Quote# 71469

*abortions to save the mother*

The difference is if the mother dies it is by all means a natural death - no one is responsible, but if the baby is aborted to save the mother, the baby dies because a deliberate, violent act was inflicted on him or her by another person. Someone was directly responsible for causing the baby's death and they have blood on their hands.

adc, RR 60 Comments [3/14/2010 10:30:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 47

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom


3/14/2010 10:33:50 AM


Moral dilemma: If the choice is between killing one to save another or letting them both die, a lot of people won't like to decide but the proper thing to do is save one of them. Especially if the one you're saving is a fully grown human and the one you're sacrificing isn't anywhere near developed, let alone sentient.

Morals aren't black and white, they're shades of grey. People like you don't like this but that doesn't change it. Deal with it.

3/14/2010 10:34:09 AM

The Skeptic Wept

"The difference is if the mother dies it is by all means a natural death - no one is responsible"

If you're going to give a clump of cells "personhood" then isn't that person responsible for the death of the mother? You can't have it both ways.

Just sayin'...

3/14/2010 10:35:57 AM


Except that a fetus, embryo or blastocyst is not a baby... or a person.

3/14/2010 10:39:45 AM



3/14/2010 10:49:19 AM

The Colonel

Technically, you could consider any fatal illness a natural death. By your logic, we could argue that fighting against cancer would be wrong because it would involve the voluntary destruction of human tissue.

3/14/2010 10:52:35 AM

So what about ectopic pregnancies? The baby won't survive no matter what you do, but allowing it to grow has one of three consequences: the mother's fertility is halved, completely ruined, or she dies as well. And all three consequences are completely preventable.

And if you're gonna believe that all human life is sacred and needs to be preserved, then guess what? The mother is human, too. On top of that, if she lives then she has the opportunity to try this whole pregnancy thing again (hopefully with more success). If pregnancy turns out to be a problem for her, then she can adopt or look for a surrogate.

3/14/2010 10:52:41 AM

caustic gnostic

Sit there and pray, and they'll both die.

There. Feel better?

3/14/2010 11:02:12 AM

So, saving nobody is better than saving somebody. Gotcha.

3/14/2010 11:02:43 AM


You are a horrible human being. There is nothing more to say.
You're OK with essentially killing the mother even though something could be done to save her life all because of this retarded notion that a clump of parasitical cells is more important than a living, breathing, functioning human being.
You people disgust me.

3/14/2010 11:04:04 AM


Taking into account your belief that the embryo or fetus or whatever is a person...

To allow another to come to harm through inaction is also murder. To Allow them both to die would be a double murder, so I say that to save one, even at the cost of the other (who would die anyway) is a heroic act.

First responders must sometimes also face similar dilemmas. I wonder if any has ever said, "I'm sorry, I can't save either of you. I'm only able to help one and that would essentially be murder for the other so I'll just have to let you both go. Have a nice day!"

3/14/2010 11:08:07 AM


And if the mother dies from not having the abortion both she and the baby die. So who has more blood on their hands? The prochoice crowd who think a woman is more valuable than a clump of cells or the antichoice crowd who think women are expendable?

3/14/2010 11:19:57 AM



3/14/2010 11:21:43 AM

Higgs Boson

This is moral cowardice of the most craven kind: in order to avoid having to make an emotionally fraught decision you are willing to let someone die, and inflict the suffering that always accompanies death on the woman's family, friends and loved ones.

3/14/2010 11:22:08 AM

The difference is if the mother dies it is by all means a natural death - no one is responsible

So, you are asserting there is no moral obligation to help someone survive what may be considered a "natural" death?

3/14/2010 11:30:12 AM


So it's the "moral" thing to do by letting BOTH the mother and the baby die? Reeeeaaaal nice.

3/14/2010 11:31:26 AM


So die in a natural fire, adc.

3/14/2010 11:51:28 AM


Wait, I think I remember this, this is Kant's philosophy of ethics, right? It is better to let great evil occur through inaction than to cause little evil to occur.

3/14/2010 12:10:08 PM


Well, adc, that's a brilliant defence if you ever get arrested for this. You probably won't even need a lawyer!

3/14/2010 12:38:39 PM


someone was directly responsible for causing the mother's death and they have blood on their hands

See I can make a statement too

3/14/2010 12:42:43 PM

Old Viking

Ain't no babies involved in abortion. The fact that you sub-marginals employ the tern does not change biological reality.

3/14/2010 12:46:44 PM

I read about the afterlife

I am convinced that fundies don't give a shit about anyone after their born...

3/14/2010 12:48:02 PM


The baby dies in both cases.

The difference is that in one case you have two deaths and in the other only one.

3/14/2010 12:51:58 PM


This old moral dilemma is so stupid.

It's simple math, one death Vs. two deaths. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how you got there, your still there.

You'd rather let both die then shoulder the responsibility of taking action. It's called cowardice.

If you want to be a coward and selfishly think only of your own "clean" hands in a life or death situation then fine, be an asshole, but don't demand the same of others.

3/14/2010 12:52:16 PM

Fun to play with, not to eat.

Is anyone surprised that they consider a non-sentient clump of cells to be equal to themselves, in self-awareness and intelligence? Sounds about right to me.

3/14/2010 12:59:35 PM

1 2 3 | top: comments page