Translation

11 August 2010

Direct Killing Always Wrong

Here's part of a dialog that took place over Youtube messaging behind the scenes. (It's from the video at the end of this post.)

If accepting the message on the video below is what it means to "trust black women", what do you think? I say, "Trust them to do what, kill the right preborn boy or girl?"

----------
[From other person, not me:]
@otaaac3 "always wrong" going to extreme is "always" a mistake. are you pro-surrendering to invaders so as not to kill them?
would you shout "dont shoot back at the planes" which bombed pearl harbor so they do not "kill" the pilot??
luckily law makers are not extreme and take into account bodily injury of the mother.
if you limit yourself to healthy births say so. but agree if mother will be injured by the birth to remove the fetus in small peices to save mom.

-----------
[From me:]
I said direct killing was always wrong.
"An abortion would be ***indirect*** if it were used neither as an end nor as a means. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child's death would neither be an end nor a means." -_This Rock_ (emphasis added) http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/double%20effect

Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.

-----
[From other person:]
'Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.'
what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong? you would answer indirect by 'intent' then abortion is always indirect since the intent is for the family finance


-----
[From me:]
"what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong?"

The pilot himself outside of the plane is innocent until s/he tries to kill someone directly. If they are, say, eating a sandwich in the mess hall, no one has a right to kill them since they are just eating lunch.

A preborn boy or girl inside of his or her mother is doing nothing except eating lunch in his or her mess hall (the mother's womb). No one has a right to kill them for what they might do (potential finance burden). A preborn boy or girl has the same moral worth as you or me.

How much family finance has to be in jeopardy for his or her mother to kill them? $1? $50? $100? $1000? Over how many years? What about adopting to the plethora of people who are waiting to adopt to very little, if no cost to the pregnant mother?

How about born babies? Does the mother have a right to kill them? for how much?

These questions have a very bad logical conclusion.

-----

3 comments:

  1. Direct killing is NOT always wrong.

    If something is inside your body, then you are entitled to kill it, no matter what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad you stopped by. I see that you're using prolifeblogs.com as a directory to counter prolifers.

    Yes, "[i]f something is inside your body, then you are entitled to kill it," assuming it is not someone like a preborn girl or boy human (not a thing or it).

    Just curious, what's your line of reasoning? Your statement goes from the statement of the situation to the conclusion without any intervening premises.

    What are your assumptions about the preborn boy or girl human? Are they relevant to your argument? I assume not, but I would like to confirm.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW, nice picture. It does say 1K words.

    ReplyDelete

Please comment in a civil manner, i.e., no foul language, name calling, threats, etc.