mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

Because we as humans have decided we have the right to life, it is certainly not something that is unalienable or given by "god", merely something we have deemed for ourselves as the alpha life form on the planet.

I did an interesting thread on this topic (well I thought it was interesting anyway) - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/329575-abortion-violates-unalienable-right-life.html - where I laid out that the "right to life" as projected by pro-lifers is a myth.

 

So this right isnt actually anymore justified than its complete opposite?

I'll take a look.

 

I would agree with that, apart from the fact that the human race has decided it is different, and as the alpha species we do tend to make the rules.

Cheers

 

(sorry to reply in a different thread, but I thought this discussion would be more appropriate in this thread)

Couldn't it be seen as "tipping the scale" ? I mean, maybe there's a point in a pregnancy where it's a child, but it also sort of isn't. And in such an ambiguous case, retardation could be the deciding factor in whether it is wrong to abort, or at least whether the government should step in and protect the fetus.

Obviously retardation does not make it any less of a person (except perhaps maybe in very severe cases), but the line between murder and mercy killing can be a blurry one.
(Let me be clear and say that terminating a perfectly normal and healthy unborn life does not fall under the category of mercy killing)

I agree though, it's definitely a baby at 21 weeks, no doubt about it. This is the point I was originally getting at. If we know it is a person, is euthanizing the retarded somehow more acceptable when it is done inside the mother's womb?

If a ban was being pushed through to make abortion after 20 weeks illegal, including in the case of retardation, pro-choicers would be raising a firestorm. Yet I wonder how these same people feel about 'aborting' a retarded baby, which has already been born.

 

You can't "abort" a baby that already has been born.

This Pro-Choicers feels that killing a baby that has already been born is murder and I doubt there are any Pro-Choicers who disagree. I have never read or seen anything different nor any reason to "wonder".
THERE, now you know.

 

Until it is born, its a fetus. Upon birth its a baby. You cant be a baby that is "unborn." That's like saying you're an unborn dying old angry man, or an unborn nazi.

 

To Anti-Choicers if you CALL it a baby it IS, by magic, a baby........remember , they are terrified of science, facts, logic, thinking......

 

As far as I am concerned your whole argument is pointless, whether the fetus is "retarded" (your word) or not doesn't make a blind bit of difference to abortion .. instead of trying to formulate false equivalence arguments why don't you address the consent and self-defence issues instead of running away all the time.

 

topic continued from other thread:

You do realize you are accusing Sam of being inconsistent because he believes the retarded who are born are different than the retarded who are unborn.
Seems like a no-win situation here. If he says they are different, you accuse him of being inconsistent. If he says they are not different, you will accuse him of advocating the killing of little infants.

Or he could just say that retarded fetuses are not okay to abort. In which case I'm sure various pro-choicers who go on all sorts of tirades about how pro-lifers want to force a woman to have a retarded baby. Using it as more "evidence" to show how unreasonable and "extremist" pro-lifers are.
Either way, there's no winning.

I think I'm the only one with a consistent position here. And "pro-choicers" can't really point fingers at me because they're even worse.

 

What part of you or anyone else having a say on whether a woman aborts at all escapes you .. you are the one who consistently advocates for the murdering of newborn handicapped children, no one else. Trying to squirm away from your position of murdering born children is nothing short of total hypocrisy.

 

Texas waits till they grow up enouh to commit a crime they barely understand if at all, then they fry them.

 

What exactly is the difference between born and unborn again? You think it's less of a person because it's inside & hooked up to the mother?

 

I see you are still trying to foist your opinion onto me, please do show me where I have said that a fetus is less of a person, you cannot simply because you know as well as I do that my argument does not rely on the personhood status of the unborn .. remember I challenged you to debate that and you ran away.

Nice try though.

 

Are you saying that you do not think there is a big difference between inside and outside of the womb—other than it's a woman's choice?

I mean, you recognize a late-term fetus is basically the same type of entity as a baby that has been born?

 

nope not at all which of course you know very well, the difference is that inside the womb causes injuries to the woman which if are not consented to entitle her to use self defence to defend herself, outside of the womb that is not the case, so this false facade you portray is seen for what it is . .dishonesty.

Again I have not said that, I have said it doesn't matter in the slightest if the unborn are persons or not .. whether they are or not is a moot point as far as I am concerned.

You. like so many other pro-lifers, seem to be under this illusion that the personhood status of the fetus is paramount in the abortion issue when the reality is that it isn't.

 

Now all you have to do is supply to the second when a fetus becomes a late-term fetus.

 

Ok, so now Tell us exactly what is paramount in the abortion issue. And if you are using vague terms like " life" please provide your exact definition. And of course you could follow up with a discussion of why some types of life are more important than others.

 

I have no need to use vague terms like life, the paramount issue in abortion is not what the fetus is but what it does. I really couldn't care less if the courts decided tomorrow that the fetus has the same rights as the born, it wouldn't make much difference to elective abortion, in fact it would make a far stronger case for elective abortion at any time, for any reason AND the state having to pay for it.

A life only has as much value as another places upon it, and that is true for ALL life including human beings.

 

Yes, I have heard this argument made several times before in this forum, "the fetus only has as much value as the woman chooses to place in it", or something like that.

 

This logic doesnt really work for late term foetuses. Even if we assume that normal pregnancy can be considered an "injury" and the woman is entitled to self-defense, you do not need abortion to end the pregnancy after the foetus is viable.

 

Then, as usual, you are misrepresenting what I said or can you not read what is written and instead have to change things to suit your own desires.

I made no specification as to what life is of value or to whom it has value, simply the fact that ALL life only has as much value as another places upon it, that is true even of you especially as you don't value the life of a disabled new born the same as one born without disabilities, furthermore I can say will almost 100% certainty that if you had to choose between a family member dying and a woman having an abortion you would choose the abortion every time.

 

Hence why late-term abortions are only done in life threatening situations to the female or the fetus has a disability incompatible with life and are not something a woman who has carried the pregnancy to that point is going to elect to have.

 

We know this simply isn't true.

Late-term Abortions and the REAL reasons they are performed

 

and we all know you are full of BS as 16 weeks is not late-term. Love the way you link to a thread where you had your arse handed to you ie your argument was blown apart. The very same thread where you posted a video from a TV soap series and tried to pass it off as real.

Why oh why do you continue to link to old topics that you were soundly beaten in.

 

Pregnant woman who was told her child likely had Down's syndrome decided not to abort, found out baby was perfectly normal