When is abortion acceptable?

[Epiphoskei]

If it helps someone, it is. The question is merely “what does it cost?” If it ends the suffering of a dying patient or saves the life of another who would have died, it is medicine. Pure and simple.

This isn't uncontested either. The view that it is ethical to "end suffering" without the express consent of the suffering one is precicely what so many have been fighting against recently.

This isn't obeying a Do Not Recussitate order, this is euthanasia- hardly universally accepted "medicine."

 

[StTherese]

Simple: heart conditions. I know a woman in real life with a genetic heart defect that would have threatened her life had she not found out before getting pregnant (she now must avoid pregnancy due to this heart problem). Her brother had the same heart defect and died while playing a little league baseball game due to overexerting himself.

That would still not justify killing an innocent child. If she found out after the fact, she should put her life in the hands of a merciful God and pray that His Will be done!

You're avoiding the question again and I'm unamused. We must examine each case individually. Deformation is one thing; a fatal disease is quite another. Don't be so naive in supposing they're all the same.

Death is inevitable for us all...so are you saying none of us should ever be born since we are going to die anyway sooner or later???

I never supposed otherwise, but that wasn’t your argument. Your argument was that we shouldn’t interfere with God’s will and just “let things happen” as it were. Your appeal to divine providence has miserably failed if you’re still affirming medicine and saving lives by intervening as things we ought to do.

How do you know that it wasn't God who gave man the knowledge to be able to use medicine to save lives? Medicine can be used for good or it can be used for evil...just like any thing else.

 

[Jedi]

This isn't uncontested either. The view that it is ethical to "end suffering" without the express consent of the suffering one is precicely what so many have been fighting against recently.

I think this would be a discussion all in itself, but suffice it to say “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If my fate was sealed and I could either choose prolonged misery or a quick death, there’s hardly a choice to make.

That would still not justify killing an innocent child. If she found out after the fact, she should put her life in the hands of a merciful God and pray that His Will be done!

Excuse me? Since when did the life of an unborn child trump the life of the mother? Since when did it become sensible to trust God to do what He never promised to do (in this case, to take care of our health in this life)? Further still, it may be the case that both the life of the mother AND child are in peril if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. Do you mean to condemn both to death instead of just one? I’m sorry, but this whole “leave it to God” business is just as senseless as condemning all medicine altogether by reason that we should just trust God.

Death is inevitable for us all...so are you saying none of us should ever be born since we are going to die anyway sooner or later???

No, this is a matter of imminent death for the child. Why sacrifice the mother’s life, which would almost certainly be longer than the child’s even if it was not aborted? There’s no sense in that: you have chosen the lesser life over the greater one. We should give the life that has the most potential for quality and quantity the most care. To do otherwise would be senseless at best and immoral at worst.

How do you know that it wasn't God who gave man the knowledge to be able to use medicine to save lives? Medicine can be used for good or it can be used for evil...just like any thing else.

That’s great, but it wasn’t my point. I merely showed how this “You shouldn’t interfere, just trust God” business just doesn’t match up with practical living. Such an ideal would have us rejecting everything from medicine to help from others. “Don’t help – let God’s will be done!” It’s pure poppycock. People are appealing to guarantees God never made.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I think this would be a discussion all in itself, but suffice it to say “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If my fate was sealed and I could either choose prolonged misery or a quick death, there’s hardly a choice to make.

You are free to want that for yourself, but be aware that there are those who think you're nuts, and would call you their murderer if you euthanized them becaue you were doing unto them what you would have wanted in their place. You're not in their place.

Excuse me? Since when did the life of an unborn child trump the life of the mother?

There is no reason under heaven to object to any abortion whatosever if not that the child is a human equal to all other human beings as regards right to life. The unborn child is the mothers' equal, or nothing at all. There is no reasonable middle ground.

 

[jad123]

All this thread has done is shown how pathetic of a world we live in. There is a song by Mercy Me called "While you were sleeping" that sums things up fairly well.

"As were sung to sleep by philosophies that save the trees and kill the children."

 

[Jedi]

You are free to want that for yourself, but be aware that there are those who think you're nuts, and would call you their murderer if you euthanized them becaue you were doing unto them what you would have wanted in their place. You're not in their place.

This could be said of any situation to counter the words of Christ and render His teaching utterly useless. What kind of sane man would want a slow, agonizing death over a quick one? The fact is in this situation, the choice is not theirs but ours and we have to make the best choice possible based on a general rule of what is and is not in their best interest.

There is no reason under heaven to object to any abortion whatosever if not that the child is a human equal to all other human beings as regards right to life. The unborn child is the mothers' equal, or nothing at all. There is no reasonable middle ground.

This is untrue. People may object to abortion on grounds of mere inconvenience because the life of the unborn child is worth more than the mother’s convenience. This is not the same as saying the unborn child and the mother herself are the same value. Further still, a person has the basic animal right to defend herself against a threat, whether external or internal. Who are you to take away that right? If a developing child threatens the life of its host (the mother), the host has a right to defend herself. I suppose you might say the same principle applies to the child and you’re right. Very well then, let each party do all they can to exercise their right to defend and be content with the result. Perhaps we could even call it “the will of God.”

All this thread has done is shown how pathetic of a world we live in. There is a song by Mercy Me called "While you were sleeping" that sums things up fairly well.

"As were sung to sleep by philosophies that save the trees and kill the children."

More emotional garbage void of any intellectual value. Good job at continuing to avoid my inquires and just point the finger of condemnation instead. You’re exemplary of ignorant piety in doing so.

 

[jad123]

This could be said of any situation to counter the words of Christ and render His teaching utterly useless. What kind of sane man would want a slow, agonizing death over a quick one? The fact is in this situation, the choice is not theirs but ours and we have to make the best choice possible based on a general rule of what is and is not in their best interest.



This is untrue. People may object to abortion on grounds of mere inconvenience because the life of the unborn child is worth more than the mother’s convenience. This is not the same as saying the unborn child and the mother herself are the same value. Further still, a person has the basic animal right to defend herself against a threat, whether external or internal. Who are you to take away that right? If a developing child threatens the life of its host (the mother), the host has a right to defend herself. I suppose you might say the same principle applies to the child and you’re right. Very well then, let each party do all they can to exercise their right to defend and be content with the result. Perhaps we could even call it “the will of God.”



More emotional garbage void of any intellectual value. Good job at continuing to avoid my inquires and just point the finger of condemnation instead. You’re exemplary of ignorant piety in doing so.

So I'm ignorant? Killing children is emotional to me. Actually there is a lot of truth in that line of the song. There is NO logic in your arguments. I believe abortion is wrong in all cases. It is the murder of an innocent child. If you do not agree so be it. I could care less how you justify your sins. I do not believe abortion is comparable to medication, what don't you understand about it. I will never add more value to one life over another.

 

[Jedi]

So I'm ignorant?

You've demonstrated a willful blindness to exceptions to your general rule against killing. Call that what you wish.

Killing children is emotional to me.

Be that as it may, emotion alone will get you nowhere.

There is NO logic in your arguments.

You apparently haven't read my posts, then. Evidence to this fact is your constant failure to respond to my questions and points. You only retort with cliche anti-abortionist, emotional tripe.

It is the murder of an innocent child.

Once again, you completely neglect the fact that killing may be an obligatory means to a higher good. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. The sooner you learn that, the better.

If you do not agree so be it. I could care less how you justify your sins.

I love this. You not only get all self-righteous again, feeling vindicated merely by pointing the finger of condemnation at someone else, but you suppose I have somehow committed what I am defending. Good going, buddy.

I will never add more value to one life over another.

On the contrary, you have done this very thing by condemning abortion in all cases. You have raised the life of the child above the life of the mother, condemning the latter to death by negligence in all cases. You are just as guilty of killing, then, as those who condone abortion to save the life of the mother. Whether by action or neglect, we have the power to kill or save. Do not be so naive as to think that killing must only be active; neglect can be just as deadly.

 

[jad123]

You've demonstrated a willful blindness to exceptions to your general rule against killing. Call that what you wish.

Murder is the willful killing of an innocent person. It is you who is blinded.

Be that as it may, emotion alone will get you nowhere.

Agree. Your point is what? I disagree with your examples and you call me ignorant and that I am acting out on emotion alone.

You apparently haven't read my posts, then. Evidence to this fact is your constant failure to respond to my questions and points. You only retort with cliche anti-abortionist, emotional tripe.

I have read your posts. The problem you have is I and many others here disagree with you. Your exceptions are not worthy of discussion. I like you do not believe it is a case by case basis. You want to to argue what if this and what if that. I answered you. What if the mothers life is in danger (which happens less than 3% of the time) then I choose to leave that to God and I will add medicine which I do not find abortion to be. What if the child has a disease? Well lets give the child a fighting chance, between prayer and modern medicine. Good grief what if what if what if what if what if.

Once again, you completely neglect the fact that killing may be an obligatory means to a higher good. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. The sooner you learn that, the better.

Murder is the willful killing of an innocent person. You seem lost that this is MY opinion and one I feel very comfortable standing in front of God with. I see no higher good in killing an innocent child who has NEVER been given the opportunity to fight for life.

I love this. You not only get all self-righteous again, feeling vindicated merely by pointing the finger of condemnation at someone else, but you suppose I have somehow committed what I am defending. Good going, buddy.

It is not self-righteousness. It condemning someones sin. I expect my brothers and sisters to hold me accountable to my sins and wayward thinking as well.

On the contrary, you have done this very thing by condemning abortion in all cases. You have raised the life of the child above the life of the mother, condemning the latter to death by negligence in all cases. You are just as guilty of killing, then, as those who condone abortion to save the life of the mother. Whether by action or neglect, we have the power to kill or save. Do not be so naive as to think that killing must only be active; neglect can be just as deadly.

Wrong. I have placed their lives on an equal plane. Giving both an equal chance to live or die via God's will and via medicine. It is you who are blinded by your ego and by modern day society.

Have a nice life!

 

[Jedi]

Murder is the willful killing of an innocent person. It is you who is blinded.

Again, you’re misunderstanding what murder is. The willful killing of an innocent person does not necessitate a charge of murder, as that willful killing could very well have been an obligatory means to a higher end. Why you continue to blind yourself to this fact eludes me. Refer to the fat man stuck in the cave hole scenario as an illustration of this truth.

Only if you kill a person to bring yourself satisfaction in spite of other alternatives is it murder.

Agree. Your point is what? I disagree with your examples and you call me ignorant and that I am acting out on emotion alone.

Look at your posts and you'll see that’s precisely what you’ve done. You continually fail to respond to my questions and exceptions that clearly illustrate how your “zero tolerance” policy on abortion is flawed. Instead, you merely respond with emotional words void of any intellectual value.

I have read your posts. The problem you have is I and many others here disagree with you.

Then explain how. Disagreeing without responding to my points or answering my questions will get you nowhere.

Your exceptions are not worthy of discussion.

They certainly are, as they show how your zero tolerance policy on abortion is insufficient. You check your brain in at the door and follow the ideal of “no abortion ever,” which allows for atrocities to be committed in certain circumstances.

I like you do not believe it is a case by case basis. You want to to argue what if this and what if that. I answered you.

Where did you ever respond to my scenarios? Post number, please.

What if the mothers life is in danger (which happens less than 3% of the time) then I choose to leave that to God and I will add medicine which I do not find abortion to be.

Then you have condemned the mother to death, refusing her the basic right to defend herself and survive. This “leave it to God” business, as I’ve explained, is folly concerning medical matters. If a woman’s life is in danger, she has the right to defend herself against the cause, which in this case would be abortion. Who are you to deny her this right?

What if the child has a disease? Well lets give the child a fighting chance, between prayer and modern medicine.

If the child is terminally ill, medicine won’t save it. Indeed, in a case like German Measles, the child will suffer incredibly for the couple months it is able to survive on machines, at great financial expense to the parents. And for what? To prolong the child’s misery? How can you live with yourself?

Good grief what if what if what if what if what if.

This is moral philosophy, pal. If you’re too lazy to consider all the options, don’t bother posting in this discussion.

Murder is the willful killing of an innocent person. You seem lost that this is MY opinion and one I feel very comfortable standing in front of God with.

I don’t care about how you feel. Right and wrong aren’t dictated by our feelings. I’m concerned with what is true and you have given no reason to back the claim that all killing is murder (in which case, God commanded His people to break His own commandment by instructing them to kill countless people).

I see no higher good in killing an innocent child who has NEVER been given the opportunity to fight for life.

Saving the life of the mother pops into mind real quick. Why save a terminally ill child with little capacity for either quality or quantity of life over an otherwise healthy woman who has a significant capacity for both quality and quantity of life? Why would you choose to save the lesser life?

It is not self-righteousness. It condemning someones sin. I expect my brothers and sisters to hold me accountable to my sins and wayward thinking as well.

It is self-righteousness. We are here to discuss the morality of abortion. Thus it is in appropriate for you to start shouting “sinners!” to the other party. We are here to discuss, not shout our conclusions at each other in pious condemnation.

Wrong. I have placed their lives on an equal plane. Giving both an equal chance to live or die via God's will and via medicine.

Incorrect. You have condemned abortion in all cases, thus condemning the mother if her life is in danger, telling her that she should die so that the infant may live, even if that infant is mortally ill and will live only a couple months in agony on machines. That is what you are preaching and I find it abhorrent. Again, who are you to tell a woman she cannot defend herself when her life is in danger? Like I said before, both the infant and the mother have the same right to self-defense and both are mutually exclusive: if one dies, the other lives (at least for a while). If this is so, then let the battle of defenses be between them and be content with the outcome. We might even call this “the will of God.”

 

[jad123]

Again, you’re misunderstanding what murder is. The willful killing of an innocent person does not necessitate a charge of murder, as that willful killing could very well have been an obligatory means to a higher end. Why you continue to blind yourself to this fact eludes me. Refer to the fat man stuck in the cave hole scenario as an illustration of this truth.

Only if you kill a person to bring yourself satisfaction in spite of other alternatives is it murder.



Look at your posts and you'll see that’s precisely what you’ve done. You continually fail to respond to my questions and exceptions that clearly illustrate how your “zero tolerance” policy on abortion is flawed. Instead, you merely respond with emotional words void of any intellectual value.



Then explain how. Disagreeing without responding to my points or answering my questions will get you nowhere.



They certainly are, as they show how your zero tolerance policy on abortion is insufficient. You check your brain in at the door and follow the ideal of “no abortion ever,” which allows for atrocities to be committed in certain circumstances.



Where did you ever respond to my scenarios? Post number, please.



Then you have condemned the mother to death, refusing her the basic right to defend herself and survive. This “leave it to God” business, as I’ve explained, is folly concerning medical matters. If a woman’s life is in danger, she has the right to defend herself against the cause, which in this case would be abortion. Who are you to deny her this right?



If the child is terminally ill, medicine won’t save it. Indeed, in a case like German Measles, the child will suffer incredibly for the couple months it is able to survive on machines, at great financial expense to the parents. And for what? To prolong the child’s misery? How can you live with yourself?



This is moral philosophy, pal. If you’re too lazy to consider all the options, don’t bother posting in this discussion.



I don’t care about how you feel. Right and wrong aren’t dictated by our feelings. I’m concerned with what is true and you have given no reason to back the claim that all killing is murder (in which case, God commanded His people to break His own commandment by instructing them to kill countless people).



Saving the life of the mother pops into mind real quick. Why save a terminally ill child with little capacity for either quality or quantity of life over an otherwise healthy woman who has a significant capacity for both quality and quantity of life? Why would you choose to save the lesser life?



It is self-righteousness. We are here to discuss the morality of abortion. Thus it is in appropriate for you to start shouting “sinners!” to the other party. We are here to discuss, not shout our conclusions at each other in pious condemnation.



Incorrect. You have condemned abortion in all cases, thus condemning the mother if her life is in danger, telling her that she should die so that the infant may live, even if that infant is mortally ill and will live only a couple months in agony on machines. That is what you are preaching and I find it abhorrent. Again, who are you to tell a woman she cannot defend herself when her life is in danger? Like I said before, both the infant and the mother have the same right to self-defense and both are mutually exclusive: if one dies, the other lives (at least for a while). If this is so, then let the battle of defenses be between them and be content with the outcome. We might even call this “the will of God.”

Jedi, May God bless you and I pray that one day as you grow in faith and age that you will come to realize there is no "lesser" life as you put it. This is where the differences truly lie. I answered the OP very simply Never. And as I said, I do not think your continuous what if scenarios are worth the time. I am sorry you do agree with me on that and I am sure you will say that I am ignorant because I am not going to continue with the what if debate. Life is is full of black and white and shades of gray. I strongly believe that abortion is a black or white issue. For me it is and I will be happy to face the Lord with that opinion. Good day Jedi.

 

[Jedi]

I pray that one day as you grow in faith and age that you will come to realize there is no "lesser" life as you put it.

Take what I said into context. When I say "lesser" I do not mean "of lesser inherent value;" instead, I mean "of lesser capacity for quality and quantity of life." That, my friend, is relatively easy to measure and should certainly be considered in trying to decide which life to save.

And as I said, I do not think your continuous what if scenarios are worth the time.

And as I said, you're gravely mistaken, as those situation punch holes in your zero tolerance policy concerning abortion. If you ignore those holes, your ship is doomed to sink.

 

[Epiphoskei]

This could be said of any situation to counter the words of Christ and render His teaching utterly useless. What kind of sane man would want a slow, agonizing death over a quick one? The fact is in this situation, the choice is not theirs but ours and we have to make the best choice possible based on a general rule of what is and is not in their best interest.

...no, this really can only be said of situations where you're killing people. People don't want to be killed without their permission, and saying they're insane for it doesn't change it.

This is untrue. People may object to abortion on grounds of mere inconvenience because the life of the unborn child is worth more than the mother’s convenience. This is not the same as saying the unborn child and the mother herself are the same value. Further still, a person has the basic animal right to defend herself against a threat, whether external or internal. Who are you to take away that right? If a developing child threatens the life of its host (the mother), the host has a right to defend herself. I suppose you might say the same principle applies to the child and you’re right. Very well then, let each party do all they can to exercise their right to defend and be content with the result. Perhaps we could even call it “the will of God.”

The point is that there is no justification for believing that the unborn child is of medium-worth, for lack of a better term. People might object on other reasons, but they're wrong to do so. It is a human being with equal human rights, or it is not a human being and had no such rights at all. There is no grey area in issues of human rights- you have them or you don't.

 

[Jedi]

...no, this really can only be said of situations where you're killing people.

Untrue. You’re merely appealing to doing something against a person’s will but in accordance to your will if you were in their place. Examples could range from Euthanasia to curing a man of a disease when he hopes to die to ANYTHING you would want in a person’s place but that the person does not want for themselves.

What we must consider in the case of abortion is that the child’s wishes are not known. Thus “do unto others as you would want them to do unto you” seems to be the best philosophy to rely on. Further still, I ask you again: who in their right mind would prefer a slow, agonizing death over a quick one? The fact that we ought to do unto others as we would have them do unto us AND people would rather have a quick death than a slower, more painful one merits euthanasia for a terminally ill patient that cannot make its wishes known.

The point is that there is no justification for believing that the unborn child is of medium-worth, for lack of a better term.

If you don’t mind, I’m just going to copy & paste what I wrote to Jad earlier:

“Take what I said into context. When I say "lesser" I do not mean "of lesser inherent value;" instead, I mean "of lesser capacity for quality and quantity of life." That, my friend, is relatively easy to measure and should certainly be considered in trying to decide which life to save.”

If we must make a choice between two people, why would we save the one with the least capacity for quantity and quality of life? It would be senseless at best and immoral at worst.

People might object on other reasons, but they're wrong to do so.

Haha, this just made me chuckle. “You people might appeal to reasons but you’re already wrong before you do!” So much for listening to what others have to say, huh?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Untrue. You’re merely appealing to doing something against a person’s will but in accordance to your will if you were in their place. Examples could range from Euthanasia to curing a man of a disease when he hopes to die to ANYTHING you would want in a person’s place but that the person does not want for themselves.

The thing being done has to not be a sin first. Two consenting adults having sex outside of marriage technically is doing unto others, but it's still. You see, on the flip side, you can do anything you want and think Jesus is endorsing it as long as you have "good intentions."

What we must consider in the case of abortion is that the child’s wishes are not known. Thus “do unto others as you would want them to do unto you” seems to be the best philosophy to rely on. Further still, I ask you again: who in their right mind would prefer a slow, agonizing death over a quick one? The fact that we ought to do unto others as we would have them do unto us AND people would rather have a quick death than a slower, more painful one merits euthanasia for a terminally ill patient that cannot make its wishes known.

Me, for one. I would be opposed to extrordinary means, but so help me if America ever allowed real euthanasia of people who can continue living on their own until death of natural causes, I would go straight out to a notary public and get thousands of documents saying "You Shall Not Euthanise Me!" Calling us insane for it isn't a reasonable counter-argument

Haha, this just made me chuckle. “You people might appeal to reasons but you’re already wrong before you do!” So much for listening to what others have to say, huh?

Nonsense. If a person says that there is a difference, some sort of gradiation in right to life, their reasons are wrong outright. Human rights are human rights. Either there is no basis for them and noone has any right to live at all, or they derive from God, who did not instruct us to gradiate them. Men's reason and ration are not able to supercede revealed command.

 

[cookiebaker]

the idea that any segment of society should die for some imagined 'higher good is playing God with people's lives..

this statement is chilling...I'm sure it's meant well, but it sounds like the road in early 1940's Germany.... others with more power deciding on whom is worthy of living....its an insidious mentality that creeps in and along into society, even the church, like trailing vines of poison ivy

 

[Jedi]

The thing being done has to not be a sin first.

Granted, but no one has even come close to demonstrating that euthanasia is inherently sinful.

Me, for one.

Are you serious? You would rather a long, miserable death instead of a quick one? You’d rather have the executioner take 4-5 whacks with a sword to behead you than just one so that you might live a bit longer? You know, of course, that masochists are the minority, and to appeal to a minority in determining what a voiceless person might want is irrational.

I somehow doubt you would hold on to your anti-euthanasia ideal if you were actually in agony with some terminal ailment. There are miseries worse than death and the sooner you realize that, the better.

Nonsense. If a person says that there is a difference, some sort of gradiation in right to life, their reasons are wrong outright.

This is terrible argumentation, as you’re begging the question that a premise is true no matter what argument someone else may have to offer. You have put blinders on to anything anyone might say, even if it’s the most accurate point in the world you haven’t considered.

Human rights are human rights. Either there is no basis for them and noone has any right to live at all, or they derive from God, who did not instruct us to gradiate them.

I’m just going to copy and paste what I wrote earlier. This will be the third time. Maybe someone will read it this time: “Take what I said into context. When I say "lesser" I do not mean "of lesser inherent value;" instead, I mean "of lesser capacity for quality and quantity of life." That, my friend, is relatively easy to measure and should certainly be considered in trying to decide which life to save.”

Again, if we must make a choice between two people, why would we save the one with the least capacity for quantity and quality of life? It would be senseless at best and immoral at worst.

the idea that any segment of society should die for some imagined 'higher good is playing God with people's lives..

So no one should die for the cause of Christ? That’s a “higher good” that supersedes human life. No one should die to secure our nation’s freedom? You’ve just spit on every soldier that gave you the right to say what you did. I’m sorry, but quantity of life is not the highest good we can pursue; not by a long shot.

 

[cookiebaker]

Jedi,

sorry that you misunderstood my posting. NOwhere did I say anything about soldiers, or evangelism or martyrdom.

It's apples and oranges to compare a man who decides he wants to defend our freedom, to somebody else deeming that he should die. Two different, totally seperate scenarios.

Of course there are principles, such as securing freedom that are worthy of standing next to, even to death...that has nothing to do with person A, saying person B, should die....the former is a person taking a stand for a principle, they are not dying for the end result, they are dying to uphold for example, freedom. The latter example is somebody deciding whether another should live or not,and is the end result. In other words the means to freedom sometimes entails men dying on tghe battlefield...or police officers protecting citiziens, etc. The former has to do with bravery, and giving freedom...the latter has to do with taking away of freedom..

 

[Epiphoskei]

Are you serious? You would rather a long, miserable death instead of a quick one? You’d rather have the executioner take 4-5 whacks with a sword to behead you than just one so that you might live a bit longer? You know, of course, that masochists are the minority, and to appeal to a minority in determining what a voiceless person might want is irrational.

I somehow doubt you would hold on to your anti-euthanasia ideal if you were actually in agony with some terminal ailment. There are miseries worse than death and the sooner you realize that, the better.

Yes, mocking me is a convincing argument...

This is terrible argumentation, as you’re begging the question that a premise is true no matter what argument someone else may have to offer. You have put blinders on to anything anyone might say, even if it’s the most accurate point in the world you haven’t considered.

...sort of. I am denying any other source of authoritative truth, which as a Christian I am entitled to do. In issues of morality, people can't just fly in with whatever they please to argue, they have to take from authoritative sources.

I’m just going to copy and paste what I wrote earlier. This will be the third time. Maybe someone will read it this time: “Take what I said into context. When I say "lesser" I do not mean "of lesser inherent value;" instead, I mean "of lesser capacity for quality and quantity of life." That, my friend, is relatively easy to measure and should certainly be considered in trying to decide which life to save.”

Again, if we must make a choice between two people, why would we save the one with the least capacity for quantity and quality of life? It would be senseless at best and immoral at worst.

Because quality and quantity of life do not affect right to live. Does an autistic fully paralyzed man have less right to live than a fully healthy one?

So no one should die for the cause of Christ? That’s a “higher good” that supersedes human life. No one should die to secure our nation’s freedom? You’ve just spit on every soldier that gave you the right to say what you did. I’m sorry, but quantity of life is not the highest good we can pursue; not by a long shot.

This doesn't follow. Death for christ and death for one's country is a horrible crime on the part of the perpetrator. To be willing to die does not justify the killer killing.

You will stop making reprehensable accusations against me like that of being a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and spitting on soldiers. Now.

 

[Jedi]

...sort of. I am denying any other source of authoritative truth, which as a Christian I am entitled to do. In issues of morality, people can't just fly in with whatever they please to argue, they have to take from authoritative sources.

But no appeal to authority has been made here. It’s just a matter of maximizing quality and quantity of life by choosing to save the individual with the most potential to harbor those things.

Because quality and quantity of life do not affect right to live. Does an autistic fully paralyzed man have less right to live than a fully healthy one?

If we could only save one person and not both, yes it does. Where is the sense in saving a person who has less of a capacity for quality and quantity of life? Why save a person in a persistent vegetative state over a healthy youth? The reason: capacity for quantity and quality of life.

This doesn't follow. Death for christ and death for one's country is a horrible crime on the part of the perpetrator. To be willing to die does not justify the killer killing.

Pointing this out does not somehow nullify what I said. There are higher goods than merely preserving a particular life. In our case of abortion, saving a person with a higher capacity for quantity and quality of life is a higher good than saving the person with little to no capacity for those things (by doing so, we have promoted the quality and quantity of life).

You will stop making reprehensable accusations against me like that of being a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and spitting on soldiers. Now.

You would like to retract a previous statement, then? If the boot fits…

You stated you would rather a slow, agonizing death instead of a quick one: a clear implication of masochism. Cookiebaker (not you, though you apparently got confused here) said, “the idea that any segment of society should die for some imagined 'higher good is playing God with people's lives..” promoting the idea that there is no higher good than preserving a person’s life. Only when I provided examples to the contrary was this assertion taken back. Then you turn around and accuse me of “reprehensible accusations,” even though my accusations are clearly warranted. Interesting.

And just to repeat a point I made earlier with Jad123 (which he never responded to), a woman has a basic animal right to defend herself against threats, whether internal or external. Who are you to take away that right? If a pregnancy threatens her life, she has the right to defend herself. I suppose you might turn around and say "So too does the child," and you would be right. Very well then, let both people exercise their right to self-defense and be content with the outcome. We could even call it "God's will."