You took my "silly question" out of context.
And I think your last quote is totally out out of context too. You are comparing murderers or murder to a woman who had for some reason fallen pregnant and had to make the hardest decision of her life on whether to keep it or not, which how bad can things be to abort your own child? That woman has to live with that pain with the rest of her life, of course she didnt make the decision lighty. But comparing her to a man or a woman who takes a life for no other reason other than selfishisness or self-defense. Are you calling aborting your own child selfish? Because I bet you havent asked these women, you havent done your research. You not representing the full picture, all sides so how can you draw a valid conclusion, i suggest you go away and do that and maybe you'd have a better understanding.

Let's say I have a horrible illness, and the only way to cure the illness is to go through a very expensive medical procedure costing 500,000 dollars. It just so happens that my grandfather's life insurance is for 5 million dollars, and I am his beneficiary. The insurance doesn't have a proviso that I won't get the money if I kill him.

Well, killing my grandfather would be the hardest decision I've ever made, and I'll have to live with that decsion, y'know...?

No! I'd deserve either life imprisonment or death.

Same with the murderous mother. Even if there's a "good reason" for slaying innocent blood, the ends never justify the means.

You have a choice with your medical condition, you could try another way of raising the money, (the possibities are endless if you put your mind to it). Or you could choose to die, both acts are sefless, if you killed your Grandfather that would be selfish because you had other options, but you take the easy way out and that is selfish and it must be easy if you could kill someone that you know and love.(?) Abortion is not an easy decision and there are no other options, (see op).

There is another way. You could bear the child, even though your every inclination is to do otherwise. Even if it would be dangerous, even if it would be costly, even if it would be burdensome for the rest of your life, even if it were under the very worst conditions...to run contrary to your inclination and your instincts, and to abstain from murdering the child.

The ends don't justify the means.

No matter what "reasons" you give me for killing a child, no matter how sad the sob story, and no matter what the ends are, the means -cannot- be "I'm gonna murder this child." The value of the individual is infinite, and that's Kant's sentiment.

Even though even though yada yada yada. Even though the kid could grow up to be a violent mudering @@@@@@ just like his father. You have no idea because you failed to do the research.

None of this matters. No end can justify an intrinsically evil means, such as murder. Especially murder, in fact.

So Bona, I have a question for you. What happens if a women has a miscarriage during a pregnancy? Is she a murderer? Many things can go wrong during a pregnancy at any time, so there is always a chance the fetus never sees the world. Therefore, a fetus is not an individual with rights, because it is not even guaranteed the chance to live. Thus, abortion is not murder. Sure, abortion is far from pretty, but at times they are totally necessary to reduce unnecessary suffering.

By "murder" I understand "the intentional slaying of an unborn child." Miscarriages are unintentional.

I disagree that the uncertainty of the unborn child being born is relevent. There's a chance that the house in which I am currently dwelling might collapse, and I will die. So what?

In any case, as I said before: even if having the abortion is necessary to reduce suffering, the reduction of the suffering isn't itself necessary. Abortion isn't necessary absolutely in those cases, but only hypothetically.

As I said before: no ends can justify an intrinsically evil means.

There is nothing evil about abortion other than people giving it the an evil value. Personally, I find it more evil to bring into the world unwanted children.

It's the slaying of an innocent human person. Intuitively, that's murder. This man has no excuse, given that the unborn children he was murdering actually looked like children, and there's no question about whether or not they were unborn children.

It's not like this doctor was doing forced abortions. Women decided to have the abortion and the doctors are providing a service. Otherwise, the women themselves may end up doing even more gruesome acts (e.g. coat hanger abortion). Much like I think assisted suicide should be legal, abortion should as well.

Who cares about the woman's decision? Every abortion is forced. No unborn child says: "Kill me! Kill me! You have my permission. Kill me!" Given that, I already said that I think that the mother in such a case is murderous also.

If a woman cannot either raise the child or birth it, then there is no reason why she should not be able to get an abortion. Fetuses are not yet individuals, but instead a part of the mother before they are born. Therefore, it remains a decision of the mother, and it is far better to be able to have a medical abortions rather than do-it-yourself abortions, which causes much more unnecessary suffering.

Because it's murder.



I disagree. If a 21 week old baby (of which I have given a picture) is prematurely born, do you still say it's part of the mother? Clearly not. It's almost analytic to say that the unborn child isn't part of the mother. If it were part of the mother, then the mother would be losing a part of herself at birth, which is clearly not the case.



It isn't a matter of "which is better." NO abortion, "do-it-yourself" or "safe" or otherwise, is morally permissible. EVERY abortion is murder.

Your wasting your time, he doesnt listen to the differences between a fetus and his grandfather, nor the difference between murder and the operation, he's a very angry blinkered individual, i wouldnt bother.

A "civilization" that has to kill another human being, to preserve that civilization is not civilized, yet. It has a ways to go. No one can force another to be civilized; he was born with all the ingredients he needed to become civilized. He learns to be uncivil from that very society that calls itself civil. We do not have the answers yet to universally define the roles of man and woman. We are still discovering those. I just know you can't have life without them. We need to solve that problem or the killing will continue I'm afraid.

By doing a little research into this "abortionists" life, I, personally came to the conclusion he involved himself in this practice for the money. In my deepest heart, I cannot imagine a human being intentionally taking the life of an unborn child, to solve one of "this society's" problems. I understand the death penalty and the frustration and anger that drove us to it using the age old worn out axiom of "a life for a life" which in my opinion is a sad last resort option, when a person is deem beyond "repair" and senselessly kills others for reasons we have not clearly established. You see, that should be our mission as human beings is to fix the problem that created a "justice" system that created a man like Tiller and other executioners, that gave them license to take a another life, whether that human is at the seed of life or else. The very reason we have a justice system is because there is no justice system and that very justice system is a victim of this very society that calls itself "civil".

We need to understand what about this thing we call life that created that imbalance between a man and a woman that created that offspring that led to all the killings. The family is a universal paradigm. It is the most basic truth that exists on Earth that is responsible for our being. I will be the first to agree, it is by far from perfect and it needs a lot of improvement. But altering that universal paradigm is not the way to go. All of what we are discussing is the results of an attempt made to alter that universal structure. And that is what feminism is desperately efforting to do.That will only lead to more deaths as we create hell on Earth.

I will also be the first to agree this reality is not one we should be bringing new life into until we do our utmost to repair the problems of the family. It is that dysfunction coupled with this reality is what created the individual, Tiller and the man that took his life. Both are killers. For that matter so is our justice system, it kills too.

Woman is not to be liberated from the family, she is the core that is responsible for that family. She and only she is the decision maker of what will be 'her' family. She decides the mate who will father her child, and she is still doing that, unfortunately it is a far cry from that universal paradigm when it comes feminism. Feminism is a consequence of that imbalance caused by us not yet understanding the role of man and woman, and we need do all we can to understand that which will strengthen that universal structure of man/woman/child; not alter it. We just cannot do that for it is not "NATURAL". Natural is simply our attuning with that universal paradigm that is responsible for our existence. The man/woman/child is the very heart of that paradigm that is responsible for our existence and we are not meant to alter it, for God, help us if we do. My understanding of God, not yours. Of course, that has a lot to do with the root of all our problems, isn't it. (See list). Reel me back in now. My two cents has been given.

William

If that hasn't become painfully obvious, I don't know what has.

"How come it should not be your concern?"

because it isn't...that's all the reason 'i' need


"Why should you not care?"

again: because 'i' don't


"Why does there have to be a relationship for you to care?"

that's one of 'my' criteria...i'm sure you have your own

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 AM ----------

"Hey Quirk, if you don't care about anything then why are you in a philosophy forum?"

where did i post that i don't care about anything?

please: direct me to the post or posts #'s

as for why i'm here: to discuss and debate...same reason as you, i'm guessing

It think it is ironic in todays politically correct society, when a woman becomes pregnant it's; "We're pregnant". But when she decides to abort, it's "her" baby and it's her body. When in fact that baby does not belong to her. That child belongs to both the mother and the father. See what tangle webs we weave.....!

William

i too had always wondered why the father had no rights in the case of a woman wanting to have an abortion. i guess if you believe the foetus is part of the woman's body then you think the father is nothing. do people really believe that? i cant imagine a doctor saying that...

another question i had was, assuming we will agree to the fact that human beings have souls and are more than their physical body, when do they think the soul comes into the body? after birth? three months after conception?

i am also really interested about your observation, william, that " We do not have the answers yet to universally define the roles of man and woman. We are still discovering those." i definitely totally agree with that. that could be a whole new thread...i also agree that this problem is behind a lot of other problems in society, everywhere in the world, not just in the west.