tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post7560571847287008369..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: Why Can't I? Part II [Jay]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-17192593713321748532008-02-01T05:37:00.000-08:002008-02-01T05:37:00.000-08:00Jay - apt description of the devil you got there.O...Jay - apt description of the devil you got there.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps, more appropriately, you've done a credible job of anthropomorphising the abortion industry.<BR/><BR/>Your point - where "Can I kill this" pre-supposes moral forethought is contrasted with "Why can't I kill this" which lacks moral forethought, yet requires justification for adhering to such forethought, is well made (maybe too emotionally? ;-). <BR/><BR/>However your analogy starts breaking down when it comes to the actual killing, because you've substituted an impersonal sack of "living things" in place of a fleshly mother and father, who are the demand side of the abortion industry. Your argument overlooks the real issue of who's forethought initiates the abortion. We shouldn't abstract away such initiators.<BR/><BR/>Exposing and placing responsibility where it belongs (on both parents) silences the debate because it produces a far more accurate picture of the immoral soil abortion grows in.<BR/><BR/>For instance, suppose the state acknowledges 1) the full humanity of the unborn and 2) the full pro-creative nature of the parents and 3) their full social responsibility to others. By leaving elective abortion legal but making the parents directly co-responsible for the abortion, the state recognizes their "joint reproductive rights". (Note: I'm stating this as a test case -it's not my actual moral position!) The biological father must be present, otherwise no "legal" abortion. Let the baby grow until it's large enough to insert a catheter with two syringes attached. One contains a poison, the other a sedative, but mother or father wouldn't know what their respective syringe contained. Then silently viewing a live ultrasound, both may press their syringes and see the results.<BR/><BR/>The abortionist then would deliver the dead baby, and complete details of the baby's death are publically declared to show that the state has done it's part to meet both "procreative choice" and social responsibility.<BR/><BR/>What if only one syringe is pressed?<BR/><BR/>With the sedative only, the baby would sleep and paternity would proceed to normal birth. However, if only the poison were injected, both parents would get to witness the agonizing painful death of their child, and both would serve mandatory prison time for inflicting an inhumane death on their child.<BR/><BR/>Like Solomon's call to cut the baby in half, by applying adherence to both procreative parties, the true nature of the immoral beast of procreative irresponsibility (and the sinful component) may be exposed.<BR/><BR/>One time I dropped this into a very heated abortion debate and the silence that followed was amazing.Chris Arsenaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773858656968422745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-46459245515427928572008-01-31T21:33:00.000-08:002008-01-31T21:33:00.000-08:00I really haven't seen any good pro-abortion argume...I really haven't seen any good pro-abortion arguments. They all seem to try and avoid talking about whether the unborn baby is alive by either not talking about it, or asking a question that has the built in assumption that the unborn baby isn't alive. <BR/><BR/>Or they are and prove that the unborn baby isn't alive by disregarding scientific fact, or saying that a certain amount of development is needed to be considered alive.<BR/><BR/>Have you seen any that aren't so intellectually soft?Undecidedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10055466376495924146noreply@blogger.com