mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Anders Hoveland, Dec 9, 2014.

  1. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was just pointing to the hypocrisy from the pro-choice crowd. If Lifers do want to ban one type of abortion but not another, choicers are quick to jump all over it and try to point of the inconsistency. "I thought you said it was a person. But you think murder is okay when they're disabled?"

    But if Lifers do not want there to be any exceptions, choicers scream bloody murder. "You want to force her to keep her rapists baby!" "You want to force the woman to have a baby, even when it's severely retarded!" "These children will be unwanted"
     
  2. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL! You conveniently label facts as hypocrisy.....there is no inconsistencies with Pro-Choicers but Anti-Choicers?..... always
     
  3. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What hypocrisy, the hypocrisy that states that pro-choice people don't want to force a woman to have an abortion or force her to give birth .. what you fail to understand (and I believe purposely) is that pro-choice is not about forcing any female to do anything, pro-lifers can NEVER say the same.

    If you cannot see the hypocrisy and ironic status of your own comments then you are blind.
     
  4. mikezila

    mikezila New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    23,299
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :omfg: you did NOT just say that a text book outweighs experience!? what is wrong with you?..oh, yeah...i forgot that you're a "progressive".
    you're the one that complains that indigestion is worse than being dismembered and picked apart by medical instruments. take a look in the mirror if you want to see intellectual dishonesty.
     
  5. mikezila

    mikezila New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    23,299
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    on second thought, maybe people that don't understand that children are extensions of their parents should be forcibly sterilized like CA use to do before the Germany took up the policy. people that feeble-minded will always be a burden on society.

    - - - Updated - - -

    when did i say i would? i just don't want to pay for you to kill your own child. i'll pay to raise it...no blood on my hands there.
     
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    """""""""""people that don't understand that children are extensions of their parents should be forcibly sterilized like CA""""""""""""


    You sure seem to enjoy FORCE....but that's not surprising...

    And I know you can't explain what people being an "extension of their parents" has to do with abortion.....
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, facts outweigh non-scientific anecdotal experiences...
     
  8. SteveJa

    SteveJa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nobody si saying pro-choice can't make decisions based on development. What pro-life argue is you have to protect the potential. I argue protect it up to the point it loses that potential, then it is OK to abort.
    And the Florida law needs to be rewritten to allow donation for non viable babies while they are alive if consent is given.
    And what you are arguing that a born baby born without a huge part of their brain being a person. Why is she a person and an unborn whose brain is developing and has potential to be a whole brain not? Answer she was born, that's the difference. another difference is she wasn't viable nor did she have potential to ever be viable and the unborn still has potential to be viable. The unborn deserves mroe protection in this case as the baby born without parts of the brain will die a few days after birth, while the unborn still has potential to be born and thrive.
    It is different in that pro-choice see no need to protect potential up until brain activity, while I advocate protecting it from the beginning as long as potential to be viable is there.
    It's not they are not developing the way I think they should, it's they aren't developing at all into what would medically be considered viable. I don't make the criteria on what it takes to be viable. If the unborn is lacking a part to become viable, then it loses its status. No different then a person losing their status as a person once they die.
    Takes more then a brain to be considered viable or having potential to survive outside the womb. You can be born with a fully functional brain and not be viable. without lungs you are not viable, without a heart you are not viable. There are other things like organs outside the body, no skull. True some things can't be detected until late in pregnancy, so the unborn would have to be protected up until that point, then the woman can abort if she wants. To terminate because oh it might not develop into a born human is wrong IMO. to terminate because it wont develop into a born human, or when born will die within a few days is OK IMO. At what point this is discovered is irrelevant.
     
  9. Zeffy

    Zeffy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The sound of crickets chirping.....
     
  10. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I said you need to actually learn what pregnancy is and does to the female body .. but nice try in misrepresenting what I said.

    Yet more cherry picking, really dishonest that you pick a minor issue that pregnancy causes and then try to expand it to something else, one hell of a false equivalence fallacy you have attempted to build, never mind if or when you ever decide to actually learn about what pregnancy is and does to a female body you might just penetrate beyond the right-wing propaganda.

    BTW, please do show where I have EVER "complained" that "indigestion is worse than being dismembered and picked apart by medical instruments", I know you can't, that makes you really dishonest.
     
  11. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suggest you look through the numerous comments on the numerous threads here that state exactly that.

    Point is we don't deem rights on what "might be", we deem rights on what is.

    Whether or not it should be re-written does not change the reality that it is the law now.

    You cannot predict what potential any person has let alone whether a fertilized ovum will result in a healthy born baby .. It is annoying that you are basically using exactly the same argument as many pro-choice people do except you are switching it for the potential to be protected until such time the potential is not a reality, where as the pro-choice argument is that it is not protected until the potential becomes reality.

    Just as I noted above .. can you tell me in what other circumstances the potential of something is given rights pertaining to human beings?

    Medical definition of viable is - able to maintain an independent existence; able to live after birth. - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/viable - In picture I provided the submissive Chimera twin most certainly had the ability to live after birth, as it did for 10 years before being surgically removed. If you are sticking to the definition then that submissive Chimera twin had the same right to live as the girl with two heads, both fail the first part of the definition ie able to maintain an independent existence, both meet the criteria of the second part of the definition ie able to live after birth.

    A person losses the status of personhood at death because they are dead, the submissive Chimera twin I showed you was not dead.

    Already shown you the medical definition of viable.

    None of these things relate to viability, nor do they relate to the personhood of the person once born.

    So again protecting something that is unknown and in doing so removing rights from something that is known.

    and that is fine, you are free to live you live that way .. however, that does not mean you can impose that opinion onto others via weight of law.

    Then who decides what criteria is required in order to be a human being, because by the criteria you have set - viability - the submissive chimera twin meets the definition, perhaps not your definition but certainly the medical one.
     
  12. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. The developing child might have an abnormality. The child might not survive. A baby, either born extremely prematurely or one diagnosed with Down, might turn out to be severely mentally retarded. It might pose a risk to the woman.

    All these are just maybes. But abortion imposes an absolute certainty.
     
  13. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except for the majority of abortions performed at the latter stages the probability of the "might" is well above the probability of the "might not" .. but as usual you are missing the point anyway .. If someone says to you that climbing that mountain might result in a fall and you being injured, you still have the choice whether you take the risk or not, that is the choice you want to remove from the woman . .the choice as to whether she takes the risk or not, you want her to be forced to abide by what you consider the "right choice"
     
  14. justonemorevoice

    justonemorevoice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    20,592
    Likes Received:
    697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simply: no.
     
  15. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't think the unborn should be aborted when they are retarded? What if it's really early?
     
  16. justonemorevoice

    justonemorevoice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    20,592
    Likes Received:
    697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmmm...how many ways can you interpret "no?"
     
  17. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is the same old thing with that poster, he will keep moving the goalposts until someone says, well yes that is ok and then he will claim that pro-choicers all want to abort disabled foetuses at 36 weeks.
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think society should allow for infanticide and we should definitely euthanize people who are not wanted and do not wish to be alive.
     
  19. Ghost2282

    Ghost2282 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shouldn't everyone have the right to live though?
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course they should but a fetus isn't an "everyone" ...it's not a person.
     
  21. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everyone has the right to life, no one has the right to life at the expense of another person.
     
  22. Zeffy

    Zeffy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. Some people forfeit the right to live when they commit heinous crimes. No person has the right to live off the bodily resources of another against that other's will.
     
  23. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How so?
     
  24. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Take it in context with the rest of my comment - "Everyone has the right to life, no one has the right to life at the expense of another person." - in essence we all have the right to life when that right does not infringe upon other peoples right to life or right to decide, who, what, where and when our bodies are used by others.

    Even a fetus has the right to life, what it does not have is the right to use another persons body without consent in order to sustain that life.
     
  25. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why do we have a right to life when its not at the expense of another and why not when it is at the expense of another?
     

Share This Page