Abortion.What do you think about it?

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist.

So.... before your argument was that an embryo was an exception because it had it's own DNA but now your argument is that an embryo has an exception because it's human?

I just want to be clear.

Yes I am saying that you are not justified in intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being. That is exactly what I am saying.

real life wrote:

Yes I am saying that you are not justified in intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being. That is exactly what I am saying.

Let me get this straight: you would contend that one is never justified in intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being? So, in the shipwreck example that I gave, you'd contend that the only moral option would be for both of you to drown?

Frankly, I find that rather difficult to believe.

On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Most women base their decision on several factors, the most common being lack of money and/or unreadiness to start or expand their families due to existing responsibilities. Many feel that the most responsible course of action is to wait until their situation is more suited to childrearing; 66% plan to have children when they are older, financially able to provide necessities for them, and/or in a supportive relationship with a partner so their children will have two parents.

Is there any reason why the child should be subject to the death penalty, instead of put up for adoption just because the mother feels that the family isn't financially able (or perceives she isn't) or because it would interfere with career or school?

Let me get this straight: you would contend that one is never justified in intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being? So, in the shipwreck example that I gave, you'd contend that the only moral option would be for both of you to drown?

What about the situation where a pregnant woman's life is in danger, and only an abortion will save her life. In that circumstance, is the moral option to let both the woman and the child die?

Your assumption that both would drown is unwarranted, unless you can foretell the future. The moral thing to do is to expend every effort to save both, and often people have willingly put themselves in greater jeopardy by trying to save another. Isn't that what firemen, police , etc do all the time?

If you saw a person struggling to stay above water in a river, would you opt out of assisting to save yourself? You might. Many others would not.

But abortion is seldom about saving the life of the mother. In that case I do make the exception, but that is far less than 1% of the cases.

Most abortions are done for convenience and you should be well aware of it.

Is there any reason why the child should be subject to the death penalty, instead of put up for adoption just because the mother feels that the family isn't financially able (or perceives she isn't) or because it would interfere with career or school?

Sure. It's the same reason that we don't force people to save someone else's life, even if it would mean a trifling inconvenience for the one and death for the other.

Sure. It's the same reason that we don't force people to save someone else's life, even if it would mean a trifling inconvenience for the one and death for the other.

Let me get this straight: you would make an exception and support abortion in those rare cases where an abortion would save the life of the pregnant woman, correct? And that's so even though the fetus is an "innocent" living human being?

real life wrote:

Your assumption that both would drown is unwarranted, unless you can foretell the future. The moral thing to do is to expend every effort to save both, and often people have willingly put themselves in greater jeopardy by trying to save another. Isn't that what firemen, police , etc do all the time?

Well, I it just so happens that I can foretell the future, at least with regards to my hypothetical. That's the advantage of hypotheticals -- I not only have all the relevant information about the present (or can supply it on a moment's notice), but I also have perfect information about the future.

But it's not necessary to be clairvoyant in order to act morally in that situation. Indeed, no moral theory demands that people have perfect knowledge of the future as a prerequisite to acting. Rather, we are usually comfortable with requiring people to act reasonably, based upon their knowledge and upon all relevant information. So, in my shipwreck example, if you are reasonably certain that both of you will drown if the other swimmer grabs your piece of wood, would you be justified in repelling him, even if you were reasonably certain that doing so would cause him to drown?

real life wrote:

If you saw a person struggling to stay above water in a river, would you opt out of assisting to save yourself? You might. Many others would not.

That's not my hypothetical.

real life wrote:

But abortion is seldom about saving the life of the mother. In that case I do make the exception, but that is far less than 1% of the cases.

Let me get this straight: you would make an exception and support abortion in those rare cases where an abortion would save the life of the pregnant woman, correct? And that's so even though the fetus is an "innocent" living human being?

real life wrote:

Most abortions are done for convenience and you should be well aware of it.

I don't know all of the myriad reasons for women getting abortions, but I'm not interested in those right now. I'm interested in your reasons for opposing them.

real life wrote:

Is there any reason why the child should be subject to the death penalty, instead of put up for adoption just because the mother feels that the family isn't financially able (or perceives she isn't) or because it would interfere with career or school?

Sure. It's the same reason that we don't force people to save someone else's life, even if it would mean a trifling inconvenience for the one and death for the other.

Not talking about passive, nonaction and someone dies as a result.

We're talking about proactive extermination of a living human being.

Do you understand the difference between these?

Good luck--in many other threads, most notably, the "Evolution? How?" thread, "real life" has shown a propensity to dodge tough questions, or any question he does not wish to answer--and to attempt to turn it around, asking questions, and complaining if he doesn't get a prompt answer.

real life wrote:

Not talking about passive, nonaction and someone dies as a result.

We're talking about proactive extermination of a living human being.

Do you understand the difference between these?

I'll be happy to answer your questions, real life, but I expect the same consideration in return, and you've ignored several of my questions from my previous post. For your convenience, I'll repeat them here:

So, in my shipwreck example, if you are [i]reasonably certain[/i] that both of you will drown if the other swimmer grabs your piece of wood, would you be justified in repelling him, even if you were [i]reasonably certain[/i] that doing so would cause him to drown? Let me get this straight: you [i]would[/i] make an exception and support abortion in those rare cases where an abortion would save the life of the pregnant woman, correct? And that's so even though the fetus is an "innocent" living human being?

Once I receive the answers to my questions, I'll respond to yours.

At one point, in the aforementioned thread, and many, many months ago--he asserted that there is circumstantial evidence for a creation as sound as any evidence for evolution, which he asserted only has circumstantial evidence itself. I asked him, literally dozens of times, to provide his circumstantial evidence for a creation. I chased him for many, many pages with the questions. He has never answered the question.

Hi Joe,

I've already said that I consider an abortion to save the mother's life an exception.

And I've already said that I would do everything possible to save both myself and someone else in a shipwreck.

Not talking about passive, nonaction and someone dies as a result.

We're talking about proactive extermination of a living human being.

Do you understand the difference between these?

real life wrote:

Hi Joe,

I've already said that I consider an abortion to save the mother's life an exception.

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that that's your position.

Would you also support abortion in the cases of rape and incest?

real life wrote:

And I've already said that I would do everything possible to save both myself and someone else in a shipwreck.

I have no doubt, and I'm sure that, if at all possible, you'd try to save lots of other shipwreck survivors too. But that wasn't my question. I asked if, under the circumstances I outlined, you would be justified (i.e. morally justified) in repelling the other swimmer. I still await your answer to that question.

But since you've made an attempt at responding to my questions, let me respond to yours:

real life wrote:

Not talking about passive, nonaction and someone dies as a result.

We're talking about proactive extermination of a living human being.

Do you understand the difference between these?

Yes. Not that I necessarily agree with your premise that we're talking about the extermination of a living human being, but yes, I understand the difference.

I've already said that I consider an abortion to save the mother's life an exception.