(May 28, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm)Losty Wrote: I honestly don't care how you feel about my choice to respect other people's right to make their own decisions.


I would like to continue our conversation from last night though.

What is there to talk about? I am not convinced the baby had to be killed to save the woman's life. You are convinced that it did.

Whether or not you're convinced. It is a fact.

(May 28, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: What is there to talk about? I am not convinced the baby had to be killed to save the woman's life. You are convinced that it did.

You are missing something very basic here...
- the mother's life was in immediate jeopardy
- this required immediate termination of the pregnancy for her survival
- the fetus was not viable

To support your conclusion you must believe one of the following:
- The doctors were wrong in assessing the risk to the mother or the fetus' viability (an emotional conclusion and indefensible)
- It is appropriate to risk the mother's life to continue the pregnancy until fetal viability

(May 28, 2014 at 4:39 pm)One Above All Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: I've always felt that views like this are copouts.

I've always felt that saying "this is a copout" without explaining why it is a copout, is a copout.

A copout is avoiding commitment or responsibility. Your position isn't a committed position. You position is an attempt to absolve yourself from the moral culpability of being part of that group which clamors, "yes it is okay to kill that human being".

---

(May 28, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Losty Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: What is there to talk about? I am not convinced the baby had to be killed to save the woman's life. You are convinced that it did.

Whether or not you're convinced. It is a fact.

It may be a fact that the baby had to die, but it is not a fact that it had to be killed.

(May 28, 2014 at 4:38 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Beccs Wrote: And I've always felt that dismissive statements such as that are copouts when they don't address what is being said.

The position is inconsistent. Its like they are trying to be pro-life and pro-abortion at the same time. Either a fetus has the same right to life as anyone else or it doesn't.

And I've responded numerous times to the "pro-abortion" fallacy.

People are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. The woman has the right to control her own body and reproduction. She is a living, breathing person, the fetus is not and is not viable until around the 24th week. Until that time, I prefer to give the most rights to the living person. After that date, then the issue becomes more complicated and, I personally feel, the fetus gains more rights.

(May 28, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:39 pm)One Above All Wrote: I've always felt that saying "this is a copout" without explaining why it is a copout, is a copout.

A copout is avoiding commitment or responsibility. Your position isn't a committed position. You position is an attempt to absolve yourself from the moral culpability of being part of that group which clamors, "yes it is okay to kill that human being".

Quote:hu·man be·ing
noun
noun: human being; plural noun: human beings; noun: humanbeing; plural noun: humanbeings
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

(May 28, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Losty Wrote: Whether or not you're convinced. It is a fact.

It may be a fact that the baby had to die, but it is not a fact that it had to be killed.

So now you are claiming abortion is ok as long as we remove the fetus and leave it to die on a hosptial table?

(May 28, 2014 at 4:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Heywood Wrote: A copout is avoiding commitment or responsibility. Your position isn't a committed position. You position is an attempt to absolve yourself from the moral culpability of being part of that group which clamors, "yes it is okay to kill that human being".

Quote:hu·man be·ing
noun
noun: human being; plural noun: human beings; noun: humanbeing; plural noun: humanbeings
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Child also includes the unborn. Your wife is pregnant with her first child.

(May 28, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Losty Wrote: Whether or not you're convinced. It is a fact.

It may be a fact that the baby had to die, but it is not a fact that it had to be killed.

It is a fact that the "baby" had to be killed or the woman would have most likely died.

(May 28, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: What is there to talk about? I am not convinced the baby had to be killed to save the woman's life. You are convinced that it did.

You are missing something very basic here...
- the mother's life was in immediate jeopardy
- this required immediate termination of the pregnancy for her survival
- the fetus was not viable

To support your conclusion you must believe one of the following:
- The doctors were wrong in assessing the risk to the mother or the fetus' viability (an emotional conclusion and indefensible)
- It is appropriate to risk the mother's life to continue the pregnancy until fetal viability

We saw the result of this when an Indian woman died in Ireland last year because the Catholic authorities in a hospital waited too long to approve an abortion. One actual life wasted.

(May 28, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Heywood Wrote: It may be a fact that the baby had to die, but it is not a fact that it had to be killed.

So now you are claiming abortion is ok as long as we remove the fetus and leave it to die on a hosptial table?

A boy is hit by a car and cannot be saved. He will surely die. Is it morally okay to kill that boy and harvest his organs to save another boy? Or does morality demand you don't harm the boy and wait until he dies to harvest the organs?

I am of the mind that you wait until the boy dies and that it would be wrong to kill him even though he will surely die.

If the baby is a threat to the mother, and the only way to countermand that threat is to remove it from the womb, then remove it from the womb and let nature takes it course. Killing it so you don't have to care for it while nature takes its course is barbaric.

---

(May 28, 2014 at 5:01 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Cato Wrote: You are missing something very basic here...
- the mother's life was in immediate jeopardy
- this required immediate termination of the pregnancy for her survival
- the fetus was not viable

To support your conclusion you must believe one of the following:
- The doctors were wrong in assessing the risk to the mother or the fetus' viability (an emotional conclusion and indefensible)
- It is appropriate to risk the mother's life to continue the pregnancy until fetal viability

We saw the result of this when an Indian woman died in Ireland last year because the Catholic authorities in a hospital waited too long to approve an abortion. One actual life wasted.

If were keeping score 54 million actual human beings have been killed in the U.S. since Roe V Wade.