- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,005
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Let's say that for whatever you find yourself in a situation where you have a choice to make.
You have an opportunity to do one of the following:
1. Stop a woman who is 5 months pregnant from having an abortion. If you choose this option, she will not have an abortion at a later date, and nature will take its course in terms of the development of the fetus.
2. Stop the mother of a month-old infant from killing it. If you choose this option, she will not later kill the child, and nature will take its course in terms of the child's development.
The whys and hows don't really matter, only the outcome. For whatever reason, choosing both outcomes is not an option. You must choose one or the other (or neither). Feel free to expound on why you chose what you did.
Let's say that for whatever you find yourself in a situation where you have a choice to make.
You have an opportunity to do one of the following:
1. Stop a woman who is 5 months pregnant from having an abortion. If you choose this option, she will not have an abortion at a later date, and nature will take its course in terms of the development of the fetus.
2. Stop the mother of a month-old infant from killing it. If you choose this option, she will not later kill the child, and nature will take its course in terms of the child's development.
The whys and hows don't really matter, only the outcome. For whatever reason, choosing both outcomes is not an option. You must choose one or the other (or neither). Feel free to expound on why you chose what you did.
Moderator's Warning: |
I agree with you. The funny thing is under what circumstance would an individual be placed with both situations and only have the ability to stop one.So is this question some lame ass attempt to prove that the pro-lifers do not view the unborn child and the born child as equal?
I agree with you. The funny thing is under what circumstance would an individual be placed with both situations and only have the ability to stop one.
So is this question some lame ass attempt to prove that the pro-lifers do not view the unborn child and the born child as equal?
Many pro-lifers say they think a fetus is fully equivalent to a born child. I'm interested to see how far that goes, and whether it's really true or not, or if it's just a talking point.
If it was a now-or-never situation in both cases and both had equal chances of success I would probably end up stopping neither out of an inability to choose. On the other hand, as abortion is legal and infanticide is not I might feel more compelled to stop the latter as the consequences will go beyond one life. That is to say, the woman killing her newborn may ruin her own life while this is less likely to happen with the abortion.
Seeing how I view a unborn and born child as both equal and many prolifers share this view then perhaps the only solution is to flip a coin, roll a dice, or some other method for randomly choosing.
You call it an UNBORN child because you do NOT view them the same. If there was no difference it would not need a qualifier; it would be a child.
Kind of hard to have sympathy for someone trying to kill their own kid regardless if that child is born or has yet to be born.
You may find it hard, but I do not. People kill most often out of fear and I can sympathize with that fear.
Often times the Abortionist will play the sympathy card by arguing that if abortion became illegal except in the most extreme cases then women would be dying back ally abortion procedures. Would your sympathy extend to those who suffer due to back ally abortions?I also understand that what people do in times of despair is probably not something they will feel fine about later. At least an abortion will not lead to the other woman being locked up whether in a prison or a mental institution and losing years of her life.
Now, if the scenario is that the consequences for the two women will not be different it gets right back to indecision.
There are many justified reasons to kill someone. Like to defend yourself,others and property or to stop a known killer. However someone taking a innocent human life should have no sympathy.
Often times the Abortionist will play the sympathy card by arguing that if abortion became illegal except in the most extreme cases then women would be dying back ally abortion procedures. Would your sympathy extend to those who suffer due to back ally abortions?
Many pro-lifers say they think a fetus is fully equivalent to a born child. I'm interested to see how far that goes, and whether it's really true or not, or if it's just a talking point.
typical logical fallacy of "the loaded question". sets the answerer up for the "ah ha, gotcha" no matter how they answer. so I will answer the question with a question:
Have you stopped molesting children? no qualifiers..just answer the question, yes or no.
So is this question some lame ass attempt to prove that the pro-lifers do not view the unborn child and the born child as equal?
Or people could just be intellectually honest and imagine themselves in the situation. It really is not difficult, unless you are avoiding the question.While I don't agree that it's a loaded question, I realize now that it's not really that useful for finding out the information that I want to know. It's easy to say that you would have trouble choosing between the two. In order to really prove or disprove my theory, I would need to actually put people in the situation that I proposed in my hypothetical question.
Or people could just be intellectually honest and imagine themselves in the situation. It really is not difficult, unless you are avoiding the question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?