Abortion or Murder or just suits our self

I guess at an accident I would have to deal with the injuries on a CASE BY CASE basis. The SAME standard you are decrying about abortion.

How do you propose to help an accident victim without dealing with it based on the circumstances?

Your absolute standard fails when it comes to accident victims.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I guess at an accident I would have to deal with the injuries on a CASE BY CASE basis. The SAME standard you are decrying about abortion.

How do you propose to help an accident victim without dealing with it based on the circumstances?

Your absolute standard fails when it comes to accident victims.

Would you not always assume that the victim may be alive first, then try to render aid, rather than assuming he was dead?

0 Replies

real life, let's see just how moral you really are.

Let's say you are a doctor.

A girl comes to you and says "I'm going to have an abortion. I've seen all your arguments and pictures but I don't care. Either you help me, or I'll do it myself"

Hypothetically given ONLY those two options, what would your answer be?

0 Replies

I once posed a question like this to a fanatical pro-lifer in our family. If abortion is made illegal it will go underground and young women will die. His good Christian response was if they are going to have an abortion they deserve to die.

0 Replies

Yes Xingu, I'm expecting just such an answer. After all, it won't be real life's fault if she dies, it will be hers for getting pregnant. His power to prevent it is to be ignored as irrelevant to the question.

I also expect he'll ask if I would help kill a person to maybe save another person....and he'll ask that by assuming the "is the foetus a person?" question to be a given "yes".

Which makes me wonder why I bother !! Confused

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
I guess at an accident I would have to deal with the injuries on a CASE BY CASE basis. The SAME standard you are decrying about abortion.

How do you propose to help an accident victim without dealing with it based on the circumstances?

Your absolute standard fails when it comes to accident victims.

Would you not always assume that the victim may be alive first, then try to render aid, rather than assuming he was dead?

I would make no assumption. Would you assume they were alive without checking to see? It is on a simple CASE BY CASE basis. YOu examine to see if they are alive just as you examine to see if viable.

If you find an accident with 2 victims would you only treat the first because you assume they are alive and not bother to check?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life, let's see just how moral you really are.

Let's say you are a doctor.

A girl comes to you and says "I'm going to have an abortion. I've seen all your arguments and pictures but I don't care. Either you help me, or I'll do it myself"

Hypothetically given ONLY those two options, what would your answer be?

Another false dichotomy because you would rather deal in fiction than in fact. Not surprising.

Your pretended concern for the 'woman's health' is shown for the hypocritical stance that it is because you show absolutely no concern for the baby girl who dies in an abortion, only that a woman may injure herself attempting something illegal if abortion is prohibited.

Should we legalize robbery, rape and murder lest someone injure themselves while attempting these illegal acts as well? To be consistent you must consider it, because that is exactly the rationale you use.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
I guess at an accident I would have to deal with the injuries on a CASE BY CASE basis. The SAME standard you are decrying about abortion.

How do you propose to help an accident victim without dealing with it based on the circumstances?

Your absolute standard fails when it comes to accident victims.

Would you not always assume that the victim may be alive first, then try to render aid, rather than assuming he was dead?

I would make no assumption. Would you assume they were alive without checking to see? It is on a simple CASE BY CASE basis. YOu examine to see if they are alive just as you examine to see if viable.

If you find an accident with 2 victims would you only treat the first because you assume they are alive and not bother to check?

I would certainly begin to render aid because they MAY be alive, even if I am not certain that they are, or if I am doubtful that they may be yet alive.

I will give them the benefit of the doubt and do everything possible to keep them alive.

It would be ridiculous to say, 'well I am not sure they are alive and it would be quite a burden upon me to go out of my way to do something that may mean nothing. Why should I be under any obligation when no one knows if he is alive or not?'

0 Replies

Just as predicted, rl.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Just as predicted, rl.

Yeah you're quite the prognosticator.

Since I've said numerous times that the child's life should be protected, you correctly 'predicted' that I would not choose to participate in killing him.

You are truly amazing. Ever think of visiting Vegas?

BTW any predictions who the next US president will be? Will he be anti-abortion or will he support abortion?

0 Replies

In your first response, you referred to the putative "baby" as a baby girl. Now you refer to the putative "baby" as "him." We can at least be certain that you are on prognosticator.

0 Replies

Interesting how you would go out of your way to save someone from harm in one case but not in another there real life. It reminds me of the courageous stance GWBush has taken in bringing democracy to Iraq.

You would help ONE person while ignoring the other. You wouldn't care if one is capable of being saved but the one you are trying to save is aleady dead. You are obsessed. (Much like GWBush is obsessed with bringing peace and stability to Iraq.) To save the FIRST person you come to without regard to other injured persons and without regard to which one has the worst injuries or is actually capable of being saved shows a complete disregard for reality. I would assess the injuries and see who needs the most in order to be saved, who can't be saved, and how I can save the most. I would treat accident victims on a case by case basis. Drs would treat them on a case by case basis. You however would only treat the first person regardless of whether they needed it or were already dead. That leaves everyone else that could have been saved to die because of your negligence.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In your first response, you referred to the putative "baby" as a baby girl. Now you refer to the putative "baby" as "him." We can at least be certain that you are on prognosticator.

You're right about that. I've (almost) always guessed wrong. Laughing

The one notable exception involved a friend of my wife. She called after having a sonogram to tell us that it was a girl that was expected.

My wife called across the room to me and I responded that she ought not be too sure. They laughed and joked about 'when was the last time he had a baby yada yada'

She subsequently had 2 more sonograms with the same prediction from each, and the same cautions from yours truly.

She had a baby shower, picked out a girl name and many of the gifts were pink, and monogrammed with the expected girl's initials. None of the stuff looked good on Benjamin.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Interesting how you would go out of your way to save someone from harm in one case but not in another there real life. It reminds me of the courageous stance GWBush has taken in bringing democracy to Iraq.

You would help ONE person while ignoring the other. You wouldn't care if one is capable of being saved but the one you are trying to save is aleady dead. You are obsessed. (Much like GWBush is obsessed with bringing peace and stability to Iraq.) To save the FIRST person you come to without regard to other injured persons and without regard to which one has the worst injuries or is actually capable of being saved shows a complete disregard for reality. I would assess the injuries and see who needs the most in order to be saved, who can't be saved, and how I can save the most. I would treat accident victims on a case by case basis. Drs would treat them on a case by case basis. You however would only treat the first person regardless of whether they needed it or were already dead. That leaves everyone else that could have been saved to die because of your negligence.

You misunderstand my response. I would render aid to both victims, to the best of my ability. I never said I would ignore one. Not sure how you inferred that.

But I would assume that both MAY be alive unless definitive evidence showed otherwise.

0 Replies

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman is always claiming to be the moral superior by painting anti-abortionists as evil people who would force women to go through with their preganancies when they did not want to.

In one of her latest articles she writes:
With superb irony (Gov. Mike) Rounds promised tender care for the women he would force to continue their pregnancies....South Dakota's law would make felons out of doctors who perform nearly any abortion. The government would replace women as moral decision-makers. And it would trump doctors as medical decision-makers.

According to her Gov. Mike Rounds would FORCE women to continue their pregnancies. Take away abortion and you are in effect forcing women to remain pregnant....DUH. Even if nothing is done these woman are still going to be pregnant and whose choice was that? Mike Rounds?
Talking purely about choice and not rape or incest or all those other issues that cloud the abortion debate, does that choice begin only after a woman is pregnant? A new life begins at conception. Once fertilization takes place a new life begins to grow and it just keeps on growing (unless you do something to kill it). There is no FORCING a woman to continue being preganant...she just is.
Ellen Goodman says women should have a choice. So what happened to those women with unwanted pregnancies who were being moral decision-makers. It's not Round's fault or the government's fault that these woman are pregnant as Ms. Goodman would have us believe.
My question to Ellen Goodman is at what point does the woman become responsible for her choices... or doesn't she. Anti-abortionists may seem as though they're taking a hard line, but shouldn't choice making begin before a pregnancy. Churches for years have been trying to get people to make wise choices and sometimes it seems as though they get no respect.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Interesting how you would go out of your way to save someone from harm in one case but not in another there real life. It reminds me of the courageous stance GWBush has taken in bringing democracy to Iraq.

You would help ONE person while ignoring the other. You wouldn't care if one is capable of being saved but the one you are trying to save is aleady dead. You are obsessed. (Much like GWBush is obsessed with bringing peace and stability to Iraq.) To save the FIRST person you come to without regard to other injured persons and without regard to which one has the worst injuries or is actually capable of being saved shows a complete disregard for reality. I would assess the injuries and see who needs the most in order to be saved, who can't be saved, and how I can save the most. I would treat accident victims on a case by case basis. Drs would treat them on a case by case basis. You however would only treat the first person regardless of whether they needed it or were already dead. That leaves everyone else that could have been saved to die because of your negligence.

You misunderstand my response. I would render aid to both victims, to the best of my ability. I never said I would ignore one. Not sure how you inferred that.

But I would assume that both MAY be alive unless definitive evidence showed otherwise.

Oh, so you would make your decision on a case by case basis? That violates your rules.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Interesting how you would go out of your way to save someone from harm in one case but not in another there real life. It reminds me of the courageous stance GWBush has taken in bringing democracy to Iraq.

You would help ONE person while ignoring the other. You wouldn't care if one is capable of being saved but the one you are trying to save is aleady dead. You are obsessed. (Much like GWBush is obsessed with bringing peace and stability to Iraq.) To save the FIRST person you come to without regard to other injured persons and without regard to which one has the worst injuries or is actually capable of being saved shows a complete disregard for reality. I would assess the injuries and see who needs the most in order to be saved, who can't be saved, and how I can save the most. I would treat accident victims on a case by case basis. Drs would treat them on a case by case basis. You however would only treat the first person regardless of whether they needed it or were already dead. That leaves everyone else that could have been saved to die because of your negligence.

You misunderstand my response. I would render aid to both victims, to the best of my ability. I never said I would ignore one. Not sure how you inferred that.

But I would assume that both MAY be alive unless definitive evidence showed otherwise.

Oh, so you would make your decision on a case by case basis? That violates your rules.

No, in EVERY case I would treat the victim(s) as if they MAY be alive and I would render aid. Unless there is definitive evidence that the victim is dead, why would you do otherwise?

Likewise, since you say you are not sure when viability of the unborn occurs , due in part to uncertainty in being able to ascertain the date of conception, why would you not proceed as if the unborn MAY be a living human being, unless you have positive proof that it is not?

0 Replies

Your principles come before your humanity, real life.

To me, it makes you very dangerous, if not simply evil.

0 Replies

Kind of like the old Catholic Church that burned people alive in an effort to save their souls.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Your principles come before your humanity, real life.

To me, it makes you very dangerous, if not simply evil.

Any medical evidence yet to support your view that the unborn is not a living human being, or to show when he does become one?

Or after having sunk to simple name calling and smear tactics, are you content to let your argument rest on them?

0 Replies

Abortion or Murder or just suits our self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know