeal

    On to your responses to my questions:
    Good. Do they have the same rights as the born?
    Yes

    OK, thanks for the clarification.
    No worries

    Good.


    Correct.


    That is correct. Recognizing this, you should change your position on elective abortions for rape victims.


    You say, "relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong." Therefore, relieving suffing resulting from a rape by murdering one's own child is wrong.

    Is there anything left to discuss?
    This is an area that has more complications I feel and this is where I want to elaborate on some of my last post which i think needs to be addressed,

    firstly I don't advocate immediate abortion in most cases, what I am aware of is that a woman who has just been raped has experienced one of the worst possible violations and should not be condemned for having the plan9 drug, I can only imagine what the trauma/distress and shock must have on a victim and i can understand also that an impulse decision to abort a possible pregnancy would happen in plenty of cases, that doesn't mean that I condone it, i think that feelings of guilt could easily happen down the line and the best answer would be for immediate therapy and professional counselling - along with the best health care and financial aid for all victims of rape who become pregnant and don't abort

    however, there are cases where I think an immediate abortion is justified, if an 11 year old girl is raped and falls pregnant then I don't think that she should be forced to go through a possible pregnancy and birth, she's too young physically and the emotional trauma at such an age would be immense I feel, if the girl and their family and doctors decide that they want to keep the baby then ok but in no way should someone of that age be forced, I doubt that medically it would be recommended for children of that age to give birth anyway so for that reason alone I can not see anything morally wrong with immediate termination

    The same goes for if an elderly woman is raped and to go through pregnancy and birth would be dangerous to undertake, again it has to be down to choice, if the woman wishes to take that chance then fair enough, but it has to be choice...

    so - my related question to you is this, are the two above examples where age presents danger to the woman in pregnancy enough to justify abortion in your opinion?

  5. #5
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1015
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    I'm sorry that you and your wife also had to go through such an ordeal
    Sorry, I must not have been clear about that. It wasn't much of an ordeal. Our baby was full term, and our doctor induced labor to avoid risks that can come to a mother and baby when a baby goes too far "overdue." Our baby was born healthy and remains healthy to this day. I didn't mean to be unclear about that.

    My point was just that in one could technically say that my wife's pregnancy was aborted, but it would be misleading to say she had an abortion because everyone who heard that would think she hired someone to kill her baby.


    I'll respond to the rest later. I just wanted to clear that up.

  6. #6
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    Sorry, I must not have been clear about that. It wasn't much of an ordeal. Our baby was full term, and our doctor induced labor to avoid risks that can come to a mother and baby when a baby goes too far "overdue." Our baby was born healthy and remains healthy to this day. I didn't mean to be unclear about that.

    My point was just that in one could technically say that my wife's pregnancy was aborted, but it would be misleading to say she had an abortion because everyone who heard that would think she hired someone to kill her baby.


    I'll respond to the rest later. I just wanted to clear that up.
    Ah, no problem, I didn't think that you meant that the baby had died but rather that it was an ordeal to have to be induced because of risk, I didn't realise you meant that it was beyond full term which can definitely cause complications obviously and I'm glad that the baby is healthy

    I did get your point as well which I should have probably made clearer myself....!

  7. #7
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1015
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    so - my related question to you is this, are the two above examples where age presents danger to the woman in pregnancy enough to justify abortion in your opinion?
    No. Can you figure out why? (The reasons are already in this thread. They're even in your own posts.)

  8. #8
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    No. Can you figure out why? (The reasons are already in this thread. They're even in your own posts.)
    I have a fair idea what you may be referring to but i'd like you to explain just why in these situations the life of the woman is an acceptable risk

  9. #9
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    No. Can you figure out why? (The reasons are already in this thread. They're even in your own posts.)
    I think I have figured out why you may reason this, if I'm correct in my presumption then I believe it's flawed as i'll explain

    You asked me if I believe that the unborn have the same rights as the born, I answered yes, in these scenarios though equal rights are taken out of the equation, neither one of us can claim that we believe equal rights because whichever side of the argument we're on we are favouring one life over another - either the unborn over born or vice versa

    You would seem to believe that it's an aceptable risk for an 11 year old victim to go through with what medically could very well turn out to endanger the mother's health and life, the same as you would seem to be arguing for an elderly victim to undergo the same for similar reasons,

    I believe this to be wrong, there is no denying the tragic situation but risking one life for the possibility of bringing another into the world is a no no for me, if the woman/girl in question chooses to undertake the pregnancy then it's one thing, but under no circumstance do I think she should be forced or even expected to risk her own life, there is something profoundly disturbing about forcing either of these people into a possible life threatening situation, and i don't make light of the tragedy of losing a life when I say that either...

    I know you made a point earlier about how with our societies women can have their babies removed instead of aborted, if that is true in all cases then I wouldn't know to be honest although I would obviously hope it was, I doubt that these procedures are available al over the world though and just say hypothetically speaking - if a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to have an actual abortion would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?

  10. #10
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1015
    firstly I don't advocate immediate abortion in most cases, what I am aware of is that a woman who has just been raped has experienced one of the worst possible violations and should not be condemned for having the plan9 drug, I can only imagine what the trauma/distress and shock must have on a victim and i can understand also that an impulse decision to abort a possible pregnancy would happen in plenty of cases, that doesn't mean that I condone it, i think that feelings of guilt could easily happen down the line and the best answer would be for immediate therapy and professional counselling - along with the best health care and financial aid for all victims of rape who become pregnant and don't abort
    If the rape victim made an impulse decision to kill the rapist’s 3-year-old daughter, would you not condemn that either?

    What happened to “relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong”?


    however, there are cases where I think an immediate abortion is justified, if an 11 year old girl is raped and falls pregnant then I don't think that she should be forced to go through a possible pregnancy and birth, she's too young physically and the emotional trauma at such an age would be immense I feel, if the girl and their family and doctors decide that they want to keep the baby then ok but in no way should someone of that age be forced, I doubt that medically it would be recommended for children of that age to give birth anyway so for that reason alone I can not see anything morally wrong with immediate termination

    The same goes for if an elderly woman is raped and to go through pregnancy and birth would be dangerous to undertake, again it has to be down to choice, if the woman wishes to take that chance then fair enough, but it has to be choice...
    Red, in these scenarios, that the young girl or the older woman were raped is irrelevant. You have agreed that it is wrong to punish a son for his father’s sin. And you agreed that crimes victim cannot rightly alleviate their suffering by committing some crime against someone else, saying that “relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong.”

    But then you went on to explain that you think it’s okay for rape victims to have abortions if carrying the baby to term could be risky. What exactly does the fact that the baby’s father is a rapist have to do with anything? Why even make the distinction?

    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    in these scenarios though equal rights are taken out of the equation, neither one of us can claim that we believe equal rights because whichever side of the argument we're on we are favouring one life over another - either the unborn over born or vice versa.
    Wrong. As I explained in detail already, doctors should recognize that they are treating two patients and their goal should be to save both. In a triage situation it isn’t a matter of who has more rights than another, but whose condition is more dire and how limited resources can be best allocated.

    You don’t unplug patient’s respirator because you think another patient might need the outlet months from now. (And leaving the first patient’s respirator plugged in is not showing favor to that patient over the other.) But that’s effectively what you’re advocating when you say that a woman can have an abortion even (or especially?) very early in her pregnancy because there might be risky complications later.



    You would seem to believe that it's an aceptable risk for an 11 year old victim to go through with what medically could very well turn out to endanger the mother's health and life, the same as you would seem to be arguing for an elderly victim to undergo the same for similar reasons,
    Or it very well might not. Why pre-emptively kill these baby?

    I believe this to be wrong, there is no denying the tragic situation but risking one life for the possibility of bringing another into the world is a no no for me,
    Possibility? The baby has already been brought into the world, but is merely concealed by his or her mother’s flesh. Let’s not undermine the fact that the unborn are people, too. You said yourself:

    “the unborn have rights.”
    “to abort a growing life i believe that from conception it's unacceptable.”

    You undermine the rights of all unborn babies when you suggest that abortion is more acceptable when rape is involved. Pro-aborts will jump on that and say that if a woman has a "right to choose" in rape cases, why shouldn't they in all cases? If it's not murder to abort a rapist's innocent child, how can it be murder to abort any child?


    hypothetically speaking - if a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to have an actual abortion would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
    Hypothetically speaking: If a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to eat her 2-year-old, would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?

  11. #11
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    If the rape victim made an impulse decision to kill the rapist’s 3-year-old daughter, would you not condemn that either?

    What happened to “relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong”?
    That would hardly be an 'impulse decision', I don't know if you know anyone who has been raped but I have, the inital effects are probably undescribable and it causes long term damage,

    what I am trying to get you to understand is that someone who has just been violated in one of the worst and most traumatic ways imaginable is not going to be as cognitively rational as either you or I, and with the best will in the world you can hardly expect a victim to have any maternal feelings for what may or may not be developing in her womb, I've already explained that I wouldn't want to see any death but i'm rational enough to realise that a woman's first instinct in this case could be to do this and I woudlnt condemn her for it

    Red, in these scenarios, that the young girl or the older woman were raped is irrelevant. You have agreed that it is wrong to punish a son for his father’s sin. And you agreed that crimes victim cannot rightly alleviate their suffering by committing some crime against someone else, saying that “relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong.”

    But then you went on to explain that you think it’s okay for rape victims to have abortions if carrying the baby to term could be risky. What exactly does the fact that the baby’s father is a rapist have to do with anything? Why even make the distinction?
    Technically the ll year old would be a rape victim whether she gave consent or otherwise, but even leaving rape out of the equation it isn't a question about alleviating suffering by causing others to suffer, it's a matter of whether it's medically viable for the girl to safely conceive and give birth and endure a pregnancy -the same as with a woman who is too old for safe pregnancy and labour,in the case of the child in particular giving birth would be very hazardous for one so young, would you dispute that?

    Wrong. As I explained in detail already, doctors should recognize that they are treating two patients and their goal should be to save both. In a triage situation it isn’t a matter of who has more rights than another, but whose condition is more dire and how limited resources can be best allocated.

    You don’t unplug patient’s respirator because you think another patient might need the outlet months from now. (And leaving the first patient’s respirator plugged in is not showing favor to that patient over the other.) But that’s effectively what you’re advocating when you say that a woman can have an abortion even (or especially?) very early in her pregnancy because there might be risky complications later.
    but no-one is denying that the doctor shouldnt treat both, if the age and condition of the child means that it's risky regardless of treatment then it's not the same as a hypothetical possibility happening later down the line

    Or it very well might not. Why pre-emptively kill these baby?
    I seriously doubt you will find any doctor who would recommend an 11 year old child to go through pregnancy and conception, the physical dangers are not just a 'possibility' but rather a likelihood do you disagree with this?

    It's no medical secret that after a certain age it is dangerous for women to become pregnant - as well as an increased chance of complications and defects for the baby

    Possibility? The baby has already been brought into the world, but is merely concealed by his or her mother’s flesh. Let’s not undermine the fact that the unborn are people, too. You said yourself:

    “the unborn have rights.”
    “to abort a growing life i believe that from conception it's unacceptable.”

    You undermine the rights of all unborn babies when you suggest that abortion is more acceptable when rape is involved. Pro-aborts will jump on that and say that if a woman has a "right to choose" in rape cases, why shouldn't they in all cases? If it's not murder to abort a rapist's innocent child, how can it be murder to abort any child?
    Yes, the unborn have rights but in a case where the mother's life and health is put at risk so does the mother, thats why I said earlier that neither of us can claim equal rights on this issue, if you think that the life of the mother is worth the risk for a baby to be born then you place more rights on the uborn, likewise if I believe that the mother's life should not be risked then I place more rights on the born, I am not denying this, why are you?

    i said I could understand why rape victims do so, I've already explained my position on this and haven't said that it's something I condone so why persist? i make no apologies however for believing that a mother has the right to choice if her own life is put in danger

    Hypothetically speaking: If a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to eat her 2-year-old, would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
    I've heard this before but I'll answer it, initially I believe no, Besides from the fact that I doubt many people would be able to do such a thing I think a loving parent would investigate every realistic and unrealistic possibility first...

    now if this led to the only chance of survival then pragmatically speaking the woman is justified, where would be the sense in both the mother and child dying if the mother had a chance to live and could do nothing to save her child?

    So I ask you again, if a woman's only chance to survive would be to have an abortion do you think that she should at least have a choice in the matter?

  12. #12
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1015
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    If the rape victim made an impulse decision to kill the rapist’s 3-year-old daughter, would you not condemn that either?

    What happened to “relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong”?
    That would hardly be an 'impulse decision',
    Please answer the question.
    A woman’s abusive ex-boyfriend gets drunk, shows up at her house, and rapes her while their 3-year-old son sleeps in the next room. Afterwards, she decides that she regrets having brought this slimeball’s child into the world, and just the sight of their son (who is the spitting image of his father) disgusts her. So in her anguish she makes an “impulse decision” to kill him. Would you not condemn her for that either?
    I don't know if you know anyone who has been raped but I have, the inital effects are probably undescribable and it causes long term damage,
    I’m sorry to hear that.

    Is it possible that your own experience might be preventing you from being objective on this matter? After all, when I asked the general question of whether a crime victim is justified in committing another crime against a third party in an effort to ease the suffering from the first crime, you rightly replied that “relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong.” But when it is specified that the crime victim was raped and the third party is her newly conceived child, suddenly you violate your own principles and claim that she should not be condemned for killing her baby.

    what I am trying to get you to understand is that someone who has just been violated in one of the worst and most traumatic ways imaginable is not going to be as cognitively rational as either you or I, and with the best will in the world you can hardly expect a victim to have any maternal feelings for what may or may not be developing in her womb, I've already explained that I wouldn't want to see any death but i'm rational enough to realise that a woman's first instinct in this case could be to do this and I woudlnt condemn her for it
    Did your sister take measures to kill any child that may or may not have been conceived when you were raped? Whether she did or not, you should stop making excuses for child-killing.
    Technically the ll year old would be a rape victim whether she gave consent or otherwise,
    Even if her boyfriend was her age, and if having sex was her idea?
    but even leaving rape out of the equation
    So are you agreeing that whether the child’s father was a rapist is irrelevant?
    it's a matter of whether it's medically viable for the girl to safely conceive and give birth and endure a pregnancy -the same as with a woman who is too old for safe pregnancy and labour,in the case of the child in particular giving birth would be very hazardous for one so young, would you dispute that?
    Yes. She should carry her baby as long as she can. Hopefully she can carry her baby at least until the baby is viable, at which time the baby can be removed in-tact and cared for.

    Two patients. Triage. Try to save both. Remember that? You claimed to agree with it.
    but no-one is denying that the doctor shouldnt treat both, if the age and condition of the child means that it's risky regardless of treatment then it's not the same as a hypothetical possibility happening later down the line
    You are assuming that one can predict early on which children will live and which will die, and which pregnancies will be deadly to the mother.
    Isn’t it you who argues that every murderer and rapist should be allowed to live for fear that even one wrongly-convicted person might be put to death? Yet you are willing to sacrifice countless innocent babies by presuming that allowing them to live might be “risky” for their mothers.
    I seriously doubt you will find any doctor who would recommend an 11 year old child to go through pregnancy and conception, the physical dangers are not just a 'possibility' but rather a likelihood do you disagree with this?
    Yes, I disagree. Not all doctors are murderers.

    Here is a list of at least 18 people you are asserting could have rightly been slaughtered before they were born. You should repent.

    It's no medical secret that after a certain age it is dangerous for women to become pregnant
    Triage, remember?

    Here is a story about a 60-year-old New Jersey woman who recently gave birth via C-section to healthy twins. She says that “there were no complications” with her preganancy.
    Exactly one year earlier, a 59-year-old New Jersey woman gave birth to twins, according to the same article.

    And here’s one about a 67-year-old Spanish woman who also had twins.

    So, you are wrong to assume that at a certain age, carrying a child becomes so dangerous that a woman should be allowed to pre-emptively kill her baby. You should repent and cease from making that argument.

    as well as an increased chance of complications and defects for the baby
    Are you adding birth defects (or even chance of birth defects to your list of reasons why it’s okay to kill babies?

    Yes, the unborn have rights but in a case where the mother's life and health is put at risk so does the mother, thats why I said earlier that neither of us can claim equal rights on this issue, if you think that the life of the mother is worth the risk for a baby to be born then you place more rights on the uborn, likewise if I believe that the mother's life should not be risked then I place more rights on the born, I am not denying this, why are you?
    Because it’s not true in my case, and I explained why in my last post:
    You don’t unplug patient’s respirator because you think another patient might need the outlet months from now. (And leaving the first patient’s respirator plugged in is not showing favor to that patient over the other.)

    i said I could understand why rape victims do so, I've already explained my position on this and haven't said that it's something I condone so why persist?
    I persist because you do condone it, despite your claim that you don’t.

    I “understand why” lots of people commit murder but that doesn’t mean I think they have a “right to choose” to commit murder. You think that rape victims who make an impulse decision to kill their newly conceived babies should not be prosecuted for murder or any other crime, do you not? (You called me “sick” elsewhere for believing that rape victims who murder their unborn children should receive the same punishment as any other murderer.) That’s called condoning:
    con·done
    transitive verb
    : to pardon or overlook voluntarily overlook

    par·don
    verb (used with object)
    6. to release (a person) from liability for an offense.
    7. to remit the penalty of (an offense): The governor will not pardon your crime.

    i make no apologies however for believing that a mother has the right to choice if her own life is put in danger
    Your definition of having one’s life in danger is pretty loose and presumptuous, sadly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    Hypothetically speaking: If a woman's only realistic chance of survival was to eat her 2-year-old, would it be justifiable in your opinion for her to go ahead?
    I've heard this before but I'll answer it, initially I believe no, Besides from the fact that I doubt many people would be able to do such a thing I think a loving parent would investigate every realistic and unrealistic possibility first...

    now if this led to the only chance of survival then pragmatically speaking the woman is justified, where would be the sense in both the mother and child dying if the mother had a chance to live and could do nothing to save her child?
    That may be the most sickening and perverse thing I’ve ever read at TOL. I’m shocked that you would say that sometimes parents are justified in killing and eating their children. This is the kind of thinking that your position on abortion leads to, and should prompt you to consider that your position should be reconsidered. I’m left wondering if you wrote that you wrote your endorsement of child-eating out of desperation to defend your indefensible position, or if you really think you’ve solved the world hunger problem. Just let the starving people eat each other.

    The answer I was hoping for was that no, a mother is never justified to kill and eat her child, and that my question was bogus because there is no way to determine that she or her child no other chance to live. Likewise your question was bogus because it is never necessary to tear a baby apart limb-from-limb or burned to death with saline in order to save the baby’s mother.


    So I ask you again, if a woman's only chance to survive would be to have an abortion do you think that she should at least have a choice in the matter?
    Isn’t this the same question I answered in my first response to you? Here was my answer:
    If “abortion” means to deliberately and actively kill a pre-born baby (as the word has come to mean in the past forty years), then no.

    If “abortion” means to remove a baby (that may not be viable) from his/her mother, then yes.

    When there are complications during a pregnancy (at any stage), a doctor should recognize that he is treating two patients and his goal should be to save both. Sometimes that isn’t possible. Typically in these cases, the options are to save either the mother, or neither: Because the baby needs the mother to live, if the mother dies, the baby will die too.

    So what it boils down to is a triage situation. If a mother’s life is at stake, her baby may need to be removed to save her. But there is no reason to dismember or burn or poison the baby. The goal should be to save the baby. When that is impossible, the baby can at least be made comfortable and shown love until he or she dies, just as we (should) do with other terminal patients.

    The baby may not be viable, but “viability” is coming earlier and earlier. Even when doctors try and fail to save patients, there are lessons learned that help save future patients. If our culture didn’t regard unborn babies as disposable, maybe we would be able to re-implant ectopic pregnancies by now.

    Some people (namely “fool”) accuse pro-lifers of using double-speak for wanting to dissociate these triage situations, when a non-viable baby is removed intact. But because the word “abortion” has become synonymous with setting out to kill the baby, ripping it to pieces, etc., I see it as double-speak to insist on using the term “abortion” for these cases. On June 20th, my wife was induced to go into labor to reduce risk to both her and our baby. Her pregnancy was “aborted.” But should we go around telling people that she had an abortion? I think not, because everyone who heard that would misunderstand our meaning. (Sorry, fool.)

    Ultimately, the “life of the mother” argument is a red herring trotted out by pro-aborts. They argue in favor of therapeutic abortions when what they’re really promoting elective abortions. Don’t fall for it. Back when abortion was illegal, mothers were not being forced to die along with their babies when there were complications.

    You responded by saying, “We're not too far off the same page on this one, I should have clarified that I also believe that every possible attempt be made to save both mother and child before any 'abortion'….” Yet since then you have argued that a baby can be killed merely on the assumption that a pregnancy might become ‘risky’ months down the line.

    And that’s been the theme of your posts in this thread: You lay out or agree with sound principles upholding the personhood of the unborn, and then undermine them.
    Last edited by Turbo; September 17th, 2007 at 12:01 AM.

  13. #13
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1015
    In the Grandstands, you posted:
    Quote Originally Posted by red77 View Post
    Oh ok Stipe, please give definitive proof as to how an 11 year old going through pregnancy, labour and childbirth isn't physically dangerous....
    Which is more dangerous:

    Being a pregnant eleven-year-old who will not kill her baby,

    or

    Being an unborn baby who's about to be aborted?

  14. #14
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    Please answer the question.
    A woman’s abusive ex-boyfriend gets drunk, shows up at her house, and rapes her while their 3-year-old son sleeps in the next room. Afterwards, she decides that she regrets having brought this slimeball’s child into the world, and just the sight of their son (who is the spitting image of his father) disgusts her. So in her anguish she makes an “impulse decision” to kill him. Would you not condemn her for that either?
    Yes, this would be questionable at the very least, by three years old the mother would have for the most part already bonded maternally with the child and hopefully loved him already, this is what I'm trying to get through to you, someone who has just been raped can hardly be expected to have maternal instincts to what may or may not be a cjustering set of developing cells in her body, that is just being realistic, even though you and i may think that life starts at conception doesn't mean everybody else does,

    I’m sorry to hear that.

    Is it possible that your own experience might be preventing you from being objective on this matter? After all, when I asked the general question of whether a crime victim is justified in committing another crime against a third party in an effort to ease the suffering from the first crime, you rightly replied that “relieving suffering by causing others to suffer is wrong.” But when it is specified that the crime victim was raped and the third party is her newly conceived child, suddenly you violate your own principles and claim that she should not be condemned for killing her baby.
    No, it's not my experience, it's my sisters, and I stand by my statement of not condemning a person who has done such, what is it that constitutes suffering in your book? Not beiong allowed to develop to the point of being aware? There is certainly no suffering involved in the taking of the Plan B drug, I'm realistic enough to know that rape is something that causes trauma and shock - and fear........condemning someone who has taken the drug and who may well pay for even more for that decisiion later down the line is just not something that I am prepared to do.....

    Did your sister take measures to kill any child that may or may not have been conceived when you were raped? Whether she did or not, you should stop making excuses for child-killing.
    I don't honestly know, and whether she did or not I am not making excuses for 'child killing'....

    Even if her boyfriend was her age, and if having sex was her idea?
    So are you agreeing that whether the child’s father was a rapist is irrelevant?
    Yes. She should carry her baby as long as she can. Hopefully she can carry her baby at least until the baby is viable, at which time the baby can be removed in-tact and cared for.
    Thats still considered statutory rape where I live because the child is not deemed old enough to be able to give consent, fair enough - it's obviously not as bad as being violated against will but it's still unlawful sex given the age of the girl, and just how sure are you that a bay can be 'viably removed' in all of these cases? And just what if the child can't carry the baby till it's 'viable' and suffers greatly as a result as well as the loss of the baby? It's not just a 'chance' of risk, it IS a risk for one so young to be forced to endure pregnancy.....

    Two patients. Triage. Try to save both. Remember that? You claimed to agree with it.
    I do when there is no danger initially with the pregnancy, if complications occur through a normal pregnancy then all should be done to protect both the mother and the child

    You are assuming that one can predict early on which children will live and which will die, and which pregnancies will be deadly to the mother.
    Isn’t it you who argues that every murderer and rapist should be allowed to live for fear that even one wrongly-convicted person might be put to death? Yet you are willing to sacrifice countless innocent babies by presuming that allowing them to live might be “risky” for their mothers.
    Yes, I disagree. Not all doctors are murderers.
    It doesn't take a genius to know that 11 years old is a dangerous age to be risking pregnancy, the body is not developed enough to be able to safely cope, every 11 year old who undertakes pregnancy is at risk....

    And you say 'countless'? I would hope that the proportion of 11 year olds falling pregnant is lower than what you seem to surmise.....as for the DP it would be a whole lot more than "one" innocent person being possibly put to death, do some reserach on miscarriages of justice and that should make it very clear......

    Here is a list of at least 18 people you are asserting could have rightly been slaughtered before they were born. You should repent.

    Triage, remember?
    And how many others have lost their babies, suffered physical damage etc? Stats can work both ways....

    Here is a story about a 60-year-old New Jersey woman who recently gave birth via C-section to healthy twins. She says that “there were no complications” with her preganancy.
    Exactly one year earlier, a 59-year-old New Jersey woman gave birth to twins, according to the same article.

    And here’s one about a 67-year-old Spanish woman who also had twins.

    So, you are wrong to assume that at a certain age, carrying a child becomes so dangerous that a woman should be allowed to pre-emptively kill her baby. You should repent and cease from making that argument.
    It is NOT wrong to assume that a woman of a certain age who undertakes a pregnancy is taking a risk! It's a medical fact! The fact that it doesnt ALWAYS result in tragedy doesn't negate the risk for both the woman and the child, and if a woman decides to take the risk of pregnancy and conceiving at a later age then fair enough as long as she has the CHOICE in the matter......

    Are you adding birth defects (or even chance of birth defects to your list of reasons why it’s okay to kill babies?
    No, of course not, I wouldn't advocate an abortion because of a defect in the foetus, likewise I would also not be in favour of situations such as post menopausal pregnancy where it's more likely to occur....

    Because it’s not true in my case, and I explained why in my last post:
    You don’t unplug patient’s respirator because you think another patient might need the outlet months from now. (And leaving the first patient’s respirator plugged in is not showing favor to that patient over the other.)
    It is true, you shouldsurely be aware that the risks of both underage and elderly pregnancy arre hardly just possibilities, the riske are there from the START.....

    I persist because you do condone it, despite your claim that you don’t.

    I “understand why” lots of people commit murder but that doesn’t mean I think they have a “right to choose” to commit murder. You think that rape victims who make an impulse decision to kill their newly conceived babies should not be prosecuted for murder or any other crime, do you not? (You called me “sick” elsewhere for believing that rape victims who murder their unborn children should receive the same punishment as any other murderer.) That’s called condoning:
    con·done
    transitive verb
    : to pardon or overlook voluntarily overlook

    par·don
    verb (used with object)
    6. to release (a person) from liability for an offense.
    7. to remit the penalty of (an offense): The governor will not pardon your crime.
    Your definition of 'condoning' is not supporting the prosecution of rape victims who undertake such, that is not mine.....


    Your definition of having one’s life in danger is pretty loose and presumptuous, sadly.
    So is your definition of what constitutes 'risk'.....

    That may be the most sickening and perverse thing I’ve ever read at TOL. I’m shocked that you would say that sometimes parents are justified in killing and eating their children. This is the kind of thinking that your position on abortion leads to, and should prompt you to consider that your position should be reconsidered. I’m left wondering if you wrote that you wrote your endorsement of child-eating out of desperation to defend your indefensible position, or if you really think you’ve solved the world hunger problem. Just let the starving people eat each other.

    The answer I was hoping for was that no, a mother is never justified to kill and eat her child, and that my question was bogus because there is no way to determine that she or her child no other chance to live. Likewise your question was bogus because it is never necessary to tear a baby apart limb-from-limb or burned to death with saline in order to save the baby’s mother.
    Well first off I never said anything about advocating killing the child, I wouldnt......in the hypothetical scenario you presented it was more than likely that the child would die first - in which case if the mother could survive by doing such then why should she be condemned for it? Hypotheticals have a tendency to require a suspension of disbelief and as such the 'bogus' isn't something to take into account, from what I gather on the spin off threads plenty of people think it would be wrong for her to eat the remains of her child no matter what and that the woman should die, although here is a question back which I've asked other people but have yet to get an answer for, supposing in this hypothetical situation the woman has other children who are dependant on her for their survival, would she be justified in eating the remains then if it gave her a chance to be there for her other children....?


    Isn’t this the same question I answered in my first response to you? Here was my answer:
    If “abortion” means to deliberately and actively kill a pre-born baby (as the word has come to mean in the past forty years), then no.

    If “abortion” means to remove a baby (that may not be viable) from his/her mother, then yes.

    When there are complications during a pregnancy (at any stage), a doctor should recognize that he is treating two patients and his goal should be to save both. Sometimes that isn’t possible. Typically in these cases, the options are to save either the mother, or neither: Because the baby needs the mother to live, if the mother dies, the baby will die too.

    So what it boils down to is a triage situation. If a mother’s life is at stake, her baby may need to be removed to save her. But there is no reason to dismember or burn or poison the baby. The goal should be to save the baby. When that is impossible, the baby can at least be made comfortable and shown love until he or she dies, just as we (should) do with other terminal patients.

    The baby may not be viable, but “viability” is coming earlier and earlier. Even when doctors try and fail to save patients, there are lessons learned that help save future patients. If our culture didn’t regard unborn babies as disposable, maybe we would be able to re-implant ectopic pregnancies by now.

    Some people (namely “fool”) accuse pro-lifers of using double-speak for wanting to dissociate these triage situations, when a non-viable baby is removed intact. But because the word “abortion” has become synonymous with setting out to kill the baby, ripping it to pieces, etc., I see it as double-speak to insist on using the term “abortion” for these cases. On June 20th, my wife was induced to go into labor to reduce risk to both her and our baby. Her pregnancy was “aborted.” But should we go around telling people that she had an abortion? I think not, because everyone who heard that would misunderstand our meaning. (Sorry, fool.)

    Ultimately, the “life of the mother” argument is a red herring trotted out by pro-aborts. They argue in favor of therapeutic abortions when what they’re really promoting elective abortions. Don’t fall for it. Back when abortion was illegal, mothers were not being forced to die along with their babies when there were complications.

    You responded by saying, “We're not too far off the same page on this one, I should have clarified that I also believe that every possible attempt be made to save both mother and child before any 'abortion'….” Yet since then you have argued that a baby can be killed merely on the assumption that a pregnancy might become ‘risky’ months down the line.

    And that’s been the theme of your posts in this thread: You lay out or agree with sound principles upholding the personhood of the unborn, and then undermine them.
    [/QUOTE]

    Just HOW sure are you that even in our socieities that 'viable' removals are 100% option? I'm yet to be convinced that they are to be honest, do you have objective proof that in the Western world that this is actually a constant option?

    And to be honest I hope it is, although even if it is it certainly isn't likely to be the case in the less developed areas of the world, so I will ask you again - supposing a woman's life is in danger if she proceeds with a highly risky pregnancy and the odds are that she will die as a result, there is only abortion that could save her, should she at least have the choice?

  15. #15
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham UK
    Posts
    1,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    In the Grandstands, you posted:Which is more dangerous:

    Being a pregnant eleven-year-old who will not kill her baby,

    or

    Being an unborn baby who's about to be aborted?
    They're both dangerous, I don't take lightly that a fertilised egg is aborted in this situation but every time an 11 year old is undertaking a pregnancy she is putting her life at risk as well, check out the list of complications that Glenda posted in the discussion thread for example, it all depends on whether you think that the ife of the unborn outweighs the life of the child, i don't believe that it does, at least she certainly shouldnt be forced to go through with such

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us