Abortion: When does life really start?

vril wrote:


ASking your mother's will will only put her in a complicated situation as she will be committing suicide if she choses to die! Knowing she will die if she didn't allow the pregnancy to terminate will make her guilty of suicide.

Now this creates a scenario for the mother! Suicide or direct abortion? Either of these two is a sin against her church!

Hi vril,

Instead of going elsewhere in your discussion let me just give to you the moral analysis of the "mentioned cases." which are both essentially thesame.

intention: to do whatever can morally be done to save both lives, but without sin

moral object: the moral object of direct abortion is the direct and deliberate killing of an innocent person, so the act of direct abortion cannot be done.

the moral object of choosing to refrain from acting is to avoid sin

circumstances: the circumstances can never justify the intrinsically evil act of direct abortion, so the act cannot be done

the circumstances do not provide any opportunity to save the life of the mother and the prenatal, and so their deaths are not a result of sin.

Yidda wrote:
Hi vril,

Instead of going elsewhere in your discussion let me just give to you the moral analysis of the "mentioned cases." which are both essentially thesame.

intention: to do whatever can morally be done to save both lives, but without sin

moral object: the moral object of direct abortion is the direct and deliberate killing of an innocent person, so the act of direct abortion cannot be done.

the moral object of choosing to refrain from acting is to avoid sin

circumstances: the circumstances can never justify the intrinsically evil act of direct abortion, so the act cannot be done

the circumstances do not provide any opportunity to save the life of the mother and the prenatal, and so their deaths are not a result of sin.

Hi Yidda,

If you can;t save both, then why dont you save one? You can at least save one life. Choosing both to die if you have the choice and capability to save one life IMO is a bigger sin. Is this hard to rationalize? Common sense will tell you which one to choose.

I know it is in your heart to choose your mother, but your stupid dogma makes you feel guilty of something than saving your mother. But haven't you realize that you are committing a graver sin of not saving your mother when you have the capacity to do so? Isn't your mother's life more important than a stupid dogma?

I can't believe you and esther would make an immoral choice if not stupid. You're religiosity has clouded your right judgment at this point.

vril wrote:

Hi Yidda,

If you can;t save both, then why dont you save one? You can at least save one life. Choosing both to die if you have the choice and capability to save one life IMO is a bigger sin. Is this hard to rationalize? Common sense will tell you which one to choose.

I know it is in your heart to choose your mother, but your stupid dogma makes you feel guilty of something than saving your mother. But haven't you realize that you are committing a graver sin of not saving your mother when you have the capacity to do so? Isn't your mother's life more important than a stupid dogma?

I can't believe you and esther would make an immoral choice if not stupid. You're religiosity has clouded your right judgment at this point.

I really can't understand why you insist your ungodly decision , is it because the child in the womb you consider it as non human, because he/she cannot speak for herself?

What if two persons who loves its other truly, were given that situation and both of them can be heard. Both says they cannot live just for one of them to die. By murdering each other(with their choice). Would they not choose to die both and refused to murder each other(by their choice)?

To make it more clear: a Mother who loves her deaf and mute child was asked to hand the life of her beloved daughter or they both die. What would be the choice of the Mother?

Guys guys! if the mother wants to die along with the unborn to avoid committing a grave 'sin' that will only jeopardize their salvation, then let's just let them be!

The Protestant ladies are always there to make the lives and sanities of husbands more bearable if such a situation ever occurs anyway... the claim to heavenly passage is assured by both Catholics and Protestants anyway, right?

Esther wrote:

I really can't understand why you insist your ungodly decision, is it because the child in the womb you consider it as non human, because he/she cannot speak for herself?...

No, it's not that. It's because we have known and loved and have an already established and cherished relationship with our wives. We can always make another baby anyway in the course of our lives.

And i'm pretty sure a truly loving and understanding God would understand that. If HE can't understand that, then to hell with this God. Catholicism has no sole property rights to God anyway.

Esther wrote:

I really can't understand why you insist your ungodly decision , is it because the child in the womb you consider it as non human, because he/she cannot speak for herself?

What if two persons who loves its other truly, were given that situation and both of them can be heard. Both says they cannot live just for one of them to die. By murdering each other(with their choice). Would they not choose to die both and refused to murder each other(by their choice)?

To make it more clear: a Mother who loves her deaf and mute child was asked to hand the life of her beloved daughter or they both die. What would be the choice of the Mother?

Call yours godly decision. I call mine humane decision. You follow your god, I follow my common sense.

I would assume you would also kill your mother or daughter or son if god commanded you to do so. Just like what Abraham stupidly did with his son Isaac.

vril wrote:

Call yours godly decision. I call mine humane decision. You follow your god, I follow my common sense.

I would assume you would also kill your mother or daughter or son if god commanded you to do so. Just like what Abraham stupidly did with his son Isaac.

No. I cannot do that, because I have hope in God ! But in your case I think you will, you already have laid your choice isn't it? : to "live selfishly" even it will cost the lost of your love ones.

May God's grace enlighten you.

element_115x wrote:

No, it's not that. It's because we have known and loved and have an already established and cherished relationship with our wives. We can always make another baby anyway in the course of our lives.

And i'm pretty sure a truly loving and understanding God would understand that. If HE can't understand that, then to hell with this God. Catholicism has no sole property rights to God anyway.

and in the course of our lives the same case happens, wow! there is another baby to be slaughtered. Happy now?

Esther wrote:

No. I cannot do that, because I have hope in God ! But in your case I think you will, you already have laid your choice isn't it? : to "live selfishly" even it will cost the lost of your love ones.

May God's grace enlighten you.

Where did you get the idea that I made a choice to live selfishly even it cost the lost of my love ones?

vril wrote:

Where did you get the idea that I made a choice to live selfishly even it cost the lost of my love ones?

and why did you assume that I could kill a person,as if I do not know God?

now if your changing your stand answer this:

What if two persons who loves its other truly, were given that situation and both of them can be heard. Both says they cannot live just for one of them to die. By murdering each other(with their choice). Would they not choose to die both and refused to murder each other(by their choice)?

To make it more clear: a Mother who loves her deaf and mute child was asked to hand the life of her beloved daughter or they both die. What would be the choice of the Mother?

Esther wrote:

and in the course of our lives the same case happens, wow! there is another baby to be slaughtered. Happy now?

Ideally, if God didn't allow for any medical complications to happen in the first place, both will be alive and everyone will be happy. But nooo.... God has to make the predicament to happen. Now why is God messing with our lives?

element_115x wrote:

Ideally, if God didn't allow for any medical complications to happen in the first place, both will be alive and everyone will be happy. But nooo.... God has to make the predicament to happen. Now why is God messing with our lives?

The answer must be someone, not just something. For the problem (suffering) is about someone (God—why does he... why doesn't he ...?) rather than just something. To question God's goodness is not just an intellectual experiment. It is rebellion or tears. It is a little child with tears in its eyes looking up at Daddy and weeping, "Why?" This is not merely the philosophers' "why?" Not only does it add the emotion of tears but also it is asked in the context of relationship. It is a question put to the Father, not a question asked in a vacuum.The hurt child needs not so much explanations as reassurances. And that is what we get: the reassurance of the Father in the person of Jesus, "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).

The answer is not just a word but the Word; not an idea but a person. Clues are abstract, persons are concrete. Clues are signs; they signify something beyond themselves, something real. Our solution cannot be a mere idea, however true, profound, or useful, because that would be only another sign, another finger, another clue—like fingers pointing to other fingers, like having faith in faith, or hope in hope, or being in love with love. A hall of mirrors.

Besides being here, he is now. Besides being concretely real in our world, he, our answer, is also in our story, our history. Our story is also his-story. The answer is not a timeless truth but a once-for-all catastrophic event, as real as the stories in today's newspapers. It is, of course, the most familiar, the most often-told story in the world. Yet it is also the strangest, and it has never lost its strangeness, its awe, and will not even in eternity, where angels tremble to gaze at things we yawn at. And however strange, it is the only key that fits the lock of our tortured lives and needs. We needed a surgeon, and he came and reached into our wounds with bloody hands. He didn't give us a placebo or a pill or good advice. He gave us himself.

continuation: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/suffering.htm

What if two persons who loves its other truly, were given that situation and both of them can be heard. Both says they cannot live just for one of them to die. By murdering each other(with their choice). Would they not choose to die both and refused to murder each other(by their choice)?

Is it me or your story above is grammatically unintelligible?

To make it more clear: a Mother who loves her deaf and mute child was asked to hand the life of her beloved daughter or they both die. What would be the choice of the Mother?

gosh..you made it even unintelligible.

it is un-intelligible to those who refused to answer, in fairness to you it is grammatically incorrect.

will you choose to die with your love one or give her up for you to live?

To make it more clear: a Mother who loves her deaf and mute child was asked to hand the life of her beloved daughter or they both die. What would be the choice of the Mother?

my gosh too this is what you are asking me to answer!!! In to which you hated me for my answer, now it's your turn to answer pls. so that I can know your stand.

Esther wrote:it is un-intelligible to those who refused to answer.

will you choose to die with your love one or give her up for you to live?

If you try and clear things up..I promise to answer you. But from your situation above, i can hardly tell what's going on. So please state a clear situation. Unless you have done that, I don't think I may be able to answer honestly.

Please state what the situation is, the place where the situation is happening, who's asking who and why.

read my edit above/previous post, it is self readable and self comprehensible.

Esther wrote:read my edit above/previous post, it is self readable and self comprehensible.

Well, it's not uncommon for you to make sense of things unintelligible. You still have to state a clear scenario.

vril wrote:

Well, it's not uncommon for you to make sense of things unintelligible. You still have to state a clear scenario.

will you choose to die with your love one or give her up for you to live?

To make it more clear: a Mother who loves her deaf and mute child was asked to hand the life of her beloved daughter or they both die. What would be the choice of the Mother?

my gosh too this is what you are asking me to answer!!! In to which you hated me for my answer, now it's your turn to answer pls. so that I can know your stand.

and why do you refuse to answer now , and with an alibi. Is it not honorable for you to stand up and answer me directly the way I answered? Or you are afraid because of the same analogy of the cases?

...till then I'll assume like you did:

"you already have laid your choice isn't it? : to "live selfishly" even it will cost the lost of your love ones."

Esther wrote:

will you choose to die with your love one or give her up for you to live?

To make it more clear: a Mother who loves her deaf and mute child was asked to hand the life of her beloved daughter or they both die. What would be the choice of the Mother?

my gosh too this is what you are asking me to answer!!! In to which you hated me for my answer, now it's your turn to answer pls. so that I can know your stand.

and why do you refuse to answer now with and your alibi. Is it not honorable for you to stand up and answer me directly the way I answered? Or you are afraid because of the same analogy of the cases?

The situation stated by korrill is very clear. The facts are there.

Now, your situation above is so vague I can hardly make a decision. Why?

1. It does not state what the situation is.
2. No place is stated where the situation is happening
3. It does not say who's asking who

And please, don't try to redeem yourslef with this question. It will not change anything. What you did was an immoral choice if not stupid.

Now, I beg you, please state a clear situation about this mother and her loved one. Are they in the hospital? Is the doctor asking to hand the life of the child from the mother? Why is the doctor asking that? Or is the mother and the child kidnapped by Terrorists and were brought to their camp? Is the terrorist asking the mother to give them the child? Why? They already have them both. Why is the terrorist asking the mother to hand the life of the child? Do they want to rape the child? And why are they asking the mother's permission? Isn't it obvious they've already kidnapped them both and they can do whatever they want?

So please, give me a clear situation so I can decide and satisfy your hunger for revenge.

Now you are asking for a detailed scenario as an alibi, whereas ME, I answered your question directly which arises simply from a simple question and I quote:

"What is the church's position when it is established that the pregnancy is what is killing the mother?"

so in your case choice is situational , it is not firm as mine... I believe you would choose to live whatever cost it is; even the cost is your love ones life..(it depends on the situation isn't it? ~self first).
Do you really love then? yes but self first.

care now to answer those simple questions?

Esther wrote:Now you are asking for a detailed scenario as an alibi, whereas ME, I answered your question directly which arises simply from a simple question and I quote:

"What is the church's position when it is established that the pregnancy is what is killing the mother?"

so in your case choice is situational , it is not firm as mine... I believe you would choose to live whatever cost it is; even the cost is your love ones life..(it depends on the situation isn't it? ~self first).
Do you really love then? yes but self first.

care now to answer those simple questions?

I dont think it's a simple question. The case has been presented with full details. Unless you have a habit of answering questions without understanding the situation. That's our big difference.

The Mother has an only child. The child is handicapped and they got abducted from a remote place. The handicapped child became a burden so the rebels commanded the Mother to kill her child or else both of them will be killed. What would the Mother choose?

Two lovers(One is YOU) sweared to love each other, One day, the two lovers are involved in a gangster. Both of the gangster have prisoners and there is a deal to exchange one prisoner with the group of gangster.

Since their rival group member was killed,before: the leader accepted the deal , but also with a revenge in mind:

as a revenged you are asked to kill your love one.

And the deal is your freedom.

And You being one of the lover will you kill your love one in order to survive.
or else both of you die.

a scenario for you!




wish i could continue my Tagaytay unknown here.

I hope you could choose now. So I can make my final conclusion.

Esther wrote:The Mother has an only child. The child is handicapped and they got abducted from a remote place. The handicapped child became a burden so the rebels commanded the Mother to kill her child or else both of them will be killed. What would the Mother choose?

Two lovers(One is YOU) sweared to love each other, One day, the two lovers are involved in a gangster. Both of the gangster have prisoners and there is a deal to exchange one prisoner with the group of gangster.

Since their rival group member was killed,before: the leader accepted the deal , but also with a revenge in mind:

as a revenged you are asked to kill your love one.

And the deal is your freedom.

And You being one of the lover will you kill your love one in order to survive.
or else both of you die.

a scenario for you!




wish i could continue my Tagaytay unknown here.

Thank you for elaborating your seemingly weird scenario and not similar analogy to what Korrill has cited. But just to satisfy you, and here's my rational answer which you will find nothing immoral in my decision.

No I will not kill my child. If they kill us both then it's up to them. It's them who have blood in their hands. Your scenario is nothing like the one cited earlier. There's a big difference. I hope your smart enough to see that.

My answer to your 2nd scenario is the same. I will not kill my love one in exchange for my freedom.