RE: Abortion-Killing: The Silent Genocide: 2 Billion Deaths Victims Worldwide.
July 11, 2023 at 9:18 pm
(This post was last modified: July 11, 2023 at 9:20 pm by Nishant Xavier.
Edit Reason: edited a typo
)
Here's a Paper from the Journal of Medical Ethics on After Birth Abortion: "Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."
Source: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva.
Angrboda said: "Either, a, you are implicitly asserting that the preborn are possessed of all human rights including the right to life, which is the same as your conclusion and is therefore an example of begging the question and is thus an invalid argument."
No, this is not correct. That could be said of any Argument. Take this one: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. You cannot say that in a I am implicitly asserting Socrates is mortal, and therefore, my conclusion is invalid. A is a General Truth. B is a Particular Statement. C follows from both.
But tell you what, and this is for others too, jff, we'll turn the situation around. You explain to me why, with Logical and Moral Reasons, the people who made the above argument, for Post-Natal Infanticide, or so-called After Birth Abortion, are wrong. I will play Devil's Advocate: I will take the position, that killing babies after birth is ok, because we "know" killing babies before birth is also ok.
And let's take this analogy for a minute:
Astreja said: "A woman's body is sovereign territory, and I believe that she has an absolute right to rule it as she will, and banish anything and anyone from its borders at her sole discretion."
Ok, let's use your analogy; first, the child was conceived with the Father's and Mother's consent, yes (excepting cases of rape)? Therefore, just as someone who has legally emigrated to a nation and now become a member/been granted citizenship of that country cannot after that just be banished just like that, the same would follow for the child - so your analogy proves the opposite of what you want it to prove. It proves the child has the right to live in his or her own mother's body, and yes, of course, the father primarily has the duty/obligation to provide for that child.
Don't confuse obligations of justice with obligations of charity. Everyone has the obligation to provide for his/her own family - this, in justice. To provide for others in need is an obligation of charity only. As for me, I earn a fair amount, donate around 20%, and aim to gradually scale up about 4-5% a year to around 40% in time. That's more than many people I know, and so I reject false reproaches from any on that issue unless you donate more; I will accept a reproach on that matter from Pastor Warren, since he donates 90% as I mentioned; increasing a little every year.
Anyway, to work and earn and provide for one's children is a basic duty. Rights presuppose Duties. You can only have Rights if you have Duties too. If you want to say you have the Right to Life and someone can't kill you just like that, it follows others have Duties not to kill you. And if they have that duty, even if they're not your family, then you have that Duty to them too. But as for our own children/family, we have the highest duty toward them. It is simply a moral absurdity to say Parents don't have the Duty to care for and love the children they themselves brought into the world - virtually unheard of before the 1960s free love revolution, the fornication and abortion it led to, and the 2 Billion Children killed in its wake.
Hymn4n, they have Perfect Natural Happiness, and a Possibility of even Super-Natural Hapiness. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Abortionists and those who promote and support baby-killing should consider their own Children might rise up at the Judgment and ask God to condemn them. And what do you think God would do if those Babies asked him to, Hymn4n? If one has committed an abortion, or supported it, the right thing is to ask God, and one's children, for forgiveness. There is no right to take life. There is a duty to protect life, especially the lives of one's own innocent children. That might be hard, but it is the Truth. The Truth will set you free.
Source: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva.
Angrboda said: "Either, a, you are implicitly asserting that the preborn are possessed of all human rights including the right to life, which is the same as your conclusion and is therefore an example of begging the question and is thus an invalid argument."
No, this is not correct. That could be said of any Argument. Take this one: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. You cannot say that in a I am implicitly asserting Socrates is mortal, and therefore, my conclusion is invalid. A is a General Truth. B is a Particular Statement. C follows from both.
But tell you what, and this is for others too, jff, we'll turn the situation around. You explain to me why, with Logical and Moral Reasons, the people who made the above argument, for Post-Natal Infanticide, or so-called After Birth Abortion, are wrong. I will play Devil's Advocate: I will take the position, that killing babies after birth is ok, because we "know" killing babies before birth is also ok.
And let's take this analogy for a minute:
Astreja said: "A woman's body is sovereign territory, and I believe that she has an absolute right to rule it as she will, and banish anything and anyone from its borders at her sole discretion."
Ok, let's use your analogy; first, the child was conceived with the Father's and Mother's consent, yes (excepting cases of rape)? Therefore, just as someone who has legally emigrated to a nation and now become a member/been granted citizenship of that country cannot after that just be banished just like that, the same would follow for the child - so your analogy proves the opposite of what you want it to prove. It proves the child has the right to live in his or her own mother's body, and yes, of course, the father primarily has the duty/obligation to provide for that child.
Don't confuse obligations of justice with obligations of charity. Everyone has the obligation to provide for his/her own family - this, in justice. To provide for others in need is an obligation of charity only. As for me, I earn a fair amount, donate around 20%, and aim to gradually scale up about 4-5% a year to around 40% in time. That's more than many people I know, and so I reject false reproaches from any on that issue unless you donate more; I will accept a reproach on that matter from Pastor Warren, since he donates 90% as I mentioned; increasing a little every year.
Anyway, to work and earn and provide for one's children is a basic duty. Rights presuppose Duties. You can only have Rights if you have Duties too. If you want to say you have the Right to Life and someone can't kill you just like that, it follows others have Duties not to kill you. And if they have that duty, even if they're not your family, then you have that Duty to them too. But as for our own children/family, we have the highest duty toward them. It is simply a moral absurdity to say Parents don't have the Duty to care for and love the children they themselves brought into the world - virtually unheard of before the 1960s free love revolution, the fornication and abortion it led to, and the 2 Billion Children killed in its wake.
Hymn4n, they have Perfect Natural Happiness, and a Possibility of even Super-Natural Hapiness. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Abortionists and those who promote and support baby-killing should consider their own Children might rise up at the Judgment and ask God to condemn them. And what do you think God would do if those Babies asked him to, Hymn4n? If one has committed an abortion, or supported it, the right thing is to ask God, and one's children, for forgiveness. There is no right to take life. There is a duty to protect life, especially the lives of one's own innocent children. That might be hard, but it is the Truth. The Truth will set you free.