The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

Socrtease said:
It is not a false dilemma. If child one and fetus one have the same exact right to life, then any negligent, careless, or intentional causing of the death of EITHER ONE should carry the same exact punishment. If I am driving a car and I am negligently speeding and I rear end another car killing a six year old in the back seat, I am going to be charged, in most states with negligent homicide. I knew or should have known my actions could cause the death or serious injury of another. Now, if I cause a pregnant woman to miscarry, in most states I will not get charged with negligent homocide. That is an injustice if both fetus and child are equal in their rights.
Click to expand...

If we are to assume that the fetus is a person, then it should be murder if the woman were obviously pregnant and negligent homicide if she weren't.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I agree.....
Click to expand...
And here is where the problem lie. You see no difference between a blastocyst, a zygote or an early trimester fetus and a 6 year old child. There are huge differences. To over come them people of your ilk use images of brains being sucked out, limbs torn apart, etc, from later term much more rare abortions and saddle all abortions with that imagery. The fetus in the post above is 6 weeks in gestation. It feels no pain, it has no self awareness, except for a primitive heart it has no discernible organs, not even a true brain. Even at 13 weeks where 88% of abortions occur, none of those things occur. I have already agreed with you that after 20-24 weeks there should be almost no reason for an abortion. But you worship a zygote, you worship blastocysts. first trimester abortions cause no pain to the fetus. They don't know fear. It is not traumatic. It should remain safe and legal until such time as technology makes it possible to remove the fetus and give it to someone that wants it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But embryos zygotes and fetuses are all human beings.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiight. Consistency is the hobgoblin. I suppose we can say the Constitution is a hobgoblin, as well. Equal justice for all? Ahh, just a bunch of nonsense.

What color is the sky in your world, AssHat?
 
Socrtease said:
You see no difference between a blastocyst, a zygote or an early trimester fetus and a 6 year old child. There are huge differences.
Click to expand...
...how many differences can dance on the head of a pin?......let's be specific, which of the differences makes it right to kill it.....

I can tell you one thing right now, there's no reason to argue about blastocysts and zygotes because no woman is aware she is pregnant at those stages, thus no one is trying to abort them and I'm not really aware of too many trying to abort 6 year olds yet......(not that I doubt liberals secretly hope for a chance)....

let's concentrate on two stages....an unborn full term fetus, one hour before delivery......and a child one hour after birth......under US law a woman has the right to abort the first.......what are the huge differences?......
 
AssHatZombie said:
this is not about about a love of consistency, its about finding a way to dehumanize all babies.
Click to expand...

Declaring embryos and zygotes and fetuses human beings or babies dehumanizes all human beings and babies.

Follow along here. Anti-abortionists claim fetuses are human beings but if the woman has a faulty body the anti-abortionists say it's OK to kill the fetus even though the fetus is not doing anything wrong. In other words even thought the fetus is innocent of any bad behavior if the death of the fetus will prevent grave injury to the mother, due to her faulty body, she is permitted to kill the fetus.

Now let's look at a scenario. A woman and her 10 year old son are in a heritage (old) building in some town. Maybe a lawyer or notary has an office there and the mother is a client.

The building catches fire and the mother and son go out on a balcony as the hallway and stairs are full of smoke. The fire trucks are on the way and they know they'll be rescued by ladder.

Unfortunately, the balcony is in very bad condition. The bolts holding it to the wall have rusted, the lumber has decayed and with the fire raging on the floor below the balcony is starting to come away from the wall.

The mother concludes the balcony will not hold both her son and herself. The weight of her son, 75 pounds approximately, is not helping the situation.

Now, the son isn't doing anything wrong. He's just standing there, however, if the mother pushes her son off the balcony, to his almost certain death, there is a good chance the balcony will hold her until the fire truck arrives.

If a woman is allowed to kill a fetus whom you say is a human being in order to save her own life surely she is allowed to push her son off the balcony, effectively killing him, so she may survive.

Agree?
 
apple0154 said:
Riiiiiight. Consistency is the hobgoblin. I suppose we can say the Constitution is a hobgoblin, as well. Equal justice for all? Ahh, just a bunch of nonsense.

What color is the sky in your world, AssHat?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't understand the Constitution if it sodomized you daily. Bam. you = defeated
 
Southern Man said:
Now you're a douche as well as a dick. "Right to Life" is simply a catch phrase, and doesn't define a position precisely. Only a douche would insist it to mean other than right to innocent human life. Like you, Dick.
Click to expand...

If it means a right to innocent human life then a fetus can never be killed even if the mother will suffer grave damage. Even if there is a possibility she may have a stroke and becomes a vegetable. Keep her alive until the fetus is ready to be born and then "pull the plug."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you admit that they cause death?.......
Click to expand...
Yes they cause mechanistic life to end. They do not end the existence of a person. As to your talking about a child one hour before birth and at birth, there are no abortions done an hour before birth. As to late term abortions, I oppose them. I have yet to see what the reasons are that would make undergoing an abortion at 8 or 9 months that would be any less dangerous to a woman that had special circumstances than giving birth would. But you hanging your hat on those is like me hanging my hat on rape and incest. There is a middle ground here somewhere, just need to find it.
 
RStringfield said:
Someone learned to use the quote feature, almost. Now, if you could just lean to be responsive instead of only blowing hot air.

What did I get wrong? Nothing, my point was that plenty of children are growing up without both parents and that that family structure is not all that stable. The numbers show that. 67% not all married, and many of those will divorce before the child is 18.

Two people of the same sex can't have children, so?

You still have not answered. Your posts have no substance. It's just you making silly boasts and yapping about the chronology (which you make hard to follow) of your empty posts.
Click to expand...



http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=682535&postcount=463

Keep lying and denying, you pathetic clown.
 
Socrtease said:
Yes they cause mechanistic life to end. They do not end the existence of a person. As to your talking about a child one hour before birth and at birth, there are no abortions done an hour before birth. As to late term abortions, I oppose them. I have yet to see what the reasons are that would make undergoing an abortion at 8 or 9 months that would be any less dangerous to a woman that had special circumstances than giving birth would. But you hanging your hat on those is like me hanging my hat on rape and incest. There is a middle ground here somewhere, just need to find it.
Click to expand...

then pick the relevant time........do you oppose abortions on the 147th day but permit them on the 146th?.......what is the difference between a 146 day old fetus and a 147 day old fetus.....what is the change in the unborn child that makes you say "Dayaaam! We shouldn't have done that!".......because I see no event between the moment of conception and the cutting of the umbilical cord that's worth a dayaaam......and if you're hanging your dayaaam on an arbitrary factor then by definition of American constitutional law, you are depriving someone of their right to life unconstitutionally....
 
The Tablet: 'there are grounds for reconsidering the Catholic Church’s present position on abortion'
Blogged by James Preece on 15th June 2010
The 5th June edition of The Tablet attempts to justify abortion.



First Charles E Curran (Professor of Human Values in the Perkins School of Theology at the Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas) writes:

Killing is sometimes accepted in the Catholic tradition as in war and in self-defence. Thus killing thus is not a moral evil (which can never be done), but a “non-moral”, “pre-moral” or “ontic” evil, that can be done if there is a proportionate reason. Saving the life of the mother is a proportionate reason justifying the abortion.

The whole Church, the hierarchical Magisterium and theologians must listen to the Holy Spirit speaking in the lives of Christian people – the sensus fidelium.

In other words, he thinks that killing an innocent baby to save the life of the mother is morally equivalent to killing a man who has picked up a gun and attempted to invade one's country.

The question can be simply answered. If my wife had a deadly disease which could only be cured by killing our toddler (perhaps my wife needs all of her bone marrow and several vital organs) would you say "Saving the life of Ella is a proportionate reason justifying the killing of a three year old girl?"

No. You wouldn't. Because you recognise that my little girl is a person with as much right to life as her mum.

So why do you think it okay to kill an unborn child to save the mother?

Next, Professor Tina Beattie (director of the Digby Stuart Research Centre for Catholic Studies at Roehampton University) writes...

So, a procedure could be performed with the intention of saving a mother’s life which indirectly caused the death of the foetus (for example, by removing the cancerous womb of a pregnant woman), but the direct, intentional killing of the foetus can never be condoned, even to save the mother’s life.

This kind of argument may appeal to those who value moral absolutes over ambiguity, but many of us regard dilemmas such as the one confronting Sr Margaret and her colleagues as being too complex for formulaic judgements.

The intention in this case was not to kill the child but to save the mother, and some may regard the distinction between directly and indirectly destroying the foetus as of little ethical relevance in situations of such tragic complexity.

Those who "value moral absolutes over ambiguity"...

She values ambiguity?

The distinction between directly and indirectly destroying a person is highly relevant. If I drive my car in to a person on purpose it is a very different thing to if I drive my car to work and accidentally hit a person on the way.

Given that in Christian theology the understanding of personhood is fundamentally relational because it bears the image of the Triune God, it is hard to see how an embryo can be deemed a person before even the mother enters into a rudimentary relationship with it.

Human beings are made in the image of God and this image is found in it's fullness in the way human beings relate to one another in love. "Let us make them in our image".

To use the beautiful way in which a human person made in the image of God is fulfilled by loving relationships with other human beings as an excuse to deny the humanity of a child is a disgusting and depraved act of evil.

You haven't met your mother so you are not a person.

This is what it comes to?

Did I mention that this magazine is being sold at the back of Westminster Cathedral under the watchful eye of Archbishop Vincent Nichols?

Who does...

Nothing!

http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2010/06/t...lic-churchs-present-position-on-abortion.html
 
Yeah, two writers on theology, one not even affiliated with a Catholic institution, are going to change the Church's mind on abortion. LOLZ, Asshate.
 
Threedee said:
Yeah, two writers on theology, one not even affiliated with a Catholic institution, are going to change the Church's mind on abortion. LOLZ, Asshate.
Click to expand...



Did I mention that this magazine is being sold at the back of Westminster Cathedral under the watchful eye of Archbishop Vincent Nichols?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top