a question for democrats about abortion ..

I'm just starting this thread, but am willing to bet there will be a lot of semantic BS about what a "human being" is.
I'm willing to grant that fetuses are developing human beings, what you clowns will never discuss is what about it being a human being gives it the right to gestate inside a woman without her consent. Can I put things in you without your consent?
 
When the doctors and family decide.

No almost always when there is no hope for recovery. When the only possible life the person will have is hooked up to machines, unconscious.

If say, a patient is hooked up to such machines but is projected to recover, but the family decides they don't want to be bothered and unplugs the patient, you know what that's called? Murder.

But you knew that didn't you? And knew how badly you stepped in it
 
No almost always when there is no hope for recovery. When the only possible life the person will have is hooked up to machines, unconscious.

If say, a patient is hooked up to such machines but is projected to recover, but the family decides they don't want to be bothered and unplugs the patient, you know what that's called? Murder.

But you knew that didn't you? And knew how badly you stepped in it
My shoes are clean, I’m not seeing what point you think you’re making that you feel puts poop on my shoes.
 
Why don’t I hear much from the right about the mother’s rights?

Why don't I hear much from the Left about a woman's right to say NO? Or to use contraceptives or a morning after pill? Is it a good thing to tell our girls it's okay to have unprotected sex cuz if you get knocked up we'll take care of it like it's nothing more than a pimple?

When a woman voluntarily has unprotected sex and subsequently gets pregnant, it's hard for me to get too concerned with her right to an abortion. She took the risk, knowing full well what the consequences could be. And she should face those consequences IMHO if she becomes pregnant, along with the father BTW. But the responsibility ultimately rests with the future mom, that's why the fathers don't get much say in the matter of an abortion.


Who’s rights are paramount?

If the mother has an abortion she lives to see another day, but the aborted baby does not. That's why the unborn child's rights ought to be paramount. I can see an exception for when the mother's life is at risk more than usual. But otherwise she assumed the risk of childbirth when she had unprotected sex, whereas the unborn baby is blameless.
 
Those children are most likely to belong to my family, so probably not. I'd certainly remove your kids from my lawn. That's how rights work. I get to decide who's gets to play on my lawn.
I have kids? Since when?
 
When the family or the person with the medical proxy and/or power of attorney decide it's time to pull the plug.

If the plug is pulled when the person will recover but the family just doesn't want to be bothered, it's murder.
 
If they did because they don't want to be bothered it would be murder.

And yes you're not very good at this.
What are you talking about? You’re making no sense. Which comment of mine do you think you’re arguing against?!

It sounds like you’re arguing against a ghost
 
What are you talking about? You’re making no sense. Which comment of mine do you think you’re arguing against?!

It sounds like you’re arguing against a ghost

You do not unplug the living who are going to recover. You unplug the living who are only living because of the machines AND the only hope they have is to go on breathing on machines, unconscious, until they are unplugged. If when the person is unconscious the family decides to remove the machinery WHEN THE PATIENT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO RECOVER, that would be murder.

But again you know all this which is why you are dancing around the issue. And you know abortion ABORTS the development of humans that would go on to have normal healthy lives for the convenience of the mother.

Straight up.
 
You do not unplug the living who are going to recover. You unplug the living who are only living because of the machines AND the only hope they have is to go on breathing on machines, unconscious, until they are unplugged. If when the person is unconscious the family decides to remove the machinery WHEN THE PATIENT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO RECOVER, that would be murder.

But again you know all this which is why you are dancing around the issue. And you know abortion ABORTS the development of humans that would go on to have normal healthy lives for the convenience of the mother.

Straight up.
Yes I obviously know all of that about people on machines why are you acting like I was saying anything otherwise?

Did you think I made the argument that an embryo or fetus is the same as a person on life support?!

If so then please quote my statement that made you think that
 
There was a 21 week old fetus that was taken out of the womb and survived.
Not on its own.

"an embryo or fetus before it is able to survive independently".

Beth and Rick Hutchinson call Richard their miracle baby. The couple had struggled to conceive for years, but in February 2020, they found out they were expecting! While they were elated by the news, the unexpected happened.

In June, Beth went to the doctor with discomfort only to find out she was already three centimeters dilated – Richard was making his debut. Born at 21 weeks, Richard was ready to defy all the odds.

Most hospitals in the nation only resuscitate babies at 22 weeks. A baby only 21 weeks and two days old was too young, and something like is extremely rare to do.

After more than six months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), Richard was finally healthy enough to go home.
 
Yes I obviously know all of that about people on machines why are you acting like I was saying anything otherwise?

Did you think I made the argument that an embryo or fetus is the same as a person on life support?!

If so then please quote my statement that made you think that

It's implicit throughout the thread. Caterpillars, appendix. Your arguments are a hash, so asking us to quote you is a fool's errand. The argument you're making by implication is that it's acceptable to abort a fetus because it's akin to a caterpillar or an appendix (which is horridly stupid btw). I am telling you that we take great care to make sure that even people hooked up to many life-sustaining machines have no chance of recovery before we pull the plug, but you stupidly--and unscientifically--want to compare a fetus to an appendix. Be stupid then but expect to be called out on it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top