Abortion

File: IMG_1470.gif (292KB, 200x113px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 200x113px

>being friends with a pro life catholic
She's never gonna sleep with you, faggot

File: de45ec7b4b4a3a4e544ffe0f4f30a6b2.jpg (30KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x338px

Ectopic pregnancy.

>>8674655
>I'm trying to get my catholic friend to concede that there is at least one circumstance in which abortion is the best option or an acceptable option - and therefore abortion itself isn't inherently wrong.
why should this logically follow? things can still be wrong even if you have some justification for doing it

Personally I think ectogenesis will end the abortion debate once and for all. Don't want a baby? Have the fetus removed and grown in a tank so a childless couple can adopt it. It could even be genetically altered so biological relation to the original parents is tangential at best.

>>8674655
>inherently wrong
>>>/x/

>>8674701
Please leave. If you're faulting them for being objective, then piss off.

>>8674663
Thanks.

>>8674666
If she believes abortion is inherently wrong, she'd believe that it's wrong regardless of the circumstance. If she can be shown that it's not wrong regardless of the circumstance (i.e. there's at least one circumstance in which it's not wrong) then she'd have to admit that abortion itself isn't inherently wrong.

>>8674729
>. If she can be shown that it's not wrong regardless of the circumstance (i.e. there's at least one circumstance in which it's not wrong) then she'd have to admit that abortion itself isn't inherently wrong.
this still doesn't follow

if i have a room with 3 babies and tell you you have to kill between 1 and 3 of the babies, killing only 1 doesn't make killing 'not wrong'

>>8674695
This but corporations can adopt the babies.

>>8674729
>then she'd have to admit that abortion itself isn't inherently wrong.

Or, she might admit that there are some circumstances where, wrong as abortion is, the alternative would be a greater wrong.

>>8674738
That argument isn't an analogue of abortion in the slightest.

If you believed eating meat is inherently wrong, then you'd believe it's wrong in all circumstances. But if you changed your mind and believed that it's okay to eat road kill or other completely ethically sourced meat products then you'd have to concede that eating meat itself isn't wrong, it's just the way we generally do it that is wrong (i.e. through animal cruelty).

>>8674744
Indeed and they can be engineered by the corporations that make up the military industrial complex into supersoldiers.

>>8674753
>That argument isn't an analogue of abortion in the slightest.
it wasn't meant to be, it was meant to show that your logic and/or your conception of wrongness is flawed

>>8674751
But then you're still saying it's wrong regardless of the circumstances to begin with, which makes no sense. If you're saying something is INHERENTLY wrong, you're saying it's wrong in all circumstances.

>>8674753
>something can be wrong until i change my mind about it being wrong
???

>>8674764
Wrongness is somewhat vague which is why you not using an analogue of my argument actually does matter.

>>8674767
You know that's not what it says.

>>8674695
You can't just alter the whole fetus. That technology doesn't exist and probably won't for a very long time.

>>8674774
>Wrongness is somewhat vague
feel free to bring forth a definition for us to work with to make it less vague

>You know that's not what it says.
that's exactly what it says:
>if you changed your mind then eating meat isn't wrong

>>8674781
>feel free to bring forth a definition for us to work with to make it less vague
You should be able to infer that from everything I've said. Fuck this petty argument.

>if you changed your mind then eating meat isn't wrong
Where does it say that? lol.

>>8674655
Like this?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37713211

>>8674792
>You should be able to infer that from everything I've said. Fuck this petty argument.
you want to argue about wrongness, then say that wrongness is vague, i ask you for a definition and you say fuck you? good luck convincing this christian with rhetoric that is this unbelievably unpersuasive

>Where does it say that? lol.
right here:
>>8674753
>if you changed your mind and believed that it's okay to eat road kill or other completely ethically sourced meat products then you'd have to concede that eating meat itself isn't wrong

>>8674655
>arguing with women
top kek

>>8674804
somebody gets it

>>8674800
No, you wanted to argue about wrongness when it was evident what I meant. You asked for a definition but I could no longer be bothered.

And where in that sentence does it say that if you change your mind then eating isn't wrong?

It's almost like you're deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.

I've always thought to argue properly you have to start by understanding the opponent's argument properly and be able to demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the opponent before coming up with a rebuttal.

But yeah this is totally insignificant and I already got what I came for.

>>8674819
eating meat*

>>8674819
>No, you wanted to argue about wrongness when it was evident what I meant. You asked for a definition but I could no longer be bothered.
if it's evident what you meant why did YOU make the claim wrongness is vague?

>I've always thought to argue properly you have to start by understanding the opponent's argument properly and be able to demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the opponent before coming up with a rebuttal.
and you make this impossible by refusing to even be clear about what you're talking about, even after being asked. obviously an argument built on 'i already think i'm right and don't need to explain myself' won't go very far

>>8674655
That's literally saving a life, the mother's, at the expense of her child's. So you even the score. You kill the one to save the other.

Problem is that they worked "mental health" into the equation, so they murder the baby if the mother's "mental health" might suffer an iota of damage.

>>8674834
> So you even the score.
wrong


the life of a babykilling whore is not worth the life of a newborn

>>8674655
Speaking as a catholic:
Abortion is inherently wrong.

HOWEVER, mitigating circumstances can make it less wrong, though never something to be done lightly.
Think of it this way: Killing some guy is bad. Killing some guy in self defense is still bad, but due to circumstances it's the best option available. There are circumstances as you say where killing a fetus is legitimate self defense.

Plus something can only be a mortal sin if you have a choice and choose deliberately to sin, knowing it's wrong.

The counterpoint though, is that giving up your life for the sake of another person is very highly regarded and basically a 'get out of jail free' card, religiously speaking. Even if that sacrifice takes the form of raising a child you never wanted in the first place, perhaps moreso as that is a thousand times harder than simply dying.

>>8674655
>>8675034
Again. PS: Next time wrap your shit, you degenerate. Or at least have the balls to pull out or trick her into anal.

>>8674845
The "baby killing whore" is usually not conscious if the doctor has to make this call.

Because, well, her life is in jeopardy. Like, she was wheeled into the hospital after a car accident.

"Life of the mother" must mean the "life of the mother" is actually at stake. Not just at risk, at stake.

Otherwise, yes, it is murder to kill unborn babies. Murder most foul.

>>8675034
>Speaking as a catholic:

Stopped reading right there. gfy

File: neckbeard-lighter-640x533.jpg (78KB, 640x533px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x533px

>>8675061

>>8675061
Enjoy purgatory, you unwashed filthy heathen.
Religion: 1
Agnostics: 0

>>8675034
>The counterpoint though, is that giving up your life for the sake of another person is very highly regarded and basically a 'get out of jail free' card

Slave morality indeed.

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church make exceptions for circumstances like that.

>>8674655
In case of rape obviously.

>>8674728
/sci/ is no place to discuss morals you brainlet

>>8674655
I'm Mormon and the LDS church recognizes three instances where abortion is appropriate: when the life of the mother is at risk, incest, and rape. I find it more understandable than no abortions ever.

Since the Mormon church is often compared with the Catholic church in fundamentalism perhaps it'll help?

>>8675171
I am required to make fun of you for magic underpants, but you guys have some good stuff going on.

Re: Fundamentalism, A lot of Catholic teaching is deliberately overstated because they know you'll never actually follow the rules, but the higher bar they set the farther you'll go trying to maintain it.

See: whackin' it, is totally not okay and you really need to stop, which they know is impossible, but if they said "It's fine sometimes" people wouldn't ever TRY to stop, and that's what's important.

>>8675193
>See: whackin' it, is totally not okay and you really need to stop, which they know is impossible
speak for yourself, no need to project your mental fragility and weaknesses onto others

>>8675216
Okay, I should have added "Without serious physiological harm, hormonal problems, being a woman, or having sex instead."

>>8675226
you didn't need to add that on, it was already clear from your projection

>>8675078
I'll enjoy purgatory as much as you'll enjoy Never Never Land.

>>8675068
Atheists don't know half the horror that is the Vatican.

>>8675152
For what other crimes do you advocate killing the innocent child of the perpetrator?

>>8674655
She is unable to empathize. It's unlikely she can learn to cognitively empathize with victims of circumstance. She will need a lesson to change, as everyone needs painful lessons to overcome superiority complexes, born of inferiority.

File: 1484104295203.jpg (35KB, 700x505px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x505px

>science and math

HEY DUDES, HERES AN ETHICS QUESTION FOR YOU

>>8675491
welcome to /r/4chan_sci

She's catholic. Dying with the baby and going to heaven is better than aborting the baby and going to hell later.

>>8674655
First law of thermodynamics versus foreseeable suffering the child will encounter.

Ergo: Child's soul is immortal. It will simply 're-incorporate' when the mother's free will/environment happens again.

If one uses child as a 'crutch' to get better, that is also good. But that is a fuckload of pressure to put on someone and not everyone is built for it.

I'd say babykilling is always heinous. A better question to answer is when a lump of cells is considered a baby

>>8674655
I read an Op-ed recently actually written by a woman who had gone through that. The couple was against abortion and only did it as a last resort. If I remember correctly it was also later into the pregnancy. The woman wrote the article in response to Trump talking about late term abortions during the debate. She talked about it being the most painful decision she and her husband ever had to make but that given the circumstances they still believe it was the right decision.

I would look for the article but I'm on a mobile phone.

Speaking as a pro-Trump Catholic, wow, a lot of Nativism here. Either that or rather flat attempts at trolling?

OP, even in cases where the child and mother will die, the mother has lived her life in the grace of God and goes to heaven without having murdered her baby. Baby may or may not see God, we must trust in God's grace and infinite wisdom for that.

Agree with anon—you're not going to argue her into bed with you. You're asking her to give up a relationship she values more than the one she has with you.

>>8674663
>>8675171
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Church#Unintentional_abortion

I dont agree with you. Answer me please, which phase of pregnancy that embryo turns human and takes the "human rights"? Such as we cant kill a human we have to take care of it etc.

>>8674655

What's the purpose of having her concede that the choice to abort may be an ethical question of life versus life?

Even if she were to agree with you on this point, you're a far cry from getting any Spirit-bearing Christian to admit that elective abortion (as in abortion done for the sake of the convenience of the mother) is ever not inherently wrong.

>>8676696
Turns human? The Church considers the baby human after sperm enters ovum.

"Rights" is a recent concept rooted in post-Westphalian understanding of governance and Enlightenment thinking. The apostolic Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc) do not argue in terms of the rights of humans but in terms of their innate dignity and worth as children of a loving and just God. "Rights" takes this out of a moral discussion and into a political discussion.

>>8675085
Catholic Church doesn't patrol these matters, any more than it stands as a judge when you murder your archenemy. It teaches what is sinful and how grievous or not the sin is. To the Church sin is sin, but also that circumstances may make a sin venial or mortal. The Church also believes that you can overcome sin with the help of Jesus, through the Church.