Abortion///cont.

[glassjester]

Personally engaged morality, of course. (That's the essence of choice) I'm saying there's no moral necessity to do so.

You cannot conceive of any situation in which it would be morally necessary to act in order to preserve the life of another?

 

[quip]

You cannot conceive of any situation in which it would be morally necessary to act in order to preserve the life of another?

Yes, if or when it's within your relative safety, ability and purview to do so.

 

[glassjester]

Yes, if or when it's within your relative safety, ability and purview to do so.

For example?

 

[Town Heretic]

"Personhood" laws are extremely stupid and would be disastrously counterproductive if passed .

Abortion as a right is an extremely stupid idea and disastrously counterproductive to our essential humanity.

This would automatically cause a sharp INCREASE in surgical abortions.

Abortions increased each year following legalization until the Baby Boomers started aging. Laws prohibiting abortion don't increase abortions. That's counter intuitive and contrary to reason. Where you see a correlation is in countries that go beyond that to restricting contraceptive materials. If you cut that flow you're going to see a large increase in unwanted pregnancies and an increase in people seeking abortions, even when illegal. So it's laws relating to contraceptives and not abortion that is at the root of that particularly misused assertion by the left.

If you're opposed to abortion, you have absolutely no right to be opposed to the legality of contraceptives

Completely untrue, though you can reasonably oppose both. The argument that life from conception forward should be protected is not the same as the argument that the potential for life should be protected.

This is like wanting to prevent driving fatalities by making seat belts illegal .

No, it's like wanting to end unnecessary and objectionable killing by prohibiting it as a matter of law. Not everyone will obey the law, but that's no argument against it. In fact, if we made that the premise for passing laws we'd only pass those we didn't need to.

A cell is not person. An acorn is not a tree.

A one year old is not a thirty year old, and none of those are the point.

 

[quip]

For example?

Well, when writing that I envisioned a bank robbery involving a little old lady, big burly man and the bank's security guard.

Now I wouldn't expect the old lady to thwart the thief as she doesn't qualify under any of the criteria. The big guy, no because though he may have the ability it's not necessarily his duty nor would it be safe for him to do so. The guard on the otherhand has the duty and moral necessity to act and must.

 

[quip]

A cell is not person. An acorn is not a tree.

A one year old is not a thirty year old, and none of those are the point.

On the contrary...its logically relevent to the rational discourse of the debate.

 

[Eagles Wings]

What a lot of effort trying to convince, quip, of the sanctity of human life.

As a Buddhist, she sits under her little avatar tree, considering the scared, strange Christians circling around to get her bite, please just a little nibble, on simple truth.

There's got to be someone who can get through to her.

Yes, it's God, and she refuses to listen to Him.

I prayed for, quip, today.

I will tomorrow, too, and the next day and the next.

 

[glassjester]

Well, when writing that I envisioned a bank robbery involving a little old lady, big burly man and the bank's security guard.

Now I wouldn't expect the old lady to thwart the thief as she doesn't qualify under any of the criteria. The big guy, no because though he may have the ability it's not necessarily his duty nor would it be safe for him to do so. The guard on the otherhand has the duty and moral necessity to act and must.

That's a fair example. Although I disagree that safety is a necessary condition. Your example illustrates that, too. Clearly, it is less safe for the guard to intervene than to not intervene. Yet he is still obligated to protect the lives of the innocent.

 

[quip]

What a lot of effort trying to convince, quip, of the sanctity of human life.

Simply offering you a perspective you seem oh so willing to remain blind to.

Your god created a universe of suffering where at least in the manner of early term abortions the fetus sufficiently evades.

Pray on that.

 

[glassjester]

Simply offering you a perspective you seem oh so willing to remain blind to. Your god created a universe of suffering where at least in early term abortions the fetus evades.

Pray on that.

All murders prevent any future, bodily suffering of the victim. That's a poor defense of killing.

 

[quip]

All murders prevent any future, bodily suffering of the victim. That's a poor defense of killing.

I agree.

 

[glassjester]

I agree.

You agreed earlier, too, that there are situations in which a person is morally obligated to preserve the life of another. Your example being that of a security guard thwarting an armed robber.

Is a parent obligated to preserve the life of their child?

 

[quip]

You agreed earlier, too, that there are situations in which a person is morally obligated to preserve the life of another. Your example being that of a security guard thwarting an armed robber.

Is a parent obligated to preserve the life of their child?

Sure.

 

[glassjester]

Sure.

Why?

 

[quip]

Why?

They chose to be parents, their duty is to care for them. :idunno:

Why do you ask?

 

[Eagles Wings]

Simply offering you a perspective you seem oh so willing to remain blind to.

Your god created a universe of suffering where at least in the manner of early term abortions the fetus sufficiently evades.

Pray on that.

Nothing new under the sun, or shade tree!

I shan't cast pearls before swine.

 

[glassjester]

They chose to be parents, their duty is to care for them. :idunno:

Why do you ask?

So what if they chose to be parents? Why does that make the life of their child worth preserving?

 

[quip]

So what if they chose to be parents? Why does that make the life of their child worth preserving?

Good question.
Objectively speaking, is there not inherent worth in children?

Does society put extra moral pressure upon parents in regard to the protection of their children?

Point?

 

[glassjester]

So what if they chose to be parents? Why does that make the life of their child worth preserving?

That may have been unclear. What I mean is, is it the parents' choice that gives the child's life value? Is it the parents' willingness to continue to be parents that makes the child's life worth protecting?

 

[glassjester]

Good question.
Objectively speaking, is there not inherent worth in children?

Yes, I believe there is. But not because they're children. Rather, because they are human. No?

Does society put extra moral pressure upon parents in regard to the protection of their children?

Probably. Is there just cause to do so?

Point?

Is it not apparent?
If we can agree that human life is intrinsically valuable, and worth protecting, and that a parent is morally obligated to protect the life of their child, then the pro-life stance is not too far past the horizon, from your point of view.