The Abortion Dilemma

The question is when is life a life?

Can you say abortion is right but capital punisment isn't. Can you say Capital Punishment is but euthanasia isn't. Can you say that a gangland murderer is worth less than a collector of child pornography.

My justification is that to take a life is wrong regardless of the justification or crime. Civilised society should not use revenge and punishment for the justification of cold blooded premeditated murder that is done by a state.

However a life to me only starts when a faetus develops sufficiantly to be recognisable and possably suffer pain. I'm no surgeon but in my mind thats around 8 to 10 weeks.

Regretably a normality scan is much later. Is it reasonable for a mother to terminate a 20 week old disabled child or child that they do not want. in my mind that is the decision of the mother. In effect the unborn child has little rights at that stage.

FNG

 

I've never heard of the US executing children.Can you back this up with some facts?

 

The US executes people who are aged 17 at the time of crime. Due to the way the system works all are over 18 at the time of their killing.

However international law says that people under the age of 18 can not be sentenced to death. The US has declined to ratify or accept these treaties

FNG

 

I'm in the law enforcement business and I've never heard of an adult being executed for crimes committed as a minor.Do you have specific examples?

 

I understand what FNG means - once you start deciding that one life is worth protecting and one life needs ending... :-?

And leaving aside from any issues of playing God, and the problems of executing the wrong guy (the last man hung in Britain was apparently innocent, it seems).

 

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-stats-eng

FNG

 

I can't make up my mind on abortion, the fedus is aborted early in the pregnancy before it develops a nervous system and a brain , but it's a potential life your going to prevent , and your stopping it from having a life just because it's an inconvienance.Well something technically isn't a life till it develops a brain and nervous system so... i dunno

 

"but it's a potential life your going to prevent"

That the catholics arguement against contreception as a whole. oh dear.

FNG

 

Ricky wrote:

Suppose an intruder was brandishing a knife and had already murdered your wife and slashed your young daughter who was bleeding and pleading for help? You are armed (gun, knife, cricket bat doesn't matter). Would you have difficulty decidingwhich life was worth protecting and which one needs ending?
Extreme case yes but the point is valid. The lack of any firm principles due to moral relativism has paralyzed many people (and society's) in the west and may eventually mean their downfall.
If you could end Hitler's life in 1939 and save 55 million lives would you do it? If you did it aren't you making a value judgement as to who deserves to live and who doesn't?
Because one shouldn't make discriminatory judgements based on irrelevant reasons such as skin color it is foolish to then assume that all discriminatory judgements should be abandoned. Should shoplifters be traeted the same as terrorist bombers?

 

Not necessarily true. Late term abortions kill essentially fully developed neonates. They react to painful stimuli, even suck their thumbs.

 

Excellant.That is what I wanted.I didn't research all the names,but the ones I did were all convicted of brutal murders.Fuck'em!
It amazes me,all the sob stories on the web concerning these poor, misunderstood,under educated killers.With a few of them I noticed the 'badass' look on their faces while the mugshot was taken(which indicates to me they are perfectly sane).An all too familiar attitude that I see every day.If someone is found to be mentally handicapped,I am not in favor of the death penalty.I work in the psychiatric department of Cook County Jail.So I am familiar with people with mental handicaps.As far as the gang-bangers,drug-addicts,and those that are just unwilling to earn an honest living and kill someone in the process of material or monetary gain....screw 'em.

 

I agree with Greig, but the definition of late is blurred. Is it after 8, 16 or 24 weeks? It's a heartbreaking decision for those involved especially as most "late" terminations are due to physical disabilities with the child which can only be detected in later scans.

As for the moral examples they are poor.

Firstly killing someone who has just killed your wife is self defence in the heat of the moment. Whilst the act is unpleasent it is a neceserry evil to protect youself. It's not the same as sitting a convicted man in a chair at a pre arranged time and passing electiricity through him till his hair burns, his eyes burst and his brain stopps functioning.

Solidiers killing each other in wars is the same. The war might be wrong but soldiers have the right to fire back.

As for killing hitler as a child, well that's pointless. If you could go back in time and kill him you save the jews, israel never forms, brittain never bothers with the NHS and russia invades poland and eastern europe in September 39 causing britain and the US to declare war back. The war lasts for 10 years and ends with everyone nuking each other till the earth is dead. Was it worth killing hitler?

Furthermore killing a child who may develop into a criminal/bad person is soooo wrong. You should read up on Eugenics.

FNG

 

There is a difference between preventing somebody from actually commiting a crime by using force (deadly if necessary), and executing them once they are caught and seperated from society.

The belief that life is 'sacred' (for want of a better word) is a firm principal to many people. Are you saying that stopping the death penalty will kill the West?
I do agree though that the disgustingly wishy-washy 'post-modernism' is killing off our society. I dislike it a lot as a value system.

Pedantically, if I as a Brit assassinated Hitler in 1939 it would probably cause Operation Sealion to actually go ahead, so...
But seriously, if I meddle with history in such a big way, how do I know the ramifications? It could turn out worse.
It would certainly mean that I end my existance, as my dad's parents only met because they were both drivers in the RAF.
Looking wider in this scenario, even if Germany does not go to war anyway(unlikely), the CCCP will invade Europe in 1941, and Communism will be in force from Vladivostok to Brittany. Would that be a better outcome?

No, shoplifters serve a limited prison sentance or equivalent, Terrorists get re-educated, or at least locked up for life.

 

SturmTiger - I appreciate what you are saying and yes I can imagine that the vast majority if not all of the people on that list were unrepentant, admit their crime and frankly utterly detestable as people and a waste of the oxygen they breathe.

I just dissagree that society should judge them and kill them off.

If they are a hazzard and unrepentant then they should be incarcarated till they die or are no longer a hazard.

But back to abortion. Are people against all abortions or just "late" if that can ever be reasonably defined.

Does anyone take the catholic view that all life is sacred and to interfer is wrong including contreception?

FNG

 

Incorrect. The US Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty for those who committed their crimes before the age 0f 18 in the case of Roper v. Simmons (argued Oct. 2004).

 

FNG wrote:

Self defense is a defense to the charge of homicide. Unless your own life or someone elses was threatened at the time one cannot claim self defense in most jurisdictions.

Exactly how capital punishment should be viewed. A society has the right to defend itself from violent criminals.

Don't confuse the issue by incorrectly describing a method that is no longer used. Lethal injection has become virtually the only approved method today.

The sole justification for killing in war is not self defense. A soldier does not have to be fired upon first by the enemy or be threatened in any meaningful way.

Strange alternatibe history you have constructed however that wasn't the question. the question was if you could save 55 million lives by taking one (Hitler's) would you be justified?

More hypotheticals construted by you, not me. Never said anything about killing children nor that it was practical from a sceintific standpoint to predict who will become criminals in the future.

 

It's not self defence if it's premeditated. It's premeditated if a judge decrees the time andplace.

"A society has the right to defend itself from violent criminals". I agree. I just don't agree that killing them is the right way.

and yes soldiers can fire first in a war or shoot a enemy combatant who doesn't have a gun or means of returning fire. But those are the rules of war. Whilst the rules are correct in my mind, war isn't. War sucks. But that doesn't prevent it.

Florida still has it's chair and still considers it usable. I can't see when the last time it was used though. It was repaired in 99 though.

FNG

 

Life may be sacred, but as for banning contraception because of it...

Ok, If you want to argue that you have no contraception and God gives you a kid if he wants to, then surely the woman should be having sex every time that she ovulates, otherwise you are denying that egg the chance to be a life.

Logical extension of an argument can be fun sometimes.
Besides, do they really believe that the God who (as they themselves believe) created the Universe & all things in it will be stopped in his plan by a thin bit of rubber? Hands up everybody who knows a baby born despite contraception?

On a related topic, I get very annoyed at people who say that the Pope is promoting the spread of HIV/Aids etc by being anti-contraception. On the contrary, the Pope preaches the most effective prevention of STDs etc that there is - Abstinance & Monogamy. If people listen to the 'no contraception' bit, why do they not listen to the other bit? :angry:

 

Because it's unrealistic.

How many people here are over the age of 14 and never had sex outside marriage? Not me

FNG

 

I managed it.
My wife managed it.


But the point is, if they are so willing to follow the Pope's teaching in one area, why not another?

Is it not just pointless to say 'I'm going to be a Catholic, but only the bits I don't find too difficult'