And the teenaged daughters of Republican elitest's.
APP - Senator Kennedy became one of my heroes!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
And the teenaged daughters of Republican elitest's.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Collateral damage.
I believe it should be replaced with something that recognizes the right of the life as well as the right of the "incubator". Treating the burgeoning human life as a patient rather than as a disease that should be killed.
But you know that many of the removed "lives" will die, at least in the begining.... Right?
And if you support this plan, are you not, based on your logic, supporting the killing of these "lives"?
I also know that many patients with cancer will die even while we try to save their lives, that does not make me any more complicit in their deaths than it would when these tiny patients die.
No, but you are not the one promoting giving the cancer patients the cancer.... By your logic, you are promoting taking these patients from a safe enviroment to one where they willl surely die, dispite your best efforts to "save" them. Using your logic, you are complicit in the deaths of these tiny patients.
It is a compromise when two rights are in conflict. In the same event where we would try to save the life of a child born early due to an accident or any other reason they were removed from the "safe" environment.
I would be complicit if I directed action and supported action that would ensure their death, if I directed action that would kill that life purposefully and with will (abortion). Understanding that not all life can be kept in a constant and perfect safe environment and thus working to create an artificial one is not quite the same thing as supporting the directed and purposeful taking of that life.
By your current criteria, allowing children to leave the house at all could be construed as being complicit in their deaths because we know some of them will get in accidents when they leave that safe environment and will die. Yet we consistently insist that they leave the house, get in conveyances where we know some will lose their lives, and go places like school.
It is certian that with todays technology many, if not most of these patients would die. Promoting an act that will result in certian death makes you complicit in that death, and according to your logic, by promoting the laws that would allow this, you are promoting that act!
I agree that it is a compromise because two rights that are in conflict, but when the result is 99% of the time certian death... its bacically the same thing. Based on your logic you are promoting a plan that would make you complicit in the deaths of millions of patients.
TO your last paragraph...
Allowing children out of the house is not almost absolutly certian to result in death. Removing a fetus at three months is certian, based on modern technology, to result in that fetus's "death"!
It will absolutely result in some death. Under your current criteria you would be "complicit" in their deaths because you promote it.
"Many if not most" is again not the same thing as direct and purposeful action that would kill them as if they are a disease. There is a major difference between trying to save a life and purposefully ending one.
Certian death to those in the first trimester.
Almost certina death to those in the second.
In the first trimester it is direct anbd purposeful action that will kill them as if they are a disease, no mater what you do with the fetus after the removal.
Not "certain", we will improve technologies through necessity.
Direct and purposeful action to end their life is when you vacuum them into the trash can, not when you try to save their life. This takes a long view, but in the long run will save far more lives than continuing the purposeful slaughter of life.
It is certain today, and for the next 5 years, after that you might be correct. You are promoting this plan today!
I agree your plan is a shift in perspective and respecting the "life", I dont disagree with your plan... I merely am pointing out that it would, based on your logic, cause you to be complicit in the deaths of many patients who have been removed. What you do with a fetus that has been removed at 2 months is illrelevant to if it lives or dies, based on current technology.
Again, I understand that many of these lives will end in the beginning of it and that it is very unfortunate, however it is still not the same thing as directly and purposefully squishing them up and sucking them through a tube directly working to end their life. Even a lawyer can see the difference in the two, I have faith in you.
The largest difference between you and I, I do not support a plan that will never make it any better, I do not support the legality of something that directly and purposefully takes the youngest and most innocent of human life and treats it like "medical waste" because it is inconvenient, I do not support the direct action of taking those lives without any recognition of their right to life. I don't try to excuse my support, nor feel any need to try to twist out of what I believe to be right, that the actions are consistent with what I know to be right.
You support legally taking those lives, an activity that if done properly will kill them every single time regardless with no purpose to learn, to get better, to try to save them. You support it and then try to weasel out a reason why it is okay to support what you supposedly find abhorrent yet actively support.
My point is that you are supporting a plan that will certiantly take life. Based on your logic, which I belive you know to be false, you would be complicit in the deaths of these patients.
It does not matter how you remove a three month fetus, the result will be the same. I belive that advances in modern technology will ultimatly correct the evil of abortion. I also know we are not there yet. Likely your plan would get us there faster... STOP KIDDING YOURSELF your plan will directly and purpusfully result in the death of the youngest of human life.
Dont hide behind, "but my intent was to save it". You know it will die going in, that is killing it!
What I support is certain to create a better future where none of these lives would be lost, what you support is certain to maintain the capacity to kill purposefully for convenience. What I support would not take any of these lives with the directed purpose of killing, that is where your disconnect is, and where your support lies. The purpose of removing them would not be to kill them, only in what you support is that the actual purpose.
If you know the result of an act WILL be death... it does not matter what your purpose was. That does not change the amount of complicity in the deaths.
I agree with your plan and would support it over the current law. But based on your logic by supporting your proposal, we would both be complicit in the deaths of these lives.
And again, I know that many times our efforts to save them, especially in early implementation, will unfortunately be fruitless but it would never result in the direct and purposeful taking of life. Not even one time would the purpose of the activity be to kill, that is only in what you support wholeheartedly as the best legal activity to make such killings happen "less often" and work to desperately find some way to make such a disconnect fit what you know is right.
What I support in no way conflicts with what I know to be right.
IN fact that goes directly back to my point earlier that I do not belive that making abortion illegal will prevent abortions. I am making a very simular argument. Also, my intent in supporting legal abortion is not to promote abortion but to protect the right to FREEDOM!