Abortion to prevent increased suffering

[Kylie]

Have a nice day

You too.

 

[o_mlly]

Ok, lets say abortion is murder, what would you rather do?
1. Prosecute anyone involved in unnecessary abortions, which is likely millions of people.
2. Bring back to life the aborted as if they were never aborted(over 60million) and flood the foster/adoption system, which is already busting at the seems with over 400,000 kids.

To me, both options are not ideal, which is a reason why I'd rather have an option 3. where we let things continue as they have been, where early abortion is legal(not considered murder), but a last resort when all else fails.

If you had to pick 1, 2 or 3, what would it be? Or another option I'm not thinking of?

1. Prosecute anyone involved in a murder, which is likely millions of people. Yes.​

At what lesser number of murders would you decide to call murder illegal?

 

[o_mlly]

I would point out that there fulfilled prophesies in the bible that can be verified by history and used as evidence.

And I would agree. Further, properly understood, the theological truths contained in the bible are eternal.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you not hold the Bible to be authoritative in this case, even if I do not?

If you do not believe the bible is authoritative then is it not hypocritical to refer to it as being authoritative?

 

[o_mlly]

So why can't we say a sperm is Human life? After all, it is alive, isn't it? It is Human, isn't it?

Please read the cited article. Living human tissue is not a human being. Do you murder another when you cut off your finger nails?

 

[Chriliman]

How's this for an option you are not thinking of:
Not 1: You can’t prosecute anyone who had abortions while they were legal
Not 2: You can’t bring back to life those aborted because it’s impossible
Not 3: Don’t continue doing as have been, that’s what they are complaining about!
But 4: Immediately make it illegal, and prosecute anyone who has abortions from now on

That is a possible solution, but it still comes with the problem of an influx of possibly millions of kids(over time) who’s parents don’t want them(assuming less abortions take place), further burdening the foster/adoption system.

 

[Chriliman]

1. Prosecute anyone involved in a murder, which is likely millions of people. Yes.​

At what lesser number of murders would you decide to call murder illegal?

Ok, but take a look at reality, why isn’t anyone being prosecuted for what you seem to think is clearly murder? Could it be that the issue is far more nuanced and complex and not so black and white?

One things for certain, simply accusing people of murder isn’t enough to solve the problem.

 

[o_mlly]

Ok, but take a look at reality, why isn’t anyone being prosecuted for what you seem to think is clearly murder?

The question is why do you think it is not murder? Science tells us that a human being's life begins at fertilization. If abortion advocates argue that one may murder underdeveloped human beings then at what age is a human being sufficiently developed to avoid being murdered, 8 years, 12 years, 35 years?

Could it be that the issue is far more nuanced and complex and not so black and white?

No. It's clearly the willful killing of an innocent human being, i.e., murder.

One things for certain, simply accusing people of murder isn’t enough to solve the problem.

Probably not. But prosecuting and punishing those who participate will certainly help.

 

[Saucy]

Blind post here:

I don't think we should kill any life just because they *might* face a difficult time. We have no idea what the outcome of their life would be. None. That's like saying we should just kill every baby who might be born with some kind of disability. Or that might be black. Or __________________ insert whatever thing you want on that list. It's still morally wrong.

There are several instances I know of where women were told to abort their child because something was really wrong. They chose not to. One of them grew up to be a perfectly healthy Tim Tebow.

As for the number of foster kids out there, I personally know a couple who got into fostering. They wanted to adopt first, but there was a line of over a million people ahead of them waiting to adopt. Adoption is a very expensive, long process. There are more than enough people ready and willing to do it.

 

[Chriliman]

The question is why do you think it is not murder? Science tells us that a human being's life begins at fertilization. If abortion advocates argue that one may murder underdeveloped human beings then at what age is a human being sufficiently developed to avoid being murdered, 8 years, 12 years, 35 years?

Did you see my post about IVF fertilizing over 70% of eggs, meaning mass murder?

My point is we need to either get serious about prosecuting IVF mass murderers and abortionist or define what murder is in a more meaningful way, which I outlined as capable of consciousness, suffering, and viability. The only human beings that fit that criteria are zygotes less that 12weeks and possibly brain dead, coma people on life support.

Which is another question I wanted to ask, when’s it ok to take someone who’s in a persistent vegetative state off life support to let them die? What if the family doesn’t want to pay the medical bills to keep them alive, is that murder?

Or an understandable situation where ending the life makes sense?

 

[Kylie]

If you do not believe the bible is authoritative then is it not hypocritical to refer to it as being authoritative?

Nope.

By this logic, a Christian debating an atheist should be confined to using nothing but the Bible. See the problem there?

If a Christian can use science they disagree with to argue against an atheist, then an atheist can use a Bible she doesn't believe in to argue against a Christian.

 

[Ken-1122]

That is a possible solution, but it still comes with the problem of an influx of possibly millions of kids(over time) who’s parents don’t want them(assuming less abortions take place), further burdening the foster/adoption system.

So you say need abortions in order to prevent the foster/adoption system from getting too full? Is that the best case you can make for abortion? You can't do any better than that?

 

[Kylie]

Please read the cited article. Living human tissue is not a human being. Do you murder another when you cut off your finger nails?

I read it. It's little more than an opinion piece. It describes no research. It's the authors writing a paper about their opinions and citing others as well

 

[Chriliman]

So you say need abortions in order to prevent the foster/adoption system from getting too full? Is that the best case you can make for abortion? You can't do any better than that?

Honestly, I’d prefer there be no abortions, but if there must be some, I’m trying to define when it’s murder and when it’s not.

Less suffering and burden on humanity is merely a side effect of justifiable abortions and/or more responsible/intentional reproduction.

 

[o_mlly]

Did you see my post about IVF fertilizing over 70% of eggs, meaning mass murder?

If the post did not respond to me then I most likely skipped it. IVF -- the unnatural manipulation of sperm and ovum so as to be make human beings in a laboratory test tube -- is anathema. New thread needed.

Which is another question I wanted to ask, when’s it ok to take someone who’s in a persistent vegetative state off life support to let them die?

The use of extraordinary means to sustain life are not morally required. There is a difference between killing and letting die. New thread needed.

 

[o_mlly]

By this logic, a Christian debating an atheist should be confined to using nothing but the Bible. See the problem there?

Nope.

If a Christian can use science they disagree with ...

Why would anyone, let alone a Christian, do such hypocritical thing? Do you know someone who cites as authoritative that which they do not believe is true?

I read it. It's little more than an opinion piece. It describes no research. It's the authors writing a paper about their opinions and citing others as well

Well, three possible conclusions: 1) didn't really read the article, 2) didn't understand the science, or 3) a science-denier.

 

[Larniavc]

It does not make sense that I would feel pain at the loss of a loved one?

I do find it a puzzler. From your perspective they are merely in another place, happier than they ever could be alive. You should be joyous.

From my perspective I’m never going to see my Nan, grandad and father again. Which has to be more impactful than your perspective.

 

[Chriliman]

If the post did not respond to me then I most likely skipped it. IVF -- the unnatural manipulation of sperm and ovum so as to be make human beings in a laboratory test tube -- is anathema. New thread needed.

The use of extraordinary means to sustain life are not morally required. There is a difference between killing and letting die. New thread needed.

But there may be cases where it’s better to kill and end the suffering rather than let them die naturally and suffer a long agonizing death. I say that to try and illustrate the complex morality surrounding these issues in order to encourage more thoughtful discourse and less black and white thinking.

 

[o_mlly]

But there may be cases where it’s better to kill ...

Do you mean "murder"? No. The direct killing of an innocent human being is always and everywhere evil.

... and end the suffering rather than let them die naturally and suffer a long agonizing death.

Palliative care for the terminally ill can manages much of the suffering. New thread?

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you mean "murder"? No. The direct killing of an innocent human being is always and everywhere evil.

Innocent is a term that varies from time to time, place to place. Remember; during NAZI Germany, all of those people who died in the Concentration camps? The monsters who killed them were innocent under the law of the land.