Posted on 10/01/2016 7:23:37 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Thousands of Poles, many dressed in black, have rallied in front of parliament in Warsaw to protest a proposed bill that would impose a complete ban on abortion.
Speakers at the protest said a total ban on abortion, including for victims of rape or women whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy, would be “barbaric.” Poland already has one of Europe’s most restrictive abortion laws. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Banning abortion in the ultra-rare cases where the mother’s life is legitimately in danger is a step too far, even for me. My concern is that those wanting to get rid of their child would look for a sympathetic doctor would make a false declaration in order to facilitate the pre-natal infanticide.
I’ve always heard the “mother’s life is in danger” canard. What are the types of conditions that mean aborting a baby can save a mother’s life? I’ve never gotten any details.
Dr. C.E. Koop, back when he was conservative, said in his many years of practice he had never seen a case where abortion would save a mother’s life.
“Banning abortion in the ultra-rare cases where the mother’s life is legitimately in danger is a step too far, even for me.”
And there’s an example of the moral bankruptcy. Killing an innocent baby supposedly to save someone else’s life is simply murder.
Sacrificing your life for someone else’s is a highly noble act. However I don’t think anyone has the right to make that compulsory.
“Sacrificing your life for someone else’s is a highly noble act. However I don’t think anyone has the right to make that compulsory.”
That isn’t the issue. The issue is MURDERING A BABY. Remember, people die all the time. Since The Fall that has been our appointed lot. What has not been appointed to us is the right to murder innocent people. An adult dying is sad. A baby being murdered is MURDER. It’s not about compelling anyone to die. It’s about recognizing no one has the right to MURDER A BABY.
Actually it is the issue. Everyone has a right to protect themselves from being killed by someone else, even if the threat is unintentional. Self defense is not murder. In the end we are making a choice here, in placing one life over another. You are obviously choosing the baby’s life as being of greater importance. I tend to agree, but since it’s not my life that is at risk I don’t feel qualified to make that decision for someone else.
Tubal pregnancy is the only condition I know of. In tubal pregnancy, if nothing is done, BOTH mother and child die. By removing the baby from the tube, you kill the baby but the mother lives. The procedure is viewed morally as saving the mother’s life. With or without intervention, the baby is guaranteed to die.
They are either people or they are not.
Do we kill an innocent person because we think that, if they live, another person might die?
We do not.
“Life of the mother” is basically a lie, anyway. Our surgeon general C. Everett Koop said he knew of not one instance when that was truly the situation.
What is used as “life of the mother” is if she is depressed, suicidal, says she’ll kill herself if she can’t abort. It’s total crap.
See my # 8.
I am pretty sure Koop was referring to late term abortions where I agree with him. That said I think that actual cases where a legitimate threat to the mother’s life can be cause by pregnancy is uber rare. Once upon a time that was not so. But in the modern world it is so rare as to be statistically insignificant.
“Actually it is the issue.”
Nope.
“Everyone has a right to protect themselves from being killed by someone else,”
The baby is not killing anyone. There’s no intent there and there’s no deliberate action there.
” even if the threat is unintentional.”
No.
“Self defense is not murder.”
It isn’t self-defense. Self-defense implies repelling an attack. The baby is not attacking anyone.
“In the end we are making a choice here, in placing one life over another.”
No. Both lives are to be saved. If that fails, then that fails, but murder can never be a choice.
“You are obviously choosing the baby’s life as being of greater importance.”
No. Both are to be saved. No one is to be murdered. My choice is life for both, and murder for neither. Your choice is murder. Murder is an unacceptable moral choice ALWAYS.
“I tend to agree,”
You tend to agree but you’re defending murder? Think about what you just said there.
“but since it’s not my life that is at risk I don’t feel qualified to make that decision for someone else.”
So now it has to be your life to know murder is wrong? “Thou shalt not kill” is now rendered pointless because it’s not about you? That’s not only wrong morally, it’s a special kind of cowardice.
So what did we learn here? You’re all for baby killing - in some cases. And you don’t feel qualified to oppose baby killing since you’re not the baby or the mother which means you can’t now take a moral stand on ANYTHING unless it directly involves you. In other words, you don’t believe in any moral absolutes. It’s just about when your ox is the one getting gored.
“Well that’s your opinion and presumably that of your church.”
No, it’s a fact, not an opinion.
“I do not agree.”
You choose not to. You choose baby killing over God’s law.
“No, it’s a fact, not an opinion.”
Saying it is so does not make it so. Nor does shouting. Nor posting it over and over.
“Saying it is so does not make it so.”
No, but it is so so I say it. You can’t refute it either - and that’s why you’re not trying.
“Nor does shouting.”
Typing is not shouting. Get a clue.
“Nor posting it over and over.”
I’ve posted 5 times in the thread. That’s not over and over again.
No, I’m not because I have dealt with you in the past and you are impervious to reason or common courtesy. You have made your scathing opinion of me clear. At some point common sense would seem to dictate that further discussion is pointless. I would appreciate it if you refrained from directing comments to me in the future and I will happily reciprocate.
“No, I’m not because I have dealt with you in the past and you are impervious to reason or common courtesy.”
I am the only one between us who is using reason. And what courtesy should be extended to someone who believe murdering babies is okay that I have not already extended?
“You have made your scathing opinion of me clear.”
So what is the warranted opinion one should hold of a supporter of baby killing?
“At some point common sense would seem to dictate that further discussion is pointless.”
Is baby killing common sense?
“I would appreciate it if you refrained from directing comments to me in the future and I will happily reciprocate.”
I understand. It must be taxing to have to defend murdering children after all. Unless you respond, this will be my last post to you in this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.