Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: agrarianlady
Is that the sole reason to decide that one life is more valuable than another? Suppose there are no other children. Seems like the decision would be based on emotion and not logic. Just wondering.
6 posted on 04/05/2014 8:33:55 PM PDT by IIntense (WH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: IIntense

The law is a blunt instrument in this case. If the law says that the mother must die, she might leave five children behind.

Since it’s so likely that both will survive after 24 weeks — is a law that makes the choice necessary? The instances of having to choose in this case are miniscule — millions of babies are aborted for convenience, not to save a mother’s life.


7 posted on 04/05/2014 10:39:54 PM PDT by agrarianlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: IIntense
Is that the sole reason to decide that one life is more valuable than another? Suppose there are no other children. Seems like the decision would be based on emotion and not logic. Just wondering.

Depends on what you consider as the basis for determining value. I heard that if a child dies, the child is already with God and saved. If an adult, who has not been saved dies to save a child, the adult's soul is lost to God.

I attended Catholic schools as a child and it was taught that it might be better to save an adult vs. a child for the souls saving reasons. Don't know if it's doctrine or not. Sometimes hard to relate to possible Biblical Truths w/o getting tangled up in human fallibility and the arguments that go with it. I'd probably save the child.

8 posted on 04/06/2014 4:15:58 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson