Dear Yuyutsu.

That is all a terrible view of life. You seem to have suffered at some point in your life to give you such negative views of it’s usefulness.

One could extend your argument to the current times in Lebanon, where over 90% of its inhabitants live precariously under the poverty line; where begging in the street for food is now common, and the Lebanese are resorting to desolate means for food such as rummaging in rubbish tips.
In fact at one stage garbage was dozed straight into the Mediterranean ocean as a cost saving measure for local Government.

Should we abort all Lebanese from here on.

Well no. They fight on, recruiting Hezbollah to harass the Israelis drilling inside Lebanese legal waters to thieve their gas.

And should all Germans have been aborted in the mid nineteen twenties, when starvation was the norm, and German children were often found dead clutching pieces of bread they had learned to save for later?

It’s a nonsensical argument to use such negatives for an argument for abortion me thinks.

Dan

Dear Dan,

«Should we abort all Lebanese from here on.»

What a leap of thought... like whom do you think "we" are?

Until a child grows up sufficiently to be able to speak for themselves and tell us what they want, they place their trust in their loving parents to best represent their wishes. They chose to be born to them, not to me or to you or to some "we", so such decisions ought to be left with the parents, primarily the mother.

«It’s a nonsensical argument to use such negatives for an argument for abortion me thinks.»

Indeed. That was your argument, not mine.

What matters is the mother's honest best unselfish intentions for her beloved baby. I already mentioned my estimate that 90% of present abortions are not of this kind.

Dear Yuyutsu

*…whom do you think "we" are…*

Well, I use we as a representative of us. And us in this debate is all who contribute. One could say society in general, women in particular is maybe more appropriate on the subject of abortion, but we’re all in it for a win aren’t we? We.

I definitely made criticism of your view in particular, of the abysmal picture you paint of life on earth as a human, and I’m astounded to read of your conclusion that children without a future should be aborted.

Are you “God” to make such predictions on behalf of another living creature?
Because to my mind, deciding on abortion of another life which has no input into its destiny is just that, playing “God”. An astounding arrogance.
I had you pegged for someone better than that, a deeper thinker; I hope you can convince me I’m mistaken.

My examples of Germany and Lebanon were intended to represent examples opposed in outcomes which point out the unpredictable nature of life and its future.
Germany went on from the period mentioned to become a wealthy advanced nation well capable of feeding itself and offering a future worth living for today. But we’ll known are it’s turmoils along the way.

Lebanon was once a jewel of the ME. How are “we” who make decisions for others based on nothing more than an immediate view of life in its current state, to accurately predict a future for the unborn?

Dan

Dear JP

Yes, the view that certain groups are non-persons has led to terrible abuses. That doesn’t make it wrong to consider that an embryo is not a person, though.

I live in WA where abortion is regulated under criminal law and it requires the assent of a panel of six doctors to obtain a termination after 20 weeks. Paradoxically, the US Supreme Court decision has led to calls for the WA law to be relaxed.

Looking at the law you cite in Queensland, it does not actually say that assaulting a pregnant woman leading to the death of her fetus is murder; only that it is a serious crime. I would agree, but don’t think it is equivalent to a woman terminating her own pregnancy, for the following reasons.

First, while a fetus might not have a right to life based on its own personhood, in most pregnancies the life of the fetus and the person they expect it to become matter enormously to its parents. Natural miscarriages can be utterly devastating for prospective parents; for a pregnancy to end because of an act of violence must be even more so.

Second, and related, it is an egregious act of violence against a woman with serious and lasting consequences. Fortunately it is a very rare crime, and as I understand it most commonly occurs on cases of partner violence.

Third, as I have admitted, I think the point at which a fetus becomes entitled to the rights of a person is a grey area, but causing the death of a viable fetus could legitimately be considered equivalent to infanticide.

Fourth, unwanted pregnancies can have terrible consequences for the health and life of the mother, and women have the right (within limits) to decide what happens in their own bodies.

So in your example, it would still be a crime to assault the woman even if she planned an abortion, just as the shooter who killed seven people in Chicago committed seven murders even if one of his victims was planning to commit suicide

Dear Dan,

«I’m astounded to read of your conclusion that children without a future should be aborted.»

That was not my conclusion!

I am not into predicting the future or similar occult practices, nor advocating for abortions (or baby-killing in general).

Talking about future, BTW, it is one's spiritual future that matters rather than their material future. A person could have a long, prosperous and successful life ahead, but if they are destined to live in bad company then it is better for them not to live at all any longer.

There are two questions at hand:
1) is killing one's baby always a sin; and
2) when one does kill their baby (or commits any sin in general), who is responsible to set them straight.

My view is that all this is strictly a private matter between three parties (four in the case of already-born babies): The mother, The baby and God (the 4th is the baby's father). Society at large is not entitled to be involved. Should a sin be committed, God is sufficiently "well positioned" to handle the consequences and set the guilty party straight.

It is my view that when the mother believes in her heart of hearts without a shade of selfishness that killing her baby should benefit the baby, then killing that baby at that time is not sinful as the mother cannot be expected to do anything more than her best at the time.

Even further, should a mother know in her heart of hearts that killing her baby would be best for them, but fails to kill her baby for selfish reasons, then that would be sinful.

Let the man who has never sinned throw the first stone...

Yuyutsu

We’ll continue another time.

I’ve reread your posts looking for something concrete to your argument, but I can only find contradiction and ambiguity.

However, mixing the physical into the metaphysical can produce such misunderstandings.
And with you, it’s what makes your position interesting, although difficult: Something like identifying the colour of the Pacific Ocean. In fact it is many colours.

Dan