Roe v. Wade 1973 Rethought: is it More Humane to Terminate?

[Votto]

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

It is the mother who has to gestate the fetus. The father doesn’t even have to be in the picture other than for the act of inseminating her.

The fetus is not yet a “being”, it is the potential of life. If the mother feels strongly that this is a baby she wants to carry, or if she believes, as you do, that the fetus is already a person and has rights, she is free to act on her beliefs.

If, however, the mother does not believe as you do, and does not, for whatever reason believe that giving life and birth to a child is in her best interests or that of her family, by what right should you be able to tell her she’s wrong and cannot do this.

I also note that you are opposed to providing financial assistance to those who can’t afford to have the children you would force them to bear. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to raise and then tell her not to expect to help her raise it.

You can’t call the tune if you’re not willing to pay the piper.

According to Dims, none of us is an island unto him or her self. We all are dependent upon each other and need to care for each other no matter how bad off we are nor matter how bad we are. Who are we to judge........ unless you are the unborn.

Unless you’re living in the woods, growing and hunting you own food, making all your own utensils, weaving your own cloth and sewing your own clothes, we are all dependent on one another. We may compensate them for the things others do for us but to say that we can get along without other people doing things for us is to deny the reality of modern life.

So a fetus should be considered human or everyone is fair game to be killed except for those living in the woods?

You are confusing the hell out of me here.

 

[Votto]

Yeah, what I can't understand is how do they call themselves Progressives & Liberals, when the only sanctity of life are those that break the law

Maybe they don't accept you as an authority as to when life begins? To some conservatives it seems life begins at conception and ends at birth.

And when did I say I was an authority? I didn't.

Life begins and ends with the beat of the heart, in my opinion.

Not an unreasonable opinion but I would tie 'life' to brain function not heartbeat.

BTW, when you say 'sanctity of life' you're implying you know what is 'life' and what is not.

Left wingers know every thing don't ya know.

All debates are settled and now all that is needed is to legislate their enlightenment into law with endless propaganda to just get others to see so they will agree.

 

[WillMunny]

Actually, I support retroactive abortion up to the 18th year of the kid's life. If parents see that their human larva will be nothing but a train wreck in life, I believe they have a civic duty to humanely put their crotch-fruit out of everyone else's misery.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yeah, what I can't understand is how do they call themselves Progressives & Liberals, when the only sanctity of life are those that break the law

Maybe they don't accept you as an authority as to when life begins? To some conservatives it seems life begins at conception and ends at birth.

And when did I say I was an authority? I didn't.

Life begins and ends with the beat of the heart, in my opinion.

Not an unreasonable opinion but I would tie 'life' to brain function not heartbeat.

BTW, when you say 'sanctity of life' you're implying you know what is 'life' and what is not.

Left wingers know every thing don't ya know.

All debates are settled and now all that is needed is to legislate their enlightenment into law with endless propaganda to just get others to see so they will agree.

Just agree with them. The babies of liberals, blacks and hispanics aren't human and can be killed with impunity.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

It is the mother who has to gestate the fetus. The father doesn’t even have to be in the picture other than for the act of inseminating her.

The fetus is not yet a “being”, it is the potential of life. If the mother feels strongly that this is a baby she wants to carry, or if she believes, as you do, that the fetus is already a person and has rights, she is free to act on her beliefs.

If, however, the mother does not believe as you do, and does not, for whatever reason believe that giving life and birth to a child is in her best interests or that of her family, by what right should you be able to tell her she’s wrong and cannot do this.

I also note that you are opposed to providing financial assistance to those who can’t afford to have the children you would force them to bear. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to raise and then tell her not to expect to help her raise it.

You can’t call the tune if you’re not willing to pay the piper.

Did you miss the part about me being anti-legislation? I’m not trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. I’m raising a point about the morality of the situation.

You say the fetus is not yet a being, but there’s no basis for this assertion. Who can say when life begins? It never does, really, it just sort of transfers, or emerges from other life, and it’s difficult to say when we can call it a life of its own.

Whether or not a family can afford a child and maintain their lifestyle is not a consideration. Evolved beings do not kill people to avoid being broke.

 

[Dragonlady]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

It is the mother who has to gestate the fetus. The father doesn’t even have to be in the picture other than for the act of inseminating her.

The fetus is not yet a “being”, it is the potential of life. If the mother feels strongly that this is a baby she wants to carry, or if she believes, as you do, that the fetus is already a person and has rights, she is free to act on her beliefs.

If, however, the mother does not believe as you do, and does not, for whatever reason believe that giving life and birth to a child is in her best interests or that of her family, by what right should you be able to tell her she’s wrong and cannot do this.

I also note that you are opposed to providing financial assistance to those who can’t afford to have the children you would force them to bear. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to raise and then tell her not to expect to help her raise it.

You can’t call the tune if you’re not willing to pay the piper.

Did you miss the part about me being anti-legislation? I’m not trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. I’m raising a point about the morality of the situation.

You say the fetus is not yet a being, but there’s no basis for this assertion. Who can say when life begins? It never does, really, it just sort of transfers, or emerges from other life, and it’s difficult to say when we can call it a life of its own.

Whether or not a family can afford a child and maintain their lifestyle is not a consideration. Evolved beings do not kill people to avoid being broke.

We call it a life of its own when the child is born.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

It is the mother who has to gestate the fetus. The father doesn’t even have to be in the picture other than for the act of inseminating her.

The fetus is not yet a “being”, it is the potential of life. If the mother feels strongly that this is a baby she wants to carry, or if she believes, as you do, that the fetus is already a person and has rights, she is free to act on her beliefs.

If, however, the mother does not believe as you do, and does not, for whatever reason believe that giving life and birth to a child is in her best interests or that of her family, by what right should you be able to tell her she’s wrong and cannot do this.

I also note that you are opposed to providing financial assistance to those who can’t afford to have the children you would force them to bear. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to raise and then tell her not to expect to help her raise it.

You can’t call the tune if you’re not willing to pay the piper.

Did you miss the part about me being anti-legislation? I’m not trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. I’m raising a point about the morality of the situation.

You say the fetus is not yet a being, but there’s no basis for this assertion. Who can say when life begins? It never does, really, it just sort of transfers, or emerges from other life, and it’s difficult to say when we can call it a life of its own.

Whether or not a family can afford a child and maintain their lifestyle is not a consideration. Evolved beings do not kill people to avoid being broke.

We call it a life of its own when the child is born.

That’s silly. There’s no difference between a baby that was born, and that same baby 2 minutes before.

 

[Bush92]

The relevant question is, "Would killing such a being be a violation of their natural law rights", and I believe it would. We did not create them, we are in no position to judge the validity of their existence.

Anyone here familiar with "The Hermit of Gully Lake"? This guy lived alone in the woods for like 60 years, and near the end, the town started applying pressure for him to see doctors and move into the town where he could be taken care of. He wanted no part of it, but they kept pushing "for his own good". The poor fella ran off and died in the snow.

You don't get to violate people's inherent rights and freedoms, however good your intentions are. That's the one thing both right and left need to understand. Whether you want to feed the poor, or protect the nation, you have no right to condone stealing other people's wealth by violent coercion (i.e. taxes), or support any law that one man makes for another, outside the scope of natural law. I know it sucks not to be able to control the world, but that's your lot as a human being. We've got accept it, and start behaving with the moral responsibly of mature individuals.

Interesting that you would violate the rights of women to decide whether or not they can care for another life that they did in fact create. Your position gives more rights to that life than you give to it’s creators.

First, it’s important to mention that I am not in favor of legislation. I don’t mean on this topic, I mean in general. So you have little to fear from me.

My interest in this discussion is whether it’s moral to abort a fetus. It’s a very difficult subject, and honestly, I don’t believe mankind yet has a thorough enough understanding of morality to answer it definitively. I don’t know that I would wholly ascribe the title “creator” to the mother. At the very most she is only half-creator, and then there are metaphysical questions to consider.

In any case, I do not value one person’s rights over another’s. But that fetus is not merely another part of a mother’s body. This is evident by the fact that her body cannot create one on its own, but requires another person to contribute something that is not intrinsic to her own biology. Her pregnancy does not occur unilaterally, and so there are other people to consider besides just the mother.

The fetus could be considered one of those people. We would say so a year later, so why not at inception? Aborting a fetus may very well be a violation of that new being’s rights, and that’s something worth considering in earnest.

It is the mother who has to gestate the fetus. The father doesn’t even have to be in the picture other than for the act of inseminating her.

The fetus is not yet a “being”, it is the potential of life. If the mother feels strongly that this is a baby she wants to carry, or if she believes, as you do, that the fetus is already a person and has rights, she is free to act on her beliefs.

If, however, the mother does not believe as you do, and does not, for whatever reason believe that giving life and birth to a child is in her best interests or that of her family, by what right should you be able to tell her she’s wrong and cannot do this.

I also note that you are opposed to providing financial assistance to those who can’t afford to have the children you would force them to bear. Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to raise and then tell her not to expect to help her raise it.

You can’t call the tune if you’re not willing to pay the piper.

Did you miss the part about me being anti-legislation? I’m not trying to tell them what they can or cannot do. I’m raising a point about the morality of the situation.

You say the fetus is not yet a being, but there’s no basis for this assertion. Who can say when life begins? It never does, really, it just sort of transfers, or emerges from other life, and it’s difficult to say when we can call it a life of its own.

Whether or not a family can afford a child and maintain their lifestyle is not a consideration. Evolved beings do not kill people to avoid being broke.

We call it a life of its own when the child is born.

Life begins at conception.

 

[Bush92]

To me the bottom line is that decent, moral conservatives generally do not have abortions.

Self absorbed leftists do.

As long as no taxes are used, we as a society do not share guilt.

I think all libturds should be sterilized, but as long as they can have abortions I won't stand in the way.

.

Do, only immoral conservatives have abortions

I don’t see this as a liberal or conservative issue.

 

[Bush92]

Why is abortion bad but war good?

Eh conservatives?

People choose to go to war. The unborn do not have a voice.

 

[Bush92]

To me the bottom line is that decent, moral conservatives generally do not have abortions.

Self absorbed leftists do.

As long as no taxes are used, we as a society do not share guilt.

I think all libturds should be sterilized, but as long as they can have abortions I won't stand in the way.

.

"Moral conservative" is a charade. The proof is in trump's pudding.

Conservatives have morals. Marxist do not.

 

[JoeB131]

The Nazi Holocaust did not begin with large-scale concentration camps, and factorized mass-killings.

It began with small-scale identification and killing of those deemed substandard due to handicaps.

This is how it began then, and this is how it is beginning now.

Um... Okay, we've been aborting defective babies by decades... So by your time scale... Um, we might get to the death camps in 100 years, maybe.

Providing the Corporate Types don't render the planet uninhabitable before they fly off in their Gold Plated Spaceships.

 

[grainbely]

To me the bottom line is that decent, moral conservatives generally do not have abortions.

Self absorbed leftists do.

As long as no taxes are used, we as a society do not share guilt.

I think all libturds should be sterilized, but as long as they can have abortions I won't stand in the way.

.

"Moral conservative" is a charade. The proof is in trump's pudding.

Conservatives have morals. Marxist do not.

Nice platitude. Keep your head in the sand, bruh. I'll be over here asking what happened to the conservative gop. No longer care about deficits and debt. No longer care about morals, ethics, or integrity in their leaders as multiple have fallen from grace with gross sex scandals and endless dishonesty. No longer care about the American dream or the middle class while they legislate financial benefits for non-citizen corporations and monopolies. No longer care about the law as they shout down Mueller who is uncovering the Trump crime syndicate, and they cheer for possibly the worst judicial nominees in history. Good job.

 

[Coyote]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

That is the real ethical dilemma...

 

[g5000]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

 

[The VOR]

To me the bottom line is that decent, moral conservatives generally do not have abortions.

Self absorbed leftists do.

As long as no taxes are used, we as a society do not share guilt.

I think all libturds should be sterilized, but as long as they can have abortions I won't stand in the way.

.

"Moral conservative" is a charade. The proof is in trump's pudding.

Conservatives have morals. Marxist do not.

Nice platitude. Keep your head in the sand, bruh. I'll be over here asking what happened to the conservative gop. No longer care about deficits and debt. No longer care about morals, ethics, or integrity in their leaders as multiple have fallen from grace with gross sex scandals and endless dishonesty. No longer care about the American dream or the middle class while they legislate financial benefits for non-citizen corporations and monopolies. No longer care about the law as they shout down Mueller who is uncovering the Trump crime syndicate, and they cheer for possibly the worst judicial nominees in history. Good job.

They truly are the Party of No Values.

 

[The VOR]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

I'm expecting a "but, but, but Bill Clinton...", reply coming soon from the hypocritical scumbag bush92.

 

[Bush92]

To me the bottom line is that decent, moral conservatives generally do not have abortions.

Self absorbed leftists do.

As long as no taxes are used, we as a society do not share guilt.

I think all libturds should be sterilized, but as long as they can have abortions I won't stand in the way.

.

"Moral conservative" is a charade. The proof is in trump's pudding.

Conservatives have morals. Marxist do not.

Nice platitude. Keep your head in the sand, bruh. I'll be over here asking what happened to the conservative gop. No longer care about deficits and debt. No longer care about morals, ethics, or integrity in their leaders as multiple have fallen from grace with gross sex scandals and endless dishonesty. No longer care about the American dream or the middle class while they legislate financial benefits for non-citizen corporations and monopolies. No longer care about the law as they shout down Mueller who is uncovering the Trump crime syndicate, and they cheer for possibly the worst judicial nominees in history. Good job.

Conservatives care about citizens...that why a wall is going up and sanctuary cities coming to an end. Conservatives have helped the middle-class with a tax cut and putting an end to the Obamacare tax. Conservatives care about the American Dream that’s why President Trump is hitting back at unfair trade practices by China that have helped cost millions of Americans jobs in manufacturing. DJT choice for Supreme Court was brilliant and when Ginsburg finally gorks out he will get another pick as well. The talk of a Trump “crime syndicate” is proof positive that you are a paranoid nut jobber that watches too much CNN and MSNBC opinion shows. Also, I get the vibe that your one of these communist Antifa terrorists that need to be eradicated like the cockroaches that they are. Liberals have ruined our nation. Oh...speaking of morals...do I have to post AGAIN a gay pride parade in front of small children?

 

[Bush92]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

I'm expecting a "but, but, but Bill Clinton...", reply coming soon from the hypocritical scumbag bush92.

Sure I could post about Clinton’s. Or I could post about the Kennedy’s, or Barney Frank, or many other liberals with low morals.

 

[Bush92]

Is more humane to terminate a life if you know that the quality of life will be one of horrible circumstance? Would you want a person to live on this earth under constant health care unable to brush their own teeth, wallowing in their own feces? Would not the more logical and loving thing to do is to terminate that life?
Attitudes to disability and termination | Topics, Antenatal Screening, Pregnancy & children, People's Experiences | healthtalk.org

I'm expecting a "but, but, but Bill Clinton...", reply coming soon from the hypocritical scumbag bush92.

High liberal morals...