Is the Government allowed to allow abortion?

[Jerry]

So one life is less than the other? One has less right to life than the other?
In the first case, you personally decided to let him die.

1. When someone becomes pregnant with said kidney patient and through due coarse of the natural process of that pregnancy the the "host" is required to give a kidney to said kidney patent, then per Roe-v-Wade sec. 9a. that kidney patient has the right to that kidney and the host must surrender it.

2. A fetus does not take organs. At best you can only make a comparison to forced dialysis.

3. Said neighbor does have the right to life, but since no one is pregnant with him/her, this neighbor has no legal or moral foundation upon which to make a claim for anyone else's kidney.

4. One can not be pregnant with one's neighbor, so your comparison is a totally irrelevant piece of masterwork sophistry, as it has nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion. Please stay on topic.

 

[talloulou]

So one life is less than the other? One has less right to life than the other?

In the first case, you personally decided to let him die.

In the case of a neighbor needing a kidney I am not responsible. Unless I directly caused the illness that made a new kidney a requirement I am not responsible for whether that person lives or dies. Furthermore unless I call in a dr. to euthanize the guy who needs a kidney I am not directly responsible for his death.

When I order a dr. to kill that which is developing in my womb I am directly responsible for the death that follows.

 

[afr0byte]

In the case of a neighbor needing a kidney I am not responsible. Unless I directly caused the illness that made a new kidney a requirement I am not responsible for whether that person lives or dies. Furthermore unless I call in a dr. to euthanize the guy who needs a kidney I am not directly responsible for his death.

When I order a dr. to kill that which is developing in my womb I am directly responsible for the death that follows.

Well, fortunately, it's usually just killing cells.

 

[FallingPianos]

Well, fortunately, it's usually just killing cells.

only if your talking about a pre-embryonic human.

 

[steen]

In the case of a neighbor needing a kidney I am not responsible.

The raped woman also is not responsible. And that is irrelevant, isn't it? If there is a right to life, even fro fetuses conceived by rape, then the issue of fault is irrelevant. YOU are saying that there is no right to life, that it is not the life itself that causes the "right" but rather the action of the woman, it being her FAULT.

You are now denying that there is a right to life.

Unless I directly caused the illness that made a new kidney a requirement I am not responsible for whether that person lives or dies.

That sure doesn't match with the pro-life claim that a fetus conceived through rape has a right to life, does it now.

Furthermore unless I call in a dr. to euthanize the guy who needs a kidney I am not directly responsible for his death.

So what? Either he has a right to life or he doesn't.

Oh, WAIT!!!!! I get it. It is not about life, only about "responsibility"! It is about not wanting others to get away with actions that you don't like; it is about pushing your morality on others. So when you claim you are pro-life, then you are lying, right?

When I order a dr. to kill that which is developing in my womb I am directly responsible for the death that follows.

Does it have a right to life? Why?

 

[steen]

3. Said neighbor does have the right to life, but since no one is pregnant with him/her, this neighbor has no legal or moral foundation upon which to make a claim for anyone else's kidney.

So there is no right to life that allows the use of others bodily resources. Thanks for that admission. You are about fault and oppression rather than life.

Thus the misogynistic oppression of the pro-life movement is exposed, despite your evasions and sophistry.

 

[steen]

only if your talking about a pre-embryonic human.

Or ANY embryo.

 

[FallingPianos]

In the case of a neighbor needing a kidney I am not responsible. Unless I directly caused the illness that made a new kidney a requirement I am not responsible for whether that person lives or dies. Furthermore unless I call in a dr. to euthanize the guy who needs a kidney I am not directly responsible for his death.

When I order a dr. to kill that which is developing in my womb I am directly responsible for the death that follows.

Well, fortunately, it's usually just killing cells.

only if your talking about a pre-embryonic human.

Or ANY embryo.

well, I suppose you could say that we are all the sum of the cells that make up our bodies.

however, afr0byte seems to be saying that an embryo is just cells, while the guy in need of a kidney is not. either that, or he's talking about a pre-embryonic human.

 

[talloulou]

well, I suppose you could say that we are all the sum of the cells that make up our bodies.

however, afr0byte seems to be saying that an embryo is just cells, while the guy in need of a kidney is not. either that, or he's talking about a pre-embryonic human.

An embryo may just be a cell, or clump of cells, but it is still the first stage of any humans development. A human that will continue to develop inside and later outside the womb unless it dies naturally, is spontaneously aborted by the womens body, or is ripped from the womb.

 

[afr0byte]

well, I suppose you could say that we are all the sum of the cells that make up our bodies.

however, afr0byte seems to be saying that an embryo is just cells, while the guy in need of a kidney is not. either that, or he's talking about a pre-embryonic human.

We are more than just the sum of our cells actually.

 

[FallingPianos]

An embryo may just be a cell, or clump of cells, but it is still the first stage of any humans development. A human that will continue to develop inside and later outside the womb unless it dies naturally, is spontaneously aborted by the womens body, or is ripped from the womb.

Animals: The embryo of vertebrates is defined as the organism between the first division of the zygote (a fertilized ovum) until it becomes a fetus. An embryo is called a fetus at a more advanced stage of development and up until birth or hatching. In humans, this is from the eighth week of gestation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

alright, its possible for an embryo to be nothing more than a clump of cells, however I think its necessary to be more specific. The abortion debate coveres everything from a zygote to a full term fetus, and part of the reason people dont get anywhere is that they are debating about different things.

 

[FallingPianos]

We are more than just the sum of our cells actually.

what more are we?

and for how early in our development is that statement true?

 

[steen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

alright, its possible for an embryo to be nothing more than a clump of cells, however I think its necessary to be more specific. The abortion debate coveres everything from a zygote to a full term fetus, and part of the reason people dont get anywhere is that they are debating about different things.

Because pro-lifers insist on using vague, all-encompassing terms of emotional hyperbole rather than fact.

I am pleased that you have joined the ranks of those who object to such dishonesty of pro-life revisionist linguistics. Nice to know that I haven't exposed this for years all in vain.

 

[Jerry]

So there is no right to life that allows the use of others bodily resources. Thanks for that admission. You are about fault and oppression rather than life.

Thus the misogynistic oppression of the pro-life movement is exposed, despite your evasions and sophistry.

Misrepresent my words as you will, fact remains that in that very post I said

1. When someone becomes pregnant with said kidney patient and through due coarse of the natural process of that pregnancy the the "host" is required to give a kidney to said kidney patent, then per Roe-v-Wade sec. 9a. that kidney patient has the right to that kidney and the host must surrender it.

According to Roe-v-Wade, should the fetus's "personhood" be legally established, the unborn "person" will have the right to use his/her mother's bodily resources against her will.
So says the pro choice Supreme Court majority of 1973.

 

[steen]

Misrepresent my words as you will, fact remains that in that very post I said

And I pointed out where you are in error.

According to Roe-v-Wade, should the fetus's "personhood" be legally established, the unborn "person" will have the right to use his/her mother's bodily resources against her will.
So says the pro choice Supreme Court majority of 1973.

And that is a blatant falsehood. It would merely mean that the arguments made against the Texas law would be non-legitimate.

It doesn't mean that a person has the right to use another person's body.

MUST you always spew such falsehoods?

 

[BodiSatva]

You like that word steen..."spew"? Haha...I just haven't heard it used so much...It is effective word usage though.

 

[steen]

:2bow: :2wave:

 

[jimmyjack]

You like that word steen..."spew"? Haha...I just haven't heard it used so much...It is effective word usage though.

Do you think it is really clever?

 

[BodiSatva]

jimmyjack - "Do you think it is really clever?"

Why would you ask that question?
He uses it appropriately in the context of his sentences.
So, "It is effective word usage".

Are you using that question to imply that I am not clever?

 

[jimmyjack]

Why would you ask that question?

To better understand the psychology of the pro-abortionist.

He uses it appropriately in the context of his sentences.
So, "It is effective word usage".

Are you using that question to imply that I am not clever?

No, I used it to better understand the psychology of the pro-abortionist.

 

[BodiSatva]

You did not answer my question...and that helps me understand the mind of a religious zealot.

By the way, I am not pro-abortion...
I am not sure how many more times I need to say this to help you understand, but I guess this helps me further understand the mind of a religious zealot.

It is interesting that my description is accurate while yours was not even actually totoally false. Does God help you understand the way you do?

 

[jimmyjack]

You did not answer my question...and that helps me understand the mind of a religious zealot.

By the way, I am not pro-abortion...
I am not sure how many more times I need to say this to help you understand, but I guess this helps me further understand the mind of a religious zealot.

It is interesting that my description is accurate while yours was not even actually totoally false. Does God help you understand the way you do?

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

 

[jimmyjack]

Are you using that question to imply that I am not clever?

This has gone beyond a question of intelligence; we are now in the realm of psychological analysis.

 

[BodiSatva]

That was a wonderfully irrelevant message.

It appears that I shall be obtaining mercy then…For granting mercy upon you? Haha…

Blessed be us all for we have the wisdom of understanding.
Blessings upon you for your quest for the power and the glory of obtaining relevancy

"This has gone beyond a question of intelligence; we are now in the realm of psychological analysis." Haha...good luck analyzing me...Let me know when you are done, I will let you know if you have analized correctly...

My analysis of you was finished and sealed a bit ago...I wish I could reveal the findings, but I am afraid that you would not see things the way that they are. Haha, this is so fun...I can't beleive that you pulled the really old "psychological analysis" bit... :lol:

Oh where are you steen and ngdawg!!!

 

[jimmyjack]

It appears that I shall be obtaining mercy then…For granting mercy upon you? Haha…

It is not me that requires your mercy; it is Gods creations, “the unborn” who needs it.