When Does Life End?

apple0154 said:
You're right. The word "compromise" is not in my vocabulary when it comes to designating something unborn as a human being and then automatically making it worth less than a human being with a defective body.

We've been down that road before. Slavery. The holocaust. A human being but not quite as human as other human beings.

No thanks. I want no part of that.
Click to expand...

Just doen't fit your Eugenics aganda, HUH!!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dang fool......you are trying to justify a certain death with a fantasy about illnesses and possible death....
Click to expand...

No, I've been trying to get one anti-abortionist who believes a zygote/embryo/fetus may be killed if a woman faces bodily damage to specifically state what bodily damage qualifies. A kidney? A leg? A foot? A toe? What degree of diminished eye sight? 20/40? 20/60?

I'm trying to find out the value anti-abortionists put on the life of an innocent human being. That's all.

I've asked and asked and asked and I can't get an answer. Surely if they want to prohibit abortion but allow it in cases where the woman will endure bodily damage they must have some idea in mind as to what damage they are referring?

We're talking about an innocent human being. Well, they claim they are talking about an innocent human being so surely it's not out of line for me to inquire what damage would give a woman the right to kill that innocent human being.

The only conclusions I can draw is either very little thought that has gone into it or they are hesitant to say. Can you think of any other possible reason?
 
apple0154 said:
No, I've been trying to get one anti-abortionist who believes a zygote/embryo/fetus may be killed if a woman faces bodily damage to specifically state what bodily damage qualifies. A kidney? A leg? A foot? A toe? What degree of diminished eye sight? 20/40? 20/60?

I'm trying to find out the value anti-abortionists put on the life of an innocent human being. That's all.

I've asked and asked and asked and I can't get an answer. Surely if they want to prohibit abortion but allow it in cases where the woman will endure bodily damage they must have some idea in mind as to what damage they are referring?

We're talking about an innocent human being. Well, they claim they are talking about an innocent human being so surely it's not out of line for me to inquire what damage would give a woman the right to kill that innocent human being.

The only conclusions I can draw is either very little thought that has gone into it or they are hesitant to say. Can you think of any other possible reason?
Click to expand...

fool....we've beaten that argument into the ground so many times even the dust is unrecognizable.....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Yep, every woman will suffer a life long illness and possibly die; because she isn't responsible enough to know how to say no.
Click to expand...

I suppose we can carry that argument to people involved in an auto accident. They weren't responsible enough to know how to say "No" when offered a ride.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
fuck your worthless innuendos.....you've been shown to be a fool so many times on this thread it's likely you will never regain credibility.......
Click to expand...

And still no answer. Surprise. Surprise.

Talking about credibility usually when one is adamant about their position, such as yourself, they have thought things through. I say "usually" because it's obvious you have not.

Considering your lack of knowledge and inability to answer a most basic question pertaining to your position I suggest you ask those responsible for indoctrinating you. Unless, of course, it's a case of "don't ask, don't tell". :rolleyes:
 
/shrugs.....there isn't much more to say.....you're simply repeating arguments that have been shown to be nothing more than worthless trash by half a dozen people.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....there isn't much more to say.....you're simply repeating arguments that have been shown to be nothing more than worthless trash by half a dozen people.....
Click to expand...

At least we know the consensus is apple is an ignorant clown....too ignorant to see the ocean of blood of babies on his hands......its fuckin' sad to realize hes allowed to vote....
Its heartening to see he has little to no support from others throughout the entire thread.....
 
bravo said:
At least we know the consensus is apple is an ignorant clown....too ignorant to see the ocean of blood of babies on his hands......its fuckin' sad to realize hes allowed to vote....
Its heartening to see he has little to no support from others throughout the entire thread.....
Click to expand...


Lots of posts but....still no answer. Surprise. Surprise.

As for support do I really want support from those who place a higher value on a defective person's organs than on the life of an innocent human being?

I've asked the question sufficient times so I'm sure they've had the opportunity to think about it. I suppose they're just too ashamed to answer as it would show just how far they can go to cheapen what it means to be a human being.

That's what's sad. When it comes to the courage of their convictions the courage is sorely lacking.
 
apple0154 said:
No, I've been trying to get one anti-abortionist who believes a zygote/embryo/fetus may be killed if a woman faces bodily damage to specifically state what bodily damage qualifies. A kidney? A leg? A foot? A toe? What degree of diminished eye sight? 20/40? 20/60?

I'm trying to find out the value anti-abortionists put on the life of an innocent human being. That's all.

I've asked and asked and asked and I can't get an answer. Surely if they want to prohibit abortion but allow it in cases where the woman will endure bodily damage they must have some idea in mind as to what damage they are referring?

We're talking about an innocent human being. Well, they claim they are talking about an innocent human being so surely it's not out of line for me to inquire what damage would give a woman the right to kill that innocent human being.

The only conclusions I can draw is either very little thought that has gone into it or they are hesitant to say. Can you think of any other possible reason?
Click to expand...

I had to go back some to find out what the hell kind of inane question you wanted answered....

The only "innocent human being" involved in an abortion is the baby....TOTALLY innocent of anything....and his or her value is the same as any other human life.....no more, no less....

Mommy not only has a right to her life and well being, but a duty to protect herself from exposure to LIFE-THREATENING danger ....

and in this day and age of the wonders of medicine, there is little danger in giving birth.... Death from childbirth in the US is about .012% per 100,000 births.....

So if a doctor detects a life threatening danger to a mother, an abortion is the obvious answer to save a womens life....Self defense is everyones inalienable right...what else can we help you with Mr. Hoover the vaccum man....
 
bravo said:
I had to go back some to find out what the hell kind of inane question you wanted answered.......Mommy not only has a right to her life and well being, but a duty to protect herself from exposure to LIFE-THREATENING danger ....
Click to expand...

Let's talk about well being. Where do you draw the "well being" line? That's the question.

If a woman may lose a kidney due to hypertension do you feel her kidney is worth more than the life of an innocent human being?

If there is a 25% chance that same woman may damage both kidneys and require dialysis would it be OK to kill an innocent human being as a precaution? At what percentage would you place the risk vis-a-vis the killing? 10%? 30%? 70%?

Let's use another example. We have a 30 year old pregnant, commercial pilot. She has contracted diabetes which can not be controlled. There is a high probability she will lose a portion of her eye sight, enough that she will not be able to remain a pilot although she does not risk total blindness.

She is a single mother with a five year old at home. She purchased her home 3 years ago and has a heavy mortgage. If she loses her job she will lose her house.

Would you insist she bear a child, lose her job and home and end up a single mom with two children on welfare until she retrains for another career or do you feel she should be allowed to kill an innocent human being because she can no longer be a pilot?

In order to avoid having to go back some to find out what the hell kind of questions I'm asking may I suggest a direct answer in a timely manner.

Thanks.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

bravo said:
I had to go back some to find out what the hell kind of inane question you wanted answered....

The only "innocent human being" involved in an abortion is the baby....TOTALLY innocent of anything....and his or her value is the same as any other human life.....no more, no less....

Mommy not only has a right to her life and well being, but a duty to protect herself from exposure to LIFE-THREATENING danger ....

and in this day and age of the wonders of medicine, there is little danger in giving birth.... Death from childbirth in the US is about .012% per 100,000 births.....

So if a doctor detects a life threatening danger to a mother, an abortion is the obvious answer to save a womens life....Self defense is everyones inalienable right...what else can we help you with Mr. Hoover the vaccum man....
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top