What's pathetic about this thread is, once again, is that you're not trying to have a rational (if that's really possible) debate about abortion. You're just coming up with some nonsensical relation between a guy killing people in a nursing home and abortion. It's not the same thing. It's not related. Nice try, next topic.
Willem wrote:^^ so were the people being euthanized....
WAT?
Lets see if we can logically pin down your whole debate here...
8 people were brutally murdered in a nursing home. You assume they were a burden to society and unwanted.
You are comparing this event to abortion.
But for some reason just mentioned Euthanasia? Lets take an objective view of this.
The people murdered, as previously stated, are not unwanted or a burden to society. 5 of my closest friends are in the caretaking field, working in these exact nursing homes today. I have a hell of a lot more credibility than you do on this topic.
As for abortion, aborted fetuses are obviously NOT wanted. Explain to me exactly how these two are linked, or drop the subject and stop dancing around it spewing out facts about how a fetus can feel pain by the 2nd trimester.
Now, for Euthanasia. Did you ever stop to think, just for a second, maybe these people weren't that miserable? (including the nurse, whom you are conveniently forgetting was also a victim) Look at it like this: If they really are THAT miserable, people can always find a way to commit suicide if they truly want to. Getting old is a bitch, but just because I have some back pain and I don't have that spring in my step that I had when I was 20, does that mean I should be euthanized and put out of my misery? No.
Scott, and Williem, your arguments grow dumber by the second.
quote from thatguy:
Quote:
Lets see if we can logically pin down your whole debate here...
8 people were brutally murdered in a nursing home. You assume they were a burden to society and unwanted.
You are comparing this event to abortion.
But for some reason just mentioned Euthanasia? Lets take an objective view of this.
Ok hold on...
I'm sorry, I have to admit I didn't actually read up on the article about the 8 people who were murdered in the nursing home. I just assumed it was a case of a doctor 'doing them a favour by medically and painlessly euthanizing them'. I just looked at the article, and you're absolutely right, there is no comparison between these two scenarios. I'm sorry for causing a disturbance. Abortion is an issue that's close to my heart, and I get all excited when people start talking about it.
I would love to have a discussion of just abortion though, without this non-related case.
Again, I apologize for jumping to conclusions, you guys were right.
Kudo's for admitting your mistakes. I admire that.
The abortion debate here is old as dirt, I think everyone would prefer if we didn't start that ancient rivalry again. Everyone has their beliefs, and beliefs are hard to change.
^^ True. Beliefs are hard to change.
Willem wrote:Abortion is an issue that's close to my heart, and I get all excited when people start talking about it.
I have a couple questions for you.
Why do you think it is OK for your to push your religious beliefs and judgements on other people's right to choose what is best for them, especially when it has no bearing what so ever on your life?
Do you think it is OK for parents to let their kids die without taking them to see a doctor because they were waiting for God to cure their sick child?
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.
Harrington:
Quote:
I have a couple questions for you.
(1) Why do you think it is OK for your to push your religious beliefs and judgements on other people's right to choose what is best for them, especially when it has no bearing what so ever on your life?
(2) Do you think it is OK for parents to let their kids die without taking them to see a doctor because they were waiting for God to cure their sick child?
1. I'm not pushing my religious beliefs on anyone, I'm just stating my beliefs. That's all I did. Can't I express my opinion?
Besides, since when does a mother have the right to push her religious beliefs and judgment onto her own child? Because that's really what it comes down to...
2. No, absolutely not. Medicine is there to help cure people.
Willem wrote:Harrington:
Quote:
I have a couple questions for you.
(1) Why do you think it is OK for your to push your religious beliefs and judgements on other people's right to choose what is best for them, especially when it has no bearing what so ever on your life?
(2) Do you think it is OK for parents to let their kids die without taking them to see a doctor because they were waiting for God to cure their sick child?
1. I'm not pushing my religious beliefs on anyone, I'm just stating my beliefs. That's all I did. Can't I express my opinion?
Besides, since when does a mother have the right to push her religious beliefs and judgment onto her own child? Because that's really what it comes down to...
2. No, absolutely not. Medicine is there to help cure people.
So you would never support the overturning of Roe V. Wade because it would be pushing your beliefs on someone else who may or may not believe the same things you do? No one said you can not express your opinion, if I didn't want you to express your opinion I wouldn't have asked you these questions. Any parent has the right to push their religious beliefs and judgements on their child until the child is 18. No that is not what it comes down to, what it comes down to is having the right to choose for ones self and not having the government choose for you. Which I always found ironic, Republicans are supposed to be about keeping the government out of our daily lives and what not and Democrats are supposed to be for more government control, but when it comes to abortion those ideas are reversed.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.
Quote:
1.
So you would never support the overturning of Roe V. Wade because it would be pushing your beliefs on someone else who may or may not believe the same things you do?
2.
No one said you can not express your opinion, if I didn't want you to express your opinion I wouldn't have asked you these questions.
3.
Any parent has the right to push their religious beliefs and judgements on their child until the child is 18.
4.
No that is not what it comes down to, what it comes down to is having the right to choose for ones self and not having the government choose for you.
5.
Which I always found ironic, Republicans are supposed to be about keeping the government out of our daily lives and what not and Democrats are supposed to be for more government control, but when it comes to abortion those ideas are reversed.
1.
I would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, if it would affect me here in Canada, because I don't believe a parent has the right to choose over the life or death of their yet unborn child. That however, is not what you asked. You said "to choose what is best for THEM", I said to choose life or death FOR THEIR CHILD. Not the same thing...
2.
True.
3.
I supose they could push their beliefs on the child, but it doesn't mean the child accepts it.
Either way, that wasn't what I meant. What I meant, and I realize it didn't come out very clear is that I don't think the parent has the right to terminate the life of another human being whether legally considered a person or not. And that is what it comes down to. The parent assumes he/she has every right in the world to terminate human life.
4.
Again, it's not "right to choose for oneself", it's the right to choose for oneself AND THE CHILD, who happens to be getting the short end of the stick.
5.
Not sure where politics fits into this, again, I don't live in the US, in fact, I'm not even a Canadian Citizen either, just a permanent resident.
Willem wrote:
1.
I would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, if it would affect me here in Canada, because I don't believe a parent has the right to choose over the life or death of their yet unborn child. That however, is not what you asked. You said "to choose what is best for THEM", I said to choose life or death FOR THEIR CHILD. Not the same thing...
2.
True.
3.
I supose they could push their beliefs on the child, but it doesn't mean the child accepts it.
Either way, that wasn't what I meant. What I meant, and I realize it didn't come out very clear is that I don't think the parent has the right to terminate the life of another human being whether legally considered a person or not. And that is what it comes down to. The parent assumes he/she has every right in the world to terminate human life.
4.
Again, it's not "right to choose for oneself", it's the right to choose for oneself AND THE CHILD, who happens to be getting the short end of the stick.
5.
Not sure where politics fits into this, again, I don't live in the US, in fact, I'm not even a Canadian Citizen either, just a permanent resident.
So I am guessing from your response that you believe that life starts at the moment of conception? What are the requirements of life in your opinion? Does the mass of cells have to have the ability of cognizant thought? Or even a formed and functioning brain for that matter?
Do you believe in the death penalty?
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.
I believe that human life starts somewhere between the moment of conception and implantation.
Requirements are the ability to develop into a human being, and it doesn't matter if the fetus (or old person or handicapped person for that matter) needs outside assistance for a period of time, if there is hope that 'it' can develop into a self sustaining human being, then I would consider that human life.
Cognizant thought is not a requirement, because then born babies and comatose people would be exempt.
A formed and functioning brain is also not a requirement in my eyes. Just because it's not there yet, doesn't mean that it won't be there in 9 months.
Therefore I disagree with abortion, euthanasia or mercy killing, and yes, also with the death penalty. I believe that no matter how harsh the crime, the criminal should always be given the opportunity to reflect on his life and turn over a new leaf.
Willem I will apologize for my post. I figure it was from Scotta. Just refer whatever I said to him instead of yourself.
And human life begins before conception. Sperm and egg are living things. So by that logic you can say that beating off and having a period is illegal because it kills life.
Apology accepted.
I see your point, but I think that sperm and egg only have half the DNA required to develop into a human being.
Willem wrote:Requirements are the ability to develop into a human being, and it doesn't matter if the fetus (or old person or handicapped person for that matter) needs outside assistance for a period of time, if there is hope that 'it' can develop into a self sustaining human being, then I would consider that human life.
Willem wrote:I see your point, but I think that sperm and egg only have half the DNA required to develop into a human being.
These two posts seem contradictory to me. Even if they only have half the DNA, they still have "the ability to develop into a human being".
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
OHV:
If you were to put a zygote/fetus in an incubator and supply blood, heat and nutrients to it, it will grow into a human.
if you were to put either sperm or some eggs into an incubator, and supply blood heat and nutrients, it won't grow into a human, UNLESS you "change" the DNA through fertilization (or cloning i guess)
That was kind of my reasoning.
Nu uh
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:45 PM
from that same article:
Quote:
There are no known cases of naturally-occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild
in other words, it required some type of intervention (Half Cloning) for it to actually be able to develop into a human
Just because its not documented doesnt mean it doesnt happen. It would require two eggs to fuse.
Willem wrote:If you were to put a zygote/fetus in an incubator and supply blood, heat and nutrients to it, it will grow into a human.
if you were to put either sperm or some eggs into an incubator, and supply blood heat and nutrients, it won't grow into a human, UNLESS you "change" the DNA through fertilization (or cloning i guess)
If you're going through the trouble to put it in an incubator and supply blood/heat/nutrients too it, why not throw in the company of a sperm or egg as well?
It seems like you're simply picking a certain point in time and trying to apply fuzzy logic.
Willem wrote:it doesn't matter if the fetus (or old person or handicapped person for that matter) needs outside assistance for a period of time, if there is hope that 'it' can develop into a self sustaining human being
Why limit the amount of outside assistance?
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
sorry for my non-techical terms, i can't think of a better way to put this:
In my opinion:
It's one thing to "feed" an "organism"
it's something else to "combine / mix" it with a different organism
Im very confused now.
That made less sense than the other post haha.
So what youre saying is that youre against throwing an egg in an incubator and keeping it from dying. But youre for keeping a fetus alive in an incubator. Either way youre facilitating life that other wise wouldnt be there.
I think youre just defining a vague standard of life.
