Sign the petition send a coat hanger..

Threedee said:
And it is the pro-abortion side that just wants to kill people, period.

When faced with the possible death of two human lives, I will always support saving the one's which can be sparred (meaning the mother's). When the woman's health is endangered, we are dealing with her natural right to life as well.
Click to expand...

In most cases the zygote or embryo or fetus can be spared because in most cases the woman will not die although she may be temporarily or permanently injured. In either case that does not justify taking the life of an innocent human being assuming, of course, zygotes and embryos and fetuses are human beings.
 
tom prendergast said:
I should have said that if the majority of abortions, as implied by certain elements on the right, are from minorities.
You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the box else you would know that I'm not from your side of the pond and therefore not a US taxpayer.
Click to expand...

odd then that you were the one that implied it and I was the one who had to correct you.....I guess then that folks on your side of the pond don't pay that close of attention to facts.....
 
apple0154 said:
In most cases the zygote or embryo or fetus can be spared because in most cases the woman will not die although she may be temporarily or permanently injured. In either case that does not justify taking the life of an innocent human being assuming, of course, zygotes and embryos and fetuses are human beings.
Click to expand...

firemen should not rescue people from burning buildings, because they are unable to choose which people they should rescue first.....:pke:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
firemen should not rescue people from burning buildings, because they are unable to choose which people they should rescue first.....:pke:
Click to expand...

That comparison does not work. They rescue the people less likely to be able to get out themselves or the most injured but likely to live or some other criteria but they do not discount a specific group of people out of hand.

Always killing the zygote/embryo/fetus when the mother's death is not absolutely certain would be equivalent to a fireman helping a child with an injured leg but not in a life threatening situation while leaving a man to die. The fireman's duty would not be the save the leg of the child at the expense of the life of the man just as it doesn't make sense to save the woman's leg at the expense of the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus, again, assuming the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.
 
apple0154 said:
Always killing the zygote/embryo/fetus when the mother's death is not absolutely certain
Click to expand...

but why would you do that?........there may be no reason to kill the child at all?.....by the way, there is no reason to include zygotes in the discussion......the child will have passed the zygote stage long before anyone even knows it's around......
 
apple0154 said:
Always killing the zygote/embryo/fetus when the mother's death is not absolutely certain would be equivalent to a fireman helping a child with an injured leg but not in a life threatening situation while leaving a man to die. The fireman's duty would not be the save the leg of the child at the expense of the life of the man just as it doesn't make sense to save the woman's leg at the expense of the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus, again, assuming the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.
Click to expand...

so you see....it isn't as difficult to weigh the alternatives as you thought it was going to be......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but why would you do that?........there may be no reason to kill the child at all?.....by the way, there is no reason to include zygotes in the discussion......the child will have passed the zygote stage long before anyone even knows it's around......
Click to expand...

It only takes one example. The mother may have a 99% chance of suffering permanent disabilities but that still does not justify taking the life of another human being or does it?

One time blows the sanctity of life argument out the window. One time makes a mockery of classifying an embryo/fetus as a human being.

There are a number of disabilities a woman may suffer due to a faulty pregnancy. If she has three children at home and the prognosis is if the pregnancy continues her uncontrolled diabetes will result in blindness do we force her to bear the child knowing she will not be able to care for that child as well as not being able to care for the 2 and 4 and 6 year old at home?

Or do we murder a human being, the fetus within, in exchange for her three children at home having a mother? Do we take the life of a human being, the fetus, to prevent the children at home going into foster care?

What value do we put on the life of a human being?

EDIT: Back in a while. Lunch time here.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
It only takes one example. The mother may have a 99% chance of suffering permanent disabilities but that still does not justify taking the life of another human being or does it?
Click to expand...
yes....unless by "disabilities" you mean something like a tendency to develop hangnails or something....again, society engaged in this balancing of rights for hundreds of years prior to Roe v Wade, why do you think it's suddenly going to be a problem if Roe v Wade is reversed?


If she has three children at home and the prognosis is if the pregnancy continues her uncontrolled diabetes will result in blindness do we force her to bear the child knowing she will not be able to care for that child as well as not being able to care for the 2 and 4 and 6 year old at home?
Click to expand...

no, though I am assuming that you don't mean the blindness could be prevented simply by using some sort of control....obviously she ought not kill the child if blindness could be avoided simply by properly using her insulin....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd then that you were the one that implied it and I was the one who had to correct you.....I guess then that folks on your side of the pond don't pay that close of attention to facts.....
Click to expand...

Jeez, I just noticed that you are over 4000 posts now and you've only been here since July, don't you ever sleep, eat or go for a shit? BTW, it was your best mate SM who said that most abortion clinics are in black neighbourhoods.
 
apple0154 said:
That comparison does not work. They rescue the people less likely to be able to get out themselves or the most injured but likely to live or some other criteria but they do not discount a specific group of people out of hand.

Always killing the zygote/embryo/fetus when the mother's death is not absolutely certain would be equivalent to a fireman helping a child with an injured leg but not in a life threatening situation while leaving a man to die. The fireman's duty would not be the save the leg of the child at the expense of the life of the man just as it doesn't make sense to save the woman's leg at the expense of the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus, again, assuming the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being.
Click to expand...

Well, when in the hell have we ever mass murdered actual human beings throughout history. Mongrels, apes, etc., but never human friggin' beings.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes....unless by "disabilities" you mean something like a tendency to develop hangnails or something....again, society engaged in this balancing of rights for hundreds of years prior to Roe v Wade, why do you think it's suddenly going to be a problem if Roe v Wade is reversed?
Click to expand...

It's going to be a problem because it never was a balancing of rights but society was quite different 35+ years ago. We had so-called balanced rights regarding blacks and women and homosexuals, as well, and people just accepted it.

Those days are gone, thank God. Simply put it is not logical to kill a human being when they are not guilty of anything regardless of whether their existence impacts another individual's life.

Suppose a pharmacist denies a diabetic individual insulin because the person can not pay for it. By refusing to give the person the medication the person will die. Does the individual have the right to kill the pharmacist and retrieve the medication? If not, why not?

If a person with a severe wound, bleeding to death, is driving to a hospital do they have the right to run red lights, smash into cars and injure/kill others in order to save their own life?

Why should a woman's life come before the life of her child, again, assuming an embryo/fetus is a child?

As I have mentioned in the past if a mother and 10 year old child are standing on the balcony of an old, burning building and the balcony, due to neglect, can not sustain the weight of both people until the fire truck arrives is she permitted to throw the child off the balcony in order to save her own life? If not, why not? What is the difference between the threat the fetus poses and that of the 10 year old child?

The estranged father, the living brothers and sisters, the future grandparents....why should they all suffer the loss of the child when the only consequences may be injury to the woman but not death?

no, though I am assuming that you don't mean the blindness could be prevented simply by using some sort of control....obviously she ought not kill the child if blindness could be avoided simply by properly using her insulin....
Click to expand...

What if the blindness, as a result of diabetes, only affects one eye? Is the child's life worth less than an eye?

How can anyone justify sacrificing the life of a human being for an eye let alone when almost all problem pregnancies are due to the faulty body of the woman anyway?

What rationale is used?
 
Threedee said:
Well, when in the hell have we ever mass murdered actual human beings throughout history. Mongrels, apes, etc., but never human friggin' beings.
Click to expand...

But that's just it. By classifying conceptions (zygotes, embryos, fetuses) as human beings we set up a false dilemma of sorts. Our society is based on individualism. When we start saying two human beings are occupying one body, one "type" of human being always takes precedence over the other "type", we run into situations that are illogical requiring exceptions here and exceptions there.

"We" say the unborn are the same as the born but the rules are not the same. The values we place on their most basic rights including their life are so fundamentally different.
 
apple0154 said:
But that's just it. By classifying conceptions (zygotes, embryos, fetuses) as human beings we set up a false dilemma of sorts. Our society is based on individualism. When we start saying two human beings are occupying one body, one "type" of human being always takes precedence over the other "type", we run into situations that are illogical requiring exceptions here and exceptions there.

"We" say the unborn are the same as the born but the rules are not the same. The values we place on their most basic rights including their life are so fundamentally different.
Click to expand...

So to avoid conflicts of interest, we kill off one of the parties involved. Repeatedly. And declare it was not actually a party involved so that we are guiltless. Repeatedly.
 
apple, you are a strange person.....I think we should kill you and end your angst.....the choices you struggle with aren't that hard to make...society has been making them without much difficulty since long before either of us were born......the world will not end when we stop killing our first born children.....
 
Threedee said:
So to avoid conflicts of interest, we kill off one of the parties involved. Repeatedly. And declare it was not actually a party involved so that we are guiltless. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

It's much more than conflicts of interest. It's the necessity of exceptions. It's the valuing of a human being's life against a body part of another human being. It's society's lack of concern in investigating and determining the cause of death of those whom society classifies as human beings. It's those practices and lack of actions that, in any other circumstance, we would find most abhorrent.

It cheapens what it means to be a human being. Rather than raise the value of an embryo or fetus by insuring it has the same protections as any other human being we end up adding it to the human being family while treating it less than any other human being. That ultimately results in devaluing all human beings.

The conflicts, the exceptions, the bizarre situations that arise followed by the illogical remedies/solutions clearly show us the premise is bizarre and illogical.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
apple, you are a strange person.....I think we should kill you and end your angst.....the choices you struggle with aren't that hard to make...society has been making them without much difficulty since long before either of us were born......the world will not end when we stop killing our first born children.....
Click to expand...

Of course society has been making the choices. Or should I say authority has been dictating the choices without society's approval.

The classic example of that was in 1869 when the Pope declared all abortions illegal in exchange for the Emperor of France declaring the Pope was infallible. France's population was in decline and the Emperor wanted to ensure there would be sufficient young men to send to war in the future. Talk about a deal made in Hell.

In the past people never questioned authority believing they didn't have the knowledge and understanding to question. Those days are long gone.

Rules, restrictions, laws.....they have to make sense or people will question them. Authority is obliged to explain itself. It's a new world and a wonderful one.

As a footnote the so-called "activist judges" are nothing more than rational people giving a rational interpretation of laws. Common sense and rationality are, finally, entering our life/culture/society.
 
apple0154 said:
Of course society has been making the choices. Or should I say authority has been dictating the choices without society's approval.

The classic example of that was in 1869 when the Pope declared all abortions illegal in exchange for the Emperor of France declaring the Pope was infallible. France's population was in decline and the Emperor wanted to ensure there would be sufficient young men to send to war in the future. Talk about a deal made in Hell.

In the past people never questioned authority believing they didn't have the knowledge and understanding to question. Those days are long gone.

Rules, restrictions, laws.....they have to make sense or people will question them. Authority is obliged to explain itself. It's a new world and a wonderful one.

As a footnote the so-called "activist judges" are nothing more than rational people giving a rational interpretation of laws. Common sense and rationality are, finally, entering our life/culture/society.
Click to expand...

i find it richly ironic that PiMP says that you are strange and admire how you just neatly sidestepped him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top