|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 25, 2024 11:02:33 GMT -5
How do you know your parents wanted you? How do you know they wouldn't have aborted you if abortion was legal at the time? You don't. Actions speak far louder than words. My parent's actions were those of a parent towards a wanted child. Once you arrived they were stuck. And they certainly weren't going to tell you that you were unwanted and they wished they'd had been able to abort you. That's probably the case for many women who abort their baby. Once it arrived and they saw it, they'd probably love it and be grateful they had it.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jul 25, 2024 11:33:08 GMT -5
Adoption, Adoption, Adoption, Adoption, Adoption ! Hmmm adoption or death, hmmmmm....I wonder which we would have wished for ourselves when we were fetuses. I hate hard decisions!
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 13:20:14 GMT -5
Actions speak far louder than words. My parent's actions were those of a parent towards a wanted child. Once you arrived they were stuck. And they certainly weren't going to tell you that you were unwanted and they wished they'd had been able to abort you. Which is exactly why I am pro-choice. Every baby should be wanted, not "stuck" by government law.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 25, 2024 13:24:07 GMT -5
Once you arrived they were stuck. And they certainly weren't going to tell you that you were unwanted and they wished they'd had been able to abort you. Which is exactly why I am pro-choice. Every baby should be wanted, not "stuck" by government law. And if you weren't wanted, or planned, your wish is that you would have been torn to pieces rather than having your parents "stuck" with you even though they had you and gave you a good life, the life you're still living.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 25, 2024 13:28:11 GMT -5
Go see a late term abortion if you love it so much, go see babies torn apart, oh they feel pain I can promise you that!
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 13:37:12 GMT -5
Which is exactly why I am pro-choice. Every baby should be wanted, not "stuck" by government law. And if you weren't wanted, or planned, your wish is that you would have been torn to pieces rather than having your parents "stuck" with you even though they had you and gave you a good life, the life you're still living. If I had not been wanted, it would have been because my parents were too poor, too uneducated, too drug addicted, too unprepared or too unsuited to raise a child. So they could not have given me a good life. What parent would abort if they thought they could give the child a good life? So being torn to pieces would have been preferable to a life of misery. Fortunately, a fetus lacks the mental capacity to realize it is being torn to pieces.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 13:43:13 GMT -5
Go see a late term abortion if you love it so much, go see babies torn apart, oh they feel pain I can promise you that! Please try to stay awake, Colt. Nobody here is talking about late term abortions.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 14:19:20 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer. But if you take an action that has an inevitable consequence (termination of the fetus), that's different from another action specifically forbidden for causing the same consequence, whether or not that's illegal, it's corrupt. And the laws in states that severely restrict abortion should be modified to restrict ANY procedure with the equivalent outcome. ... Lets make a slight modification to my scenarios: Scenario1 - Assume that a blood donor is in the process of transferring blood to a blood recipient. Assume that recipient will quickly die if recipient does not receive donor's blood and recipient cannot get blood from any other person. Blood donor changes his/her mind and instructs the doctor to put a clamp on the blood transfer tube thus ending the flow of blood. The doctor puts the clamp on and, as expected, the recipient quickly dies. Question: does the donor have the right to implement the clamping that ends in the death of the recipient? Scenario2 - Everything the same as Scenario1 but change "donor" to "mother", change "recipient" to "fetus" and change "blood transfer tube" to placenta. Same Question: does the mother have the right to implement the clamping that ends in the death of the fetus? My answer is the same for both scenarios because only the names have changed, the elements of the scenarios remain the same. If your answer is different, explain why.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 25, 2024 15:37:17 GMT -5
And if you weren't wanted, or planned, your wish is that you would have been torn to pieces rather than having your parents "stuck" with you even though they had you and gave you a good life, the life you're still living. If I had not been wanted, it would have been because my parents were too poor, too uneducated, too drug addicted, too unprepared or too unsuited to raise a child. So they could not have given me a good life. What parent would abort if they thought they could give the child a good life? So being torn to pieces would have been preferable to a life of misery. Fortunately, a fetus lacks the mental capacity to realize it is being torn to pieces. That's not necessarily true, there's unlimited reasons why people abort babies. Some people abort because they're not ready for children because they think they're too young, are in school/college, want a career first, they already have as many children as they want, they think they're too old for children or more children, their partner doesn't want children, or they just don't want children, period. Fortunately birth control is readily available, but if people don't have any on hand and won't keep their legs together until they get some, oh well, there's always abortion! And aside from the mother's life being at risk, there's no reason to wait until late in the pregnancy since a pregnancy test will show you're pregnant within days when the morning after pill will take care of it.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 25, 2024 16:24:46 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer. But if you take an action that has an inevitable consequence (termination of the fetus), that's different from another action specifically forbidden for causing the same consequence, whether or not that's illegal, it's corrupt. And the laws in states that severely restrict abortion should be modified to restrict ANY procedure with the equivalent outcome. ... Lets make a slight modification to my scenarios: Scenario1 - Assume that a blood donor is in the process of transferring blood to a blood recipient. Assume that recipient will quickly die if recipient does not receive donor's blood and recipient cannot get blood from any other person. Blood donor changes his/her mind and instructs the doctor to put a clamp on the blood transfer tube thus ending the flow of blood. The doctor puts the clamp on and, as expected, the recipient quickly dies. Question: does the donor have the right to implement the clamping that ends in the death of the recipient? Scenario2 - Everything the same as Scenario1 but change "donor" to "mother", change "recipient" to "fetus" and change "blood transfer tube" to placenta. Same Question: does the mother have the right to implement the clamping that ends in the death of the fetus? My answer is the same for both scenarios because only the names have changed, the elements of the scenarios remain the same. If your answer is different, explain why. Not sure if you saw my response to the initial scenario. If not, here it is: jackie-amazon.proboards.com/post/89599/threadI'll respond to these new scenarios in the next post.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 25, 2024 16:34:37 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? In what scenario would the connection between mother and fetus not specifically be severed to end the life of a fetus? Can you think of a situation in which this procedure would be completed for any purpose other than ending the life of the fetus?
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 25, 2024 16:41:18 GMT -5
Only a narcissistic sociopath would be in favor of late term abortions. I agree with the abortion standards under Roe v Wade, which has since been overturned. The only impact of the overturning of Roe v. Wade was to return the issue to each state. The abortion standards did not change.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 25, 2024 16:52:03 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer. But if you take an action that has an inevitable consequence (termination of the fetus), that's different from another action specifically forbidden for causing the same consequence, whether or not that's illegal, it's corrupt. And the laws in states that severely restrict abortion should be modified to restrict ANY procedure with the equivalent outcome. ... Lets make a slight modification to my scenarios: Scenario1 - Assume that a blood donor is in the process of transferring blood to a blood recipient. Assume that recipient will quickly die if recipient does not receive donor's blood and recipient cannot get blood from any other person. Blood donor changes his/her mind and instructs the doctor to put a clamp on the blood transfer tube thus ending the flow of blood. The doctor puts the clamp on and, as expected, the recipient quickly dies. Question: does the donor have the right to implement the clamping that ends in the death of the recipient? Scenario2 - Everything the same as Scenario1 but change "donor" to "mother", change "recipient" to "fetus" and change "blood transfer tube" to placenta. Same Question: does the mother have the right to implement the clamping that ends in the death of the fetus? My answer is the same for both scenarios because only the names have changed, the elements of the scenarios remain the same. If your answer is different, explain why. Scenario1 - Assume that a blood donor is in the process of transferring blood to a blood recipient. Assume that recipient will quickly die if recipient does not receive donor's blood and recipient cannot get blood from any other person. Blood donor changes his/her mind and instructs the doctor to put a clamp on the blood transfer tube thus ending the flow of blood. The doctor puts the clamp on and, as expected, the recipient quickly dies. Question: does the donor have the right to implement the clamping that ends in the death of the recipient? It depends on the nature of the contract between the donor and the recipient. In the absence of a written contract, the donor would have the right to implement the clamping. If the donor ends the clamping to deliberately kill the recipient, the case would most likely end up in court where a jury would have to decide the issue.
If a contract specifies that the donor must donate a specific amount of blood to the recipient, the clamping should not be allowed until the specific amount of blood has been transferred. Scenario2 - Everything the same as Scenario1 but change "donor" to "mother", change "recipient" to "fetus" and change "blood transfer tube" to placenta. Same Question: does the mother have the right to implement the clamping that ends in the death of the fetus? In this scenario, the only reason I can see for the clamping is to intentionally end the life of the fetus. She has no right to implement the clamp.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 25, 2024 16:55:49 GMT -5
Why don’t you do some research Socal Fan, you just want to call an unborn baby a fetus, that dehumanizes what a baby is and makes it easy for you to accept abortion! Why don’t you find out when the arms and legs develop etc! It just doesn’t start out as a fetus and stay a fetus and magically pops out as a baby at 9 months!
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 17:06:43 GMT -5
In what scenario would the connection between mother and fetus not specifically be severed to end the life of a fetus? Can you think of a situation in which this procedure would be completed for any purpose other than ending the life of the fetus? I believe that the government does not have the power to force anyone to transfer their blood regardless of circumstances. So the purpose of the clamping is irrelevant.
|
|