(04-17-2015 12:18 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:17 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 11:33 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  If we are considering a heartbeat to be life, it should be illegal to remove a ventilator or end nutrition/water to people that are braindead.

Well except one life that is artificially supported would otherwise die and one that is naturally supported would otherwise live.

Still needs to be supported by the mothers body at that point...

Life supporting life =/= Machine supporting life.

These murderers will get what is due to them in time.

(04-22-2015 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 07:21 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:10 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Whatever we do...let's not let the mother, her family and the doctor decide...let government decide. So says the small government loving pro-life conservatives...who are we to argue with that hypocrisy? It's not like they're also in favor of the death penalty or anything.

You have to understand that most pro life people view this the same way as murder, you wouldn't argue against government laws on murder would you? No, neither would conservatives.

As a pro choice-ish person, who was formerly pro life, I see where both sides are coming from. MOST pro-lifers see it it as taking an innocent human life, on purpose. Which is at the very least, manslaughter. So yes, it would make logical sense they want the government involved in that, as they want protection for the right of the unborn life.

Most pro life people are not interested in restricting the rights of women, they see the woman's right to do as she pleases end when it comes to the life of the unborn. Similar to I have the right to swing my fist till it contacts your face.

Until there is a full consensus on when life begins and ends, we will have the same arguments time and time again.

And I'm right there with you. I only support abortion being an option for the mother for a viable fetus when there is a health issue (any health issue agreed to the doctor...even a mental health one) or in the cases of rape and incest.

And I agree...we need to come up with a tight window and create a legal definition of viable as agreed to by the treating physician.

As long as you keep leaving such language in, abortion will be legal for any reason at any time.

So...Paul doesn't trust accredited doctors to be honest so he wants to ban all abortions. What could possibly happen next?

Accredited doctors will do abortions now for any reason at any time. Nothing in your language changes that.

Point to my post "he wants to ban all abortions."

(04-22-2015 10:30 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 07:21 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:10 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  You have to understand that most pro life people view this the same way as murder, you wouldn't argue against government laws on murder would you? No, neither would conservatives.

As a pro choice-ish person, who was formerly pro life, I see where both sides are coming from. MOST pro-lifers see it it as taking an innocent human life, on purpose. Which is at the very least, manslaughter. So yes, it would make logical sense they want the government involved in that, as they want protection for the right of the unborn life.

Most pro life people are not interested in restricting the rights of women, they see the woman's right to do as she pleases end when it comes to the life of the unborn. Similar to I have the right to swing my fist till it contacts your face.

Until there is a full consensus on when life begins and ends, we will have the same arguments time and time again.

And I'm right there with you. I only support abortion being an option for the mother for a viable fetus when there is a health issue (any health issue agreed to the doctor...even a mental health one) or in the cases of rape and incest.

And I agree...we need to come up with a tight window and create a legal definition of viable as agreed to by the treating physician.

As long as you keep leaving such language in, abortion will be legal for any reason at any time.

So...Paul doesn't trust accredited doctors to be honest so he wants to ban all abortions. What could possibly happen next?

Accredited doctors will do abortions now for any reason at any time.

No Paul, they don't.

Solution is simple:

Those who believe abortion is not murder should just self-abort themselves immediately and solve their own problem.

That will go a long way to reducing the planet's overpopulation, overuse of resources and living in a terrible world that most of them say they are so concerned with. (But I somehow doubt they are really sincere about it, when it means taking direct action themselves instead of shifting responsibility to take away the choice of others who may disagree.)

Or you could register the intent to abort with the state, let them take over, and when the child is old enough just ask them if they believe in abortion. If they say yes, kill them and you're done. That way they get a choice, and you are pro-choice, meaning everyone should have a right to do with their own bodies what they wish, right?

Everyone is happy. (No charges will be pressed.)

Next!