Sign the petition send a coat hanger..

apple0154 said:
While abortions of convenience may be sick classifying zygotes/embryos/fetuses as human beings diminishes the value of every other human being unless we are prepared to treat them as equals and that means no abortions unless it is a tubal pregnancy or some other problem caused directly by the zygote/embryo/fetus.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, and your saying it doesn't make it any more true. People having their natural rights recognized diminishes nothing, and elevates our principles.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Science concludes without a doubt that the fertilized human egg that implants is a human life. Your foot obsession is weird...your circle jerk boring.

46 million babies have been killed for lifestyle choice...sick.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't answer my question. Are you prepared to see a family member lose a foot or partial eye sight or suffer some other damage while being forced to carry a pregnancy or do you believe preventive measures include killing an innocent human being?
 
apple0154 said:
I see you didn't answer my question. Are you prepared to see a family member lose a foot or partial eye sight or suffer some other damage while being forced to carry a pregnancy or do you believe preventive measures include killing an innocent human being?
Click to expand...

I answered it.....yes......I think it is appropriate that we undertake a 1 in 100,000 chance of effected eyesight, or a one in a one hundred trillion chance of the loss of a foot as opposed to the one in one chance of taking a human life.......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, I would say the life of the innocent human being is worth more than all four...especially when you consider the odds of a woman losing her foot because she delivers her baby at full term......
Click to expand...

The problem is the odds where people make exceptions and one exception diminishes all human life. Would it be fair to say you believe a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy unless it will result in the death of both?

If one truly values life an abortion can never be acceptable as a preventive measure regardless of how certain doctors may feel a woman's life is in danger.

For example, the almost certain conclusion major kidney damage or a massive stroke resulting from uncontrolled high blood pressure, due to the defective body of a woman, can not justify the killing of an innocent, healthy human being.

As a society are we prepared to hospitalize the woman, possibly against her will, so as to ensure if major damage does occur life supporting procedures can be implemented until the birth occurs and then let her expire or live out the rest of her life institutionalized?

If we know there is a distinct possibility a woman may die due to her medical condition do we not have the obligation, the moral right, to hospitalize her to ensure the fetus (a human being) survives? Is not entrusting the life of a fetus to a woman whose medical condition greatly enhances her chances of dying, resulting in the death of the fetus, tantamount to gross negligence?

Should a zygote/embryo/fetus be considered a human being does not society have the same responsibility towards it as society does towards a new born?

There are laws which prevent woman from taking drugs while pregnant as it may harm the fetus. Where do we stand regarding the incorrect food a woman may consume when afflicted with a certain illness? For example: high blood pressure and fatty or salty foods?

While a new-born's mother may die the new-born will continue living for a period of time enabling someone to rescue it. In the case of a zygote/embryo/fetus the rescue time is considerably shorter. Does the consumption of a McDonald's burger constitute child endangerment?

The bottom line, as they say, is are we prepared to protect the zygotes, embryos and fetuses to the same degree we protect other groups of human beings?

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to go skiing? We definitely wouldn't allow someone to strap a baby on their back and head down a ski hill. Should a pregnant woman be allowed to do any activity which might contain an element of danger?

Classifying a zygote/embryo/fetus as a human being would result in a lot more than outlawing abortion. It would affect every aspect of a woman's life and if it didn't it would make a mockery out of the sanctity of life and what it means to be a human being.

NB. I noticed you answered the question regarding taking the chance medical problems may arise, however, I do have skepticism should a member of your family be faced with such a situation.
 
apple0154 said:
I see you didn't answer my question. Are you prepared to see a family member lose a foot or partial eye sight or suffer some other damage while being forced to carry a pregnancy or do you believe preventive measures include killing an innocent human being?
Click to expand...

It was a ridiculous question. Women presented with serious medical risks to their health are advised by a doctor. The ones who choose to not take the risk make up less than 2% of abortions

46 million babies killed due to lifestyle choice....and the beat goes on.
 
Threedee said:
No it doesn't, and your saying it doesn't make it any more true. People having their natural rights recognized diminishes nothing, and elevates our principles.
Click to expand...

And what "natural right" is that? A woman's right to protect her own life?

Isn't it a man's natural right to protect the life of his son/daughter against a person with a defective body who is trying to murder them?

Should a man petition a court to prevent his wife/lover from obtaining an abortion on the grounds she is going to murder his son/daughter what moral counter-argument could be put forward?

She may damage a kidney? It's possible she may have diminished eye sight? There is a chance she may require amputation due to impaired circulation?

Do any of those arguments justify killing an innocent, healthy human being? If so, perhaps you can enlighten us on your definition of the sanctity of life assuming you believe so.
 
Ice Dancer said:
It was a ridiculous question. Women presented with serious medical risks to their health are advised by a doctor. The ones who choose to not take the risk make up less than 2% of abortions

46 million babies killed due to lifestyle choice....and the beat goes on.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's 2% or 20% or 0.0002%. Either every human being is treated as such or it lowers what it means to be a human being.

That's the basis of equality, something our society has been working on for a long, long time.

History has shown us the horrors of exceptions. When it comes to human beings there can be no exceptions. It violates/disqualifies the sanctity of life argument and that's at the core of the anti-abortionist platform, or so they say.
 
apple0154 said:
For example, the almost certain conclusion major kidney damage or a massive stroke resulting from uncontrolled high blood pressure, due to the defective body of a woman, can not justify the killing of an innocent, healthy human being.
Click to expand...

sure it can....why would you do something that would certainly cause the death of one person to save the life of another?......obviously there are times when choices have to be made....say for example a police officer must take the life of a criminal to protect the life of a hostage....or a fireman is only able to carry one person out of a smoke filled room, knowing he might not be able to get back to the other one before the ceiling collapses......it happens all the time....
 
apple0154 said:
however, I do have skepticism should a member of your family be faced with such a situation.
Click to expand...

tough...I have skepticism that you would be willing to save the unborn child of a healthy mother as well....since obviously, all the arguments you have raised don't amount to a handful of the instances of abortion.....why don't you just admit you like the thought of killing children and get on with it?......
 
apple0154 said:
It doesn't matter if it's 2% or 20% or 0.0002%.
Click to expand...
sure it does....it effects the weight of your argument......I could say that no one should be allowed to fly on airplanes, because .000002% of the people who fly on airplanes die in crashes.....though it is still more likely than losing a foot because of pregnancy I'm sure you wouldn't accept the argument as anything but specious......
 
apple0154 said:
It doesn't matter if it's 2% or 20% or 0.0002%. Either every human being is treated as such or it lowers what it means to be a human being.

That's the basis of equality, something our society has been working on for a long, long time.

History has shown us the horrors of exceptions. When it comes to human beings there can be no exceptions. It violates/disqualifies the sanctity of life argument and that's at the core of the anti-abortionist platform, or so they say.
Click to expand...

BS! If the question is: You risk life or limb if you stay pregnant that IS a game changer. The very fact that less than 2% of abortions are actually for these reasons show that abortion is not about anything other than lifestyle for 97% of the women that have them.

46+ million killed and the beat goes on...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sure it can....why would you do something that would certainly cause the death of one person to save the life of another?......obviously there are times when choices have to be made....say for example a police officer must take the life of a criminal to protect the life of a hostage....or a fireman is only able to carry one person out of a smoke filled room, knowing he might not be able to get back to the other one before the ceiling collapses......it happens all the time....
Click to expand...

But there will be situations where the woman won't die. She'll just be damaged such as losing one kidney or having a stroke that paralyzes only part of her body.

Surely the chances of, say, requiring a cane to walk does not justify killing an individual.

You wrote, "why would you do something that would certainly cause the death of one person to save the life of another?"

That's exactly why some abortions are done. Should we prevent women from having that choice?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
tough...I have skepticism that you would be willing to save the unborn child of a healthy mother as well....since obviously, all the arguments you have raised don't amount to a handful of the instances of abortion.....why don't you just admit you like the thought of killing children and get on with it?......
Click to expand...

Because they are not children. Simple as that. Children are born.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sure it does....it effects the weight of your argument......I could say that no one should be allowed to fly on airplanes, because .000002% of the people who fly on airplanes die in crashes.....though it is still more likely than losing a foot because of pregnancy I'm sure you wouldn't accept the argument as anything but specious......
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with the weight of the argument. Either the lives of all human beings are considered equal or they not are.

Don't you read history? That's how the worst horrors came about. One group of human beings were valued less than other groups and it all starts with exceptions.

Talking about specious either the lives of zygotes and embryos and fetuses are considered just as important as the lives of women or referring to zygotes and embryos and fetuses as human beings is specious.

Either the pro-life folks intend to remove the precedent where a woman can abort if her health is in less than mortal danger or they are disingenuous at best or outright hypocrites.

When it comes to human beings it's an all-or-nothing situation.
 
apple0154 said:
That's exactly why some abortions are done. Should we prevent women from having that choice?
Click to expand...
no, we should permit women to have an abortion when their lives are at stake.....you keep ignoring the fact that this is exactly what society permitted PRIOR to Roe v Wade.....there is no reason to anticipate a difficulty in dealing with the situation AFTER Roe v Wade is reversed.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top