http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/ Can we stop with the "Obama approves of infanticide," now?
So "families and physicians" should be awarded god-like powers over infants--including even the decision as to whether they should be killed or not? (No, we are not talking, here, about the child in question "pass[ing] on naturally." That is a red herring.)
The term, "Anti-Choice" (caps in original) is intended to engender resentment, rather than to provoke actual thought. The same with "Anti-Freedom" and "Anti-Woman." And, yes, I am opposed to the "choice" of some to murder an infant--an infant that is no longer even in the womb, but is lying somewhere on a table. Are you in favor of the "choice" to do precisely that? (Note: This is not the proper place for a rant as concerning the matter of abortion in general, as that is not the subject at hand...)
So, the "medical professionals" are now gods of a sort, who are empowered to decide who, among the most vulnerable, is allowed to live, and who would be better off dead? I have no reason to suppose that those who are skilled in one specific area--whether that area is medicine, law, engineering, or anything else--are automatically competent to override the bedrock principle of the sanctity (and therefore, the inviolability) of innocent human life...
People who want to force women to give birth are ANTI-CHOICE, they want the woman's FREEDOM to have a choice taken away...that is ANTI-WOMAN .too bad those words make you resentful....maybe you should consider chagning your stance.....
Just as the terms "Pro-Abortion", "Pro Murder", Baby Killer"....etc are intended to engender resentment. One major difference being no one is truly Promoting Abortion, Pushing for Murder, or hoping to kill babies.....whereas Pro Lifers do indeed seem to be against allowing a woman to have this choice. Also, I see a very large difference between trying to kill the infant "lying on the table", and not trying to save it....are you perhaps trying to engender resentment?
Hmmm, so if I were to lock my kids in a closet and allow them to starve to death, then in your mind that would be different than actively killing them? Because really, there is no difference. Both result in a dead child. The results are the same, so the means makes no difference.
Actually Anti-Choice is a misnomer as is Pro-choice. I'm for choice in a lot more things than I would bet you are. I want to chose what gun I can buy, voucher choice, what lightbulb I can use among many other choices that the go'vt seems bent on curtailing. And maybe I want to drink and drive. Why can't I do that? The terminology for the "Pro-choice" stance is more accurately depicted as Pro-Abortion. Pro means for and not against. If you are for abortion and not against it, then pro-abortion is a more accurate reflection of your stance. And one last thing...women don't have the CHOICE to sell their bodies or do drugs. Those laws must be anti-woman.
I can only hope you are creating a flawed analogy on purpose....as the alternative does not reflect well on your intellect. So.....if I force your wife to engage in sex with me, then in your mind its the same as telling her she cant have an abortion? Because really, there is no difference. Both result in her losing control of her own body. The results are the same, so the means makes no difference.
You're off topic, the topic is abortion. You can feel free to have words affect you even if they aren't correct. "Pro-Choice" as regards abortion is absolutely correct. Women have a choice on being merely breeding animals or humans with complete rights. ""Anti-Choice"" is exactly that in regards to abortion. Anti-Choicers want women to be only broodstock whose sole purpose is to breed. They are against a woman having a choice....they could be also called Pro-Punishment since that is the main reason they are Anti-Choice...which also makes them Anti-Life. And I'm done with word games....go play with yourself.... Abortion is still safe and legal...and that is a good thing!
So who gets to decide this? You? Are you a qualified medical professional who can determine what is in the best interests of the person who has no guardians to decide for them? You lifers don't want the parents who attempted the abortion to decide and you don't want the medical professionals to decide, so who gets guardianship and the final decision because quite frankly the neonate is incapable of making any choices at this point. Somebody has to make the medical decisions for the neonate and I don't see why it shouldn't be left up to the actual people who studied and gone to school for this and know exactly what they are doing. Also as for sanctity and 'innocence', these are just hyperbole and have no use in this debate at all. So-called "innocence and sanctity" are not part of any real rational thought processes when it comes to the medical field. These two things have no bearing over whether or not it would be better to try and save the neonate's life with life-support or if it would be best to let them pass on quickly and naturally if the physicians involved know that the neonate will only suffer and die slowly if placed on life-support. Only they have the power and knowledge to determine whether or not they can even save the neonate's life or if the neonate has any chance at all of living. - - - Updated - - - If you want to leave it up to GOD, then don't use any medicine or Science at all. If it's up to GOD then he will save the neonate's life with his magical powers. You want God to be the decider, then fine. Leave it to nature, aka God, and just see what happens.
I wasn't off topic. I made points against what you said, which btw you didn't even bother to address. No, that is not the reason as I'm sure you are aware of but chose to ignore. This is a prime example of argumentum ad passione. And no, I'm Anti-abortion. As I said previously, I'm for choice in a lot of areas. Of course you are, you don't have a valid, logical rebuttal.
LOL, it'd be hard to force my wife, since I'm a woman. Why don't you explain why it is a false analogy instead of insulting me. Then I'll rebut it. (And perhaps I misunderstood you or perhaps you misunderstood me, which can and does happen with the written word)
I gave a valid logical rebuttal but since logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit......think what you'd like....abortion is still safe and legal and women still have a Choice
As requested. 1) The kids you have locked in the closet are accepted Human beings under law, and thus are protected from the abuse you inflict. 2) The fetus an the table does not carry the rights, Societal designation, physical characteristics, or protections. 3) The results are similar but certainly not the same, as one is child abuse and murder. 4) Unless your intent was to "engender resentment", or in some way play on an emotional harp string....I must assume you have a limited understanding of physio;logy and law.
My point was that both result in a dead infant (child in my example) and the means of that death make no difference to the outcome...it's still dead. There is no difference in the result whether it is by someone's hand or passively allowing it to happen. BTW, what's up with all the "engender resentment" statements? Is that a favorite phrase around here?
Agreed, they both result in death.....the "engender resentment" stuff is a jab at someone else, who is likely reading this right now.
I believe that it should be decided by a civilized society; and, moreover, that it is quite impossible to have a civilized society that is not predicated upon the bedrock principle of the sanctity of innocent human life... (1) The use of the term, "neonate," to describe a newborn baby, is an obvious attempt to dehumanize the child. (2) Your assertion that "'innocence and sanctity' are not part of any real rational thought processes" strikes me as a (rather frivolous) attempt to dismiss this bedrock principle. (3) The discussion at hand is not even about a child who is allowed to "pass on quickly" (although that would be horrible enough), but about the active snuffing out of his or her young life. Again, you (apparently) wish to dehumanize the young child in question, by referring to him (or her) as a "neonate." And my point, with reference to God, was not of a theological nature; it was (and is) simply that physicians should not impute unto themselves god-like powers of life and death...
Anti-Choicers should not impute unto themselves god-like powers of life and death....and decide what others do with their lives...or decide what is or is not moral.....
A civilized society would not impose the will of the minority onto the majority, nor would it remove the rights of a person to make choices. 1. This is the correct term and has nothing to do with dehumanizing, where as the pro-life false usage of the "killing a baby" when talking about abortion is purely emotional propaganda. 2. Please show how "innocence and sanctity" are "bedrock" principles 3. Again please provide proof of the assumption. See above re dehumanizing Physicians do so on a daily basis, they save lives everyday that would otherwise be lost .. should they then not "impute unto themselves god-like powers of life or death"
You want to get the opinions of everyone in society before making a choice that needs to be made immediately? Good luck with that. I am sorry you are offended with a perfectly normal Scientific term for a newborn, but it means exactly that, newborn. Ever heard of neonatal care? What is the purpose of neonatal care? It is to care for newborns, aka neonates and it is a perfectly accurate term to describe very young infants. Prove it is the so-called bedrock principal of society. Actually it is about that. We are discussing whether or not a physician attending/performing an abortion should be required to save a neonate's life should the neonate survive the abortion. I think they should, personally, however I also trust that the physician knows and understands the chances of survival for the neonate and the pain it will suffer in a long and drawn out death should it have no chance of survival. Again, just because you have a small vocabulary does not mean I have to and just because you want to be unspecific in your the description of who or what you are discussing does not mean I have to. Well physicians are 'impugning' themselves with 'God-like' powers of life and death all the time outside of the abortion. (Also I hate it when people call it acting as God or whatever. Humans are just being humans and making decisions as they need to, no God needed). They often save lives and often let them pass on as per familial requests or per their own knowledge of whether or not that person should remain on life-support or not. My family allowed my aunt to pass on three years ago after she suffered a severe stroke from complications due to pneumonia and other illness she caught. She fell into a coma, came out of it for a short while and was in nothing but sheer pain and fell back into the coma. Our family decided it was best to remove her from life support and let her pass on after discussing it at length and getting the opinion and medical knowledge of the attending physician. These decisions have to be made when the person in question is incapable of making it for themselves whether you like it or not and quite frankly if out of the absolute anomaly of it all a neonate survives an abortion and is breathing or struggling to breathe the physicians need to assess the situation immediately and determine whether or not to put the neonate on life support.
Funny you should say that. How do you feel about gay marriage? Because I'm betting that you are all for that, although I could be wrong. But if you are for that, you would be for exactly what you say civilized society should not do. What I've found is that for the most part liberals are inconsistent in their beliefs and only use statements such as the above when it suits their purposes.
As it currently stands the majority of the US supports gays right to marry, but that really is another topic for another forum altogether. I honestly don't think the minority or the majority should be able to impose their moral beliefs on the individual unless it is for the purpose to prevent social chaos and collapse. Allowing people to go off and freely murder one another would cause social chaos and collapse. A woman making a highly personal medical decision which involves her health and life will not and has not caused social chaos or collapse. Roe v Wade has been in place for 40 years and society is still standing.
