Originally posted by Forever_frost
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gosnell case
Collapse
X
-
-
How is showing exactly what is involved in this procedure "shock tactics?"
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tx Redneck View Post
Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JP135 View PostTheBlaze has a video on this case. I know the left-of-center crowd will go crazy when they see it's Glenn Beck. Personally I find nothing wrong with what Beck has to say. The information on this case and the fact that it is being completely ignored by the media is incredible. I think part of it is that the doctor and his patients are from the same demographic and part of it is that the people get all caught up in this 'it's a woman's body, let her make the choice' argument and ignore the facts.
I don't agree with abortion, but under circumstances where it's legal, I can't make it stop. On the other hand, having a live birth and then murdering the child, well there's a special place in Hell for those people.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...video-segment/
Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Forever_frost View PostExcept when you donate blood or a kidney, you didn't create that person, didn't perform actions to start that life.
Originally posted by Forever_frostYour argument doesn't apply. You have no obligation to those strangers.
Originally posted by Forever_frostIf I refuse to give you food, tough. If I refuse to feed my son, I go to jail.
However, if I was legally dependent on you, you would go to jail as well. Even then, you still couldn't be forced to allow me to co-opt your body for my own needs.
Originally posted by Forever_frostIf you refuse to give blood or a kidney to someone, tough.
Originally posted by Forever_frostIf you kill a life that you had to engage in certain acts to create, you're ending a life.
Originally posted by Forever_frostCancer and eating also doesn't apply. Unless you're saying cancer is capable of becoming a person.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by exlude View PostYou're still slightly missing viability.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Maddhattter View PostThe entire abortion debate comes down to when a fetus becomes a person in the eyes of the law. If you state that killing is murder just because something is alive, then you make cancer treatments and eating murder. So, limitation must be made in how murder is defined.
Supreme Court ruling states only after the fetus is viable, capable of sustained survival outside the woman's body with or without artificial aid, may the states ban abortion altogether. Abortions necessary to preserve the woman's life or health must still be allowed, however, even after fetal viability.
Up until the fetus has viablility, as defined above, the fetus is co-opting the biological processes of the mother. The mother has no more legal, and in my opinion moral, obligation to provide those biological services than you have if you can provide a kidney or donate blood to someone who will die without it.
To put it simply... The fetus/baby has no right to the mother's body or biological processes.
Once the baby has reached a point in which is is viable, as seems to have been the situation in the Gosnell case, then I'd wholly agree with Forever Frost that it has become murder.
Cancer and eating also doesn't apply. Unless you're saying cancer is capable of becoming a person.
Leave a comment:
-
^^^^^
Maddhattter comes through nicely after racrboy utterly fails again
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by slow06I’m curious. I do understand this is not the current situation, but would it not make sense that the murder and abortion rules match up like Frost was talking about? I don’t see why one would be murder and another wouldn’t.
Supreme Court ruling states only after the fetus is viable, capable of sustained survival outside the woman's body with or without artificial aid, may the states ban abortion altogether. Abortions necessary to preserve the woman's life or health must still be allowed, however, even after fetal viability.
Up until the fetus has viablility, as defined above, the fetus is co-opting the biological processes of the mother. The mother has no more legal, and in my opinion moral, obligation to provide those biological services than you have if you can provide a kidney or donate blood to someone who will die without it.
To put it simply... The fetus/baby has no right to the mother's body or biological processes.
Once the baby has reached a point in which is is viable, as seems to have been the situation in the Gosnell case, then I'd wholly agree with Forever Frost that it has become murder.
Leave a comment:
-
So, if I choose to kill a newborn, that's fine because if I don't feed it, it'll die and it is incapable of surviving on it's own as long as it's my child?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by slow06 View PostI’m curious. I do understand this is not the current situation, but would it not make sense that the murder and abortion rules match up like Frost was talking about? I don’t see why one would be murder and another wouldn’t.
(I don’t know what has been discussed previously, so forgive me.)
Leave a comment:
-
I’m curious. I do understand this is not the current situation, but would it not make sense that the murder and abortion rules match up like Frost was talking about? I don’t see why one would be murder and another wouldn’t.
(I don’t know what has been discussed previously, so forgive me.)
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: