abortion vs holocaust


Viewed 9494 times

    cofty posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:24:49 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 9877 of 13931
    Joined 12/19/2009

    I said...

    1. A pregnant woman is rushed to hospital in agony. She is diagnosed as having a previously undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy in her fallopian tube.

    2. The baby is alive but a rupture of the tube is imminent and inevitable.

    3. When it ruptures the mother's life will be in immediate danger.

    4. The baby is too young to survive being removed.

    5. The doctor says they must operate and abort the fetus to save the mother's life but the procedure WILL kill the baby.

    This is a scenario that happens regularly in hospitals.

    Is it ethically correct to agree to the abortion? Yes or no?

    You said ...

    cofty i said, yes because the purpose was not to kill the baby, the babys death was not the goal - Unstop

    The illustration of the fireman is nonsense. It is the growth of the baby in the fallopian that will lead to the death of the mother so the life of the baby must be terminated.

    You agreed this was moral.

    unstopableravens posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:29:09 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 2706 of 3002
    Joined 12/12/2010

    as you see in my answer as long as the purpose is not to kill the fetus. please dont take what i say and twist it. of course my firefighter illustration is nonsense. because you believe different

    cofty posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:31:17 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 9878 of 13931
    Joined 12/19/2009

    The purpose of the operation IS to terminate the life of the baby.

    The motivation is to save the life of the mother.

    You agreed to this.

    unstopableravens posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:45:55 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 2707 of 3002
    Joined 12/12/2010

    coftywhat i said is clear, if you want to fog it up, im not for it. look at the pic that shadow posted. its clear as day what you see is human life. and pro choicers are with having another human abort that. stop talking about 1% and face reality millions of baby like in shadows pics are being aborted. does that bother you cofty?

    cofty posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:57:32 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 9880 of 13931
    Joined 12/19/2009

    stop talking about 1%

    No not yet.

    You are pretending that it is black-and-white but you are being dishonest.

    You have agreed that if a mother's life is in danger it is acceptable to terminate the life of the baby.

    However uncomfortable you may be about it, the fact remains that you are not opposed to all abortions.

    unstopableravens posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:04:14 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 2708 of 3002
    Joined 12/12/2010

    cofty: do you think im the only one who see what you do? a person has a view, that you use half truths with a added word and than say ah ha . your not really believing what you claim. its twisted. i never said the doctor should end the life on purpose. key wrd purpose, maybe this word is more clear willfully, or this one intent. so if you want to be mature and explain how you are ok with a mother aborting what you see in shadows pictures?

    tec posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:10:43 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 12622 of 12869
    Joined 3/5/2010

    There is no chance for an eptopic pregnancy (attachment in the fallopian tube) to come to term. The baby WILL die. It is not even a matter of choosing one over the other; the baby dies whether or not something is done. The mother may die as well, if nothing is done.



    cofty posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:17:48 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 9882 of 13931
    Joined 12/19/2009

    Unstop - I am running out of ways to make this simple enough for you.

    I explained very clearly in the scenario that the doctor has no choice but to terminate the life of the baby if the life of the mother is to be saved.

    You can dress it up any way you want but it is a termination of pregnancy or to put it bluntly, an abortion.

    You agreed that this was morally acceptable.

    F jgnat posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:27:17 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 21300 of 24338
    Joined 7/4/2002

    Or, as I had rephrased, the mothers life is more valuable than the fetus because one has a future and the other does not. The fetus in this example is not viable outside the the womb.

    Another example where I would not allow a dogmatist to talk to the bereaved is my dear JW husband. He reacts to death by quoting WT doctrine, such as the deceased will not go to heaven, yadda yadda. It gives HIM comfort but would cause distress to the bereaved. I have him under strict orders to keep his mouth shut about such matters. He protests that it is the truth! I give him the wifely glare and he wisely shuts up. He hasn't a clue why his words harm though.

    cofty posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:29:56 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 9883 of 13931
    Joined 12/19/2009

    I think I would shut up if I got your glare too Jgnat ;)

    Band on the Run posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:05:32 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 7647 of 9876
    Joined 12/18/2010

    Can't he understand that others do not share his views ? It is HIS truth. My aunt had a sad life. She married at sixteen b/c she was forced into mothering a large brood of younger siblings. Pregnancy followed. Her husband died in his twenties from tuberculosis. The familly is from a mining town. As the family gathered, my father declared, "Let the dead bury the dead," and went out in field service. His sister was about twenty-three. Imagine what the crowd thought of such actions. Yes, what a win friends and influence people. I am so embarassed. Witnesses must have some of the worst social skills in the world. They honestly did.

    To talk that way to a grieving person is bullying. IMO. I don't believe they are bad people. They just don't understand the normal world. It was always so harsh. The funniest story here is when I read that Witnesses out in field service hunt for houses that they might want to live in after Armageddon. I never wanted Armageddon, let alone to find a house. Somehow I thought Jehovah would create nice new ones. Oh, it is so bad that it is so funny.

    mrhhome posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:36:30 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 75 of 188
    Joined 9/3/2013

    Band on the Run. On this point, we agree. That is a horrible way to treat those who are mourning.

    BTW, tec is also right. The point is somewhat moot. In cofty's illustration, the fetus is going to die in either case. The only question is whether or not it is going to kill mom in the process. I think that raven agrees that under such a circumstances, the right thing to do is to save mom.

    F jgnat posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:39:11 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 21303 of 24338
    Joined 7/4/2002

    Then ravens turns around and says it is wrong because the fetus does not get a choice on the outcome. That's the problem with black-and-white.

    mrhhome posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:46:59 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 76 of 188
    Joined 9/3/2013

    I haven't read all 22 pages, but in the last couple of posts, I think that you swayed her opinion. Congratulations.

    I agree that it isn't always black and white. However, you are also focusing on the exceptions rather than addressing the morality of abortion in the vast majority of cases where it simply is an unwanted baby.

    mrhhome posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:59:08 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 77 of 188
    Joined 9/3/2013

    From a legal and political perspective, the primary role of any government is to protect innocent lifes. It is absolutely the govenment's role to determine whether (a) a life has been ended and (b) under what circumstances it can be legally terminated.

    In the US, I believe that it is an issue that should be handled by the states rather than the federal government. The constituation does not speak to the matter. Likewise, the definition of what is and is not murder is typically determined at the state level. As an example, I point to the recent stand-your-ground cases. Why is abortion any different? State law frequently determines when it is and is not acceptable to end a life.

    KiddingMe posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 03:01:01 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 190 of 443
    Joined 7/31/2013


    shadow posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 06:11:08 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 281 of 329
    Joined 2/17/2003


    "Between 1970 and 1990 the rate of ectopic pregnancies doubled, trebled or quadrupled in frequency, depending on the country. They now account for two per cent of all pregnancies in the areas studied. The rise of ectopic pregnancy coincides almost exactly with the steep rise in the frequency of induced abortion during the same period.

    Studies from Italy, Japan, Yugoslavia and the U.S. have documented a much higher risk of ectopic pregnancy among women who have had one or more abortions. Yet the authors of an American study that uncovered a 160 per cent increased risk arrived at the curious conclusion that abortion "does not carry a large excess risk" of ectopic pregnancy. (American Journal of Public Health 72 (1982):253-6)

    That legal abortion appears to contribute to an increase in ectopic pregnancy in younger women, when associated with pelvic inflammatory disease, was the finding of a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology in 1989."

    J. Hofer posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 07:56:30 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 1192 of 1268
    Joined 1/28/2011

    since unstop just tumbled from one absolute truth® to the next, there is not middle ground or accepting that things aren't as easy to decide as one might think at first glance.

    unstop has the position that the morning after pill is murder, comparable to the holocaust and he dances around the fact that there may be exceptions to his black and white rules. he also thinks that people who support pro choice are dead set on killing 24 week old fetuses. he also seems to think that the vast majority of abortions are by careless lazy uninformed women who just wait a few weeks until they are visibly pregnant and then abort just for the fun of it.

    unstopableravens posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:36:09 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 2709 of 3002
    Joined 12/12/2010

    j h: most of your last statement is a crock. you know it. you are very dishonest. i nevr said ppl who are pro choice are dead set on 24 weeks abortions. as if they are bored and dont care at all

    unstopableravens posted Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:39:45 GMT(12/6/2013)

    Post 2710 of 3002
    Joined 12/12/2010

    i have time and time again in this thread said the motive for these women is not as if they enjoy having the abortion. i have said many will feel guilt years later. jh you mis represent my postion to make yours seem better . why? is your that bad?


      Confirm ...