Spirituality
18 Feb 07
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayInteresting decision. Can you explain a bit more why you find 1. moral and 2. immoral? In the first case, a life is saved by taking another life, which for me makes it very difficult to take a stance whether it's moral or not. I would definitely think it's moral if you'd force the mother away from the child, even using violence, but if you (intentionally) kill her, I am not so sure. In the second case, if you see the fetus the same way as a baby, you save a life without taking another life. You do something illegal, but if you seriously believe that you save a baby's life, shouldn't that justify your actions morally, even if you may be punished legally?
Murder is a legal term #1 can correct here if I’m wrong, but as I understand how it works when it comes to laws:
You legalize killing people or put up rules on when it is okay to do, it will than be the rules surrounding the killing that will make it murder or not.
So it will depend the laws of the land at the time both could be murder, both being mor ...[text shortened]... ecting the child from immediate harm is justified.
2. I'd call immoral, all of it sad.
Kelly
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by NordlysAre we calling what is inside the mother a baby?
Interesting decision. Can you explain a bit more why you find 1. moral and 2. immoral? In the first case, a life is saved by taking another life, which for me makes it very difficult to take a stance whether it's moral or not. I would definitely think it's moral if you'd force the mother away from the child, even using violence, but if you (intentionally) ki ...[text shortened]... y's life, shouldn't that justify your actions morally, even if you may be punished legally?
Are we calling the woman who is pregnant a mother?
For me killing an abortion doctor would be immoral, being pro-life their lives are just as sacred as the unborn they are aborting and I don’t have the right to take their lives. The important thing from my point of view is the way we view who is inside of the woman; it is a human life at humanities earliest stages of development. The law can justify or prohibit abortions, but unless what is inside the woman is valued, it will not stop abortions. Again from my point of view, until such time as God judges all of us for our actions, I view it as the blind leading the blind, Jesus said let them be. I can tell them that they are destroying their sons and daughters, but they will always make up their own minds and do what they will. My taking direct actions interfering with choices like that would be me acting like God and I am not God, I can reason, but it isn’t lawful for me to take another’s life even if I disagree with them. It is a cultural sickness as far as I’m concern, which is different than someone threatening a life right in front of me.
The first example I believe to be one I could in good faith justify, protecting someone one else from direct immediate harm. It would be no different if I could protect an 80 year old life or a one year old life from harm if I could.
Illegal or not does not address morals, you can have a law that either promotes something I would call immoral or prohibit a moral act. Laws are moral codes, they may be written to reflect morality but simply being a law does not mean we are talking morals or not.
Kelly
18 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAre we calling what is inside the mother a baby?
Are we calling what is inside the mother a baby?
Are we calling the woman who is pregnant a mother?
For me killing an abortion doctor would be immoral, being pro-life their lives are just as sacred as the unborn they are aborting and I don’t have the right to take their lives. The important thing from my point of view is the way we view who is inside ...[text shortened]... en to reflect morality but simply being a law does not mean we are talking morals or not.
Kelly
Are we calling the woman who is pregnant a mother?
No. But it seemed to me that you see killing a fetus as similar to killing a baby. Am I wrong about that?
For me killing an abortion doctor would be immoral, being pro-life their lives are just as sacred as the unborn they are aborting and I don’t have the right to take their lives.
But in example 2, no abortion doctor or anyone else was killed. You just stopped the pregnant woman from aborting her child. In example 1, on the other hand, you would kill one life to save another life. That's why I find it strange that you find example 1 moral and example 2 immoral.
The first example I believe to be one I could in good faith justify, protecting someone one else from direct immediate harm.
Isn't stopping the pregnant woman from driving to the abortion clinic also protecting the fetus from direct immediate harm? Is it different because the harm would be done in a few hours rather than a few seconds? If you knew that someone was on their way to kill someone else, would you think it's immoral to stop them from going to that place because it'll take some time until they get there? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Illegal or not does not address morals, you can have a law that either promotes something I would call immoral or prohibit a moral act.
That's exactly what I was trying to say. If I could stop someone from killing someone else, I would do it, even if there were no laws prohibiting murder.
Edit: And if the law would say that children don't have the same right to live as adults, it wouldn't stop me from thinking it's murder and from trying to stop people to kill children.
18 Feb 07
5 edits
Originally posted by Nordlys"Are we calling what is inside the mother a baby?
[b]Are we calling what is inside the mother a baby?
Are we calling the woman who is pregnant a mother?
No. But it seemed to me that you see killing a fetus as similar to killing a baby. Am I wrong about that?
For me killing an abortion doctor would be immoral, being pro-life their lives are just as sacred as the unborn they are aborting and I dn't stop me from thinking it's murder and from trying to stop people to kill children.
Are we calling the woman who is pregnant a mother? "
'No. But it seemed to me that you see killing a fetus as similar to killing a baby. Am I wrong about that? '
[/b]It is as far as ending a human life is concern, both ends a human life; however, the term fetus in my opinion is not the same thing as baby.
As I pointed out abortion is a cultural norm world wide, people justify it. I'm not going to end abortions by taking out a single doctor or a group of doctors, even if I were to take out a hand full out every day for years, it would not end abortions. My stopping someone from hurting another right in front of me would end that threat and that would be that. My goal is to show that the life inside women is a human life that needs to be valued, and the justification to abort them are basically just matters of personal taste nothing more, that the life within is more important than feelings for the moment.
As far as life is concern people will do what they will with what they have and even with what others have too from time to time. The way to stop unwanted babies in my opinion isn’t to abort them, but to not put one’s self in the position to have a unwanted baby.
Kelly
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're going to be in a hell of a position if it becomes the cultural norm to kill 2-year olds. I guess you'll have to stand aside and just let them do it.
"Are we calling what is inside the mother a baby?
Are we calling the woman who is pregnant a mother? "
'No. But it seemed to me that you see killing a fetus as similar to killing a baby. Am I wrong about that? '
It is as far as ending a human life is concern, both ends a human life; however, the term fetus in my opinion is not the same ...[text shortened]... ’t to abort them, but to not put one’s self in the position to have a unwanted baby.
Kelly[/b]
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou keep talking about taking out abortion doctors, which doesn't have anything to do with the example. You are right that stopping that one woman from aborting her child wouldn't stop other women to do so, but does that mean the life of that one child isn't worth saving? With the same reasoning, you could say that you shouldn't interfere in the first example, because it won't end the killing of children in general.
"Are we calling what is inside the mother a baby?
Are we calling the woman who is pregnant a mother? "
'No. But it seemed to me that you see killing a fetus as similar to killing a baby. Am I wrong about that? '
It is as far as ending a human life is concern, both ends a human life; however, the term fetus in my opinion is not the same ...[text shortened]... ’t to abort them, but to not put one’s self in the position to have a unwanted baby.
Kelly[/b]
I agree that the best way to stop unwanted babies is not to put oneself in the position to have one, but sometimes that's not an option. If I would be raped and get pregnant, I might choose abortion, as I don't see the fetus the same way you do.
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by NordlysKJ's not the best at keeping on topic.
You keep talking about taking out abortion doctors, which doesn't have anything to do with the example. You are right that stopping that one woman from aborting her child wouldn't stop other women to do so, but does that mean the life of that one child isn't worth saving? With the same reasoning, you could say that you shouldn't interfere in the first exampl ...[text shortened]... and get pregnant, I might choose abortion, as I don't see the fetus the same way you do.
18 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree. Killing abortion doctors does nothing to end abortions and I would even argue hinders the movement to end abortion on demand by making the movement seem on the extreme fringe of society that no one wants to be a part of. It reminds me of slavery back in the 1800's. The abolitionist movement to end slavery produced a man by the name of John Brown. He was so appalled by the slave trade and killing slaves as if they were cattle, he began to sneak into plantations at night and kill the slave owners in cold blood. It did NOTHING to end the slave trade and argueably hurt the movement overall to end slavery in the US. The only thing John Brown accomplished was to add to the numbers murdered in cold blood and offend those who may have been on the fringe of supporting the abolitionist movement.
"Are we calling what is inside the mother a baby?
Are we calling the woman who is pregnant a mother? "
'No. But it seemed to me that you see killing a fetus as similar to killing a baby. Am I wrong about that? '
It is as far as ending a human life is concern, both ends a human life; however, the term fetus in my opinion is not the same ’t to abort them, but to not put one’s self in the position to have a unwanted baby.
Kelly[/b]
18 Feb 07
Does it strike any of you as hypocritical that while some of you are arguing with one breath that a foetus is a life that should be awarded all of the rights of the mother that bears it, while with another breath you argue that we can easily kill murderers.
There's a little bit of a double standard here.
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderHere are some not so hypothetical situations: Forcing the victim of rape to carry a baby where the rapist had AIDS. Moral or Immoral?
I posted this in the Abortion thread and would like some dialogue from those who insist that a human being exists from the moment of conception:
http://www.armyofgod.com/JamesKopp.html
To wit: Abortionists murder helpless babies. Abortionists do not deserve legal protection.
Are the authorities who are only doing their job, keeping the abortio ...[text shortened]... the safety of unborn children?"
I'll post a few hypothethicals in the next post.
Forcing a 13 yo to carry a fetus to term by the legal system in a religeous right state then abandoning the mother and child to the system as is the usual result in such cases. Moral or Immoral?
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not asking about political strategy; I'm asking about the moral permissibility of the specific acts under the specific circumstances given. Please try to stay on-topic.
I agree. Killing abortion doctors does nothing to end abortions and I would even argue hinders the movement to end abortion on demand by making the movement seem on the extreme fringe of society that no one wants to be a part of. It reminds me of slavery back in the 1800's. The abolitionist movement to end slavery produced a man by the name of John Brown. ...[text shortened]... blood and offend those who may have been on the fringe of supporting the abolitionist movement.
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemPresumably KellyJay would have had no moral objection to being a guard at Auchwitz and herding prisoners into the gas chambers; that was an acceptable cultural norm and the law in the Third Reich.
You're going to be in a hell of a position if it becomes the cultural norm to kill 2-year olds. I guess you'll have to stand aside and just let them do it.
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by whodeyJohn Brown's body....
I agree. Killing abortion doctors does nothing to end abortions and I would even argue hinders the movement to end abortion on demand by making the movement seem on the extreme fringe of society that no one wants to be a part of. It reminds me of slavery back in the 1800's. The abolitionist movement to end slavery produced a man by the name of John Brown. ...[text shortened]... blood and offend those who may have been on the fringe of supporting the abolitionist movement.
became the Battle Hymm of the Republic.
19 Feb 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemEveryone who goes to hell will do so because of the sin in their lives, period. Since all are sinners, there will be no shortage of people heading to hell. I can warn, I can talk, I can debate, but each of us will be making our own choices and we will live and die with them.
You're going to be in a hell of a position if it becomes the cultural norm to kill 2-year olds. I guess you'll have to stand aside and just let them do it.
Kelly
19 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Nordlys"Isn't stopping the pregnant woman from driving to the abortion clinic also protecting the fetus from direct immediate harm? Is it different because the harm would be done in a few hours rather than a few seconds? If you knew that someone was on their way to kill someone else, would you think it's immoral to stop them from going to that place because it'll take some time until they get there? That just doesn't make sense to me. "
You keep talking about taking out abortion doctors, which doesn't have anything to do with the example. You are right that stopping that one woman from aborting her child wouldn't stop other women to do so, but does that mean the life of that one child isn't worth saving? With the same reasoning, you could say that you shouldn't interfere in the first exampl and get pregnant, I might choose abortion, as I don't see the fetus the same way you do.
This is what I was responding too, for someone to do harm it takes the one coming into the office to do the abortion, and the one doing the abortion. If you want to stay on only one topic, I suggest you limit answers to yes and no, only. If people want to generate a dialogue as was suggested earlier in this thread, why cry about it when it happens?
Kelly