I was wrong... the health of the mother is not valid for an abortion.

[Rigby5]

While there is a moral imperative in regards to the sanctity of life, there is no such in regards to private property. Property is not life.

So, stealing is OK, then? Or vandalism?

If human is sacred, then along with abortion, a truly ethical person would also oppose the death penalty.

I suppose that could be true, if you make no distinction between the very worst violent criminal,and the most innocent, defenseless child. I think I can safely speak for all sane, decent people, when I say that there is a very significant distinction, here, that you are trying to deny.

In any case, it is the one who defends murdering an innocent unborn child but who opposes putting a violent criminal to death, who has some explaining to do. But really, what more explanation is needed there, than to recognize that such a person is simply evil?

That is invalid for several reasons.
First of all is the fact no one is ever absolutely guilty, and you will have some innocents being convicted.
Second is that it is not the death of the person executed that matters, but that the person who does the execution can not be legally authorized to do it.
It does not matter if a criminal is dead or not, but that if you violate the definition of government deriving its authority from the defense of rights, then that is exceeded by someone being able to execute someone else, without it coming from a legal source of authorization. Legislators can not authorize executions because they do not have the authority to do so.

 

[Rigby5]

So you would allow the mother to die instead?

I'm in favor of allowing abortion, when it is genuinely necessary to mitigate a serious and plausible risk to the life of the mother. I'm not happy with it, but really, in such a situation, there is no resolution that is to be happy with.

That is worlds away from your promotional, which allows an innocent child to be murdered for no greater reason than that his existence is inconvenient to those who ought to be most responsible for his life and his well-being. To support that is just plain evil.

The reality is that all medical procedures have risk, but giving birth has about 10 times the death rate risk of abortion.

 

[Lakhota]

I was wrong... the health of the mother is not valid for an abortion.

The health of the mother has never been valid to rabid anti-abortion zealots - for any reason.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're creating a false dichotomy there - if it's not a "moral imperative" then it's "ok". It isn't ok, but it is not the same as taking life.

That's pretty much the definition of a “moral imperative”—the recognition that some conduct is not OK.

There is not a significant difference at all, IF human life is sacred. Either it is (all of it) or it isn't. It's not a cafeteria. And don't forget, innocent people do end up on death row.

I don't base my position on the "sanctity of human life" - you do though. If you pick and choose what human life is sacred, if only some of it is, then you are just as evil as those you decry.

You've be a lot more believable, if you were consistent.

If it's OK to needlessly take the life of the most innocent and defenseless child, then what lives is it not OK to take?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You should try claiming your own moral authority instead of letting someone define it for you. Its liberating and nothing at all like being a follower when you should be a leader.

Wouldn't work for me. I'm not a soulless sociopath. I recognize that there are clear, objective standards of right and wrong, that my actions can have impacts on others, and that it is wrong for me to take actions which clearly, and unjustifiably cause harm to others. I do not have the luxury that you seem to enjoy, of being able to define for myself that it's “right” to take an action that clearly, needlessly, and unjustifiably harms others.

"So, stealing is OK, then? Or vandalism?"
I'll answer that. Depends on the circumstances.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The reality is that all medical procedures have risk, but giving birth has about 10 times the death rate risk of abortion.

That's a lie, and you know it.

Every successful abortion results in the death of an innocent child. The vast majority of births do not result in any death.

 

[progressive hunter]

So you would allow the mother to die instead?

I'm in favor of allowing abortion, when it is genuinely necessary to mitigate a serious and plausible risk to the life of the mother. I'm not happy with it, but really, in such a situation, there is no resolution that is to be happy with.

That is worlds away from your promotional, which allows an innocent child to be murdered for no greater reason than that his existence is inconvenient to those who ought to be most responsible for his life and his well-being. To support that is just plain evil.

The reality is that all medical procedures have risk, but giving birth has about 10 times the death rate risk of abortion.

abortion has a 100% death rate,,,

 

[Asclepias]

You should try claiming your own moral authority instead of letting someone define it for you. Its liberating and nothing at all like being a follower when you should be a leader.

Wouldn't work for me. I'm not a soulless sociopath. I recognize that there are clear, objective standards of right and wrong, that my actions can have impacts on others, and that it is wrong for me to take actions which clearly, and unjustifiably cause harm to others. I do not have the luxury that you seem to enjoy, of being able to define for myself that it's “right” to take an action that clearly, needlessly, and unjustifiably harms others.

"So, stealing is OK, then? Or vandalism?"
I'll answer that. Depends on the circumstances.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Yeah I recognize there are clear, objective standards for right and wrong but I dont let hypocrites define them for me. I do that for myself.

 

[Ringtone]

While there is a moral imperative in regards to the sanctity of life, there is no such in regards to private property. Property is not life.

If human is sacred, then along with abortion, a truly ethical person would also oppose the death penalty.

Just as I appreciated your post regarding the ACOG standard, the way the author related it is misleading. The author leaves the impression without emphatically stating it that abortions are actually being performed to end problematic pregnancies at any given point. False! I clarified the matter. The only kind of abortions performed to save the life of the mother entail those rare instances when the baby's life cannot be saved: ectopic pregnancies, abortions indeed, or induced miscarriages, roughly, during the first 20 weeks prior to viability, abortions in effect, when the mother fails to respond to stabilizing treatment for severe, life-threatening complications. Abortions are never performed on late-term pregnancies to save the life of the mother in the face of life-threatening complications. Emergency! Such procedures are time-consuming and invasive; they would kill most mothers in trauma at that stage. The first line of action is to treat the complications in order to stabilize the patient, then if necessary immediately terminate the pregnancy via induced labor or C-section. The baby is not killed, and the premi can either be saved in the infant ICU or it can't. The mother's life has always been thusly paramount in terms of medical treatment, before and after Roe v. Wade. Hello! When the baby cannot be saved, you know, it cannot be saved. You don't allow the mother to die in order to give a doomed premi, prior to viability, or an at-risk premi, after viability, a little extra time to live in the womb. In the first case, the child cannot be saved and to kill the mother to boot is insanity. In the second case, you kill both when the safest course of action is to save both; the mother first and hopefully the premi as well.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

As I said before, this confusion is spun by leftist, feminazi pieces of shit and the abortion industry.

Nothing would be done any differently by physicians were medically unnecessary, abortion on demand procedures of healthy pregnancies prohibited.

Moving on. . . .

You obviously appreciate the fact that morality precedes and informes criminal and civil law, not the other way around. Asclepias is an idiot. The sanctity of human life is the very principle informing the law, the underlying principle on which the law is predicated . . . or should be. The question I have for you is how in the world do you fail to grasp the underlying moral principle that humans have the fundamental right to be secure in the fruits of their intellect and labor, i.e. private property?

 

[Dragonlady]

Are you a male or female, I bet a male.

See, because men have NO RIGHTS to any opinion on THEIR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD, or whether they may have to PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR 18 YEARS.

I'll bet that you think that women in China who have their female babies aborted are undergoing a "barbaric practice." But killing equal numbers of boys and girls is just fine. It's really a "choice" over there. They want boys to support them in their old age. In America it's mere convenience based on Norma McCorvey's lie that she had been raped.

My Blog

No, what was "barbaric" was the idea that the state could tell people how many children they may have, and FORCE women to terminate the pregnancy, against their will.

It was the LACK OF CHOICE that made the Chinese government practices "barbaric". You would similary remove a woman's right to choose, although in your case you would force to have a child she cannot support.

 

[Asclepias]

So you would allow the mother to die instead?

I'm in favor of allowing abortion, when it is genuinely necessary to mitigate a serious and plausible risk to the life of the mother. I'm not happy with it, but really, in such a situation, there is no resolution that is to be happy with.

That is worlds away from your promotional, which allows an innocent child to be murdered for no greater reason than that his existence is inconvenient to those who ought to be most responsible for his life and his well-being. To support that is just plain evil.

The reality is that all medical procedures have risk, but giving birth has about 10 times the death rate risk of abortion.

abortion has a 100% death rate,,,

It should. It would be cruel to keep an unwanted fetus alive.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yeah I recognize there are clear, objective standards for right and wrong but I dont let hypocrites define them for me. I do that for myself.

That's how you get to thinking that it's OK to kill innocent children in cold blood.

That's also how you get to thinking that stealing and vandalism are OK.

 

[Asclepias]

Yeah I recognize there are clear, objective standards for right and wrong but I dont let hypocrites define them for me. I do that for myself.

That's how you get to thinking that it's OK to kill innocent children in cold blood.

That's also how you get to thinking that stealing and vandalism are OK.

Correct. Thats also how I get to knowing that I dont have the right to force a mother to carry a parasite to term.

 

[Ringtone]

No, what was "barbaric" was the idea that the state could tell people how many children they may have, and FORCE women to terminate the pregnancy, against their will.

It was the LACK OF CHOICE that made the Chinese government practices "barbaric". You would similary remove a woman's right to choose, although in your case you would force to have a child she cannot support.

Precisely! And the problem all along was the economically destructive and oppressive policies of Marxism. Now China faces the the duel crises of too few women to men in its population and the disaster of an aging population that can't replace itself fast enough.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Oh, would no amount of water "take" your life, Dr. Buddinsky? Would you like for Dr. HolierThanThou to come in and test that theory by waterboarding you for the next hour or so? Oh, what's wrong? Suddenly having a Hippocratic oath meltdown?

Waterboarding doesn't kill you.

Not always. Always torture though, huh.. Recall you specified "no amount of water".. So I added given an "hour" with no hint of a break.. Own it. You don't even try to be convincing, do you? Big hint on what to reasonably say next: see first three words of thread title..

Normally, water is poured intermittently to prevent death. However, if the water is poured uninterruptedly it will lead to death by asphyxia, also called dry drowning.

Duh.

 

[Ringtone]

It should. It would be cruel to keep an unwanted fetus alive.

And your talk of keeping unwanted "fetuses" alive and about how unborn human beings are parasites, when there are reams of couples who would happily provide a life and a home for newborns, when only monstrous pieces of waste talk about precious little ones as parasites, tells us all we need to know about your black, pathetic, disgusting soul. Though I have my own issues with Catholicism in general, the response of these soulless, heartless, vicious animals being churned out by our colleges is appalling, especially the faux female among them:



Behold the vile, vicious, violent racism, bigotry and infanticide, indeed, the mindless stupidity, of godless leftdom. Behold the degeneracy of those who regard the good to be evil, the evil to be good. Behold the barbarians against whom decent men will eventually have to take up arms to protect women and children, and preserve civilized society.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No, what was "barbaric" was the idea that the state could tell people how many children they may have, and FORCE women to terminate the pregnancy, against their will.

It was the LACK OF CHOICE that made the Chinese government practices "barbaric". You would similary remove a woman's right to choose, although in your case you would force to have a child she cannot support.

Precisely! And the problem all along was the economically destructive and oppressive policies of Marxism. Now China faces the the duel crises of too few women to men in its population and the disaster of an aging population that can't replace itself fast enough.

Don't like abortion? Simples. Don't have one.

 

[Grumblenuts]

there are reams of couples who would happily provide a life and a home for newborns

But none for fetuses. Oh, boo hoo hoo
Wait,..I know,.. Handmaids!

 

[Ringtone]

I was wrong... the health of the mother is not valid for an abortion.

The health of the mother has never been valid to rabid anti-abortion zealots - for any reason.

Behold, once again, we have an ill-informed, lefty slogan-spouter who doesn't really know the medical realities of the matter, an idiot spouting gibberish as if those who uphold the sanctity of human life against the tide of the godless, statist bootlick left don't care about the life of the mother, as if the prohibition of abortion on demand procedures would in any way, shape or form impinge on the well-being of mothers. Behold another brainwashed imbecile.

Review my posts and then attempt to refute the actualities, you are clueless, brainwashed fool.

 

[Ringtone]

Don't like abortion? Simples. Don't have one.

You infanticidal, leftist, godless piece of waste: you want an abortion, you pay for it on your own dime. You infanticidal bastards of statist boot lickery never stop at evil on your own time and dime. You always seek to empower the state to impose your murderous, inhuman degeneracy on others via taxation, via the state schools or some other governmentally funded entity.

STHP.