Abortion debate.

[qfnol31]

By the way, you're arguing from a Proportionalist point of view. I have a paper that I wrote on it over in the Apologetics Forum.

[Brother Adam]

Alright Phatmasser777 I see you are not a Christian, I misunderstood your profile.

Protecting the santicity of life is never extreme. Almost all Christian groups, except those that dabble in the gravest of heresies understand that life begins at conception. Even many non-Christians groups and athiestic groups believe that a human being is an induvidual at the time of conception. What are your reasons, moral or scientific for declaring that an unborn child is not a child?

And if it is not murder to kill a child inside the womb when someone else is in danger of death, why is it wrong to kill a child for any number of the other reasons you gave?

Edited December 18, 2004 by Brother Adam

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 18 2004, 02:25 PM'] Abortion is murder IF its done for reasons such as:

- I dont want a child
- My BF wont support me, so no point keeping it
- I want a career

Things along those lines.

Its silly to call aborted a baby, to save the mothers life murder, its extremist morality (IE: Ridiculous, and Over-Assertive). [/quote]
ABORTION is the murder of a human being, no matter what excuse you come up with. Intention does't change the definition.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]ABORTION is the murder of a human being, no matter what excuse you come up with. Intention does't change the definition.

[/quote]

Okay anyone who ihas been around for a while knows how I feel about abortion, heck I am the one who believes ( and proved repeatedly) that it is morally permissable to kill doctors who perform abortions or anyone else who participates in the act. However I must contestthe above statement--- intention always is crucial to the definition of Murder, always. If ones intention is to save the life the mother, and ones intention is NOT to Kill the baby but to perform a medical procedure to save her and the slaying of the Baby is accidental to that intention then the abortion is not murder. However if the death of the Baby is directly intentioned even with the joined intention of saving the mother it is murder.

[cmotherofpirl]

"the slaying of the Baby is accidental to that intention then the abortion is not murder."

THis is not an abortion. This is removing a tube, and the baby doesn't survive.

Edited December 19, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Benedict]

I am sure Don John has covered this principle before but I will add it here.

[quote]If ones intention is to save the life the mother, and ones intention is NOT to Kill the baby but to perform a medical procedure to save her and the slaying of the Baby is accidental to that intention then the abortion is not murder.[/quote]

The Principle of the Double Effect: an act that is good (or at least not evil), but that has an evil side effect, may be done only under the following conditions:

1- The good must be willed; the evil must not be willed but tolerated.
2- The good must not be the result of the tolerated evil (good is the direct result of the act; evil is the indirect result).
3- The good must equal or outweigh the evil.
4- There must be a proportionately serious reason to do the act.

Under the conditions necessary for double effect, please present a normative case where saving the life of the mother outweighs the evil of killing the child. I am wondering because I have not heard of one other than ectoptic pregnancy (in which case the child cannot be delivered regardless).

Abortion is right out because it violates the conditions right through.

But is there a case that satisfies the principle of double effect wherein the death of the child is a known consequence (as opposed to an unintentioned or unforeseen accident)?

Edited December 19, 2004 by Benedict

[conservativecatholic]

Even in circumstances of rape, abortion is never the solution! It is not the fault of the baby.

[Dreamweaver]

There have been studies that say that mothers who abort their babies (from rape) suffer more depression and guilt than those who bring the baby to term. Abortion doesn't "get rid" of the violation of rape. It just violates the woman's body a second time. A "safe and legal" mechanical raping. :angry:

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 18 2004, 01:42 PM'] Alright Phatmasser777 I see you are not a Christian, I misunderstood your profile.

Protecting the santicity of life is never extreme. Almost all Christian groups, except those that dabble in the gravest of heresies understand that life begins at conception. Even many non-Christians groups and athiestic groups believe that a human being is an induvidual at the time of conception. What are your reasons, moral or scientific for declaring that an unborn child is not a child?

And if it is not murder to kill a child inside the womb when someone else is in danger of death, why is it wrong to kill a child for any number of the other reasons you gave? [/quote]
I never denied life starts at conception. Im on par with the majority of Catholic belief on abortion.

[quote]What are your reasons, moral or scientific for declaring that an unborn child is not a child?[/quote]

Never stated that, I said: There is a different between an unborn child ([b]NOTICE THE WORD CHILD BEING USED[/b]) and born child.

[quote]And if it is not murder to kill a child inside the womb when someone else is in danger of death, why is it wrong to kill a child for any number of the other reasons you gave?[/quote]

Another dumb scenerio, but Ill answer it. If the mothers life is in danger, she could die for whatever medical reason due to problems with the baby, then it is justified to do everything to save the mothers life, including if need be to abort the child, with the mothers permission of course.

Why is it wrong to kill a child other than abortion? Wow Brilliant reasoning.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 18 2004, 01:55 PM'] ABORTION is the murder of a human being, no matter what excuse you come up with. Intention does't change the definition. [/quote]
yes it does.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 18 2004, 05:33 PM']
Okay anyone who ihas been around for a while knows how I feel about abortion, heck I am the one who believes ( and proved repeatedly) that it is morally permissable to kill doctors who perform abortions or anyone else who participates in the act. However I must contestthe above statement--- intention always is crucial to the definition of Murder, always.  If ones intention is to save the life the mother, and  ones intention is NOT to Kill the baby but to perform a medical procedure to save her and the slaying of the Baby is accidental to that intention then the abortion is not murder. However if the death of the Baby is directly intentioned even with the  joined intention of saving the mother it is murder. [/quote]
I agree.

Edited December 19, 2004 by qfnol31

[Don John of Austria]

Benedict-- Yeah we have been through double effect here before but it's always good to review it, as we constantly get new people and even some of our old timers seem to forget about it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 19 2004, 03:24 AM']

Another dumb scenerio, but Ill answer it. If the mothers life is in danger, she could die for whatever medical reason due to problems with the baby, then it is justified to do everything to save the mothers life, including if need be to abort the child, with the mothers permission of course.

[/quote]
Nope.

One life is not more valuable than another. As a doctor you job is to try to save both.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]I never denied life starts at conception. Im on par with the majority of Catholic belief on abortion.[/quote]

No, you're not. Catholic teaching states that abortion is never acceptable. Read your catechism. If you don't own one, send me your address and I'll mail you one for free.

[quote]Never stated that, I said: There is a different between an unborn child ([b]NOTICE THE WORD CHILD BEING USED[/b]) and born child.[/quote]

Nope, no difference. A life is a life regardless of where the person resides. Infants, born or unborn have committed no actual sin and do not need you or anyone else condemning them to death. BTW, Hitler used the same reasoning you did to murder Jews. He was Catholic.

[quote]Another dumb scenerio, but Ill answer it. If the mothers life is in danger, she could die for whatever medical reason due to problems with the baby, then it is justified to do everything to save the mothers life, including if need be to abort the child, with the mothers permission of course.

Why is it wrong to kill a child other than abortion? Wow Brilliant reasoning.[/quote]

You may be convinced it is a dumb senario, but you're doing a pretty lousy job of coming up with reasons why. You haven't given a decent one yet. It is not permissible to save the mothers life by murdering the child. The doctor must do everything he can to save both. And you are clearly not a mother. If it is murder to kill a baby because it is an inconvenience, it remains murder to kill a baby to try to save the life of another person.

There have been cases recorded in which "medical" staff will take hobos off of the street and do experiments that result in death in order to try to come up with cures to save others. They have murdered the hobos to try to save others.

Edited December 19, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 19 2004, 06:45 AM'] Nope.

One life is not more valuable than another. As a doctor you job is to try to save both. [/quote]
M.D's, Bio-Ethicists, Medi-Ethicists override anything you say or believe. You can keep saying 'nope' all you like, but there are many scenerios where abortion is legitimate, whether you want to recognize that or not has been proven without a doubt already.