The Necessity of Abortion

To make sure I don't err, please repeat your answer.

 

Question: What other form of medicine results in the death of something natural, other than abortion?

My answer: Literally every single parasite treatment.

Is my answer inaccurate?

 

Yes it was.

Your answer was not to my question. Bacteria are natural. Carrots are natural, well, the organic ones are...

Earlier I misread your post altogether... Apologies again...

 

So you agree that there are lots of medical procedures that result in the deaths of natural things?

 

I suspect 99% of them do... You can't poke a needle in your arm without killing a few cells.

But I can only think of 1 medical procedure that is considered 'botched' if at least one human doesn't die.

 

Ok, what is your point?

No person’s right to life allows them to sustain their life using another person’s body against that person’s will.

 

If you tie a child to a rope and then dangle the child over a cliff, you are obligated to hold onto the rope.

 

What about if the child is dying and needs blood, am I obligated to give it blood and can the government force me to?

 

Legally, no. The law doesn't protect the innocent in many cases.

Morally, yes, if you are the one that caused the child to need blood in order to live.

 

Legally is what matters in this case. If the government cannot force a person to give up as replenishable resource as blood to save someone’s life, why do you think the government should force women to give up their bodies for months to save a someone’s life?

 

Slavery and Jim Crow were ince legal. Republicans were right to end both over the objections of the same party that still ignores human rights.

I believe in human rights, and therefore don't think a child should die because his/her mother used poor judgement.

 

No, you don’t believe in human rights. You believe ingiving specific humans rights that no other human has at the cost of the rights of others.

 

That is absurd.

But it is an expected response.

 

How is it absurd? You’ve already confirmed that no one has the right to force another person to give up something even so transitory and replenishable as blood to save another’s life, but you want to give certain people the special right to force others to give up their bodies for months.

 

That is not what I said.

You Anti-Life people don't quote others very well.

 

So then you agree the no person has the right to use another person’s body against that person’s will even if it’s necessary to save their own life and that this applies to all persons, including fetuses, yes?

 

Baloney. the quote feature works just FINE, it shows EXACTLY what each poster said...exactly....

 

Questerr said: ↑
No, you don’t believe in human rights. You believe ingiving specific humans rights that no other human has at the cost of the rights of others.

No, it is not absurd. You seem to want a fetus to have more rights than anyone else.

You want it to have the right to use a person's body to sustain it's life .

NO one else has that right

 

If one person causes another person's life to rely upon them, they are obligated to support that life.

Again, if one person ties another person and dangles that person from a cliff, they are obligated not to let go of the rope.

 

A woman cannot "cause" a fetus to depend on her for sustaining it's life....it just does.

She has no obligation to sustain it's life using her own body.

 

The baby didn't get there by magic. She put the baby there.

 

Get thee a book on biology...women do not "put" babies there.

She has no obligation to sustain it's life using her own body. NO one does.


YOU do not decide what an obligation is or isn't. There is no law that says she has an obligation to gestate....nor is there a reason.

 

What other form of medicine results in the death of something natural that is not threatening someones life, other than abortion?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ty-of-abortion.538174/page-93#post-1069613329

 

Which procedure?