• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should people be forced to give of their bodily resources if it saves lives?

Should people be forced to give of their bodily resources if it saves lives?

  • Yes, saving a life overrides a person's right to their own body.

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • No, people's right to control their own body is not affected by the need of others.

    Votes: 31 96.9%

  • Total voters
    32
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Suicide is a crime mostly becuase the state needs a reason to hold a potential suicide so he can receive treatment for what ails him. Most suicides are due more to depression than terminal illnesses or chronic pain, and that's usually treatable.
Well, I just feel it is up to the individual to receive treatment. Not much can be done to help the person if the person doesn't even want the help...but that's just my opinion.

But you're right that if someone wants to end a miserable life of pain or take a pass on the last six months of ALS, why not let them go? Or, more precisely, why punish those who helped ease them on their way?
Agreed!

But this is clearly a dangerous area and a lot of caution has to be used. Wouldn't want someone claiming all the mental defective want suicide, right?
Ahh that is true, I would think it would be illegal for the mentally retarded to commit suicide for that reason, that's a good point.
 
Hornburger said:
But when it comes to suicide, the citizen him or herself does not want the right to life. They are throwing away that right. If they want to throw it away, it should be allowed. But they can't make someone else lose their life, because that person never chose to die. So I think suicide should become legal.

And as for how you can prevent abortion...I think laws banning abortion would in fact prevent them. People in general tend to follow the law and be afraid of punishment and consequences. If people knew that if they had an abortion they would be punished, not only would there be a much better chance of people not getting one, there would also be a better chance that people who have been punished won't get another one aborted.

If laws didn't work we wouldn't have them...although the government can't be at the murder scene to stop the murder, it prosecutes the murderer so it gives incentive to other citizens not to murder (just one of the reasons to put murderers in jail, mind you). But the fact is laws DO work, preventing people from doing a crime that they may feel compelled to do if there was no law banning it. Banning abortion WOULD reduce the huge number of abortions taking place in this country.

LMAO Laws are supposed to be deterrants, but explain why we have the highest murder rate? Laws won't deter entirely, and you would be living in a fantasy world to say they would. Reduce the numbers, absolutely, until someone figured out how to get around the system for awhile.


Think about it... a woman, pregnant, decides to throw herself down the steps, or has her boyfriend push her down the steps to miscarry. Could you prove her intention was to abort the baby, if she and her boyfriend are the only two that know? See, again... there would be ways to get around the abortion laws.
 
Hornburger said:
Well, I just feel it is up to the individual to receive treatment. Not much can be done to help the person if the person doesn't even want the help...but that's just my opinion.

There's a lot of would be suicides that are glad they were saved. For many it's just a call for help.

But the authorities can't act if there's no restrictions against it in the law.

Hornburger said:
Ahh that is true, I would think it would be illegal for the mentally retarded to commit suicide for that reason, that's a good point.

That's why any reasonable suicide law needs an independent authority to examine each case. I used to work in a nursing home and I can certainly imagine some of those families railroading their elderly grandmother into suicide simply to save medical bills and get their hands on the estate.
 
Most people don't even think about it and could care less.

What if it was an automatic thing, but you could register against it instead of the other way around like it is now?

People would still have their wishes met and there would be a lot more doners.
 
GySgt said:
Most people don't even think about it and could care less.

What if it was an automatic thing, but you could register against it instead of the other way around like it is now?

People would still have their wishes met and there would be a lot more doners.

The problem with requiring that dead humans be sent to a dismantler so the spare parts can be re-used is that some doctor with an AB+ comatose patient might think more about the money he could get from Ted Kennedy for a new liver than how he could save his patient's life.

And certainly the hospital adminitration would be even worse.
 
debate_junkie said:
LMAO Laws are supposed to be deterrants, but explain why we have the highest murder rate? Laws won't deter entirely, and you would be living in a fantasy world to say they would. Reduce the numbers, absolutely, until someone figured out how to get around the system for awhile.
Primarily because there are bad parents in the U.S. today.

Are you suggesting that we just simply do away with our whole law system? That...would be anarchy, and just does not work...

Think about it... a woman, pregnant, decides to throw herself down the steps, or has her boyfriend push her down the steps to miscarry. Could you prove her intention was to abort the baby, if she and her boyfriend are the only two that know? See, again... there would be ways to get around the abortion laws.
There always are ways to get around law. But the laws themselves are still effective. It's not like everyone will do crazy things like jumping off the steps lol.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There's a lot of would be suicides that are glad they were saved. For many it's just a call for help.

But the authorities can't act if there's no restrictions against it in the law.
Well...I dunno, I don't think that's the government's job, that's up to the individual if they want to live or not...but that's just me being evil lol.

That's why any reasonable suicide law needs an independent authority to examine each case. I used to work in a nursing home and I can certainly imagine some of those families railroading their elderly grandmother into suicide simply to save medical bills and get their hands on the estate.
If it was the doctor assisting in suicide, then there would be a whole lot of proof that the patient consented, like a video tape, contract, stuff like that. If the patient does all of that, then I think it would be fine. But I don't know about mentally retarded people, they might just sign the forms and everything just to please people...so that wouldn't work out too well.

GySgt said:
Most people don't even think about it and could care less.

What if it was an automatic thing, but you could register against it instead of the other way around like it is now?

People would still have their wishes met and there would be a lot more doners.
I think that's a good idea!

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The problem with requiring that dead humans be sent to a dismantler so the spare parts can be re-used is that some doctor with an AB+ comatose patient might think more about the money he could get from Ted Kennedy for a new liver than how he could save his patient's life.

And certainly the hospital adminitration would be even worse.
ehh, I don't understand lol, as long as the organs can function fine, gysgt's proposal would get more donations without infringing on people's rights...I say do it.
 
Hornburger said:
ehh, I don't understand lol, as long as the organs can function fine, gysgt's proposal would get more donations without infringing on people's rights...I say do it.

Because creating a market demand for used body parts automatically creates a financial incentive to supply that demand, and medical decisions should be based on care of patient, not saleability of fresh liver.
 
Well steen I am about as pro-life as your going to get and I took the poll.

I voted NO. What do abortion and this issue have anything to do with each other?

Abortion is taking the life of the unborn...........without permission.

The child is NOT part of the mother...........she determines whether it lives or dies.

In this poll we are talking about two "living" human beings. If a person wants to donate it is up to them. If they do not wish this, then so be it they shouldn't be forced. If I knew there was a person who needed something I had and I could live without it.......I would gladly donate as I believe most people would to save a life.

We are not talking about murder here.


“Think about it... a woman, pregnant, decides to throw herself down the steps, or has her boyfriend push her down the steps to miscarry.”

Why would she do this? She can walk in any PP office and hand over the money to get a state of the art abortion. And if she whines to a government agency they will help her get one.

Debate junkie said, “So I think suicide should become legal.”

Suicide but not doctor assisted suicide. Anyone can kill themselves……..but doctors should not be allowed to aid in the act. Look into Oregon and physician assisted suicide.....look at their flawed system.

“But the fact is laws DO work, preventing people from doing a crime that they may feel compelled to do if there was no law banning it. Banning abortion WOULD reduce the huge number of abortions taking place in this country

You are so right. Laws against abortion would save so many lives. Do some reading about the country of Poland. They once allowed abortion, but then changed and banned it. Look at their numbers.
 
Because creating a market demand for used body parts automatically creates a financial incentive to supply that demand, and medical decisions should be based on care of patient, not saleability of fresh liver.
Well...doctors are doctors usually not because only because they want to save everyone's life...they need money too...if there are financial incentives that go along with more organs, then fine...but there would be more organs do give to patients, and people die because there are not enough organs...lack of organs is the problem, and more organs would help ease that problem a little.
doughgirl said:
Suicide but not doctor assisted suicide. Anyone can kill themselves……..but doctors should not be allowed to aid in the act. Look into Oregon and physician assisted suicide.....look at their flawed system.
I don't see why we must ban physician assisted suicide...why should the patient be forced to endure such agony when he knows he has little chance of recovery?
 
Hornburger said:
Except with blood the people didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be forced to give their time and risk themselves for someone else...with abortion, they could have used preventative measures, but since they didn't they assumed the risk and had the baby, which then means they would have to follow through with the abortion (or they should have to, anyway).
So you are voting something in between, something like "ONLY IF THEY CAUSED THE NEED"?

We are talking about whether there is a right to life to use a person's body here. So you are voting "conditional," right?
Hornburger said:
in the bathroom, in a closet, in a ****ing dumpster. Just don't kill an innocent life. How can we not punish murderers? I don't get it.
So it is not about the life being saved, but rather about the behavior of the donor?
Hornburger said:
Because birth pills have extremely high success percentages.
But ye5t 58% of those who had abortions in the early 90s (latest data available) used contraception. When a lot of people have sex, a small percentage of "a lot" still can be a big number.
Hornburger said:
If they kill a baby...yes, they are doing something wrong.
And "baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth. Irrelevant rhetoric.
Hornburger said:
Because the baby isn't part of the woman! It's a separate entity that resides in the mother. Just because it is inside the mother doesn't mean it is the mother's...If I put my **** in a woman's ass then she doesn't OWN my ****.
This tissue is connected to the woman's blood supply, it has no independent existence, no independent homeostasis, it is no more independent than an organ is or a tumor is.
Hornburger said:
No. You can't kill someone just because you don't feel like following through with the pregnancy.
But you can cause the death of a kidney patient just because you selfishly want to keep your bodily resources for yourself. Hence, you are denying the "right to life" of the kidney patient.

So now comes second question. Why does an embryo have more "right to life" than a person, a sentient, sensate human being?
Hornburger said:
Birth Control pills 97% to 99.9% effective. Now, that is pretty damn likely to work.
Yet, it also means that for every 1000 couples having sex, one pregnancy is likely.
Hornburger said:
Use condoms in addition to the pill, and the success rating goes up even higher.
So in the 100 mill couples, we can allow at least 1000 episodes of non-procreational intercourse yearly?
Hornburger said:
If it does and she does get pregnant, it would be a very rare case. And we can't deal with these "very rare cases" but have to deal with the vast majority of cases.
Again, the last scientific reference per the CDC showed 58% of those who obtained an abortion had used contraception.
Hornburger said:
And we have to do something to reduce this vast number of abortions taking place.
Sure. better sex-ed (more accurate, more scientific, earlier). better use of contraception (Cheaper, better, more available), better support of pregnant women (instead of the conservative "welfare reform" that forces them into poverty and makes them seek abortions), and better support of parents with kids (25% of abortions are to married women).

Fix that, and the number of abortions will go way down.

Now, unfortunately, a bunch of prolifers are very much opposed to contraception and most are very opposed to sex-ed. And it so happens that they see pregnant women as sluts who should be punished rather than "rewarded" for pregnancy. And the idea that poverty is being alleviated, that just makes those lazy welfare leeches lazier.

Yes, the conservative mindset DIRECTLY prevents a reduction in abortion. Instead of putting their wallet where their mouth is, conservative misogynistic theocrats try to dump the burden onto the woman instead.

YOU want to lower the abortion number, YOU pay instead of enslaving the woman because "you" (the conservative fundie) are too cheap and hate mongeringly misogynistic to take responsibility for yourself helping the problem you see.

And you know what? I bet that prolife and prochocie could work together on the above points (If prolife finally can come on board), and the number of abortions almost immediately would drop A LOT.

The reason we have so many abortions is that the conservative fundies in their misogyny tries to dump the burden onto the woman instead of pitching in themselves.

The PROLIFERS are the ones who have caused such a large number of abortions in their zeal to oppress women.
Hornburger said:
They don't have to raise it, put it up for adoption.
That is a parenting decision, not a pregnancy decision. Regardless, if she gives birth when she didn't want to be forced to give off her bodily resources, then she was enslaved to do so. She was forced to do exactly what everybody voted against in the poll. Do you need to change your vote?
Hornburger said:
Because in one instance it is the act of murder and the other is the act of negligence. There is a difference.
"Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. Abortions are legal, and embryos are not persons. So that is pure nonsense.

And that aside, does the kidney patient have to die? Does he/she have a right to life? According to the poll, that answer is no. According to the poll, people can NOT be forced to give their bodily resources even to save a life.

Oh, that is, UNLESS the person is a woman and she carries tissue that doesn't think or feel anything, then suddenly she can be forced. How is that NOT flagrant misogyny?
Hornburger said:
As for donating blood, an innocent person shouldn't be forced to help someone else out if they don't want to take out the time out of their lives to do so.
And there it is again, the idea that the "donor is innocent or guilty, that the recipient's "right" is not a right but merely a consequence of the donor's guilt or innocence.

That shows the prolife argument to NOT be based on "life," but rather on "guilt," based on punishment and teaching the woman a lesson. Pregnancy as punishment for not living up to YOUR unique moral schema.

As such, prolifers who claim this is about the life of the embryo are making themselves liars. They are in it for the punishment of the woman. LIFE doesn't mean nearly as much, because otherwise the kidney patient could have the right to force the prolifer to donate bodily resources against their will.

And that, suddenly, would make the prolifer having to swallow their own medicine, and we can't have that, can we now. It is easy to assign duties to others and oppress them, but when it comes to yourself, then it is a completely different story, then the person can die for all you care, as long as you can't be forced like you insist the woman can.

Do you have ANY idea how hypocritical that looks?
Hornburger said:
In the cases where protection is used and the woman gets pregnant, those cases are very rare.
Yes, "very rare," only making up for 58% of all abortions:roll: (Per CDC data in "1997 Abortion Surveillance")
Hornburger said:
Nope, then she wouldn't have to, if other people shouldn't be forced to give up organs and blood everything, that would apply to the mother too.
So the abortion should not be restricted.
Hornburger said:
But in almost all cases, the mother would want to save the child, especially when little or no harm will come to the mother.
If there is a child, yes. And that happens at birth.

That aside, the woman doesn't seek an abortion to save an embryo, she seeks an abortion because she does not want to be pregnant.
And if harm is to come to the mother...then the mother should be allowed to save her own life...so yeah.
But if no "harm" comes to her other than enslavement, other than the much bigger risk of giving birth, then yes she should be forced to give her bodily resources against her will?
Hornburger said:
But with abortion, you are killing someone ELSE.
Nope. That aside, you have already showed that it is not about saving a life. because you are PERFECTLY HAPPY letting the kidney patient die. So your claim is bogus.
Hornburger said:
An innocent someone else.
What is the kidney patient guilty off? Being sick?
Hornburger said:
That is a huge difference. We can't just let people slip by the law in abortion when it is murder.
"murder" is the illegal killing of a person. Are you going to persist in that false hyperbole?
 
Hornburger said:
In this context, the government must try and prevent people from murdering babies;
Nope.
Hornburger said:
it is the fault of the parents
yes, prolife is all about "fault," it has nothing to do with 'life." The kidney patient can die for all you care, as long as YOU are not at risk of being forced to give up your bodily integrity. After all, that is only something you want to force on OTHERS.
Hornburger said:
for not using preventative measures (chances of failure are extremely rare),
Yes, only 58% of all abortions.
Hornburger said:
and as a result pregnancy occurs, and the life must be protected because of the fault of the parent...but in the blood donor scenario it is no one's fault (besides perhaps the victim and/or person who caused the injury) that the person is in desperate need of blood.
Yup, it is all about FAULT, not life. You guys are not prolife, you are profault. You have no concern for the life of a kidney patient. Born people can go and die and you won't even force people to give their bodily resources to save them; after all, that might come back and bite YOU. But if it is an embryo, then heck let the woman be enslaved, it is her "fault" anyway. Yes, nothing about life, everything about punishment.
Hornburger said:
People are required to not kill others, but it is not against the law to let them die. It's a matter of who's fault it was...
Ah, yes. No right to life. Thanks for making that clear and invalidate most prolife arguments. You ARE saying then that prolifers claiming a "right to life" are lying, right?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They excercised their freedom of choice, and then they screwed up and created a person anyway.

It's not the new person's fault that mommy and daddy are screw-ups. Why should the new person have to be executed for their crime?
It is clear that per the law, there is no person before birth. So your claim has no relevance in the real world. It also belies the prolife claim of a "right to life," showing that prolifers value only SOME life enough to give it the right to use other people's bodies to use.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Neither adult is being punshed. If you think they're being punished can you identify them and explain how exactly they're being punished and what they're being punished for?
The woman is being forced to give her bodily resources AGAINST HER WILL. That is enslavement. That is the very thing you voted against in the poll.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, she's not being punished. She made a choice to risk getting knocked up, she got knocked up.
Yes, it is all about how bad she is, how much of a slut she is. That is indeed the argument we recognize in prolife rhetoric.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Now she's being required to bear the responsibility of her choice,
Ah, like the smoker you deny medical treatment and the guy from the traffic accident that you are denying medical treatment, right? Huh? You are not? So it is only when the person is a pregnant woman that she needs to be taught a lesson and be denied medical treatment? See, THAT is the kind of argument that makes us see you guys as misogynistic, theocratic, hate mongering oppressors of women.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
since the alternative is the deliberate murder of another human being.
Your revisionist linguistic, hyperbolic misrepresentation doesn't make it so. Clearly you don't have any available argument based on facts!
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
How is that punishment? Is it our fault she's stupid?
When you deny her access to rectify the outcome of her action, then you deliberately deny her what you allow all other people that may act "stupid." That is discrimination, that is bigotry, that is misogyny.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because it's not "mandatory childbirth". The woman had the option of saying "no".
Not as much when you deny her access to medical treatment. You are saying that if she is pregnant, she HAS the duty to give of her bodily resources even against her will.

Now, you are not making that same demand when the tissue is a lung tumor after a person has been smoking, f.ex. So the "option of saying no" is clearly NOT what makes the determination for you here. Your argument is dishonest.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
We're not punishing anyone for having sex, we're preventing someone from dying via deliberate murder.
other than your silly hyperbole and misrepresentation of "murder" (A shameful deception that shows dishonesty in your debate), you aren't insisting anybody else be denied medical treatment for the unwanted outcome of their actions. So you ARE punishing her, you uniquely feel that she did something wrong and now have to 'suffer the consequences.' The prolife position is all about punishment and oppression. That is why I will never let you guys win.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The situation of a person dying because another person declines to have his own body hacked up is a different matter. The intended forced donor didn't choose for that other person's kidney's to fail. A pregnant woman choose to engage in activity that may get her knocked up.
And there it is again, that it is not about a "right to life," you are perfectly willing to let the kidney patient die. It is not about life, it is about teaching her a lesson, it is about enslaving her and oppressing her for not living up to your unique morals.

Prolife is all about punishment and oppression.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Sorry, you're the one that started the thread against cow juice. The natural and necessary bodily resource for a new-born infant is his mother's milk.
Bogus argument. NOTHING that a neonate needs has to come from the mother.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
A human child is not a "viable" unit for quite some time after birth. Hence the "viability" argument is invalid.
It is always troublesome when prolifers use terms they don't understand. "Viability" is the age of gestation where 50% of preemies survive to one year of age.
 
doughgirl said:
Well steen I am about as pro-life as your going to get and I took the poll.

I voted NO. What do abortion and this issue have anything to do with each other?
In either case, for a "life" to be saved, a person have to give their bodily resources. Should that person be forced? THAT is the question.
In this poll we are talking about two "living" human beings. If a person wants to donate it is up to them. If they do not wish this, then so be it they shouldn't be forced.
So the kidney patient doesn't have a "right to life"!
We are not talking about murder here.
We are not talking murder anywhere as abortion doesn't meet the legal definition of murder.
You are so right. Laws against abortion would save so many lives. Do some reading about the country of Poland. They once allowed abortion, but then changed and banned it. Look at their numbers.
Yes, the number of women who travel to Germany and have abortions there have skyrocketed, and it has become so big a business that organized crime has begun being involved like it happened in the US when alcohol was outlawed. People never learn.
 
So you are voting something in between, something like "ONLY IF THEY CAUSED THE NEED"?

We are talking about whether there is a right to life to use a person's body here. So you are voting "conditional," right?
Yes, I guess you can put it that way.

So it is not about the life being saved, but rather about the behavior of the donor?
It’s about the fault factor. I don’t care if you have sex, just USE PROTECTION.

But ye5t 58% of those who had abortions in the early 90s (latest data available) used contraception. When a lot of people have sex, a small percentage of "a lot" still can be a big number.
58% isn’t too high…if more people use protection, there would be a LOT less abortions…

And "baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth. Irrelevant rhetoric.
Whatever, “fetus” use the correct terminology.

This tissue is connected to the woman's blood supply, it has no independent existence, no independent homeostasis, it is no more independent than an organ is or a tumor is.
So then the fetus is a parasite, but it is still living. I believe that life begins when DNA has been injected into the cell after conception.

But you can cause the death of a kidney patient just because you selfishly want to keep your bodily resources for yourself. Hence, you are denying the "right to life" of the kidney patient.
No, that is not the reason. The reason involves the fault factor.

So now comes second question. Why does an embryo have more "right to life" than a person, a sentient, sensate human being?
No one is at fault for the person being in desperate need of blood. But people are at fault for not using preventative measures. For example…people are not punished when they don’t save someone’s life, but they are punished if they kill someone. That’s just how our law system works.

Yet, it also means that for every 1000 couples having sex, one pregnancy is likely.
Yeah, that’s a low number.

So in the 100 mill couples, we can allow at least 1000 episodes of non-procreational intercourse yearly?
What?

Again, the last scientific reference per the CDC showed 58% of those who obtained an abortion had used contraception.
The number should be higher.


Sure. better sex-ed (more accurate, more scientific, earlier). better use of contraception (Cheaper, better, more available), better support of pregnant women (instead of the conservative "welfare reform" that forces them into poverty and makes them seek abortions), and better support of parents with kids (25% of abortions are to married women).

Fix that, and the number of abortions will go way down.
Agreed for better sex ed and better contraception…but don’t know specifically what you mean on supporting pregnant women and the evils of welfare reform…and not sure how you want to better support parents with kids…lol, so yeah.

Now, unfortunately, a bunch of prolifers are very much opposed to contraception and most are very opposed to sex-ed. And it so happens that they see pregnant women as sluts who should be punished rather than "rewarded" for pregnancy. And the idea that poverty is being alleviated, that just makes those lazy welfare leeches lazier.
Not all the prolifers…I agree with other things to prevent abortion from even being considered…

Yes, the conservative mindset DIRECTLY prevents a reduction in abortion. Instead of putting their wallet where their mouth is, conservative misogynistic theocrats try to dump the burden onto the woman instead.
We need to implement a variety of methods to solve the problem, like better sex ed and more available and better protection.

YOU want to lower the abortion number, YOU pay instead of enslaving the woman because "you" (the conservative fundie) are too cheap and hate mongeringly misogynistic to take responsibility for yourself helping the problem you see.
mmm, I wouldn’t call myself conservative, I’m actually in the middle (fiscally right, socially left)…and yes I want the number lowered…but I don’t understand how I would “pay”, this abortion issue really has little effect upon me, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on the issue. Please clarify your post.

And you know what? I bet that prolife and prochocie could work together on the above points (If prolife finally can come on board), and the number of abortions almost immediately would drop A LOT.

The reason we have so many abortions is that the conservative fundies in their misogyny tries to dump the burden onto the woman instead of pitching in themselves.
Well…the Supreme Court doesn’t have anybody to compromise with…but yes legislature should help solve the problem too..

The PROLIFERS are the ones who have caused such a large number of abortions in their zeal to oppress women.
How? The law of the land is that abortion is legal, so right now it wouldn’t matter what they think…
That is a parenting decision, not a pregnancy decision. Regardless, if she gives birth when she didn't want to be forced to give off her bodily resources, then she was enslaved to do so. She was forced to do exactly what everybody voted against in the poll. Do you need to change your vote?
Again…there’s the fault factor.

"Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. Abortions are legal, and embryos are not persons. So that is pure nonsense.
In your opinion. I feel they are living.
 
Last edited:
And that aside, does the kidney patient have to die? Does he/she have a right to life? According to the poll, that answer is no. According to the poll, people can NOT be forced to give their bodily resources even to save a life.
AGAIN…they are different scenarios…in one instance the parents were at fault, in the other no one was.

Oh, that is, UNLESS the person is a woman and she carries tissue that doesn't think or feel anything, then suddenly she can be forced. How is that NOT flagrant misogyny?
No…why are you putting words into my mouth? That is not my argument.

And there it is again, the idea that the "donor is innocent or guilty, that the recipient's "right" is not a right but merely a consequence of the donor's guilt or innocence.

That shows the prolife argument to NOT be based on "life," but rather on "guilt," based on punishment and teaching the woman a lesson. Pregnancy as punishment for not living up to YOUR unique moral schema.

As such, prolifers who claim this is about the life of the embryo are making themselves liars. They are in it for the punishment of the woman. LIFE doesn't mean nearly as much, because otherwise the kidney patient could have the right to force the prolifer to donate bodily resources against their will.

And that, suddenly, would make the prolifer having to swallow their own medicine, and we can't have that, can we now. It is easy to assign duties to others and oppress them, but when it comes to yourself, then it is a completely different story, then the person can die for all you care, as long as you can't be forced like you insist the woman can.

Do you have ANY idea how hypocritical that looks?
In our society, negligence is treated differently than actually committing the act. If an individual wasn’t at fault…they won’t be prosecuted (not talking about corporations and such)

Sex is okay, but people MUST use protection. I would be punishing people for not using protection.

Our society has people not punished for letting people die, but they are punished for actually committing the act of murder. Are you suggesting that we completely reform our entire justice system?

Yes, "very rare," only making up for 58% of all abortions (Per CDC data in "1997 Abortion Surveillance")
Let’s raise that number.

So the abortion should not be restricted.
Again, there’s a difference.

If there is a child, yes. And that happens at birth.

That aside, the woman doesn't seek an abortion to save an embryo, she seeks an abortion because she does not want to be pregnant.
I know, it’s just a scenario that someone else brought up..

But if no "harm" comes to her other than enslavement, other than the much bigger risk of giving birth, then yes she should be forced to give her bodily resources against her will?
She doesn’t own the baby (or whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you use lol) as property…she can’t do whatever she wants with him/her.

That aside, you have already showed that it is not about saving a life. because you are PERFECTLY HAPPY letting the kidney patient die. So your claim is bogus.[/QUOTE]
I’m not happy with the letting the patient die…but you can’t force someone to help someone in which the donor was not at any fault whatsoever.

What is the kidney patient guilty off? Being sick?
The patient isn’t guilty of anything, what’s your point?

"murder" is the illegal killing of a person. Are you going to persist in that false hyperbole?
And I feel that the fetus is a human being.

yes, prolife is all about "fault," it has nothing to do with 'life." The kidney patient can die for all you care, as long as YOU are not at risk of being forced to give up your bodily integrity. After all, that is only something you want to force on OTHERS.
Yes, it is all about fault. And what hypocrisy! You keep talking about how I am promoting a culture of death, yet you are the one who wants to kill life!

Our justice system is all about fault. Don’t like it, well, you got a whole lot of court reforming to do.

Yes, only 58% of all abortions.
Too low!

Yup, it is all about FAULT, not life. You guys are not prolife, you are profault. You have no concern for the life of a kidney patient. Born people can go and die and you won't even force people to give their bodily resources to save them; after all, that might come back and bite YOU. But if it is an embryo, then heck let the woman be enslaved, it is her "fault" anyway. Yes, nothing about life, everything about punishment.
Yeah, it is the parent’s fault, so consequences must be paid. Nowadays nothing is “my fault”, its always someone else’s. No one even thinks of personal responsibility anymore!

Ah, yes. No right to life. Thanks for making that clear and invalidate most prolife arguments. You ARE saying then that prolifers claiming a "right to life" are lying, right?
I am saying that people must be held accountable for their actions.
 
Hell no!

You get in a car accident and paramedics show up; you think they are there to save your life, but to your surprize, they are there for spare parts!
 
steen said:
It is clear that per the law, there is no person before birth. So your claim has no relevance in the real world.

Bull droppings. Per the law, Scott Peterson is on death row for the murder of two people, not one. But according to you, one of those was not a person, and wasn't even human.

Are you contributing to Scott's defense fund for this gross miscarriage (ahem) of justice?

Scott's in prison for doing something to Conner that Lacy could have done without a blinked eye from a liberal.

?
 
steen said:
Now, you are not making that same demand when the tissue is a lung tumor after a person has been smoking, f.ex. So the "option of saying no" is clearly NOT what makes the determination for you here. Your argument is dishonest.

So, what am I denying the fool that destroyed his lungs voluntarily with tobacco fumes? Are you saying that I said the smoker has to carry his tumor full term until it becomes indepently viable? Just what connection are you making? You make no sense.

steen said:
other than your silly hyperbole and misrepresentation of "murder" (A shameful deception that shows dishonesty in your debate), you aren't insisting anybody else be denied medical treatment for the unwanted outcome of their actions.

When tumors are defined as human, then killing them will become murder. You should focus on applying definitions evenly across the board, it would greatly benefit your readers, and probably strengthen your arguments as well.



steen said:
So you ARE punishing her, you uniquely feel that she did something wrong and now have to 'suffer the consequences.'

No. She's a dumb bunny that should have her tubes tied when the baby comes out as a form of eugenics that will raise the average IQ over time. But theories of punishment have nothing to do with it. She created a life through her own choice, she's now responsible for the well being of that life until it can be delivered.

I think it's amazing that the same people that get upset over a woman drowning a bunch of kittens demand that her non-existent freedom to murder babies go unimpeded.

Yes. Murder is the intentional termination of human life without just cause. Convenience, laziness, and stupidity are no excuse.

steen said:
The prolife position is all about punishment and oppression.

I've not used the words punishment, I've not implied the concept, you're just projecting your own values.

steen said:
That is why I will never let you guys win.

Don't you think you'd be more effective if you found better arguments to use, then?

steen said:
And there it is again, that it is not about a "right to life," you are perfectly willing to let the kidney patient die. It is not about life, it is about teaching her a lesson, it is about enslaving her and oppressing her for not living up to your unique morals.

It's about options. She had one to avoid pregancy, the baby has none at all. Would be kidney donors are not under obligation to sacrifice themselves for the events and choices that affect others. Mothers are responsible for their pregnancy, and the fetus is the poster child for pure innocence.

steen said:
Prolife is all about punishment and oppression.
Bogus argument. NOTHING that a neonate needs has to come from the mother. It is always troublesome when prolifers use terms they don't understand. "Viability" is the age of gestation where 50% of preemies survive to one year of age.

And the Japanese are experimenting with chemo-mechanical wombs for embryonic development of goats to full term, thus the definition of "viability" moves ever backward.

Why are you defining "human" on a sliding scale? Does the illogic of this escape you?
 
Hornburger said:
AGAIN…they are different scenarios…in one instance the parents were at fault, in the other no one was.

In our society, negligence is treated differently than actually committing the act. If an individual wasn’t at fault…

Sex is okay, but people MUST use protection. I would be punishing people for not using protection.

When is life not life?

The scenario here brings up two points related to abortion, the use of one's body to promote life, or not, and the force issue. Some who are pro-life would, if current laws were overturned, force women to bear unwanted children through the use of their bodies. From what I'v seen here, no pro-lifer would force a compatable donor to save a person's life. None of you see this as contradictory? I wouldn't force a person to donate an organ, but I wouldn't force a woman to bear a child, either.

The person with kidney failure is not at fault, no more than the fetus. The lives that are threatened should be the issue if you are pro-life, not fault or punishment. They are distractions.
 
Last edited:
Hornburger said:
It’s about the fault factor. I don’t care if you have sex, just USE PROTECTION.[./quote]Yes, prolife is really "pro-fault" instead.
58% isn’t too high…if more people use protection, there would be a LOT less abortions…
yet, so many prolifers... oops, pro-faulters oppose contraception and effective sex-ed. That makes these people the reason why we don't see more contraception and fewer unwanted pregnancies.
So then the fetus is a parasite,
No, it doesn't fit the definition of parasite. But its function certainly is parasitic.
but it is still living. I believe that life begins when DNA has been injected into the cell after conception.
Well, the sperm and egg were alive as well, so don't you think it would be more accurate to say that life CONTINUES at conception?
No one is at fault for the person being in desperate need of blood. But people are at fault for not using preventative measures.
And the ones who do are not at fault and therefore can abort without restrictions, right? Or are you making up a false argument here?
For example…people are not punished when they don’t save someone’s life, but they are punished if they kill someone. That’s just how our law system works.
other than the embryo not being a 'someone," it does again show that the claim of 'prolife" is simply a facade, deceptive hyperbole.
Agreed for better sex ed and better contraception…but don’t know specifically what you mean on supporting pregnant women and the evils of welfare reform…and not sure how you want to better support parents with kids…lol, so yeah.
Guarantee that pregnant women don't get fired, make sure they get help graduating school etc. Also better support (financial, time off, respite care, child care etc) for new parents, so the woman doesn't feel that she won't be able to afford having a child and be tempted to have an abortion because of this.
Not all the prolifers…I agree with other things to prevent abortion from even being considered…
Not "all," but MANY oppose contraception. And many, certainly of the more rightwing, religious type are opposing effective, scientific sex-ed because it isn't about preventing teen pregnancy but rather about imposing their morality on others.
mmm, I wouldn’t call myself conservative, I’m actually in the middle (fiscally right, socially left)…and yes I want the number lowered…but I don’t understand how I would “pay”, this abortion issue really has little effect upon me, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on the issue. Please clarify your post.
If you want to lower the number of abortions, then it is YOUR wish and therefore you pay what is necessary to reach that goal instead of dumping the responsibilities from your wish onto the woman.
Well…the Supreme Court doesn’t have anybody to compromise with…but yes legislature should help solve the problem too..
The US Supreme Court already crafted a compromise. It is called Roe vs Wade.
Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. Abortions are legal, and embryos are not persons. So that is pure nonsense.
In your opinion. I feel they are living.
And so what? The embryo as 'living" still doesn't make it murder. "Living" is not the defining quality that makes it murder. So your claim doesn't make sense, it is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.
 
Hornburger said:
Sex is okay, but people MUST use protection. I would be punishing people for not using protection.
Will you also punish those who seek to block access to contraception for others?
She doesn’t own the baby (or whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you use lol) as property…she can’t do whatever she wants with him/her.
"mumbo-jumbo"? Are you saying that you are ignorant of the scientific foundation for this discussion?

That aside, the embryo is as much "property" as her finger nail, hair, or blood.
That aside, you have already showed that it is not about saving a life. because you are PERFECTLY HAPPY letting the kidney patient die. So your claim is bogus.
I’m not happy with the letting the patient die…but you can’t force someone to help someone in which the donor was not at any fault whatsoever.
If fault is what matters, then you are obviously DENYING that a "right to life" exists. You are then arguing morality and "fault," and we then have to sort out what is moral and what is not. Personally, I feel that enslaving a woman is immoral and even Roe vs Wade has to be changed as oppressive to women, leaving no restrictions whatsoever at all anywhere about abortions. Yes, per my worldview, the ones at "fault" are prolifers and prolifers only. Does that mean that we can impose punishment on prolifers? According to your view that individual, subjective morality can be legislated, it should mean just that.
And I feel that the fetus is a human being.
And so what? You have already made it clear that human beings can be denied bodily resources even if it kills them. So that argument is simply silly.
Yes, it is all about fault. And what hypocrisy! You keep talking about how I am promoting a culture of death, yet you are the one who wants to kill life!
You deny the kidney patient the right to life. You seek to enslave women. Yes, I clearly see YOU as being in the wrong here.
I am saying that people must be held accountable for their actions.
You mean the prolifers/pro-faulters who oppose contraception, sex-ed and support of pregnant women, right? We should lock them up, right?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Bull droppings. Per the law, Scott Peterson is on death row for the murder of two people, not one.
Please prove your claim. California law does NOT read as what you misrepresent it as.
But according to you, one of those was not a person, and wasn't even human.
Nope, that is not what I stated. please cease misrepresenting my posts.
Are you contributing to Scott's defense fund for this gross miscarriage (ahem) of justice?
Oh, more ad hominems. Must mean you have run out of arguments.
Scott's in prison for doing something to Conner that Lacy could have done without a blinked eye from a liberal.
That also is false. Why do you seem unable to make an honest statement here?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, what am I denying the fool that destroyed his lungs voluntarily with tobacco fumes? Are you saying that I said the smoker has to carry his tumor full term until it becomes indepently viable? Just what connection are you making? You make no sense.
Your argument is that "taking responsibility" doesn't mean seeking medical care to rectify the unwanted position. hence, you must also mean that you will deny the smoker any treatment for lung cancer.
When tumors are defined as human, then killing them will become murder.
Why? pleas eprovide evidence for that claim. You seem woefully ignorant of what "murder" is.
You should focus on applying definitions evenly across the board, it would greatly benefit your readers, and probably strengthen your arguments as well.
You are talking to the mirror here, right?
No. She's a dumb bunny that should have her tubes tied when the baby comes out as a form of eugenics that will raise the average IQ over time.
Ah, yes. Now we recognize the typical prolifer as a hate mongering, misogynistic, judgmental fundie.
But theories of punishment have nothing to do with it. She created a life through her own choice, she's now responsible for the well being of that life until it can be delivered.
Like the smoker created a unique, growing life, yes your resistance to people seeking medical treatment to rectify such unwanted outcomes is rapidly becoming legendary.
I think it's amazing that the same people that get upset over a woman drowning a bunch of kittens demand that her non-existent freedom to murder babies go unimpeded.
And what "people" are they? You are not making false claims and ad hominem accusations here, are you?
Yes. Murder is the intentional termination of human life without just cause.
No, that still isn't true. Can you please make your arguments without having to resort to false and deceptive "definitions," please?
It's about options. She had one to avoid pregancy, the baby has none at all.
there still is no baby until birth, your revisionist linguistic hyperbole and emotive, deceptive language none withstanding.
Would be kidney donors are not under obligation to sacrifice themselves for the events and choices that affect others.
So you agree that there is no "right to life," and that prolifers who claim this are lying? Well, thank you for that admission. I shall be sure to direct your attention to those who make that claim, so you can correct their false claim, OK?
Mothers are responsible for their pregnancy,
Actually, they are not. They have the legal option of abortion.
and the fetus is the poster child for pure innocence.
Not in the case of unwanted pregnancy, when it uses her body against her will. Then it is like a squatter, a parasite, and thus is not innocent.
And the Japanese are experimenting with chemo-mechanical wombs for embryonic development of goats to full term, thus the definition of "viability" moves ever backward.
Nope. It is not the environment before birth, but rather the age of termination of the pregnancy support that defines viability. Why are you thinking that artificial goat uterus research has any bearing on the inherent error in your original claim? Is this some elaborate attempt at not taking responsibility for your previous statement; some attempt at NOT standing by your own posts?
 
hmm, I'm actually thinking about changing my vote to yes when the bodily resource is blood...I mean...why not? To save a little inconvenience? If there is virtually a zero percent risk...Why not?
 
Back
Top Bottom