I am one of those people who think that abortions should be illegal even in the case of life-saving ones. It is tragic that such situations happen, and I will not speak ill of people who made a different call, but the terms of the issue do not change: one person does not have the right to cause the death of another, innocent person.
Not even to save his or her own life. There might be some leeway if the mother's death would be very likely to cause the child's death, I am not sure about that; but that's about it.
There is a reason why Gianna Beretta Molla is a Saint...
34 comments
this person has no business ever being even near any form of triage situation.
which, in this day and age, is thankfully doable. the vast majority of us will never have to face the cold equations of such situations head on; technology and civilization have marginalized them to unusual corner cases. still, those few people who yet do have to face such decisions need to be able to make them rationally, and this fundie has proven s/he cannot; keep them out of, amongst other things, medical professions of every kind, emergency first responder jobs, and any jobs with political or policy influence over such positions.
"Not even to save his or her own life."
Again, irrefutible evidence these scumbags are not "pro life" but "pro somebody else's fetus & anti everything else". They're so despicable I honestly cannot picture an honest and genuinly moral "pro life" person anymore.
@pete: how so? the OP is not really arguing, they're blatantly asserting that "noone ever has the right to kill another person, even in self defense". but merely stating such a thing does not make it so; dressing that blatant assertion up with a tear-wrenching story about mothers and cute little babies does not constitute logical, or ethical, support. maybe "stand your ground" laws, or better yet some specific instance of them, SHOULD be repealed --- but this fundie has provided exactly NO reason as to why.
"one person does not have the right to cause the death of another"
Logically from this OP must also think that every time a mother dies from the complications of childbirth the baby should be prosecuted.
Oh. Wait. No. Women's lives don't count. :P
"one person does not have the right to cause the death of another, innocent person."
It's just that in this case, the 'other, innocent person' *isn't yet* a person, it's on its way towards *becoming* a person. Especially at the early-pregnancy stage where most abortions are performed.
Gianna Beretta Molla fucking died from a fibroid that could have been easily treated if she had allowed it.
She left behind FOUR motherless children. As in, four children that grew up without the mother that loved them.
That is a tragedy, not a reason to celebrate or inflict anti-choice legislation upon everyone else.
There might be some leeway if the mother's death would be very likely to cause the child's death, I am not sure about that
Why the hell not? If a woman and her fetus are sure to die, why not remove the fetus? What's to be unsure of?
There is a reason why Gianna Beretta Molla is a Saint...
Yes, politics.
"one person does not have the right to cause the death of another, innocent person."
Since you think a fetus is a person, you'd have to agree to an abortion in a life-saving situation, then, since the fetus would be killing an innocent person: the mother.
"... I will not speak ill of people who made a different call, but ..... one person does not have the right to cause the death of another....Not even to save his or her own life...."
But you're not gonna speak ill. Wow, you're a sweetie!
"There is a reason why Gianna Beretta Molla is a Saint."
Or, someone at the Vatican saw what a spectacular brainwashing/propaganda tool she could be for them to use on generations of Catholic little girls.
If you want mothers like Gianna Beretta Molla to be allowed to basically commit suicide, fine. But don't try and make your nonsense law.
one person does not have the right to cause the death of another, innocent person.
Unless they're a fetus, in which case they absolutely have that right.
one person does not have the right to cause the death of another, innocent person.
There might be some leeway if the mother's death would be very likely to cause the child's death is.
The core logical inconsistency here has been pointed out, so no sense repeating it.
One of these days, I'm drawing up that life-threatening pregnancy triage flow chart. Maybe if people have a picture to look at with minimal reading, they'll get a damned clue.
Carciofus:
If you understand Latin, then you are a male. When you are capable of having a life threatening pregnancy, you will be entitled to an opinion concerning the behavior of those that do.
Meanwhile, don't masturbate, you un-quickened baby-killer!
So you not only support the right to life for fetuses you want them to have more of a right to life than born people.
Or are you of the opinion that laws protecting necessary killing in self-defense should be repealed? You say "innocent person" but what if the person attacking you is hallucinating and thinks they are actually saving your life? Self-defense protections have nothing to do with the other person's intent (nor should they), just the threat they pose to you and in jurisdictions that haven't adopted the ridiculously broad "stand your ground laws" whether or not you have any other reasonable options.
"Carciofus" is second declension in latin, indicates, among other things, maleness.
I'm distantly related to Gianna Beretta Molla, and she was a bitch. Her daughter is a bitch, too.
No, seriously, very unpleasant people to be around. They think they know better than you in every field, even the one that you work in.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
