|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 25, 2024 17:12:09 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. The only reason she'd want the blood flow clamped would be to kill the baby that she conceived.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 25, 2024 17:17:56 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. The purpose of the clamping is relevant because if the clamping is done to intentionally kill the baby, the act is murder. A court likely would find the mother guilty in any case because they would find no purpose for the clamping other than try end the life of the fetus/baby.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jul 25, 2024 17:26:08 GMT -5
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. The purpose of the clamping is relevant because if the clamping is done to intentionally kill the baby, the act is murder. A court likely would find the mother guilty in any case because they would find no purpose for the clamping other than try end the life of the fetus/baby. Socal, your rights end at the point where your actions endanger the health or life of others. That's true with any of our rights. Your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ends at the point when you keep someone else from enjoying those same rights. Our entire justice system is built on these principles. That's why these arguments don't work for you. The only argument pro-choice can legitimately make is that at a certain point, a fetus isnt a person with legal rights yet. Then goes the debate about where to draw the line on when abortions should be allowed vs not allowed...somewhere between conception and birth. i for one, and the vast majority of the population, believe that the third trimester is a non-starter. 6-9 months is pretty much formed into a human being. At that point, we are no longer just talking about the woman's body. There are two people's welfare at play at that point. Prior to 6 months, to me there is reasonable debate about where the line should be drawn. I think 15 weeks probably a reasonable line.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 25, 2024 18:01:57 GMT -5
Then you should be very thankful you weren't post-birth aborted at roughly 2 1/2 months of age. I am thankful that my parents wanted me. The chose me and were not forced to take me. I feel sorry for all those people whose parents were forced to raise unwanted children because fundamentalist Christians made it impossible to get an abortion. For many, the result was lifelog poverty, homelessness, lack of healthcare, bad schools, drugs and crime. Any unwanted child can be put up for adoption, no questions asked. Most hospitals, even some fire stations, can handle that. Nobody has to raise a child they don't want. Nobody should want the power to choose who lives and who dies, except in immediate self-defense or defense of others.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 25, 2024 18:09:09 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. Life in prolonged misery is better than death, period. So assisted suicide is the end-of-life version of abortion, they're BOTH murder. A fetus reacts to music, sucks its thumb, and more. There are films of this and more. With the rapid brain development, most people remember very little before they're socialized around 3 or 4; but nearly everything a six month old can do except crawl, eat (with the alternative arriving via the umbilical cord), etc, a fetus can do at some point...earlier than viability under present technology.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Jul 25, 2024 18:15:58 GMT -5
Adoption SoCal Fan have you ever heard of it?
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 25, 2024 18:32:34 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. If you have a chance, can you respond to my post regarding the initial scenario? It would help to know your stance as I have a scenario of my own that I'd like to present.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 20:02:21 GMT -5
The only reason she'd want the blood flow clamped would be to kill the baby that she conceived. The purpose of the clamping is relevant because if the clamping is done to intentionally kill the baby, the act is murder. You both are wrong. You claim that the intent of the clamping is to kill the fetus but it is not. The intent is not to kill the fetus, it is to end the pregnancy. The result is to kill the fetus but that is not the intent. Someday, the technology may be developed that will allow the fetus to be transplanted to another host. I'm sure that most mothers who want an abortion today would be happy to have her fetus transplanted to someone else. Because their intent was never to kill be fetus but simply to end the pregnancy. So here is another scenario. If the technology existed to transplant the fetus but no other woman was willing to take the fetus, would the transplant be allowed even though it would result in the death of the fetus? Would the mother be committing murder even though she had no intent of killing the fetus and it was not her fault that nobody wanted the fetus?
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 20:12:03 GMT -5
nearly everything a six month old can do except crawl, eat (with the alternative arriving via the umbilical cord), etc, a fetus can do at some point The only thing a fetus cannot do that a 6 month old can is live without feeding on someone else's blood. Which is the key point in this whole discussion. And I believe no government has the right to force anyone to give their blood to anybody else.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 20:33:35 GMT -5
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? 1. Can the government force you to keep giving him these transfusions? The key word here is the word "force". In a perfect libertarian society, the government, nor individuals, would not allowed to force anyone to do anything, whether those actions be "good" or "bad". Libertarianism is dedicated to the idea of volunteerism. In the example you've given, for me, it is a definitive "no" to the transfusions as the use of force is required to provide them. A perfect libertarian society would depend on the healthy person to volunteer the blood to aid the sick person. As a side comment - The US constitution was written to foster liberty, and it its ideal state, we would find a government impotent in its ability to force citizens to do anything. In libertarian circles, you will find a great deal of debate when it comes to the draft and taxes. For libertarian purists, the draft is abhorrent because in the US, the constitution grants the government the power to raise and support armies (the draft). Purists also believe that the government does not have the right to tax its citizens because doing so requires the use of force. 2. When you stop the transfusions and the sick guy dies, are you guilty of murder? Whether the society is libertarian or not, the answer is no. In your example, the healthy individual had nothing to do with causing the sick person to be sick. A different argument could be made if the healthy person caused the condition of the sick person. In that case, an argument could be made that the healthy person is obligated to make the sick person whole. This is how the legal system currently works. 3. Is the withholding of your blood considered to be harming the sick guy? No. In order for the healthy person to be considered of harming the sick person, the healthy person would have had to do something to cause the sick guy to get sick in the first place. If I interpret your response correctly, you are arguing that a mother should not be allowed to abort because the mother had sex and is therefore responsible to carry the fetus until it is born. My objection is this: 1. In cases of rape, the woman never consented to sex so she she never "caused" the condition of the fetus. 2. In cases of statutory rape, the woman never had the ability to consent. She cannot be held responsible for something she had no power to consent to. 3. It is doubtful that a healthy person who caused another person to be sick is obligated to make the sick person whole. For example, if I have the flu and you catch the flu from me, can you sue me for damages? 4. With respect to making the sick person whole, the fetus is not legally a person. There is no person to be made whole. A fetus cannot sue or be sued. A fetus cannot inherit or own property or carry a passport. A fetus is not tabulated in the census. A fetus cannot be a citizen of any country. In short, a fetus is not a person.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Jul 25, 2024 20:56:52 GMT -5
The only reason she'd want the blood flow clamped would be to kill the baby that she conceived. The purpose of the clamping is relevant because if the clamping is done to intentionally kill the baby, the act is murder. You both are wrong. You claim that the intent of the clamping is to kill the fetus but it is not. The intent is not to kill the fetus, it is to end the pregnancy. The result is to kill the fetus but that is not the intent. Someday, the technology may be developed that will allow the fetus to be transplanted to another host. I'm sure that most mothers who want an abortion today would be happy to have a fetus transplant instead. Because their intent was never to kill be fetus but to end the pregnancy. So here is another scenario. If the technology existed to transplant the fetus but no other woman was willing to take the fetus, would the transplant be allowed even though it would result in the death of the fetus? Would the mother be committing murder even though she had no intent of killing the fetus and it was not her fault that nobody wanted the fetus? So you want to end the pregnancy but don't want to kill the fetus? Why would you want to end the pregnancy if you didn't want to kill it? You wouldn't. You don't want it, so you do something that will kill it. You're being ridiculous now.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 20:59:42 GMT -5
Adoption SoCal Fan have you ever heard of it? But who is willing to carry the fetus until birth? Will you get a uterus transplant and do the job?
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 25, 2024 21:14:01 GMT -5
The only reason she'd want the blood flow clamped would be to kill the baby that she conceived. The purpose of the clamping is relevant because if the clamping is done to intentionally kill the baby, the act is murder. You both are wrong. You claim that the intent of the clamping is to kill the fetus but it is not. The intent is not to kill the fetus, it is to end the pregnancy. The result is to kill the fetus but that is not the intent. Someday, the technology may be developed that will allow the fetus to be transplanted to another host. I'm sure that most mothers who want an abortion today would be happy to have her fetus transplanted to someone else. Because their intent was never to kill be fetus but simply to end the pregnancy. So here is another scenario. If the technology existed to transplant the fetus but no other woman was willing to take the fetus, would the transplant be allowed even though it would result in the death of the fetus? Would the mother be committing murder even though she had no intent of killing the fetus and it was not her fault that nobody wanted the fetus? Please reread what I said in red. I said IF the act was intended to the kill the baby, the act is murder. I don't understand the new scenario. If no other woman was willing to take the fetus, no transplant would take place, is that right?
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 21:15:36 GMT -5
Why would you want to end the pregnancy if you didn't want to kill it? 1. Because you are a 14 year old whose parents would kill you if they found out you were pregnant. But you would be happy to secretly transplant the fetus to another woman if the technology existed. 2. You are an unmarried woman in a deeply religious community. The revelation of your pregnancy would bring scandal and shame to you and your family. Maybe even result in an honor killing. But you would be happy to secretly transplant the fetus to another woman if the technology existed. 3. You have a history of difficult pregnancies and would never go through another one. But you would be happy to transplant the fetus to another woman if the technology existed. 4. You are unmarried with a prominent career in a conservative field. Your career would be ruined by a pregnancy. But you would be happy to secretly transplant the fetus to another woman if the technology existed. Etc, etc, etc.
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Jul 25, 2024 21:17:03 GMT -5
1. Can the government force you to keep giving him these transfusions? The key word here is the word "force". In a perfect libertarian society, the government, nor individuals, would not allowed to force anyone to do anything, whether those actions be "good" or "bad". Libertarianism is dedicated to the idea of volunteerism. In the example you've given, for me, it is a definitive "no" to the transfusions as the use of force is required to provide them. A perfect libertarian society would depend on the healthy person to volunteer the blood to aid the sick person. As a side comment - The US constitution was written to foster liberty, and it its ideal state, we would find a government impotent in its ability to force citizens to do anything. In libertarian circles, you will find a great deal of debate when it comes to the draft and taxes. For libertarian purists, the draft is abhorrent because in the US, the constitution grants the government the power to raise and support armies (the draft). Purists also believe that the government does not have the right to tax its citizens because doing so requires the use of force. 2. When you stop the transfusions and the sick guy dies, are you guilty of murder? Whether the society is libertarian or not, the answer is no. In your example, the healthy individual had nothing to do with causing the sick person to be sick. A different argument could be made if the healthy person caused the condition of the sick person. In that case, an argument could be made that the healthy person is obligated to make the sick person whole. This is how the legal system currently works. 3. Is the withholding of your blood considered to be harming the sick guy? No. In order for the healthy person to be considered of harming the sick person, the healthy person would have had to do something to cause the sick guy to get sick in the first place. If I interpret your response correctly, you are arguing that a mother should not be allowed to abort because the mother had sex and is therefore responsible to carry the fetus until it is born. My objection is this: 1. In cases of rape, the woman never consented to sex so she she never "caused" the condition of the fetus. 2. In cases of statutory rape, the woman never had the ability to consent. She cannot be held responsible for something she had no power to consent to. 3. It is doubtful that a healthy person who caused another person to be sick is obligated to make the sick person whole. For example, if I have the flu and you catch the flu from me, can you sue me for damages? 4. With respect to making the sick person whole, the fetus is not legally a person. There is no person to be made whole. A fetus cannot sue or be sued. A fetus cannot inherit or own property or carry a passport. A fetus is not tabulated in the census. A fetus cannot be a citizen of any country. In short, a fetus is not a person. I'm confused with this response here too. Your scenario was talking about blood transfusions and all of my responses dealt with that issue. I'm not sure how the topic was changed to abortion?
|
|