• 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
FISHX said:
All life is equal in my veiw from the unborn to the murderer to the terrorist
If somebody needed my spare kidney and i was compatible with them then yes i would gladly give them it i wouldn,t need the law to tell me to do so. would you?
Click to expand...

I think you are the first who is pro-life to answer this question. And you are consistent. Others refuse to answer it, saying its a trap or just responding nonsensibly.

I would disagree on the terrorist though, I want him to die.

To answer your question, I would not offer my kidney to any patient unless that person was close to me, meaning extended family and close friends.
 
steen said:
The legal system has ALSO ruled that the access to abortions is a constitutional right. So if you are arguing legality, f.ex., then there is no right of any life of any kind to use a person's body against their will.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, that's because the courts didn't think the fetus was actually alive. If they thought it was alive, the ruling would most definately have been different.
 
Hornburger said:
In my opinion, that's because the courts didn't think the fetus was actually alive. If they thought it was alive, the ruling would most definately have been different.
Click to expand...

That is wrong. They didn't consider the fetus legally a 'person' per the Constitution:

the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. ...None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

"Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: ...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
 
tryreading said:
That is wrong. They didn't consider the fetus legally a 'person' per the Constitution:

the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. ...None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

"Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: ...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
Click to expand...
"To that, the Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Relying on the current state of medical knowledge, the decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individual's constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Abortion

If the court knew that the fetus was alive, then it would not have found abortion legal, or else they wouldn't have broken it down into trimesters. They came up with such a decision because no one knew for sure whether it was alive or not.
 
Hornburger said:
"To that, the Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Relying on the current state of medical knowledge, the decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individual's constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Abortion

If the court knew that the fetus was alive, then it would not have found abortion legal, or else they wouldn't have broken it down into trimesters. They came up with such a decision because no one knew for sure whether it was alive or not.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but life, or "life as we know it" was not the basis for the decision. Personhood and privacy were. It is not that the Court didn't know whether the fetus was alive. And there will probably never be a consensus regarding this between medecine, philosophy, and theology, anyway.

Even if the concept of 'life as we know it' is altered by whatever advances, there will still be the points above to consider.
 
tryreading said:
I am not a lawyer, but life, or "life as we know it" was not the basis for the decision. Personhood and privacy were. It is not that the Court didn't know whether the fetus was alive. And there will probably never be a consensus regarding this between medecine, philosophy, and theology, anyway.

Even if the concept of 'life as we know it' is altered by whatever advances, there will still be the points above to consider.
Click to expand...
That's true, I was just saying that the decision might have changed if the court recognized the fetus as life.
 
Hornburger said:
That's true, I was just saying that the decision might have changed if the court recognized the fetus as life.
Click to expand...
The court DIDN'T CARE. It looked at the woman's right to control her own bodily resources under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Any prolife argument not dealing with this are just words on a page- often lying words, at that!
 
steen said:
The court DIDN'T CARE. It looked at the woman's right to control her own bodily resources under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Any prolife argument not dealing with this are just words on a page- often lying words, at that!
Click to expand...
Then what's the point of dividing it into trimesters? Why didn't they just legalize ALL abortions?
 
Hornburger said:
Then what's the point of dividing it into trimesters? Why didn't they just legalize ALL abortions?
Click to expand...
They sought a compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom