Tough Question for Religious Orientated People

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker
Is the baby female?

I'd say there's no way of knowing, as that would require rather sophisticated sonogram equipment.

But for the sake of the argument, we'll say yes, it will be a girl. But if the sex wasn't known, that would change your answer?

[Az]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



Do you think it would be possible for you to phrase this differently?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So, do you let the woman abort the baby to save her own life, but end humanity in the process, or force her to carry it to term in the hopes the new child will become a progenitor of the next wave of humanity?

If the baby is 8 months along it's well past viability and can be delivered. False delimas are fun.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I'd say there's no way of knowing, as that would require rather sophisticated sonogram equipment.

But for the sake of the argument, we'll say yes, it will be a girl. But if the sex wasn't known, that would change your answer?

Well... a 1/2 chance of the human race surviving (though I don't know if one female and a dozen males is a viable population, but for the sake of argument I'll assume it is) versus the death of one person... I'd say have the baby.

[Az]

Thanks to a massive war/famine/catastrophe, etc., the human race has been virtually wiped out except for a small enclave of humanity. By luck, there is only one woman left and the rest are men. The woman is 8 months pregnant, but is having major complications. There is luckily a doctor who diagnoses the situation as thus: The baby is healthy, but the pregnancy will kill the mother if it continues. The woman will be saved by an abortion, but it will damage her uterus beyond repair and end any reproductive hope. The woman wants to have the abortion to save her life, and the doctor has the means of doing it reasonably safely.

So, do you let the woman abort the baby to save her own life, but end humanity in the process, or force her to carry it to term in the hopes the new child will become a progenitor of the next wave of humanity?

Whatever it takes to save humanity.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Now here's a real toughy for the religionists:

Thanks to a massive war/famine/catastrophe, etc., the human race has been virtually wiped out except for a small enclave of humanity. By luck, there is only one woman left and the rest are men. The woman is 8 months pregnant, but is having major complications. There is luckily a doctor who diagnoses the situation as thus: The baby is healthy, but the pregnancy will kill the mother if it continues. The woman will be saved by an abortion, but it will damage her uterus beyond repair and end any reproductive hope. The woman wants to have the abortion to save her life, and the doctor has the means of doing it reasonably safely.

So, do you let the woman abort the baby to save her own life, but end humanity in the process, or force her to carry it to term in the hopes the new child will become a progenitor of the next wave of humanity?

Not tough at all, IMO. Even if you want to go down the "ends justifiying the means" route, a single breeding female won't be enough to sustain the species. If she dies and has a girl, you still have a single female, years away from the ability to reproduce, and she may not desire to reproduce, or may be unable to.

There is no guaranteed beneficial result to forcing any particular course of action. Even if there was, you have no right to coerce her own choice. You may try to influence, pray, etc., but it is ultimately her moral choice, and your right to intervene stops short of coercion or the use of force.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
well, since i think the world would be better off without human kind, i'd either let her abort, or kill all the other males and myself, letting the baby fend for itself. if it survives, it'll be because of divine intervention, and will no doubt later have a virgin birth, and a new covenant will be made between heaven and earth.

Who will the baby mate with? The mom?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If the baby is 8 months along it's well past viability and can be delivered. False delimas are fun.

Go easy on him - he's a liberal Yankee, he can't help it.

[Q Classic]

obviously, since the baby's survival would be because of divine intervention, the heavenly forces would make the virgin baby bear twins, who will then be named adam and eve...

[Az]

Not tough at all, IMO. Even if you want to go down the "ends justifiying the means" route, a single breeding female won't be enough to sustain the species. If she dies and has a girl, you still have a single female, years away from the ability to reproduce, and she may not desire to reproduce, or may be unable to.

There is no guaranteed beneficial result to forcing any particular course of action. Even if there was, you have no right to coerce her own choice. You may try to influence, pray, etc., but it is ultimately her moral choice, and your right to intervene stops short of coercion or the use of force.

what stupid, rigid, unbending thinking.

[Boris Godunov]

Bah, I meant to say 6 months, so sue me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

A litigious liberal Yankee. Figures.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker
Well... a 1/2 chance of the human race surviving (though I don't know if one female and a dozen males is a viable population, but for the sake of argument I'll assume it is) versus the death of one person... I'd say have the baby.

So you'd force the mother to die, interesting. And you're not a religionist. Why is the continuation of the human race so important that you'd force the death of the woman? I can understand a religionist's answer to that, but not an atheist's.

[Az]

So you'd force the mother to die, interesting. And you're not a religionist. Why is the continuation of the human race so important that you'd force the death of the woman? I can understand a religionist's answer to that, but not an atheist's

Wait, you don't agree?!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel


what stupid, rigid, unbending thinking.

As opposed to deciding you have the right to expend someone else's life without their consent for an unpredictible possible benefit which may or may not even occur?

Sometimes, "flexibility" is no virtue.