A Challenge to Pro-lifers

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Fugazi, Mar 21, 2014.

  1. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Challenge :

    Find one single instance where a person has been forced by law to allow the use of their body, or parts there of, to sustain the life of another.

    I've asked this numerous times of pro-lifers and as yet not one has been able to provide a single time it has happened.
     
  2. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Haven't the pro-lifers gone quiet all of a sudden.
     
  3. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the only visitors you'll have in this thread are other choicers and the sounds of crickets chirping.
     
  4. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Never mind, plenty of other threads to ask the question in :)
     
  5. Gorn Captain

    Gorn Captain Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    35,580
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The analogy is quite simple to imagine...

    would they support a Government mandate or law that said "If such-and-such a person needs a blood transfusion (of a special type of blood type) to survive....another person can be FORCED to submit to the transfusion process or donate their blood."???
     
  6. SteveJa

    SteveJa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've mentioned a Texas law that forces hospitals to keep women on life support until fetal viability, if the fetus is alive and the woman is not legally dead
     
  7. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Law, lawful acts? Probably not the answer you're looking for but stem cell research using parts of unborn babies (well actually born of abortion) or how about concentration camps where people were part of experiments, against their will and self-defence instinct, that has benefited the bodily health of others? Or how about burning the bodies of those born of abortion to warm hospitals so patients and staff can remain comfortably heated? Would you consider their lives and bodies sacrificed to benefit or sustain another's life or well being?

    What if imprisoned people were allowed their freedom if they "donated" an organ to be transplanted into another person were a reality? If that is being done and no criminal charges have been brought...must be legal or at least for a time, no? Would this serve as an answer to your question?

    I think the law pointed out previously by SteveJa has best answered your question. The question now is, what do you do with the answer you sought?
     
  8. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ""Find one single instance where a person has been forced by law to allow the use of their body, or parts there of, to sustain the life of another.""


    Yup, no answers so far.....
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Law of nature or natural law pretty much puts that to shame.
     
  10. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Only the facts are offered.

    Only the facts are offered.

    going green you mean? Or too Horrific or Unbelievable to even contemplate the depths of inhumanity for this and all of the above noted in my post? http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/b...-aborted-miscarried-babies-to-heat-buildings/ ...kinda makes you wonder if those "volunteered" transplants take place somewhere doesn't it? Maybe a de facto law somewhere?
     
  11. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well as the unborn are not recognized as 'persons' then that one is a fail

    When was the last concentration camp around in the US? The discussion is on US law not on other countries laws.

    Citation required for that one.

    This would come under cohersion and or bribery, and could not be seen as an independent choice without pressure .. much like the so called pro-life clinics that attempt to bully pregnant women into not having an abortion.

    Yes seen that one and on first impression it would seem to meet the requirements, however on closer inspection it does not.

    The Texas law in question presumes that a person who cannot make an informed decision for themselves would always choose the most positive outcome, ergo the law acts on what is presumed would be the decision of the person in question .. much like it does for any other person who is deemed incapable of making an informed decision such as in cases of an underage girl giving consent to sex to a much older man, the courts presumption is that a minor can not make an informed decision on this and as such must have been pressurized into the consent by the man, or those deemed mentally incapable, they either have a 'responsible' adult to make decisions for them or a court will do so. This cannot be seen as forcing someone to allow their body to be used by another.

    BTW : This Texas law is not set in stone as can be seen from this case - http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/24/health/pregnant-brain-dead-woman-texas/
     
  12. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Care to expand on that?
     
  13. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    To be honest slavery laws had an economic impact on the well being and support for a select group of beneficiaries the world over.

    Time and understanding may bear out an appreciation for this dilemma, not unlike Dred Scott not being considered a person.



    WWII Americans of Japanese heritage internment (all nations have sinned). Didn't see the focus on US law.



    This law must certainly have the authority that any other law has over the elements that constitute it. Unless it is unconstitutional. Perhaps the law did not have authority over the circumstances unique to the ones that existed in this situation.
     
  14. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is not really the question asked .. lots of laws have economic impact on the well being and support.

    Problem is Dred Scott met the reasoning to be a person based on the constitution, a fetus doesn't.

    Really? I suspect even you would know there is a vast difference between a concentration camp and an internment camp. I mean have you any evidence that these Japanese Americans were forced to give up their body or parts of it?

    Perhaps an over site on my part, I just assumed as the majority of debates here are based around American law and abortion in the USA that my question would be seen as asked based on American law.

    Expand that please.
     
  15. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Slaves have and do sacrifice for their masters. Perhaps if you were to ask one they may feel their bodies are offered up for the benefit of their masters?



    Truly the problem is that Dred Scott's personhood, his inclusion as a citizen, in free society, mankind was denied, as are the aborted unborn.



    Do you see a distinction between a concentration camp and an extermination camp or are they one in the same for you? Perhaps, throughout history, a camp where a specific group or groups of people are kept for a period of time meets the definition of a concentration camp? Unless there is only one definition of this term?

    Laws have a purpose and are designed with specific parameters. The law has no authority for any circumstance that falls outside those parameters.
     
  16. Cady

    Cady Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,661
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So far, answers include slaves, concentration camp prisoners, and...women. Correct?
     
  17. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't forget humanity.
     
  18. Cady

    Cady Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,661
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "Humanity" doesn't fit as an answer to the OP.
     
  19. Cady

    Cady Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,661
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Don't you see the irony? Women are in the same category as slaves and concentration camp prisoners--those who are forced to use their bodies against their will. Where is the humanity in that?
     
  20. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tell you what you find a slave in the US and I'll try to ask them.

    Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, slavery was always unconstiutional abortion has never been.

    Concentration Camp - A place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution.

    internment camp - a prison camp for the confinement of enemy aliens, prisoners of war, political prisoners, etc.

    I see no mention of forced labour or mass execution relating to an internment camp .. but I'm sure you can show me where the Japanese Americans were forced into labour and/or subjected to executions.

    Sort of blows the UVVA out of the water then as far as using it to over rule Roe.
     
  21. Gorn Captain

    Gorn Captain Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    35,580
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dix....why is the fetus the "slave" in your analogy?

    It seems to be the MASTER. According to "pro-lifers", the fetus has dominance over the woman....its supposed "rights" take precedence over the woman's....and the desire of "pro-lifers" is that women are to become the de facto "property" of the State while pregnant, to defend the intra-uterine "master".

    As for Dred Scott....if a woman crosses from a "pro-life" State to a pro-choice State in some future America.....would the "pro-lifers" defend her right to have an abortion in the pro-choice State....or demand that she and her "unborn baby intact" be returned to the "pro-life" State?
     
  22. The Amazing Sam's Ego

    The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Pro-choicers view a fetus as a slave, and they believe that the woman's rights take precedence over the fetus's rights. I think the fetus's rights should override the woman's rights, because the fetus is innocent and has no responsibility.
     
  23. Gorn Captain

    Gorn Captain Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    35,580
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So by your very own argument, your personal feelings lead you to grant "slave" status to the woman...."master" status to the fetus, correct?
     
  24. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Saw it (irony/inhumanity) before I typed it.

    It (internment/extermination/enslavement and the powerless) hit you right away too, yes?

    Again I could see and expected your point to be published (though not from anyone in particular); can you see the same parallels for the willfully born aborted too?

    I see planned abortions of convenience as a circular crisis with at least three victims. Most arguments that you direct at one of the two primary victims (mother and child) you can apply to the other. When one is master the other must be the enslaved.

    Mankind often finds itself in conflict with its nature. A mother willfully participating in or allowing the killing her unborn child, seems to me, to be one example of that conflict and yet, she is still a victim, in my opinion. An empowered (for but a moment) victim but a victim nonetheless.
     
  25. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe what I posted for Cady (most recent) may answer a question.

    If your questions are not answered by that post; where one acts as a (de facto) master, the position of slave is likely thrust upon the other. I don't see parents/children as a master/slave relationship, but if it is then it is surely a destructive one for all concerned parties.

    If your free and slave states (diametrically opposed law/morality) rise again it will mean we learned nothing from history (and associated sacrifices) and Dred Scott's struggle (among others) will hold little meaning for those generations. But it may herald a reconstitution of the Tenth Amendment. Just looking at more than one side however it has been declared that a house divided against itself...back to learning nothing from history. Kinda cyclical ain't it?
     

Share This Page