Why Abortion And Euthanasia Should Be Legal

[koshergrl]

Actually, killing a child because he's ill is barbaric.

Illness just happens.

 

[Casjah]

Actually, killing a child because he's ill is barbaric.

Illness just happens.

No. According to the article, the child was dying- being starved to death. That is a separate matter from a mere illness. It is barbaric to allow someone to starve to death.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it's illness, nutbag. It's not someone intentionally starving a kid.

Intentionally starving someone to death is what happened to Teri Schiavo..I'm sure you were all about that.

But this is about murdering a child based on a diagnosis.

 

[Againsheila]

Actually, killing a child because he's ill is barbaric.

Illness just happens.

No. According to the article, the child was dying- being starved to death. That is a separate matter from a mere illness. It is barbaric to allow someone to starve to death.

Starvation is one of the most painless ways to go, especially if you are getting morphine.

 

[RKMBrown]

I cannot imagine how a newborn could go so long without food. The article says, "..after 13 days of no food and 11 days of no fluid he passed away.." No one can go 11 days with no fluid." And 13 days with no food would be a challenge for an adult, but not possible for a newborn. Also, it seems to me like it would be unlikely that the entire small intestine would have died. Something is just off with this story.

But going on the assumption that the facts are correct, I would not have allowed anyone to starve to death. In the case of a small child, I would leave it up to the parents in a hospital setting to decide about a course of action. If absolutely nothing could be done, there is no sense in allowing a child to starve to death. That is barbaric.

You are so full of shit it's coming out of every one of your orifices. Millions of infants murdered in the womb. And for what? To save the mother from the horror of having to raise a child? How many children have you helped kill to save yourself some time, and money? Or is it the one day of child birth or carrying the baby to term? What angers you so much with babies that you want to kill them rather than give them the gift of life?

Can the woman be forced to be a mother after the child is born?

Are we not taxed to provide said nurturing? Takes a village.... Isn't that the current law of the land?

 

[Dot Com]

the baby’s small intestine appeared to be blocked, so my sister was transferred to John Hunter Hospital. The surgeon said baby Jailan had bowel atresia and that when he was 12 hours old he would be sent to theatre to cut out the blockage and reattach the intestines.

have the clingers ever considered that this was their sky pixie''s will?

 

[LiberalatHeart]

The sate has no right to interfere with women's right to choose, those who think that are simpletons. This is a complicated matter (I do not agree with late term abortions btw, I believe it is fine within the first trimester). You cannot tell a woman that it is wrong to do something that you have NO BUSINESS in...Also, beating hearts are not a good argument. Tell that to all of those veggie-heads that are in the hospital, are they alive...sure, as about as alive as a vegetable. You guys are so quick to judge and keep these FETUS"S alive UNTIL birth, then you guys switch talking points. Then those single women and teens are called whores and moochers....yea, that is real American.

Ignorant fucks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is something wrong in our society when only the mother can decide if the baby is a baby or a fetus.

Whom else would you suggest decide, the state?

Currently when the life of a child is threatened by its parents, law enforcement intercedes. All that needs to be done is use the same measure used for proof of death as proof of life. Beating heart? Then you are alive.

In your subjective, personal opinion, not as a fact of law.

And you confuse criminal law – a child abused or neglected by his parents – with civil law – the right of the woman to decide personal, private matters absent unwarranted interference by the state – where prior to viability the mother’s wishes are paramount.

Indeed, the last thing we want is government bureaucrats and politicians deciding when life begins – where each individual makes that determination himself in the context of his faith or beliefs and in accordance with his own good conscience.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is something wrong in our society when only the mother can decide if the baby is a baby or a fetus.

Whom else would you suggest decide, the state?

How about the father?

The Supreme Court has already wisely and correctly ruled on that issue:

If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[RKMBrown]

Whom else would you suggest decide, the state?

Currently when the life of a child is threatened by its parents, law enforcement intercedes. All that needs to be done is use the same measure used for proof of death as proof of life. Beating heart? Then you are alive.

In your subjective, personal opinion, not as a fact of law.

And you confuse criminal law – a child abused or neglected by his parents – with civil law – the right of the woman to decide personal, private matters absent unwarranted interference by the state – where prior to viability the mother’s wishes are paramount.

Indeed, the last thing we want is government bureaucrats and politicians deciding when life begins – where each individual makes that determination himself in the context of his faith or beliefs and in accordance with his own good conscience.

I see. So if I have no conscience I should be free to kill millions based merely on a personal belief that some races or other classifications are subhuman.

 

[koshergrl]

Whom else would you suggest decide, the state?

Currently when the life of a child is threatened by its parents, law enforcement intercedes. All that needs to be done is use the same measure used for proof of death as proof of life. Beating heart? Then you are alive.

In your subjective, personal opinion, not as a fact of law.

And you confuse criminal law – a child abused or neglected by his parents – with civil law – the right of the woman to decide personal, private matters absent unwarranted interference by the state – where prior to viability the mother’s wishes are paramount.

Indeed, the last thing we want is government bureaucrats and politicians deciding when life begins – where each individual makes that determination himself in the context of his faith or beliefs and in accordance with his own good conscience.

Life begins at conception. Nobody except brain dead morons contests that.

The argument is whether or not an individual has the right to end that life, based on whether or not that life is dependent upon them.

Of course it's a criminal matter. Just as it's a criminal matter when someone stands by and allows a child that is not in their care to walk into traffic. You have an obligation to protect vulnerable life, regardless of whether or not it *belongs* to you, and whether or not you lay claim to it. While it is in your care, you are responsible for it, and killing it is not an acceptable method of discharging your duty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Currently when the life of a child is threatened by its parents, law enforcement intercedes. All that needs to be done is use the same measure used for proof of death as proof of life. Beating heart? Then you are alive.

In your subjective, personal opinion, not as a fact of law.

And you confuse criminal law – a child abused or neglected by his parents – with civil law – the right of the woman to decide personal, private matters absent unwarranted interference by the state – where prior to viability the mother’s wishes are paramount.

Indeed, the last thing we want is government bureaucrats and politicians deciding when life begins – where each individual makes that determination himself in the context of his faith or beliefs and in accordance with his own good conscience.

Life begins at conception. Nobody except brain dead morons contests that.

The argument is whether or not an individual has the right to end that life, based on whether or not that life is dependent upon them.

Of course it's a criminal matter. Just as it's a criminal matter when someone stands by and allows a child that is not in their care to walk into traffic. You have an obligation to protect vulnerable life, regardless of whether or not it *belongs* to you, and whether or not you lay claim to it. While it is in your care, you are responsible for it, and killing it is not an acceptable method of discharging your duty.

In your personal, subjective opinion, not as a fact of law, thankfully. See: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

The right to privacy in the context of substantive due process is a fundamental tenet of individual liberty, a liberty the state may not preempt, including the right of a woman to decide whether or not to have a child.

Which means you shouldn’t have an abortion if that’s your belief.

Fortunately the Constitution protects citizens from personal, subjective opinions becoming part of secular law, where those who believe abortion is ‘wrong’ are at liberty to express that belief, but are not at liberty to seek to codify it.

 

[koshergrl]

Law doesn't determine when life begins.

Scientifically and biologically speaking, the life of a human begins at conception.

*yawn*.

""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]"

 

[koshergrl]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

 

[koshergrl]

Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

 

[koshergrl]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Law doesn't determine when life begins.

No one ever said it did.

Again, as we see in Casey, the Court wisely and correctly left that determination up to each individual, as deciding when life begins is not the purview of the courts, or the state, or a governing entity, or a majority of voters, for that matter.

Prior to viability, the woman alone makes that decision.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I am sorry you lost your longed for 'babies', but that doesn't give you the right to expect women to carry an unwanted child to term.

What is conveniently ignored are the abortions that end a wanted pregnancy.

I've read that as many as 2/3 of all abortions ended a wanted pregnancy.

 

[Dot Com]

Law doesn't determine when life begins.

No one ever said it did.

Again, as we see in Casey, the Court wisely and correctly left that determination up to each individual, as deciding when life begins is not the purview of the courts, or the state, or a governing entity, or a majority of voters, for that matter.

Prior to viability, the woman alone makes that decision.

^ that. We use Blacks Law dictionary NOT koshergirl's creationism dictionary

koshergirl seems to want to ram her ideology down everyone else's throats, the law be damned. Wonder if she is familiar w/ the phrase "we are a nation of laws, not of men"

 

[Luddly Neddite]

any anti-choicers on this thread NOT Repub/t party voters?

I'm libertarian not republican. Defending the right of the baby to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Heart beating? Then you are an American with rights, IMO.

Except if that beating heart belongs to a homosexual, transgender, a person of color or a woman.

Before you can BE a Libertarian, you first must know what it means.

From your posts, I'd say you're t-potty, through and through.