JFKvsNixon Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Im talking about the discretionary abortions that take place, which are practically all of them. Would you count rape as a discretionary abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Would you count rape as a discretionary abortion? Yes I would, There are plenty of options open to women that are are in this situation, no end of people to help in every way with counciling and/or adoption etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 You don't seem to be able to grasp that the talk about killing newborns was in a theoretical and philosophical framework. Minerva isn't suggesting that we kill newborns, she's asking questions in the persuit of intellectual enquiry and knowledge. Why doesn't she have a kid herself then see what her thought processes are when she holds it for the first time? That's the best way to find out. The actual experiencing of human instincts and emotions on such an occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 In my part of the world many public service vehicles have bumper stickers with a toll free number to call if anyone wants to give away an unwanted baby. A phone call, followed by droppoing off the baby and no questions asked, no paprework to fill out, no names no pack drill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Why doesn't she have a kid herself then see what her thought processes are when she holds it for the first time? That's the best way to find out. The actual experiencing of human instincts and emotions on such an occasion. Without reading her work it's my opinion that the lady in question is trying to stimulate an ethical discussion by comparing abortions with killing a new born baby, and suggesting that one is morally right the other should be morally right as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It can be okay to kill another human being. If someone is about to kill you and you have the option to kill them first or die I doubt many would choose to die. Yes. The concept is a very well-established one. In Hebrew, the word is 'RODEF' [lit. a pursuer]. If A is being pursued by B who shows an immediate or likely threat of causing A's death, A is empowered to kill in self-defence. The same idea is the only acceptable basis for killing an unborn child: that its existence is endangering its mother's life. Here's some authoritative text supporting that statement: If the rodef was warned and continues to pursue his intended victim, even though he did not acknowledge the warning, since he continues his pursuit he should be killed. If it is possible to save the pursued by damaging one of the limbs of the rodef, one should. Thus, if one can strike him with an arrow, a stone or a sword, and cut off his hand, break his leg, blind him or in another way prevent him from achieving his objective, one should do so. If there is no way to be precise in one's aim and save the person being pursued without killing the rodef, one should kill him, even though he has not yet killed his victim. This is implied by Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Killing anyone is not axiomatically wrong. It can be both right, wrong and neither at the same time. It all depends on the values of those judging the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Without reading her work it's my opinion that the lady in question is trying to stimulate an ethical discussion by comparing abortions with killing a new born baby, and suggesting that one is morally right the other should be morally right as well. I'm not against abortion under certain circumstances but the law should forbid aborting any foetus over three months. By that time any mother to be should know if she wants it or not and the medical technology we now have can also spot any abnormalities in the foetus during that time frame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Killing anyone is not axiomatically wrong. It can be both right, wrong and neither at the same time. It all depends on the values of those judging the act. That's a bit vague! The accused has to know in advance whether it's wrong. Finding out post-facto is no use at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 That's a bit vague! The accused has to know in advance whether it's wrong. Finding out post-facto is no use at all. Their actions are judged by others though. Peter Sutcliffe for example may well have believed that killing the women he did was the right thing to do before he did it. Most other people would hold a differing view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.