Jump to content
NZT48

All abortion is murder and should be treated under law the same as any other murder.

Recommended Posts

?

Yes, the heliocentric model, Copernicus and Galileo ran foul of the church on that one.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nich... said:

If I had my cranky pants on, I can tell you I wouldn't have bitten my tongue so much in this latest resurgence of dmb threads ?

Fair point.  Maybe they're your best behaviour pants, but frayed by recent events.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 8:02 PM, NZT48 said:

 No.

They why is the gunman's "wrongness" a factor at all?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 3:29 PM, chrisg said:

As for being convinced of the existence of a God, prove it ?

There is sufficient proof of a creator in creation. What would you consider proof?

On 1/15/2019 at 7:03 PM, SquallStrife said:

They why is the gunman's "wrongness" a factor at all?

People are dying because of what he is choosing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

There is sufficient proof of a creator in creation. What would you consider proof?

 

What proof is there? Also if you have proof of a creator/prime mover then is there any reason to worship it or think it even wants worship or even kows/cares we exist? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 8:56 PM, NZT48 said:

People are dying because of what he is choosing to do.

Right. So...

 

What is a bigger factor in making it OK to take his life?

 

The fact that allowing him to continue is causing further loss of life, OR, the fact that what he's doing is "wrong"?

 

And irrespective, you admit that preventing further loss of life is a priority?

 

Should law enforcement NOT take the shooter's life because he MIGHT stop shooting people? Should doctors allow both mother and child to die (in that hypothetical situation), because something miraculous MIGHT prevent that from happening? Allowing someone to die "just in case" they spontaneously get cured seems pretty cruel and unnecessary, especially when the only reason for not intervening is adhering to a dogmatic absolute.

 

OR, alternatively, should law enforcement take the life of the shooter, because it's LIKELY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that he will continue to murder bystanders? And if so, shouldn't doctors terminate a pregnancy because it's LIKELY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that, through inaction, BOTH mother and child would die?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking out a murderer is very different to letting nature take its course by not killing an unborn child. Can you really not see that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

Taking out a murderer is very different to letting nature take its course by not killing an unborn child. Can you really not see that?

 

In both cases, a judgement call is made, in both cases a life is taken because the likelihood is high that inaction would result in unnecessary loss of life.

 

Can you really not see that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that.

 

The difference: The murderer forfeited his right to life by murdering. Unborn babies are innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

I see that.

 

The difference: The murderer forfeited his right to life by murdering. Unborn babies are innocent.

 

Why is innocence relevant?

 

Why is it not always preferable to have an outcome where one life is lost instead of two?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always preferable for one life to be lost instead of that life plus another one.

 

Innocence is relevant because it cannot be known they would die. It doesn't make sense to me that a mother can be without a chance of successful childbirth, let alone only one of them dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

It doesn't make sense to me that a mother can be without a chance of successful childbirth, let alone only one of them dying.

 

Clearly. Good thing there are doctors to whom it does make sense.

 

If you don't understand it, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 4:43 PM, SquallStrife said:

Nobody can know anything "for sure".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your point?

 

No decision in all of medicine is "for sure", it's just the best decision based on all available information. The decision that will result in the best outcome, hopefully the least possible loss of life.

 

The law enforcement officers' decision is not made on something they know "for sure". They're only sure beyond reasonable doubt that the murderer will keep murdering, he might have been just about to stop just as they pulled the trigger.

 

It doesn't make sense to you, and that's fine, YOU AREN'T A DOCTOR. It doesn't have to make sense to you. It makes sense to the people making the decisions though. What doesn't make sense is you projecting your dogmatic principles on to people whose situations you admit you don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/04/2019 at 10:09 PM, NZT48 said:

'Nobody can know anything 'for sure''

Is your point that, just like you, they go on faith that they're doing the best they can?  Except with some actual positive outcomes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2019 at 10:18 PM, SquallStrife said:

What is your point?

 

No decision in all of medicine is "for sure", it's just the best decision based on all available information. The decision that will result in the best outcome, hopefully the least possible loss of life.

Contradiction.

 

It cannot be known that both mother and child will die unless the baby is killed so because of that and the fact that the baby is younger and and because of the fact the baby is innocent, the baby should not be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Contradiction.

 

It cannot be known that both mother and child will die unless the baby is killed so because of that and the fact that the baby is younger and and because of the fact the baby is innocent, the baby should not be killed.

 

 

How do you know that it "cannot be known"? Are you a doctor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol ^^

 

Surely the real answer depends on the individual situation.

 

What's say mum wants to give her life for the un born ? What's say mum is not able to consent or not ? What say there is no living relative to look after the baby ? What say the baby is deemed  too stricken to survive and the parents can have another chance at procreation ?

What's say while the legalities are being argued both die ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a doctor dreaming about being someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're doctoring something, alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×