Roe v. Wade 1973 Rethought: is it More Humane to Terminate?

[Votto]

To me the bottom line is that decent, moral conservatives generally do not have abortions.

sure they do. 91% of people who find out they are going to have a Down Syndrome baby abort. That includes conservatives, Christians and republicans.

You see, I am old enough to remember the time before we had birth control and abortion, and we used to have LONG buses to pick up the retards, who we didn't have to go to school with because they didn't mainstream them.

Then thankfully, we legalized abortion and birth control, and you didn't have these old Catholic bitches making retard kids in their 40's.

So what made you a fucking retard? You get spiked like a football in the delivery room?


It's too bad you weren't sucked out of the womb by Kermit Gosnell and allowed to suffocate in a closet before the rats ate you.


Piece of shit.


.

And then placed in a glass jar on his desk so he can look at it every day.

Progs are subhuman

 

[BlindBoo]

To me the bottom line is that decent, moral conservatives generally do not have abortions.

Self absorbed leftists do.

As long as no taxes are used, we as a society do not share guilt.

I think all libturds should be sterilized, but as long as they can have abortions I won't stand in the way.

.

And Republican politicians who knock up their girlfriends....never let their holier than thou position for everyone else effect their decsion!

That's why I said "generally do not" you blind dumbass dog.

Zippy, in the most recent example, the dipshit in question was not decent or moral, but only pretending to be decent, moral and/or otherwise a conservative.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why is abortion bad but war good?

Eh conservatives?

Abortion is a war, it's a war on children so it's all good.

I hear the fetus' of some countries are used to heat buildings.

Aborted fetuses from Canada burned at waste facility to power Oregon homes | Daily Mail Online

Nifty! Not only do we not have to pay money to raise them, but we can keep warm over their worthless carcass so it's a win/win.

Holy shit. that's brutal. The mind-controlled obfuscation of right and wrong continues unabated.

It should be of no surprise.

The body parts of Holocaust victims were also "recycled" for various uses.

You just have to love Progs in how they recycle cuz natural resources are limited, don't ya know.

They're just awful huh?

"According to its website, it processes 550 tons per day......"

Lot of dead babies hmmmm?

Ore. Not

Not to worry, I'm sure Planned Parenthood harvests their organs before using them like logs on a fire.

Not just organs, but all body parts. I built my very own Frankenbaby thanks to them too.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

A Catholic family I know well had an autistic child 20+ years ago. That child has profoundly affected everyone in that family and not for the better. They love and do their best for that child but their other child suffers every day having lost his childhood and his future as he will be burdened with the care and guilt once the parents are gone. The autistic child is usually frustrated and angry.

Much as I don't like abortion, I think this autistic child being born was a tragedy for all concerned and should have been prevented.

Obviously I don't know the full extent of the childs autism or his impact on the family or anything beyond what you've shared......but it sounds as if atleast some of the problem is the parents handling of it. I can understand the autistic child would take up the majority of their time & attention, but they shouldn't have neglected the needs of the healthy sibling or expect him to take full responsibility after they're gone.

You may or may not be right but my point was disabled children affect many more people than just themselves. The lives of the other 3 family members would have been much more easier and more satisfying without an autistic child. Also, how many children were not born to that family because they needed to save so much of their time and money for the disabled child?

I'm not sure that I agree. Who's to say the 'healthy' sibling doesn't become some psycho Hitler type wannabe that goes farther with the torture & mass murder than the original did? Just because the disabled child is a pain in the ass to care for, doesn't mean he should be 'terminated' and the question then is "which one really has the debilitating disease that should have been aborted???

 

[Votto]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

A Catholic family I know well had an autistic child 20+ years ago. That child has profoundly affected everyone in that family and not for the better. They love and do their best for that child but their other child suffers every day having lost his childhood and his future as he will be burdened with the care and guilt once the parents are gone. The autistic child is usually frustrated and angry.

Much as I don't like abortion, I think this autistic child being born was a tragedy for all concerned and should have been prevented.

Obviously I don't know the full extent of the childs autism or his impact on the family or anything beyond what you've shared......but it sounds as if atleast some of the problem is the parents handling of it. I can understand the autistic child would take up the majority of their time & attention, but they shouldn't have neglected the needs of the healthy sibling or expect him to take full responsibility after they're gone.

You may or may not be right but my point was disabled children affect many more people than just themselves. The lives of the other 3 family members would have been much more easier and more satisfying without an autistic child. Also, how many children were not born to that family because they needed to save so much of their time and money for the disabled child?

I'm not sure that I agree. Who's to say the 'healthy' sibling doesn't become some psycho Hitler type wannabe that goes farther with the torture & mass murder than the original did? Just because the disabled child is a pain in the ass to care for, doesn't mean he should be 'terminated' and the question then is "which one really has the debilitating disease that should have been aborted???

Actually Hitler started with the sick in hospitals. He rounded up those who were "suffering", took them in the basement, and....well......put them out of their misery.

I reckon Progs approve of it ONLY if they did not feel any pain.

 

[grainbely]

To me the bottom line is that decent, moral conservatives generally do not have abortions.

Self absorbed leftists do.

As long as no taxes are used, we as a society do not share guilt.

I think all libturds should be sterilized, but as long as they can have abortions I won't stand in the way.

.

"Moral conservative" is a charade. The proof is in trump's pudding.

 

[Votto]

Why not kill off all the "retards" who cannot care for themselves?

I'm all for executing Dims on welfare.

Who's with me?

I encourage their suicide, but we could cut off the free shit and let them work or starve.

I don't want to go to hell above all else, so having any blood on my hands is to be avoided at all cost.

.

Which is why left wingers demand that either God does not exist, or if he does, hell does not exist.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

A Catholic family I know well had an autistic child 20+ years ago. That child has profoundly affected everyone in that family and not for the better. They love and do their best for that child but their other child suffers every day having lost his childhood and his future as he will be burdened with the care and guilt once the parents are gone. The autistic child is usually frustrated and angry.

Much as I don't like abortion, I think this autistic child being born was a tragedy for all concerned and should have been prevented.

Obviously I don't know the full extent of the childs autism or his impact on the family or anything beyond what you've shared......but it sounds as if atleast some of the problem is the parents handling of it. I can understand the autistic child would take up the majority of their time & attention, but they shouldn't have neglected the needs of the healthy sibling or expect him to take full responsibility after they're gone.

You may or may not be right but my point was disabled children affect many more people than just themselves. The lives of the other 3 family members would have been much more easier and more satisfying without an autistic child. Also, how many children were not born to that family because they needed to save so much of their time and money for the disabled child?

I'm not sure that I agree. Who's to say the 'healthy' sibling doesn't become some psycho Hitler type wannabe that goes farther with the torture & mass murder than the original did? Just because the disabled child is a pain in the ass to care for, doesn't mean he should be 'terminated' and the question then is "which one really has the debilitating disease that should have been aborted???

Actually Hitler started with the sick in hospitals. He rounded up those who were "suffering", took them in the basement, and....well......put them out of their misery.

I reckon Progs approve of it ONLY if they did not feel any pain.

Yeah, what I can't understand is how do they call themselves Progressives & Liberals, when the only sanctity of life are those that break the law

 

[Dragonlady]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

 

[playtime]

no one gets to decide for the pregnant female whether she carries thru with a pregnancy or not - except her.

 

[alang1216]

A Catholic family I know well had an autistic child 20+ years ago. That child has profoundly affected everyone in that family and not for the better. They love and do their best for that child but their other child suffers every day having lost his childhood and his future as he will be burdened with the care and guilt once the parents are gone. The autistic child is usually frustrated and angry.

Much as I don't like abortion, I think this autistic child being born was a tragedy for all concerned and should have been prevented.

Obviously I don't know the full extent of the childs autism or his impact on the family or anything beyond what you've shared......but it sounds as if atleast some of the problem is the parents handling of it. I can understand the autistic child would take up the majority of their time & attention, but they shouldn't have neglected the needs of the healthy sibling or expect him to take full responsibility after they're gone.

You may or may not be right but my point was disabled children affect many more people than just themselves. The lives of the other 3 family members would have been much more easier and more satisfying without an autistic child. Also, how many children were not born to that family because they needed to save so much of their time and money for the disabled child?

I'm not sure that I agree. Who's to say the 'healthy' sibling doesn't become some psycho Hitler type wannabe that goes farther with the torture & mass murder than the original did? Just because the disabled child is a pain in the ass to care for, doesn't mean he should be 'terminated' and the question then is "which one really has the debilitating disease that should have been aborted???

Actually Hitler started with the sick in hospitals. He rounded up those who were "suffering", took them in the basement, and....well......put them out of their misery.

I reckon Progs approve of it ONLY if they did not feel any pain.

Yeah, what I can't understand is how do they call themselves Progressives & Liberals, when the only sanctity of life are those that break the law

Maybe they don't accept you as an authority as to when life begins? To some conservatives it seems life begins at conception and ends at birth.

 

[playtime]

A Catholic family I know well had an autistic child 20+ years ago. That child has profoundly affected everyone in that family and not for the better. They love and do their best for that child but their other child suffers every day having lost his childhood and his future as he will be burdened with the care and guilt once the parents are gone. The autistic child is usually frustrated and angry.

Much as I don't like abortion, I think this autistic child being born was a tragedy for all concerned and should have been prevented.

Obviously I don't know the full extent of the childs autism or his impact on the family or anything beyond what you've shared......but it sounds as if atleast some of the problem is the parents handling of it. I can understand the autistic child would take up the majority of their time & attention, but they shouldn't have neglected the needs of the healthy sibling or expect him to take full responsibility after they're gone.

You may or may not be right but my point was disabled children affect many more people than just themselves. The lives of the other 3 family members would have been much more easier and more satisfying without an autistic child. Also, how many children were not born to that family because they needed to save so much of their time and money for the disabled child?

I'm not sure that I agree. Who's to say the 'healthy' sibling doesn't become some psycho Hitler type wannabe that goes farther with the torture & mass murder than the original did? Just because the disabled child is a pain in the ass to care for, doesn't mean he should be 'terminated' and the question then is "which one really has the debilitating disease that should have been aborted???

Actually Hitler started with the sick in hospitals. He rounded up those who were "suffering", took them in the basement, and....well......put them out of their misery.

I reckon Progs approve of it ONLY if they did not feel any pain.

Yeah, what I can't understand is how do they call themselves Progressives & Liberals, when the only sanctity of life are those that break the law

i am considered a liberal on this here message board & i believe in the right to choose AND the death penalty for certain individuals that break the law.


so much for your 'theory'.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Obviously I don't know the full extent of the childs autism or his impact on the family or anything beyond what you've shared......but it sounds as if atleast some of the problem is the parents handling of it. I can understand the autistic child would take up the majority of their time & attention, but they shouldn't have neglected the needs of the healthy sibling or expect him to take full responsibility after they're gone.

You may or may not be right but my point was disabled children affect many more people than just themselves. The lives of the other 3 family members would have been much more easier and more satisfying without an autistic child. Also, how many children were not born to that family because they needed to save so much of their time and money for the disabled child?

I'm not sure that I agree. Who's to say the 'healthy' sibling doesn't become some psycho Hitler type wannabe that goes farther with the torture & mass murder than the original did? Just because the disabled child is a pain in the ass to care for, doesn't mean he should be 'terminated' and the question then is "which one really has the debilitating disease that should have been aborted???

Actually Hitler started with the sick in hospitals. He rounded up those who were "suffering", took them in the basement, and....well......put them out of their misery.

I reckon Progs approve of it ONLY if they did not feel any pain.

Yeah, what I can't understand is how do they call themselves Progressives & Liberals, when the only sanctity of life are those that break the law

Maybe they don't accept you as an authority as to when life begins? To some conservatives it seems life begins at conception and ends at birth.

And when did I say I was an authority? I didn't.

Life begins and ends with the beat of the heart, in my opinion.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Obviously I don't know the full extent of the childs autism or his impact on the family or anything beyond what you've shared......but it sounds as if atleast some of the problem is the parents handling of it. I can understand the autistic child would take up the majority of their time & attention, but they shouldn't have neglected the needs of the healthy sibling or expect him to take full responsibility after they're gone.

You may or may not be right but my point was disabled children affect many more people than just themselves. The lives of the other 3 family members would have been much more easier and more satisfying without an autistic child. Also, how many children were not born to that family because they needed to save so much of their time and money for the disabled child?

I'm not sure that I agree. Who's to say the 'healthy' sibling doesn't become some psycho Hitler type wannabe that goes farther with the torture & mass murder than the original did? Just because the disabled child is a pain in the ass to care for, doesn't mean he should be 'terminated' and the question then is "which one really has the debilitating disease that should have been aborted???

Actually Hitler started with the sick in hospitals. He rounded up those who were "suffering", took them in the basement, and....well......put them out of their misery.

I reckon Progs approve of it ONLY if they did not feel any pain.

Yeah, what I can't understand is how do they call themselves Progressives & Liberals, when the only sanctity of life are those that break the law

i am considered a liberal on this here message board & i believe in the right to choose AND the death penalty for certain individuals that break the law.


so much for your 'theory'.

Illegal immigrants???

Just where do you draw the line?

And by who's authority?

 

[Dragonlady]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

It is the mother who has to gestate the fetus. The father doesn’t even have to be in the picture other than for the act of inseminating her.

The fetus is not yet a “being”, it is the potential of life. If the mother feels strongly that this is a baby she wants to carry, or if she believes, as you do, that the fetus is already a person and has rights, she is free to act on her beliefs.

If, however, the mother does not believe as you do, and does not, for whatever reason believe that giving life and birth to a child is in her best interests or that of her family, by what right should you be able to tell her she’s wrong and cannot do this.

I also note that you are opposed to providing financial assistance to those who can’t afford to have the children you would force them to bear. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to raise and then tell her not to expect to help her raise it.

You can’t call the tune if you’re not willing to pay the piper.

 

[Votto]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

So to be a human being the glob of cells must be able to survive on its own and be independent?

You really want to be able to kill of the welfare gang, eh?

Sicko!

 

[Votto]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

It is the mother who has to gestate the fetus. The father doesn’t even have to be in the picture other than for the act of inseminating her.

The fetus is not yet a “being”, it is the potential of life. If the mother feels strongly that this is a baby she wants to carry, or if she believes, as you do, that the fetus is already a person and has rights, she is free to act on her beliefs.

If, however, the mother does not believe as you do, and does not, for whatever reason believe that giving life and birth to a child is in her best interests or that of her family, by what right should you be able to tell her she’s wrong and cannot do this.

I also note that you are opposed to providing financial assistance to those who can’t afford to have the children you would force them to bear. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to raise and then tell her not to expect to help her raise it.

You can’t call the tune if you’re not willing to pay the piper.

According to Dims, none of us is an island unto him or her self. We all are dependent upon each other and need to care for each other no matter how bad off we are nor matter how bad we are. Who are we to judge........ unless you are the unborn.

 

[Dragonlady]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

It is the mother who has to gestate the fetus. The father doesn’t even have to be in the picture other than for the act of inseminating her.

The fetus is not yet a “being”, it is the potential of life. If the mother feels strongly that this is a baby she wants to carry, or if she believes, as you do, that the fetus is already a person and has rights, she is free to act on her beliefs.

If, however, the mother does not believe as you do, and does not, for whatever reason believe that giving life and birth to a child is in her best interests or that of her family, by what right should you be able to tell her she’s wrong and cannot do this.

I also note that you are opposed to providing financial assistance to those who can’t afford to have the children you would force them to bear. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to raise and then tell her not to expect to help her raise it.

You can’t call the tune if you’re not willing to pay the piper.

According to Dims, none of us is an island unto him or her self. We all are dependent upon each other and need to care for each other no matter how bad off we are nor matter how bad we are. Who are we to judge........ unless you are the unborn.

Unless you’re living in the woods, growing and hunting you own food, making all your own utensils, weaving your own cloth and sewing your own clothes, we are all dependent on one another. We may compensate them for the things others do for us but to say that we can get along without other people doing things for us is to deny the reality of modern life.

 

[alang1216]

Yeah, what I can't understand is how do they call themselves Progressives & Liberals, when the only sanctity of life are those that break the law

Maybe they don't accept you as an authority as to when life begins? To some conservatives it seems life begins at conception and ends at birth.

And when did I say I was an authority? I didn't.

Life begins and ends with the beat of the heart, in my opinion.

Not an unreasonable opinion but I would tie 'life' to brain function not heartbeat.

BTW, when you say 'sanctity of life' you're implying you know what is 'life' and what is not.