In case we haven't beaten the abortion horse to death yet

[Prebe]

Rus: Jedi mind-trick^^

Arguing is indeed futile when you claim to adhere un-waveringly to a principle and you completely ignore the questions about the obvious dilemmas of your stance.

If only you really ever stated the position of intelligent Catholicism/Orthodoxy,

Oh, there's a consensus now?

.... you would understand that in that view, the consequences of killing the baby are far more terrible than the temporal tragedy of watching someone die - something we must all do someday anyway. I never see any evidence of understanding of that. It's always shock and horror that a mother may die and that's all.

So, what you mean is: The doctor should save the child at the cost of the mother if there is no other choice? Is that so hard to say? Why must it be so convoluted?

I can certainly understand that position. I just vehemently disagree.

[Cambo]

Prebe, Fist, you've got it all wrong. If you truly understood, you would agree. Disagreement is a symptom of ignorance.

[rusmeister]

Rus: Jedi mind-trick^^

Arguing is indeed futile when you claim to adhere un-waveringly to a principle and you completely ignore the questions about the obvious dilemmas of your stance.

If only you really ever stated the position of intelligent Catholicism/Orthodoxy,

Oh, there's a consensus now?

Well, if you ever inquired, you would discover that on abortion, there IS a consensus.

.... you would understand that in that view, the consequences of killing the baby are far more terrible than the temporal tragedy of watching someone die - something we must all do someday anyway. I never see any evidence of understanding of that. It's always shock and horror that a mother may die and that's all.

So, what you mean is: The doctor should save the child at the cost of the mother if there is no other choice? Is that so hard to say? Why must it be so convoluted?

I can certainly understand that position. I just vehemently disagree.

OK. Then there's nothing to say to you. My posting here was really for the people who imagine that all conflicting viewpoints can live peacefully side-by-side, that "All you need is love" (a deep truth) as the Beatles probably understood it - which is not much. You haven't struck me as one of those. On the contrary - you strike me as someone who recognizes the total incompatibility of genuine faith - at least the traditional Christian one - and the modern world.

As to 'why convoluted?'...
It's not 'hard' at all to say that no one can be saved by killing anyone. THAT is the first principle here. Proceeding from that, doctors will do everything they can. The only thing they may NOT do is harm. They may witness harm, but they cannot stop one harm to one by committing a greater harm to another, which is what you guys all seem to think ought to be done. I understand your view that the baby is not human, that it is 'only a fetus', 'a piece of living tissue', and from that I understand why you would think the mother so much more important.
If you can say the same about understanding the Christian position, then that's all. Only my solid impression here is that most really do NOT understand it. To understand it, you also have to project that understanding into a conception of eternity, one where the former doctor, mother and baby are all present before God. But since you (Prebe) do, then all that's left is disagreement, unless you should come to the view that the baby IS fully human after all.

I'm just saying that there can be no accommodation of worldviews, and the people who imagine that there can be do so by making the beliefs to be unimportant - "personal" in the sense of having nothing to do with public or daily life. It's for the people who DO profess belief as much as for those that don't, and some that do profess belief also profess that it has nothing to do with one's daily or public life (a self-contradiction that, if realized as such, would cause one's head to start smoking like Norman in old Star Trek's "I, Mudd").
Here is an example that calls those believers to stop trying to sit on the fence, to stop trying to defend, for example, both the ACLU and their own Church, or more accurately, to stop trying to hold both positions.

It's time to take a stand, magistrate!

Identify secret quote and win a virtual cup of coffee!

[Prebe]

.... you would understand that in that view, the consequences of killing the baby are far more terrible than the temporal tragedy of watching someone die - something we must all do someday anyway. I never see any evidence of understanding of that. It's always shock and horror that a mother may die and that's all.

So, what you mean is: The doctor should save the child at the cost of the mother if there is no other choice? Is that so hard to say? Why must it be so convoluted?

I can certainly understand that position. I just vehemently disagree.

OK. Then there's nothing to say to you. My posting here was really for the people who imagine that all conflicting viewpoints can live peacefully side-by-side, that "All you need is love" (a deep truth) as the Beatles probably understood it - which is not much. You haven't struck me as one of those. On the contrary - you strike me as someone who recognizes the total incompatibility of genuine faith - at least the traditional Christian one - and the modern world.

Spot on. That goes for all "genuine faiths" actually, and the un-genuine ones too btw.

As to 'why convoluted?'...
It's not 'hard' at all to say that no one can be saved by killing anyone.

Then it's about time you said it. It was actually YOU being euphemistic when talking about the benevolent doctor doing his best for BOTH. All you need is luv and all that.

THAT is the first principle here. Proceeding from that, doctors will do everything they can. The only thing they may NOT do is harm. They may witness harm, but they cannot stop one harm to one by committing a greater harm to another, which is what you guys all seem to think ought to be done. I undertand your view that the baby is not human, that it is 'only a fetus', 'a piece of living tissue', and from that I understand why you would think the mother so much more important.

Not quite. I don't think that I have taken a stance on whether the fetus can be considered "Human" or a "Human being".

Bolded: the crime of neglect of the mothers impending death or the willfull killing of the baby. I know which one I think is "the greater" harm.

If you can say the same about understanding the Christian position, then that's all.

As I said, I think I understand just fine, I just vehemently disagree. And I'm sure you will have the feeling that if I really understood I'd agree.

Only my solid impression here is that most really do NOT understand it. To understand it, you also have to project that understanding into a conception of eternity, one where the former doctor, mother and baby are all present before God. But since you (Prebe) do, then all that's left is disagreement, unless you should come to the view that the baby IS fully human after all.

You can call it human if you like. You can call it Alphonse or Candy. It really wouldn't change my opinion.

I'm just saying that there can be no accommodation of worldviews, and the people who imagine that there can be do so by making the beliefs to be unimportant - "personal" in the sense of having nothing to do with public or daily life. It's for the people who DO profess belief as much as for those that don't, and some that do profess belief also profess that it has nothing to do with one's daily or public life (a self-contradiction that, if realized as such, would cause one's head to start smoking like Norman in old Star Trek's "I, Mudd").

I'm with you some of the way there. If you grill any selfprofessed religious person (belonging to the large world religions anyway) long enough, they'll come to the conclusion that they are either A: Utterly dogmatic or B: Not really religious.

You are a refreshingly self proclaimed cathegory A.

[Fist and Faith]

My worldview can still accomodate this, rus. In all cases, the mother can choose to not have her baby killed, and die with it; and she can choose to not be killed, even if her own death is the only way to save the baby, and both will die anyway.

And no doctor should be forced one way or the other. Of course, it should be public information whether or not any doctor or hospital will perform an abortion, or do any procedure that people might need to know about for similar reasons. That way, if they think it's important enough, anyone can look it up beforehand, and go to the doctor or hospital that best suits their beliefs.

This, though, is wrong:

It's not 'hard' at all to say that no one can be saved by killing anyone.

Let's say there's an accident, and a pregnant woman is unconscious, and nobody knows anything about her beliefs. The doctor might see that the only way to save either is to save the mother by killing the baby. Not a fun choice, but the doctor does it. Later, the mother wakes up, and is horrified. But she was saved. And it was at the cost of her baby. And she cannot be held to blame; not by herself, you, or God. She has lost a child, as many parents do. It is horrifying, but it happened.

BTW, I do not believe that "the baby is not human, that it is 'only a fetus', 'a piece of living tissue'." I was siding with Cail on this long ago. To all: It seems to me that, when rus, Cail, and I agree on anything, all arguments should end immediately. It should be considered absolute, objective proof of whatever it is we agree on.

[Avatar]

If only it were that easy huh?

--A

[Prebe]

Let's say there's an accident, and a pregnant woman is unconscious, and nobody knows anything about her beliefs. The doctor might see that the only way to save either is to save the mother by killing the baby.

Rus has explicitly answered this: you let them both die.

To all: It seems to me that, when rus, Cail, and I agree on anything, all arguments should end immediately. It should be considered absolute, objective proof of whatever it is we agree on.

How ever tempting that ultimatum is I beg to differ. Heh.

[Fist and Faith]

Let's say there's an accident, and a pregnant woman is unconscious, and nobody knows anything about her beliefs. The doctor might see that the only way to save either is to save the mother by killing the baby.

Rus has explicitly answered this: you let them both die.

I know. But what I'm saying is this: The mother-to-be was saved. She lives. She is guiltless; faultless. Every aspect of her is intact. She did not sin. The doctor has no problem with abortions, and did not know the woman does. You can say he sinned. But you can't say she did. And you can't say she was not saved.

[Prebe]

I think Rus' point is: no matter how severe consequences the lack of action might have, not acting is ALWAYS better than taking a life. Even if - to you or me - the taking of the life may seem the only reasonable choice, or at least the quantitatively supperior one.

But the dead woman will get her reward in heaven. I suspect a new jaccuzi is a realistic expectation.

[Fist and Faith]

No doubt.

Still, the woman need not feel any guilt. No penance or confession or anything is needed. She didn't do the slightest thing wrong. Her life was saved; her relationship to God is unchanged; and she now has to deal with the tragedy of the loss of her baby.

[Farsailer]

BTW, I do not believe that "the baby is not human, that it is 'only a fetus', 'a piece of living tissue'."

If you really believe the unborn baby is human, then in your worldview only born humans are legally protected from being slain; you are sanctioning the killing of humans whose only crime is not being born yet. The unborn are still fair game for legal elimination while the born are not.

[rusmeister]

No doubt.

Still, the woman need not feel any guilt. No penance or confession or anything is needed. She didn't do the slightest thing wrong. Her life was saved; her relationship to God is unchanged; and she now has to deal with the tragedy of the loss of her baby.

Starting with the last response: (The last shall be first...?)
This is true - if she did not give her consent to abortion and was unaware of the decision and unable to act, she is blameless. From the Catholic/Christian POV, a greater evil was performed on her in the name of preventing another, lesser one.

[rusmeister]

BTW, I do not believe that "the baby is not human, that it is 'only a fetus', 'a piece of living tissue'."

If you really believe the unborn baby is human, then in your worldview only born humans are legally protected from being slain; you are sanctioning the killing of humans whose only crime is not being born yet. The unborn are still fair game for legal elimination while the born are not.

Ouch! That hit home!

Yeah, like passage through a (female reproductive organ) ought to be the criterion of whether I am alive (or human) or not.

[Fist and Faith]

BTW, I do not believe that "the baby is not human, that it is 'only a fetus', 'a piece of living tissue'."

If you really believe the unborn baby is human, then in your worldview only born humans are legally protected from being slain; you are sanctioning the killing of humans whose only crime is not being born yet. The unborn are still fair game for legal elimination while the born are not.

It's a long, long way from:
Neither will live if you do nothing. Killing the baby will save the mother.
to:
Only born humans are legally protected from being slain.

For me, there are extremely few scenarios where I think it's acceptable to kill the unborn baby. This is one of them. Look, folks, there are sometimes horribly difficult choices to be made in life. Some of those of us who do not believe as rus does see this scenario as one. Horrifying to even think about. But it happens. And I see it as stupid to let both die when killing one will save the other.

[Fist and Faith]

No doubt.

Still, the woman need not feel any guilt. No penance or confession or anything is needed. She didn't do the slightest thing wrong. Her life was saved; her relationship to God is unchanged; and she now has to deal with the tragedy of the loss of her baby.

Starting with the last response: (The last shall be first...?)
This is true - if she did not give her consent to abortion and was unaware of the decision and unable to act, she is blameless. From the Catholic/Christian POV, a greater evil was performed on her in the name of preventing another, lesser one.

So then "no one can be saved by killing anyone" is not an absolute.

[rusmeister]

No doubt.

Still, the woman need not feel any guilt. No penance or confession or anything is needed. She didn't do the slightest thing wrong. Her life was saved; her relationship to God is unchanged; and she now has to deal with the tragedy of the loss of her baby.

Starting with the last response: (The last shall be first...?)
This is true - if she did not give her consent to abortion and was unaware of the decision and unable to act, she is blameless. From the Catholic/Christian POV, a greater evil was performed on her in the name of preventing another, lesser one.

So then "no one can be saved by killing anyone" is not an absolute.

Not sure what you mean. If the woman has an abortion forced upon her against her will (even under narcosis), then she is a victim, not a perpetrator. Same thing with a rape victim. Doesn't matter if she's under narcosis - it doesn't make the violent and evil act any less violent or evil. The only question there is whether she approved of or could have stopped the abortion (baby killing) or not.

When I say "no one can be saved" I am speaking about the sense that matters most to a believer in the long run - being saved in eternity.

Maybe that's the misunderstanding.

[rusmeister]

To all: It seems to me that, when rus, Cail, and I agree on anything, all arguments should end immediately. It should be considered absolute, objective proof of whatever it is we agree on.

Yes, it does seem rather like a conjunction of the planets...
(It's a sign! )

[rusmeister]

I think Rus' point is: no matter how severe consequences the lack of action might have, not acting is ALWAYS better than taking a life. Even if - to you or me - the taking of the life may seem the only reasonable choice, or at least the quantitatively supperior one.

But the dead woman will get her reward in heaven. I suspect a new jaccuzi is a realistic expectation.

I almost gave this a thumbs-up for 'good post'... until the last part.
:sigh:

[rusmeister]

As to 'why convoluted?'...
It's not 'hard' at all to say that no one can be saved by killing anyone.

Then it's about time you said it. It was actually YOU being euphemistic when talking about the benevolent doctor doing his best for BOTH. All you need is luv and all that.

Hiya, Prebe,
No, I was NOT being euphemistic. We disagree on what is best. What I find best is immortality. Since we believers see that as the real goal - and a real possibility of blowing it - "best" for us becomes different than for someone who does not believe in immortality or eternity.

If you can say the same about understanding the Christian position, then that's all.

As I said, I think I understand just fine, I just vehemently disagree. And I'm sure you will have the feeling that if I really understood I'd agree.

Not necessarily. You see, we don't have much to argue about. The argument stops at the very beginning. We recognize radically different first principles. If we were involved in a physical war rather than a spiritual one, we would probably shoot each other and not waste time on negotiations (Now who's the faster draw...?

I'm just saying that there can be no accommodation of worldviews, and the people who imagine that there can be do so by making the beliefs to be unimportant - "personal" in the sense of having nothing to do with public or daily life. It's for the people who DO profess belief as much as for those that don't, and some that do profess belief also profess that it has nothing to do with one's daily or public life (a self-contradiction that, if realized as such, would cause one's head to start smoking like Norman in old Star Trek's "I, Mudd").

I'm with you some of the way there. If you grill any selfprofessed religious person (belonging to the large world religions anyway) long enough, they'll come to the conclusion that they are either A: Utterly dogmatic or B: Not really religious.

You are a refreshingly self proclaimed cathegory A.

Thank you very much!
Only I understand the concepts of "dogma" and "heresy" in a slightly different light than most people, who today have been trained to have knee-jerk reactions, rather than actually experience thought, on hearing the words. I also consider you to be dogmatic, and that is a complement on my part, whether you see it as one or not.

[rusmeister]

BTW, I do not believe that "the baby is not human, that it is 'only a fetus', 'a piece of living tissue'."

If you really believe the unborn baby is human, then in your worldview only born humans are legally protected from being slain; you are sanctioning the killing of humans whose only crime is not being born yet. The unborn are still fair game for legal elimination while the born are not.

It's a long, long way from:
Neither will live if you do nothing. Killing the baby will save the mother.
to:
Only born humans are legally protected from being slain.

For me, there are extremely few scenarios where I think it's acceptable to kill the unborn baby. This is one of them. Look, folks, there are sometimes horribly difficult choices to be made in life. Some of those of us who do not believe as rus does see this scenario as one. Horrifying to even think about. But it happens. And I see it as stupid to let both die when killing one will save the other.

Sure. I know you think this. (Although I think you are unreasonable to use the adjective "stupid", since there is good solid reasoning behind the beliefs, just as there are beliefs behind the reasoning.)

My whole point of actually posting on this one was to show that the other side will indeed be persecuted when the one side wins. There won't be any "toleration", 'all living together in happy peace'. My side will be persecuted, and toleration will be something not applied to those who share my beliefs. At least don't pretend that this is a mark of "tolerance".

So why am I fighting on what appears to be the losing side? Because I have come to believe that it is the right side to be on. My main thesis is that I have discovered that modern conventional wisdom - that I myself accepted and believed - is mostly full of falsehood, and especially that it is based on false understandings of faith. Who I was ten years ago would be responding to the me of today like a cross between Av and Fist. (Uh no offense, guys, put down the crossbows....)