|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 21:25:29 GMT -5
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? The new scenario is that the surgeon takes the fetus out of the mother but the intended recipient changes her mind and another one cannot be found in time. The transplant technology does not allow re-implantation.
|
|
|
Post by Disappointed on Jul 25, 2024 21:30:03 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. I think aliens should come here and render all men impotent. Wouldn't that solve everything? Oh, yeah!
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 21:35:38 GMT -5
I think aliens should come here and render all men impotent. Wouldn't that solve everything? Oh, yeah! But, as always, you can never find a good alien when you need one.
|
|
|
Post by Disappointed on Jul 25, 2024 21:50:47 GMT -5
I think aliens should come here and render all men impotent. Wouldn't that solve everything? Oh, yeah! But, as always, you can never find a good alien when you need one. Ain't it the truth!
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 25, 2024 22:28:49 GMT -5
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? Sorry about not being clearer. I'll address this tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 25, 2024 22:53:07 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? If one gets pregnant, unless necessary to terminate the pregnancy to survive, one has an obligation to carry to term, whether or not one wants the child. Someone will want it, and even if not, an orphanage is better than being chopped up. No scenario that results in the death of the fetus when not necessary to save the woman's life is acceptable. NONE. Period. No matter how deviously you try to get around that. People get sentenced for manslaughter even if they had no INTENT to kill. Happens all the time. Sometimes a sentence a bit harsher than manslaughter if gross negligence or a course of action that could have been anticipated to result in death or injury was involved.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 25, 2024 23:07:32 GMT -5
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? The new scenario is that the surgeon takes the fetus out of the mother but the intended recipient changes her mind and another one cannot be found in time. The transplant technology does not allow re-implantation. Various deals, even merely financial, may obligate both parties to follow through; irreversible steps are not taken until that agreement is finalized and binding. Your scenario is not plausible. For one thing, trivial googling shows "It isn't possible to reattach a placenta that's separated from the wall of the uterus" so transplant is impossible. Even to something more obvious, like an artificial womb (not yet achieved AFAIK, but not impossible; the critical part being a tissue culture fed by an oxygenated and nutrient enriched blood supply, maintained by artificial heart/lung/kidney machine; one could perhaps implant a fertilized egg on that tissue culture, but since a placenta can't be transplanted, that's about all it would be good for, basically a substitute for a surrogate mother). Stop thinking blob or fetus. Think person, utterly vulnerable and unable to speak for themselves yet. Any scenario which could be anticipated to result in their death is wrong, unless to save the woman's life. NO EXCEPTION.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 25, 2024 23:10:05 GMT -5
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. I think aliens should come here and render all men impotent. Wouldn't that solve everything? Oh, yeah! Excecute rapists and absentee fathers that don't provide child support. Publicize the sentences and executions. Repeat until nobody remotely sane will get a woman preggers unless she wants to be.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Jul 25, 2024 23:15:38 GMT -5
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? If one gets pregnant, unless necessary to terminate the pregnancy to survive, one has an obligation to carry to term, whether or not one wants the child. Someone will want it, and even if not, an orphanage is better than being chopped up. No scenario that results in the death of the fetus when not necessary to save the woman's life is acceptable. NONE. Period. No matter how deviously you try to get around that. People get sentenced for manslaughter even if they had no INTENT to kill. Happens all the time. Sometimes a sentence a bit harsher than manslaughter if gross negligence or a course of action that could have been anticipated to result in death or injury was involved. And then gets treated like sh..by Republicans..no health care, food bank… perhaps making it mandatory that every Republican male voter pays 100.000 Dollar donation..making it mandatory that all fathers pay 50.000 a year. for the kid..and 50.000 for the mother….even if not married… every pregnant can go to court..he impregnated me..so the man has to pay 18 years..tons of child support.. higher taxes…no tuitions …paid marital leave…up to 3 years..support of the woman..2000 Dollar a months.. If a man does not want to pay …prison..forced work…
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jul 25, 2024 23:41:51 GMT -5
If one gets pregnant, unless necessary to terminate the pregnancy to survive, one has an obligation to carry to term, whether or not one wants the child. Someone will want it, and even if not, an orphanage is better than being chopped up. No scenario that results in the death of the fetus when not necessary to save the woman's life is acceptable. NONE. Period. No matter how deviously you try to get around that. People get sentenced for manslaughter even if they had no INTENT to kill. Happens all the time. Sometimes a sentence a bit harsher than manslaughter if gross negligence or a course of action that could have been anticipated to result in death or injury was involved. And then gets treated like sh..by Republicans..no health care, food bank… perhaps making it mandatory that every Republican male voter pays 100.000 Dollar donation..making it mandatory that all fathers pay 50.000 a year. for the kid..and 50.000 for the mother….even if not married… every pregnant can go to court..he impregnated me..so the man has to pay 18 years..tons of child support.. higher taxes…no tuitions …paid marital leave…up to 3 years..support of the woman..2000 Dollar a months.. If a man does not want to pay …prison..forced work… I have no problem with squeezing money out of deadbeats...before executing them. Maybe even letting them live as long as they pay. But don't give me this cr@p about Republicans. NOBODY should get "free" (no such thing, it's stolen from someone else via taxes, or it's inflation, which steals from everyone) stuff from the government. People that are responsible for something should pay for it. Males of either/any party that didn't get anyone pregnant should NOT be paying (they are anyway, in property taxes which mostly go to schools). Being pro-life does NOT mean being in favor of all needs met for everyone by society. Parasites should be left to die, and shot if they riot. If you want there to be charity, let it be VOLUNTARY AND PRIVATE. I've given generously to that on occasion, have you? Expecting society to be responsible is just a pathetic excuse for not being responsible yourself. Socialists should be re-educated with electric shock and waterboarding - not both at once unless they're very stubborn.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Jul 26, 2024 2:52:58 GMT -5
And then gets treated like sh..by Republicans..no health care, food bank… perhaps making it mandatory that every Republican male voter pays 100.000 Dollar donation..making it mandatory that all fathers pay 50.000 a year. for the kid..and 50.000 for the mother….even if not married… every pregnant can go to court..he impregnated me..so the man has to pay 18 years..tons of child support.. higher taxes…no tuitions …paid marital leave…up to 3 years..support of the woman..2000 Dollar a months.. If a man does not want to pay …prison..forced work… I have no problem with squeezing money out of deadbeats...before executing them. Maybe even letting them live as long as they pay. But don't give me this cr@p about Republicans. NOBODY should get "free" (no such thing, it's stolen from someone else via taxes, or it's inflation, which steals from everyone) stuff from the government. People that are responsible for something should pay for it. Males of either/any party that didn't get anyone pregnant should NOT be paying (they are anyway, in property taxes which mostly go to schools). Being pro-life does NOT mean being in favor of all needs met for everyone by society. Parasites should be left to die, and shot if they riot. If you want there to be charity, let it be VOLUNTARY AND PRIVATE. I've given generously to that on occasion, have you? Expecting society to be responsible is just a pathetic excuse for not being responsible yourself. Socialists should be re-educated with electric shock and waterboarding - not both at once unless they're very stubborn. Yes, a society..who wants kids shall provide everything..male who want that female are birth plants..shall provide..everyone..there is nothing free… People like you are parasites..a society who does not care about kids after they are born is disgusting…if kids are killed by guns ..why not.. In a society..kids are not voluntary and private..they are members of society… Perhaps making it mandatory that males don’t have the right for sex until they pay 10.000 Dollar each sexual act… Every church has to pay 10 million each year in a fund, every bishop, priest..80% of their income in a fund
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 26, 2024 6:51:23 GMT -5
If one gets pregnant, unless necessary to terminate the pregnancy to survive, one has an obligation to carry to term, whether or not one wants the child. Excecute rapists and absentee fathers that don't provide child support. I have no problem with squeezing money out of deadbeats...before executing them. Maybe even letting them live as long as they pay. ... NOBODY should get "free" (no such thing, it's stolen from someone else via taxes, or it's inflation, which steals from everyone) stuff from the government. ... Being pro-life does NOT mean being in favor of all needs met for everyone by society. Parasites should be left to die, and shot if they riot. If you want there to be charity, let it be VOLUNTARY AND PRIVATE. To sum up your position: - All pregnant women must carry their fetuses to birth unless their life is threatened. - If she is too poor to care for herself and the child before and after birth, she will get no government help. She must get voluntary private assistance. If she cannot get enough private assistance, she and her child (born or unborn) should be left to die. - If the father of her child cannot afford to support her and the child, he should be executed. ------------------------------------------------------------ It has been said that conservatives give the highest priority to the unborn and the lowest priority to the born. Which explains why there is so much poverty, destitution, homelessness, crime and substance abuse in the world's richest country. The unborn have rights, the only right that the born have is the right to lifelong misery. The Supreme Irony1. You say "Parasites should be left to die". But the fetus is the ultimate of parasitical beings. It is literally a blood sucker. 2. You say "If you want there to be charity, let it be VOLUNTARY AND PRIVATE." Yet you compel the mother to literally give her life blood to the fetus.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Jul 26, 2024 8:22:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Jul 26, 2024 8:28:05 GMT -5
He did not have to flush money down the drain to become a world class scientist www.ae-info.org/ae/Member/Efferth_ThomasYou are all wasting the real talented people in the USA…by this ridiculous tuitions.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jul 26, 2024 8:35:49 GMT -5
The only argument pro-choice can legitimately make is that at a certain point, a fetus isn't 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. "at a certain point, a fetus isn't a person with legal rights yet"Exactly. Only human beings have legal rights. So where to draw the line between "human" and "pre-human"? I believe that one cannot be considered a "human being" if one must to be attached to another human being in order to survive. The fetus is incapable of independent life prior to the 3rd trimester. So I believe abortion is acceptable in the 1st and 2nd trimesters and unacceptable in the 3rd trimester. Which was the rule in Roe v Wade. However, since Roe v Wade was repealed, many states have completely banned abortions in most situations. Such states include TX, OK, MO, AR, MS, LA, AL, TN, KY, WV, IN, ND, SD and ID. That is a large part of the US population and I feel sad for the women in those states.
|
|