Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Keep abortion out of Ireland
Options
Comments
-
What a beautiful example of pure love! Some parents are so nice and some children are so lucky.
For the folks who are presently gnashing their teeth this family would be an example of wheat amongst the tares.0 -
I'm curious, what do you think the jail time should be for women who have illegal abortions in Ireland?0
-
hattoncracker wrote: »I'm curious, what do you think the jail time should be for women who have illegal abortions in Ireland?
Same penalty for doing it illegally in the UK.0 -
georgieporgy wrote: »What a beautiful example of pure love! Some parents are so nice and some children are so lucky.
For the folks who are presently gnashing their teeth this family would be an example of wheat amongst the tares.
The pro-abortion camp just look at letting a Child with trisomy 13 live as cruelty.. How can you let a child suffer..
Sometimes I think we treat the unborn like an injured horse.0 -
The pro-abortion camp just look at letting a Child with trisomy 13 live as cruelty.. How can you let a child suffer..
Sometimes I think we treat the unborn like an injured horse.
And sometimes we treat a foetus worse than an injured animal by allowing it to develop enough to suffer needlessly. Unnecessary cruelty is something to be avoided not celebrated as a virtue.0 -
Advertisement
-
The pro-abortion camp just look at letting a Child with trisomy 13 live as cruelty.. How can you let a child suffer..
Sometimes I think we treat the unborn like an injured horse.
Well, lets look at trisomy 13 shall we?
Symptoms:
Cleft lip or palate
Clenched hands (with outer fingers on top of the inner fingers)
Close-set eyes -- eyes may actually fuse together into one
Decreased muscle tone
Extra fingers or toes (polydactyly)
Hernias: umbilical hernia, inguinal hernia
Hole, split, or cleft in the iris (coloboma)
Low-set ears
Mental retardation, severe
Scalp defects (missing skin)
Seizures
Single palmar crease
Skeletal (limb) abnormalities
Small eyes
Small head (microcephaly)
Small lower jaw (micrognathia)
Undescended testicle (cryptorchidism)
Complications:
Complications begin almost immediately. Most infants with trisomy 13 have congenital heart disease.
Complications may include:
Breathing difficulty or lack of breathing (apnea)
Deafness
Feeding problems
Heart failure
Seizures
Vision problems
Prognosis:
More than 80% of children with trisomy 13 die in the first year.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002625/
You think it is better to bring a child suffering from all these aliments into the world where the best one can hope for is that it is so severely retarded and it fore-brain so underdeveloped that it does not suffer any pain?
This is not a question about not loving a child, or not wanting to be bothered having to deal with it; it is a question of what is more humane. I always find it funny that when we have a non-human animal that is injured beyond repair and is suffering we “put it out of its misery” because that is the “humane” thing to do, but when it is out own species this amazing idea of humane treatment gets somehow lost.
MrP0 -
Well, lets look at trisomy 13 shall we?
Symptoms:
Cleft lip or palate
Clenched hands (with outer fingers on top of the inner fingers)
Close-set eyes -- eyes may actually fuse together into one
Decreased muscle tone
Extra fingers or toes (polydactyly)
Hernias: umbilical hernia, inguinal hernia
Hole, split, or cleft in the iris (coloboma)
Low-set ears
Mental retardation, severe
Scalp defects (missing skin)
Seizures
Single palmar crease
Skeletal (limb) abnormalities
Small eyes
Small head (microcephaly)
Small lower jaw (micrognathia)
Undescended testicle (cryptorchidism)
Complications:
Complications begin almost immediately. Most infants with trisomy 13 have congenital heart disease.
Complications may include:
Breathing difficulty or lack of breathing (apnea)
Deafness
Feeding problems
Heart failure
Seizures
Vision problems
Prognosis:
More than 80% of children with trisomy 13 die in the first year.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002625/
You think it is better to bring a child suffering from all these aliments into the world where the best one can hope for is that it is so severely retarded and it fore-brain so underdeveloped that it does not suffer any pain?
This is not a question about not loving a child, or not wanting to be bothered having to deal with it; it is a question of what is more humane. I always find it funny that when we have a non-human animal that is injured beyond repair and is suffering we “put it out of its misery” because that is the “humane” thing to do, but when it is out own species this amazing idea of humane treatment gets somehow lost.
MrP
So this has gone beyond abortion and into the realm of putting down children who we believe are suffering too much.
Whats worse is the twisting of a parents desire to have their child live into some kind of disgusting selfishness.0 -
So this has gone beyond abortion and into the realm of putting down children who we believe are suffering too much.
Whats worse is the twisting of a parents desire to have their child live into some kind of disgusting selfishness.
I am not suggesting we "put down" children, I am however suggesting that if a child is going to live a short, pain filled life filled with suffering, then perhaps it is best for them not to be born in the first place.
And I am sorry but what where a parent decides to have a child whose life will consist of nothing but pain and suffering, then how is that not selfish? I have an enormous amount of sympathy for people in this position, I have 4 beautiful and healthy children, and it makes me shiver to even think about having to make decisions like this, but I simply don't know what else to call it.
Why is it considered virtuous to restrict compassion and humane treatment to non-human animals and to allow our own species to suffer?
MrP0 -
I am not suggesting we "put down" children,
contradictsWhy is it considered virtuous to restrict compassion and humane treatment to non-human animals and to allow our own species to suffer?
i.e. you ARE suggesting suffering humans be treated like animals and euthanised.
It is a very dangerous moral precedent to expound.
This type of thinking seems to come a lot from the atheistic or anti-christian mindset who see no merit or meaning in suffering.0 -
I am not suggesting we "put down" children,
contradictsWhy is it considered virtuous to restrict compassion and humane treatment to non-human animals and to allow our own species to suffer?
i.e. you ARE suggesting suffering humans be treated like animals and euthanised.
It is a very dangerous moral precedent to expound.
This type of thinking seems to come a lot from the atheistic or anti-christian mindset who see no merit or meaning in suffering.
I never thought I'd ever be in agreement with ISaw, but, the idea that a child that has developmental problems in utero should be aborted is repugnant.
SD0 -
Advertisement
-
Really? I find this attitude most difficult to understand. I get that a lot of people, mostly religious, find life to be a gift, and that is fine. I personally think life is amazing, but for me it if qualified.StudentDad wrote: »I never thought I'd ever be in agreement with ISaw, but, the idea that a child that has developmental problems in utero should be aborted is repugnant.
SD
For me there has to be a certain quality to the life or it is not worth having. And before anyone jumps on this and thinks I am all for forced abortions (which I’m not) or forced euthanizing (which I am not), let me explain.
Life, for the sake of it is not enough. There has to be a quality to it for it to be worth having. I have thought a lot about this as Alzheimer’s runs in my family. It is likely I will suffer from it, and I know how my life will end should it be allowed to run its course. I don’t want that. I love life, but on my terms, in control of my own bodily functions and being able to look after myself. This is departing somewhat from the subject of abortion, though it is related. I understand that different people have a different view of what life is, and if you are happy with having your kids change your adult nappies, feed you and wipe the drool from your chin then fine, I’m not.
With respect to aborting foetuses with developmental problems, my views on this are fairly simple. First, a brief explanation of my position on abortion. I am not a fan of abortion. My preference would be that they were not required, but my belief that a woman should be able to control her own reproductive function is stronger than my desire for there to be no abortion. Added to this, the fact that things go wrong in pregnancy mean I see abortion as a necessity. I believe that abortions on the basis of choice should be allowed up to the point where the foetus would be viable if delivered. So currently around 21 weeks. As medical technology developed I would expect that limit to be reduced. In cases where there are major problems with the foetus I think abortion should be allowed later into the pregnancy.
So, SD, you think the idea of aborting a foetus with developmental problems is repugnant? Well, I think allowing a child to be born knowing that its life will be short, painful with no redeeming features is repugnant. What possible justification can there be for such cruelty? This is where my view of life and the quality of life comes into play. I don’t think life for the sake of life is enough. I don’t see life as a gift from god, I see life as something that happens. I see no virtue in allowing a child to be born knowing all it will know is suffering.
Do I supporting euthanizing kids? No. Do I support euthanizing anyone that I deem does not have a good quality of life? No. Do I think we should have assisted suicide in limited and strictly controlled circumstances? Yes, and it is only a matter of time before we do.
MrP0 -
Do I supporting euthanizing kids? No. Do I support euthanizing anyone that I deem does not have a good quality of life? No.
But you are contradicting yourself. You compared putting down dogs to put them out of their misery, with aborting babies in utero. Saying that to allow them to suffer is repugnant. Now what changes if a baby is born? Surely your principal remains?0 -
I find this viewpoint as repugnant as anything expressed here.the atheistic or anti-christian mindset who see no merit or meaning in suffering.
I can find no merit in the suffering of an innocent and deeply ill child.
Personal suffering is one thing - perhaps that is a path to knowledge and wisdom? But to laud the suffering of another is pretty despicable.0 -
StudentDad wrote: »the idea that a child that has developmental problems in utero should be aborted is repugnant.
Please, have a look at some pictures of the more severe forms of Edward's Syndrome. Or worse, Patau Syndrome. Or any disorder comprising holoprosencephaly.
Most embryos with these disorders will spontaneously abort. Most of those who manage to make it to birth will die within hours. Do you defend the right of these children to live? Do you condemn a mother carrying a child with such a disorder (and is likely to die in utero) who decides that a termination is the right thing?
You have no interest in anyone's well-being. It is self-serving righteousness in an arena that needs empathy and understanding.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »Please, have a look at some pictures of the more severe forms of Edward's Syndrome. Or worse, Patau Syndrome. Or any disorder comprising holoprosencephaly.
Most embryos with these disorders will spontaneously abort. Most of those who manage to make it to birth will die within hours. Do you defend the right of these children to live? Do you condemn a mother carrying a child with such a disorder (and is likely to die in utero) who decides that a termination is the right thing?
You have no interest in anyone's well-being. It is self-serving righteousness in an arena that needs empathy and understanding.
i actually almost just went BOO YEAH at the screen reading that. A lot of horses need getting down off with this crowd!0 -
Sorry, no, I am not contradicting myself. I was pointing out that we are happy to treat animals humanely, but for some reason this humane treatment does not extend to our own species. I was comparing humane treatment not necessarily specific acts.But you are contradicting yourself. You compared putting down dogs to put them out of their misery, with aborting babies in utero. Saying that to allow them to suffer is repugnant. Now what changes if a baby is born? Surely your principal remains?
I think it is cruel to knowingly allow a child to be born when its life will consist of nothing but pain and suffering. What justification is there fore allowing the suffering when it need never happen? With respect to putting a child out of its misery, this is not something I have ever really thought about. My initial thought on the matter would be that I would not be happy with it, but them I think it is fairly common practice to withdraw treatment from patients that have no hope of survival. I am not sure this is a particularly humane thing to do. Surely it would be more humane to administer a drug, in these circumstances, than simply withdrawing treatment? Please note, I am not talking about killing babies that don’t come up to scratch, I am talking about circumstances where a decision is taken to withdraw treatment and “allow nature to take its course.”
MrP0 -
Sorry, no, I am not contradicting myself. I was pointing out that we are happy to treat animals humanely, but for some reason this humane treatment does not extend to our own species. I was comparing humane treatment not necessarily specific acts.
But what changes after a baby is born? Follow your logic to its conclusion, and a child who we believe to be sufferring should be killed is what you are saying. What are you saying changes, in principal, after birth?I think it is cruel to knowingly allow a child to be born when its life will consist of nothing but pain and suffering.
The thing is that a) A doctors prognosis is not infallible and b) Its one thing for us making decisions on whether WE want to die or not, but insisting that another person, who has no voice would be better off dead?? c) The alternative you are suggesting kills the child, and likely causes sufferring too. This idea that because the child is in utero, it has little value, or little enough value for the mother to be able to just say, 'kill it' is rather shaky moral territory don'ty you think?
BTW, I don't want to get hysterical about this. I can understand the thought process behind your point. I just disagree with it, and also feel that it is tremendously stupid to insist that a parent who allows their child to be born is somehow being repugnantly selfish. By all means, put forward the argument why abortion should be legal, but twisting things to say a parent who gives their baby a chance at life is repuganant, and thus make abortion some kind of moral victory is just stupendously misguided.0 -
That is a very good question, and as I said before not really one I have given a lot of thought. I have never considered putting children out of their misery, though, as I have also previously mentioned, treatment is frequently withdrawn from patients that are suffering and have no hope of survival.But what changes after a baby is born? Follow your logic to its conclusion, and a child who we believe to be sufferring should be killed is what you are saying. What are you saying changes, in principal, after birth?
So once more, my comment about putting animal downs was in relation to the compassion that we humans think animals deserve when they are put down, in a humane way and contrast this with the belief that it is somehow ok to knowingly allow a child to be born when all it will experience is pain and suffering. In the latter scenario the compassionate and humane course of action is to abort the foetus and to not allow it to suffer. Euthanizing children that are born but have no hope of survival and merely suffer pain for their short lives is something else, and as I have said, is not something I have thought about in any great detail.
What I will say is this, many countries allow the abortion of foetuses where the child’s health will be so compromised that it will only have a short and painful existence, and this has not, to my knowledge, led to the logical conclusion you assert it must.
I would agree with this, but in some cases there is no doubt. The only doubt is in the heads of the parents and the misplaced belief and hope that somehow it will all turn out ok in the end.The thing is that a) A doctors prognosis is not infallible and
Decisions like this are made all the time. Should be turn of the life support machine or not? Should we withdraw all medical intervention and let nature take it course? These decisions, hard decisions, are made by 1000s of people every day with respect to one of their loved ones. It is perfectly possible and rather common place for people to make the decision that someone would be better off dead, I simply don’t see how one could deny this.b) Its one thing for us making decisions on whether WE want to die or not, but insisting that another person, who has no voice would be better off dead??
I would hope that the suffering caused by the termination, particularly if carried out early, would be considerably less than after birth and the child was trying to rely on its own compromised body to sustain its life.c) The alternative you are suggesting kills the child, and likely causes sufferring too. This idea that because the child is in utero, it has little value, or little enough value for the mother to be able to just say, 'kill it' is rather shaky moral territory don'ty you think?
I am glad you understand, I struggle to get the thought process into words.BTW, I don't want to get hysterical about this. I can understand the thought process behind your point. I just disagree with it
What are they being? Seriously, genuine question, what exactly is the justification?and also feel that it is tremendously stupid to insist that a parent who allows their child to be born is somehow being repugnantly selfish.
I am talking about babies that have no chance of life. None. Unless by life to mean pain and suffering for the mercifully short span of their “life.”By all means, put forward the argument why abortion should be legal, but twisting things to say a parent who gives their baby a chance at life is repuganant, and thus make abortion some kind of moral victory is just stupendously misguided.
MrP0 -
doctoremma wrote: »Please, have a look at some pictures of the more severe forms of Edward's Syndrome. Or worse, Patau Syndrome. Or any disorder comprising holoprosencephaly.
Most embryos with these disorders will spontaneously abort. Most of those who manage to make it to birth will die within hours. Do you defend the right of these children to live? Do you condemn a mother carrying a child with such a disorder (and is likely to die in utero) who decides that a termination is the right thing?
You have no interest in anyone's well-being. It is self-serving righteousness in an arena that needs empathy and understanding.
What about taking a look at the less sever cases?
There are many children born with Edward's Syndrome, Patau Syndrome and various levels of holoprosencephaly who while needing medical management still bring joy to their parents as do Down's Syndrome children no matter how long they live.
Eugenics as a reason for abortion is still eugenics and advocating the destruction of certain individuals because the fail to meet a particular norm is odious.
What people need to understand is that a human being is a human being, whose life begins at conception and that genetic anomalies or abnormalities do not make this person less of a human being.
That their lives are compromised is never a valid reason to legalize killing them at their most vulnerable.
This concept of an abortion as a solution to a genetic abnormality is something that is being pushed by some within the medical community and many in the pro-abortion community for their own nefarious reasons one of which being to desensitize the world to the horror of abortion and make it appear to be an acceptable medical practice.
The medical and scientific community would do better to understand that the natural death of a child is far preferable to its arbitrary murder and in the case of a late miscarriage, still birth or antenatal birth the grieving process for the parents is healthier.
No one wants to hear that their child is ill or that they have little of no chance of survival if they make it to birth, but is having it removed prematurely and treated as medical waste really the best solution?
As someone who had to make that choice I say no and am eternally grateful that we have the grave of a baptized innocent to visit.
If we are human beings then we should be treating the sickest of those within our community with humanity and not with instruments of death.0 -
What about taking a look at the less sever cases?
There are many children born with Edward's Syndrome, Patau Syndrome and various levels of holoprosencephaly who while needing medical management still bring joy to their parents as do Down's Syndrome children no matter how long they live.
Eugenics as a reason for abortion is still eugenics and advocating the destruction of certain individuals because the fail to meet a particular norm is odious.
What people need to understand is that a human being is a human being, whose life begins at conception and that genetic anomalies or abnormalities do not make this person less of a human being.
That their lives are compromised is never a valid reason to legalize killing them at their most vulnerable.
This concept of an abortion as a solution to a genetic abnormality is something that is being pushed by some within the medical community and many in the pro-abortion community for their own nefarious reasons one of which being to desensitize the world to the horror of abortion and make it appear to be an acceptable medical practice.
The medical and scientific community would do better to understand that the natural death of a child is far preferable to its arbitrary murder and in the case of a late miscarriage, still birth or antenatal birth the grieving process for the parents is healthier.
No one wants to hear that their child is ill or that they have little of no chance of survival if they make it to birth, but is having it removed prematurely and treated as medical waste really the best solution?
As someone who had to make that choice I say no and am eternally grateful that we have the grave of a baptized innocent to visit.
If we are human beings then we should be treating the sickest of those within our community with humanity and not with instruments of death.
Very well said!0 -
Advertisement
-
doctoremma wrote: »Please, have a look at some pictures of the more severe forms of Edward's Syndrome. Or worse, Patau Syndrome. Or any disorder comprising holoprosencephaly.
Most embryos with these disorders will spontaneously abort. Most of those who manage to make it to birth will die within hours. Do you defend the right of these children to live? Do you condemn a mother carrying a child with such a disorder (and is likely to die in utero) who decides that a termination is the right thing?
You have no interest in anyone's well-being. It is self-serving righteousness in an arena that needs empathy and understanding.
I can't speak for SD, but don't confuse someone believing in the rights and wrongs in this circumstance with someone lacking in empathy.
I am against abortion, but something as simple as Down Syndrme absolutely TERRIFIED me as an expentant father, so conditions worse than that I would completely understand someone choosing abortion. I wouldn't look to judge such people at all, but I still have conscience enough to see it as morally wrong. Its easy for that to get lost in the debate. The illusion is created that someone like me wants to send women to the firing squad, such is my resistance to abortion. That however is not the case. Women most definately need to be supported, and we must not be judgemental and condemning in what is usually a difficult time.0 -
Disorders like holoprosencephaly can be prenatally assessed by ultrasound. If the care team advise the mother that it's mild, she can make an informed choice. If the care team advise the mother that it's severe/likely incompatible with life, she can make an informed choice. It's not a case of being unable to predict outcomes so better leave it to chance.What about taking a look at the less sever cases?
For these "many", there are 10 X the number who live short and distressing lives (distressing for them). And 100 X the number who never make it to birth.There are many children born with Edward's Syndrome, Patau Syndrome and various levels of holoprosencephaly who while needing medical management still bring joy to their parents as do Down's Syndrome children no matter how long they live.
I am not advocating that every fetus diagnosed with Edwards Syndrome be aborted. I am saying that following investigations of Edwards Syndrome, if the fetus is deemed to be so utterly destined for death, then the mother should be able to make the choice to terminate with a clear conscience. Waving pictures of the statistical anomalies (and I'm truly sorry to use such language, honestly), exhorting people to consider the "high functioning" sufferers of such devastating disorders is of no benefit to anyone.
I simply don't agree. Asserting that I must "understand" is useless. You are free to hold this viewpoint - I would never tell you otherwise - but it is not my viewpoint.What people need to understand is that a human being is a human being, whose life begins at conception0 -
The word used - repugnant - suggests a lack of empathy. But point taken.I can't speak for SD, but don't confuse someone believing in the rights and wrongs in this circumstance with someone lacking in empathy.
Down's Syndrome can be anything and everything other than simple. Some people with Down's Syndrome are "high-functioning", some people with Down's Syndrome are profoundly disabled and face a lifetime of surgery and interventions. The burden of care can be anything from mild to all-consuming. There are some disabilities that I wouldn't feel comfortable with the option of termination but Down's Syndrome isn't one of them.I am against abortion, but something as simple as Down Syndrme absolutely TERRIFIED me as an expentant father, so conditions worse than that I would completely understand someone choosing abortion.
Slightly off topic, but I think this is where I have a gap in either my mindset or my personality. For me, the recognition that someone has behaved in a manner I consider immoral is wrapped up in automatic judgement (whether I am open about it and can move past such judgement is another matter). I don't understand how the two can be separated.I wouldn't look to judge such people at all, but I still have conscience enough to see it as morally wrong. Its easy for that to get lost in the debate. The illusion is created that someone like me wants to send women to the firing squad, such is my resistance to abortion. That however is not the case. Women most definately need to be supported, and we must not be judgemental and condemning in what is usually a difficult time.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »Down's Syndrome can be anything and everything other than simple. Some people with Down's Syndrome are "high-functioning", some people with Down's Syndrome are profoundly disabled and face a lifetime of surgery and interventions. The burden of care can be anything from mild to all-consuming. There are some disabilities that I wouldn't feel comfortable with the option of termination but Down's Syndrome isn't one of them.
Maybe 'simple' was an inappropriate term, but you know what I mean.
Slightly off topic, but I think this is where I have a gap in either my mindset or my personality. For me, the recognition that someone has behaved in a manner I consider immoral is wrapped up in automatic judgement (whether I am open about it and can move past such judgement is another matter). I don't understand how the two can be separated.
There is judging an action as wrong, even morally reprehensible, that doesn't necessarily mean you are judging a person who does it. I'll give an example using the context of abortion:
1) A person who is raped and ends up with the rapists child growing inside her. Now, even in this absolutely horrid circumstance, I would consider the in utero child innocent, and not deserving of a death sentance. So I stil judge the action as wrong, but I'd completely understand why it would be desired. If the woman in question went ahead with an abortion in this circumstance, I'd still look to support her through the trauma etc, and not judge her. At the end of the day, if the 'service' is there for her, then I completely understand why she'd want to use it under such circumstances.
2) A person who knows their in utero child is indeed their child, but simply says, 'I don't care, I don't want it, so get rid'. I would consider that person callous, irresponsible and morally repugnant as long as she holds such a view. Similarly those who coldly and brashly describe our unborn children as 'parasites' etc.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »Slightly off topic, but I think this is where I have a gap in either my mindset or my personality. For me, the recognition that someone has behaved in a manner I consider immoral is wrapped up in automatic judgement (whether I am open about it and can move past such judgement is another matter). I don't understand how the two can be separated.
There is a difference between judging behaviour and judging people.0 -
I think my judgement of her informs my decision as to whether the action was moral or immoral. I would not judge her badly for making that decision and thus, the action is not immoral. I've not thought of this before so it's probably a bit of a woolly thought process.There is judging an action as wrong, even morally reprehensible, that doesn't necessarily mean you are judging a person who does it. I'll give an example using the context of abortion:
1) A person who is raped and ends up with the rapists child growing inside her. Now, even in this absolutely horrid circumstance, I would consider the in utero child innocent, and not deserving of a death sentance. So I stil judge the action as wrong, but I'd completely understand why it would be desired. If the woman in question went ahead with an abortion in this circumstance, I'd still look to support her through the trauma etc, and not judge her. At the end of the day, if the 'service' is there for her, then I completely understand why she'd want to use it under such circumstances.
Take a thief who steals to feed his family. I don't view that action of stealing as immoral (providing he does not steal from someone who also has a starving family, that becomes a very grey area). If a thief steals purely for personal pleasure, I view that as immoral, even though it's the same action.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »Take a thief who steals to feed his family. I don't view that action of stealing as immoral (providing he does not steal from someone who also has a starving family, that becomes a very grey area). If a thief steals purely for personal pleasure, I view that as immoral, even though it's the same action.
Its not immoral to steal to feed your family.. If this is the only way of feeding your family. Because it would be worse to let them die when you could have done something to save them.
Abortion is morally wrong as you as killing a child.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »I think my judgement of her informs my decision as to whether the action was moral or immoral. I would not judge her badly for making that decision and thus, the action is not immoral. I've not thought of this before so it's probably a bit of a woolly thought process.
You're getting into moral relativism there which doesn't tend to end well.
Edit: Can a moral man, maintain his moral code in an immoral world... good question posed, and the answers dealt with by different characters in different ways in the film The Uprising.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
doctoremma wrote: »Especially not when conversing with a group of people who believe they have a source of objective morality!
I haven't had the pleasure of discussing it with Sam Harris yet.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement