|
Post by donkey on Jul 23, 2024 19:48:52 GMT -5
inconvenience or emotional discomfort or economic loss or normal levels of physical consequences are NOT grounds for self-defense Freedom and liberty allow you to do what you want, but limit you from harming others including fetuses. Assume the following scenario: You have a unique and rare blood type. Someone is sick and needs hourly transfusions of your blood type. Nobody else has this blood type and the sick guy will die for certain if he doesn't get these hourly transfusions. You gave him transfusions for a few weeks but have decided you don't want to do it any more. Question for both of you: can the government force you to keep giving him these transfusions? No, you can't be forced to give part of your body to another, even though it's a very noble thing to do. Your body, your choice. However, abortion involves a procedure designed to end the life of another person. The debate really is, at what point is that person actually a person and not a blob of cells that haven't developed into a person yet. I would argue that the morning after pill is acceptable as there has been no development yet. First trimester is very low development, so reasonable people could agree to allow that. Beyond first trimester, personally I just find the whole thought really gross. The fetus is developed enough to start resembling a baby. I don't really debate the subject of abortion normally...its not high on my list of concerns. Just giving my two cents on the issue...and mabye that's all its worth. lol
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 23, 2024 20:12:43 GMT -5
abortion involves a procedure designed to end the life of another person. Thanks for weighing in on this interesting discussion. OK, then consider this scenario: Assume that a different medical procedure is invented for pregnant women. In this procedure, the surgeon opens the uterus and then severs the umbilical cord. The surgeon ties both ends so there is no bleeding. The surgeon then closes up the uterus leaving everything as before except for the severed umbilical cord. Neither the mother nor the fetus is harmed in any way. Unlike an abortion, the purpose of this procedure is not the end the life of the fetus but only to sever the connection between mother and fetus so that the mother is no longer supplying blood to the fetus. Of course the fetus dies eventually without the blood supplied from the mother. But you said that a person cannot be forced to give part of her body (in this case, her blood) to another. So the mother has simply chosen to stop giving her blood to the fetus. So can I assume you have no objection to this new medical procedure?
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Jul 24, 2024 3:08:25 GMT -5
A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. PopulationUsing regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. This study includes data from the U.S. National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS). www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.573736#:~:text=A%20positive%20and%20statistically%20significant,prevalence%20of%20AUT%20or%20SLI. This „study“ was scientific nonsense.. and as I learned Gayle de Long very dangerous..even to her daughter medium.com/@fierceautie/the-story-of-autistic-child-of-the-quack-gayle-delong-511cc9888e04
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Jul 24, 2024 3:10:26 GMT -5
A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. PopulationUsing regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. This study includes data from the U.S. National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS). www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.573736#:~:text=A%20positive%20and%20statistically%20significant,prevalence%20of%20AUT%20or%20SLI. This „study“ was scientific nonsense.. and as I learned Gayle de Long very dangerous..even to her daughter medium.com/@fierceautie/the-story-of-autistic-child-of-the-quack-gayle-delong-511cc9888e04btw. deLong held a degree in finance..are you asking your hairdresser to make an open heart surgery
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 24, 2024 13:46:49 GMT -5
No I am asking that a anti American not be allowed to post in this forum!
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 24, 2024 14:59:06 GMT -5
inconvenience or emotional discomfort or economic loss or normal levels of physical consequences are NOT grounds for self-defense Freedom and liberty allow you to do what you want, but limit you from harming others including fetuses. Assume the following scenario: You have a unique and rare blood type. Someone is sick and needs hourly transfusions of your blood type. Nobody else has this blood type and the sick guy will die for certain if he doesn't get these hourly transfusions. You gave him transfusions for a few weeks but have decided you don't want to do it any more. Questions for both of you: 1. Can the government force you to keep giving him these transfusions? 2. When you stop the transfusions and the sick guy dies, are you guilty of murder? 3. Is the withholding of your blood considered to be harming the sick guy? I don't think the government can compel anyone (give or take in the military in extraordinary circumstances) to donate blood. Nor should it be able to. And the rate of transfusions you suggest would exceed the amount one person could donate and survive. So sick person is going to die anyway. With rare job related exception, nobody is obliged to die or incur serious harm for anyone else. But even that aside, regardless of whether or not some "donation" would keep one or more persons alive, it should not be forced; and there is not even an absolute moral requirement to save every life that's within one's power to save. There is a reasonable but non-binding obligation to care for one's fellow human, but the interpretation of that is almost entirely up to the one being asked to give time, money, or other resources (including blood). Personally, I would do (have done) what I reasonably could, to the point of inconvenience to minor discomfort, but not damage, for people I know (that I had no legal obligation to assist), on occasion. I will not accept damage that would impair or more than delay my ability to do that or anything else including something self-indulgent, in the future. And strangers are the problem of people to whom they are NOT strangers, not my problem, although for disasters give or take repeats of obvious ones (New Orleans near a storm catching delta and some of it below sea level, really? resettle everyone and abandon it!), I may chip in; IMO, Salvation Army is more efficient and lower overhead than Red Cross, but I've donated to both on occasion. You want to be sacrificial? Awesome, go for it. But don't require anyone else to be. Expecting people to compulsorily support "society" supporting everyone is a freaking excuse for not taking responsibility to help just one or a few people directly, personally, yourself, awkward or less than pretty though that may be. Therefore, socialists are parasites or enablers of parasites, and should all either stop being socialists or stop being. Sole exception: those injured in the line of duty in public service are entitled to such public support as will come as close as may be possible to making them whole.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 24, 2024 14:59:40 GMT -5
No I am asking that a anti American not be allowed to post in this forum! This forum welcomes everyone - pro-Americans, anti-Americans, angels, unicorns and Klingons.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 24, 2024 15:04:33 GMT -5
abortion involves a procedure designed to end the life of another person. Thanks for weighing in on this interesting discussion. OK, then consider this scenario: Assume that a different medical procedure is invented for pregnant women. In this procedure, the surgeon opens the uterus and then severs the umbilical cord. The surgeon ties both ends so there is no bleeding. The surgeon then closes up the uterus leaving everything as before except for the severed umbilical cord. Neither the mother nor the fetus is harmed in any way. Unlike an abortion, the purpose of this procedure is not the end the life of the fetus but only to sever the connection between mother and fetus so that the mother is no longer supplying blood to the fetus. Of course the fetus dies eventually without the blood supplied from the mother. But you said that a person cannot be forced to give part of her body (in this case, her blood) to another. So the mother has simply chosen to stop giving her blood to the fetus. So can I assume you have no objection to this new medical procedure? An end run around maybe murder is still maybe murder. A cesarean at a point of good odds of viability (not the risky extremes of neotatal intensive care) is reasonable IF there's a medical reason for it and not just "choice". "Choice" is don't f if you don't want a bun in the oven, or failing that, take precautions. "Choice" is not depriving another of life. It's absolutely BS to claim that a woman is being parasitized or exploited by a fetus that has simply the intention to survive and grow.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 24, 2024 16:43:55 GMT -5
An end run around maybe murder is still maybe murder. You contradict yourself. In the 1st scenario, you said that the government cannot compel someone to give their blood, even if withholding the blood would result in the death of someone else. In the 2nd scenario, the woman withholds her blood from the fetus and you call it murder. You need to make up your mind. I am consistent and logical. For me, neither is murder.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jul 24, 2024 16:53:35 GMT -5
An end run around maybe murder is still maybe murder. You contradict yourself. In the 1st scenario, you said that the government cannot compel someone to give their blood, even if withholding the blood would result in the death of someone else. In the 2nd scenario, the woman withholds her blood from the fetus and you call it murder. You need to make up your mind. I am consistent and logical. For me, neither is murder. There is a flaw in your logic. Not offering assistance to someone else is different than taking deliberate, direct action to end someone else's life. You don't have to intercede to save someone else, but you can't take action yourself aimed at killing someone else. For instance, I don't have to try and save someone from drowning, but I can't drown that person myself. Also, (with the exception of incest, rape, and threat to the life of the mother)....the pregnant woman made the decision to sleep with someone, knowing there was a risk of pregnancy. The baby is a direct result of her decision making. The guy needing blood for a transfusion isn't. This isn't the core of the argument, but it's additional support illustrating more of the differences between the two scenarios...and speaks to personal responsibility and accepting the consequences of one's actions. But this point is merely a sidebar. Your argument isn't a good one for this topic. The only reasonable argument for the pro-choice side is that a fetus isnt a human being yet (at some point...most disagree with late term abortions), so an abortion isn't killing a person. The only legit debate is, at what point is that fetus developed enough so that you are killing a human being, which we all know is illegal. For instance, would you be in favor of a fully developed, 9 month old fetus who hasnt been born yet being aborted? What about an 8 month developed fetus, or 7...either of which could very possibly survive an early birth and be a fully functioning human baby? Most agree this would be unacceptable. At what point is it too late is the real question.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jul 24, 2024 17:22:19 GMT -5
By the way, the majority seems to conclude that the first trimester should be allowed, 2nd trimester is iffy....mabye early, and the vast majority reject third trimester abortions. Those who think the morning after pill is murder, and those who think abortion is okay all the way thru the 9th month are both extremes that the majority rejects. So, where you draw the line is the question, and the general consensus seems to be about at the 15 week line. A lot of women live with incredible guilt even then, as when you think about it, but for her actions, that person would exist today...she ended someone who was on the way to existing. Pretty deep stuff.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 24, 2024 19:09:24 GMT -5
Have women ever thought of giving their babies up for adoption? You never hear about that ! Like abortion is the only answer!
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 24, 2024 21:31:14 GMT -5
in the end..it is all about a total corrupt judge..hoping to get some…you asked me yesterday why Trump etc. are a thread for US democracy…here you see it… Eulenspiegel, from what I gather, the concept of democracy is very important to you and to the Democratic party as a whole. The concept of democracy is the ability for voters to have the right to choose their leaders. Even though there was a lot of shady business going on in the Democratic party primaries in 2016 (Bernie Sanders) and 2024 (everyone but Biden), on the surface, voters "chose" Clinton and Biden respectively in those two primary election cycles. Now that Biden has pulled himself out of the general election, is it democratic that Kamala Harris is eligible to be a final presidential candidate when she was polling next to 0% support as the Democrat nominee?
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 24, 2024 21:45:34 GMT -5
No I am asking that a anti American not be allowed to post in this forum! All voices should be welcome. It would be very boring world if all of us thought the same way.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 24, 2024 21:50:48 GMT -5
I don’t like anti- American talk, just like I didn’t like seeing the American flag 🇺🇸 burning today in WashingtonDC! The Palestinian flag 🇵🇸 flown in its place !
|
|