So, sometimes it’s okay to murder someone so long as you are haven’t “bonded with” or “loved” the victim? Is that what you are asserting?
If a rape victim in her distressed state, decides that killing her attacker’s 3-year-old daughter (whom she had never met) would ease her suffering, would you not condemn her for that either?
I anticipate that you’ll argue that would be wrong because the rapist’s daughter has loving relationships with other people (grandparents, neighbors, etc.) In that case:
If a rape victim, in her distressed state, takes out her aggression by murdering a homeless man with no family nor a friend in the world, would you not condemn her for that either?
Turbo, I find it telling that you think that a rape victim would have 'aggression', isn't it normally trauma and fear?! Do you honestly think that a rape victim would want to have any kind of physical violent contact with anyone after such an event? Please be realistic on this, I am not asking you to condone the plan B drug but just to consider why a woman may take such and to not condemn her as some kind of criminal because of whats just happened to her, you cannot judge someone who has been raped as if they are totally ok, please do not even try, you already know by now that I have a sister who suffered such and I saw the side effects where even going to the corner shop was a trial.....I wish you would see things in context on this and value the already living to the same extent as a fertilised egg....
I don’t “think” that life starts at fertilization, I know it. It is a fact, no matter how many people refuse to recognize it.
Would it be “realistic” to tolerate the slaughter of Jews or the enslavement of blacks because not everyone agrees that Jews and blacks are fully human?
Of course not, although in human history such atrocities have occurred several times because of mindless bigotry unfortunately....and still occur!
Suffering is not limited to the experience of physical pain, and murder is wrong whether or not the victim endures physical pain as he or she is being killed.
Do babies killed by Plan B exist beyond their death. (Do they have an afterlife?)
Can people experience any suffering in the afterlife?
Do murder victims in heaven know that they were murdered?
If yes, what is generally the attitude of murder victims toward their unrepentant murderers?
(This is and open Book test. )
Well wow, you're opening up a whole can of theological worms with this one, do YOU know what happens to babies when they die before they're born? Exactly? :think: Please do share if you do because I haven't exactly come over too many verses that give much indication, obviously on a moral level i believe they will not suffer pointlessly in the afterlife but then again i think the same for any adults and children over a certain age as well - for the same moral reasons.....
Yes, I expect once people have died on the physical plane they will experience suffering to certain degrees - but not without end and with purpose, so....?
Your analogy about murder victims in heaven is a ubjective one and as such I can only give a subjective answer, if the victims are in heaven then they're beyond such things as rage, vengeance and anger IMO....
Yes, you are. Your excuses (so far) include:
(And of course, you also excuse being an accomplice (i.e. abortionist, parent, etc.) in any of these cases.)
- The killer was not thinking clearly, experiencing trauma, shock and/or fear.
- The killer had not bonded or loved her victim.
- Not everyone in the world affirms the personhood of the victim.
- There is some risk to the killer’s life several months from now if she does not kill her baby.
- There is some risk to the mother’s health if she does not kill her baby.
- The baby will not experience physical pain as he or she is being killed.
Wrong, your idea of 'condoning' means not condemning the person in such situations or accepting that any danger to the mother is acceptable for a chance of a life being born no matter what....
Not at all sure. But I am sure that some can. And just because a patient may die, that doesn’t justify killing that patient.
Then what of any cases where it is actually mother or child?
That beats becoming a murderer and wondering if her child might have lived.
She is an 11 year old GIRL, do i really have to copy and paste the dangers that Glenda had already submitted in a related thread of just what they entail? :idunno:
The very word “risk” implies chance, so I suppose it is redundant of me to say “chance of risk.” But you are advocating killing the unborn child before any complications arise, as though being 11 years old is in and of itself a risk even at the early stages of pregnancy. Yet I have shown you many documented cases in which pregnant 11-year-olds managed to bear healthy children without harm to themselves.
At what point exactly is the unborn child suddenly worth protecting?
And just how many documented cases have you shown where the child has lost the baby and in some cases her life too? none - should I go and post some tragic cases which would counteract yours - would you be so cavalier about the pregnant CHILD then?
Earlier you said that from conception a child is fully human and has equal rights, but the above statement contradicts that one.
Isn’t there some risk associated with every pregnancy? (And every abortion, for that matter?)
I've already addressed this Turbo, in these situations BOTH of us have to side with either the unborn or the born, as long as the unborn is of no threat to the mother then it has equal rights, I wish you could be honest enough to admit that when it comes to the crunch you believe that the unborn have priority rights over the born, I don't have a problem with such and wish you would stop trying to deny this....
I’m not talking just about the children of 11-year-olds, but about every child whose slaughter you condone.
Those weren’t stats, they’re actual people who you say could have rightly been killed before they were born.
Wrong, the pivotal point you seem to be missing is 'choice' in these situations, that doesnt make me "pro choice" overall but rather in these cases we're discussing, and in these specific cases then as long as the mother in question was not FORCED but did so willingly even under risk then I have little problem
Which is worse: being injured or becoming a murderer?
What is that “certain age?”
Fill in the blanks:
It should be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child if she is younger that ____ or older than ____.
In younger women the same as the consentual age for sex in the UK - 16, even then I know that several medical opinions on the subject think that it's still too young to safely conceive and it's not advisable....in older women it's normally advisable to become a mother before the menopause for the safest results for both mother and child..
What risks are there at the start?
There are MAJOR risks at the start - either through premature pregnancy or later on. You know this as well as I do......
Whatever the risk, it is not as great as the risk to the baby during an abortion. The risk of death is roughly 100%. (And in those extremely rare cases when the baby has survived an abortion, the abortionist considers it a “failure.”)
As I showed, mine is the same as what’s printed in dictionaries. What’s yours?
This again already is where we can't claim "equal" rights for the unborn, we are either on one side or another, I am 'equal rights' as long as the mother is not affected by a pregnancy where the unborn could seriously harm or kill her, that is where the equal rights go out of the window, and THAT is not withstanding every medical effort for both mother and baby
Yes, and this is why I've already told you that we cannot be completely 'equal rights' on this issue, you fight this because you seem to side on the unborn no matter what... I am honest enough to admit that when the mother's life is in danger from a pregnancy then she should have the CHOICE in what happens next, you do not allow that correct?
[/QUOTE]Regarding your condoning of a starving woman eating her starving child, you wrote:
Yes, you did.
My question was:
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?This was a modification of the question you asked me:
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?Yes, I should have written “kill and eat” for clarity’s sake. But of course I was asking about killing one’s two-year-old. If the child is already dead, then it is not analogous to abortion and the question would be irrelevant.
But you did not misunderstand me. You knew I was asking about killing a child in order to eat. Here you wrote:
Then I said if the only means of survival was for the mother to do this then she would be justified – on the proviso being that both the mother and child are doomed.A child who is “doomed” is not already dead, but is “marked for certain death.” (That is, unless this is another case where your definition of a word is different than what’s in dictionaries.)
Well, I’m glad you’ve come to your senses on this one. :thumb:
So, if you recognize that it is never right to deliberately kill one’s born child, why don’t you believe the same about one’s unborn child, which you have claimed to believe has equal value and rights as anyone who has already born?
I don’t see how that would really help the situation, but I don’t see that as something that should be criminal, either.
But what is done with the remains of someone who died of natural causes has nothing to do with abortion.
They aren’t, and I never suggested otherwise. Sometimes babies die. But that doesn’t justify deliberately killing them.
No. Your question is bogus. There is never a need to cut up or burn or tear apart or stab or lethally inject a baby before removal.
Why can’t you recognize this, yet you are (now) able to recognize that a woman is never justified in killing her toddler in order to eat?
I have answered this already as you may have already noticed in my previous post, in no way would I condone the mother killing her child to survive but I would not condemn her for eating to live like some posters here seem to think is so disgusting for her to survive going by spin off threads from this one, hence the hypothetical going a little further where usually it's there to illustrate a point, and several people have told me that for a mother to eat her own child under any circumstances is forbidden, funnily enough when the hypothetical involves the mother having other children who may be dependant on the mother's survival there's a reticence to answer What say you?