Abortion

[DC Tom]

 

We keep un-viable people alive every day in hospitals. Are people hooked up to feeding tubes, dialisys, and IVs viable?

And in fact, there's a whole great big debate about that in society, regarding "right-to-die." All you prove with this is that you're too !@#$ing stupid to even set up a strawman argument correctly.

 

What about when they do heart surgery and take one's heart out. At that point are they still viable?

 

Yes. They're called Republicans.

The part that really gets me about the liberal position on abortion is that it's so often accompanied by self-righteous indignation. It seems to me that when you're murdering a baby for the sake of convenience you've kind of lost the moral high ground.

 

And the pro-life side insists that their morals are correct, and everyone else must abide by them whether they share them or not.

 

The whole issue is characterized by self-righteous indignation, on the part of parties who for the most part aren't even affected.

[Chef Jim]

 

Yes. They're called Republicans.

 

 

The difference is theirs is not put back.

[reddogblitz]

And in fact, there's a whole great big debate about that in society, regarding "right-to-die." All you prove with this is that you're too !@#$ing stupid to even set up a strawman argument correctly.

 

I was just making an observation, not setting up a "strawman". And, how exactly does "right-to-die" tie into "viablility"? Please be specific.

[Rob's House]

 

And the pro-life side insists that their morals are correct, and everyone else must abide by them whether they share them or not.

 

The whole issue is characterized by self-righteous indignation, on the part of parties who for the most part aren't even affected.

Morally speaking, there's a vast chasm between killing a baby for convenience and trying to stop someone from murdering that baby.

[DC Tom]

Morally speaking, there's a vast chasm between killing a baby for convenience and trying to stop someone from murdering that baby.

 

Except that calling a fetus (or zygote, or blastosphere) a "baby" is moral decision in and of itself.

[Rob's House]

 

Except that calling a fetus (or zygote, or blastosphere) a "baby" is moral decision in and of itself.

That's debateable. In any case, the decision to err on the side of life hardly carries the moral implications chopping up a baby does, regardless of whether you want to call the baby a fetus.

[Magox]

At what point do we decide to call it a baby? It is open for interpretation, but no !@#$ing way anyone can tell me that once the fetus reaches 20 weeks that it's not a !@#$ing baby!

[DC Tom]

 

I was just making an observation, not setting up a "strawman". And, how exactly does "right-to-die" tie into "viablility"? Please be specific.

 

You were setting up a strawman, equating supportive care with questions of "viability."

 

And "right to die" ties in to viability when, for specific example, Jahi McMath is clinically brain-dead and incapable of breathing without mechanical ventilation (unviable), but her parents insist supportive care be maintained because she's alive (viable.)

That's debateable.

 

It's truly not. There's no reliable empirical definition of "when life begins" that I've ever seen (and I have looked), which makes it a moral and ethical decision. Unless you want to pretend that "alive" in this case is a strictly biological definition, in which case pricking my finger is murder (since my red blood cells are unviable outside my body.)

 

 

In any case, the decision to err on the side of life hardly carries the moral implications chopping up a baby does, regardless of whether you want to call the baby a fetus.

 

It does when the moral debate is when life begins.

[IDBillzFan]

At what point do you consider a fetus to be a 'child'?

 

The moment I saw the first sonogram of my son was the moment he went (for lack of better phrases) from fetus to baby.

 

Unfortunately, many people don't see it that way, which is why some people don't think twice about crushing skulls and carving up baby parts for profits, and still others don't think twice about having more 'fetuses' simply to increase the amount of subsidies they get from the government.

 

Interestingly enough, guess which side of the political aisle they both typically fall?

[reddogblitz]

And "right to die" ties in to viability when, for specific example, Jahi McMath is clinically brain-dead and incapable of breathing without mechanical ventilation (unviable), but her parents insist supportive care be maintained because she's alive (viable.)

 

I don't know, Merriam Webster dictionary defines viable as "capable of existence and development as an independent unit". A person on life support cannot exist as an independent unit.

 

Perhaps it's a similar deal since Jahi's parents will decide. But then again, maybe they won't.

Edited July 29, 2015 by reddogblitz

[DC Tom]

 

I don't know, Merriam Webster dictionary defines viable as "capable of existence and development as an independent unit". A person on life support cannot exist as an independent unit.

 

 

Which was exactly my point, so why the !@#$ did you argue with me?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I don't know, Merriam Webster dictionary defines viable as "capable of existence and development as an independent unit". A person on life support cannot exist as an independent unit.

 

Perhaps it's a similar deal since Jahi's parents will decide. But then again, maybe they won't.

By that definition, a two year old child most likely isn't viable.

[3rdnlng]

 

I don't know, Merriam Webster dictionary defines viable as "capable of existence and development as an independent unit". A person on life support cannot exist as an independent unit.

 

Perhaps it's a similar deal since Jahi's parents will decide. But then again, maybe they won't.

People on life support may only be on it temporarily while their condition improves. They are not presently "viable" but could become so in the future, much the same way a fetus will eventually become viable. How do you compare not presently viable, possibly viable in the future and viable in the future? What if you pull the plug on someone who is thought to be not viable but they end up breathing on their own and thrive? Should you be charged with attempted murder? Much to think about, eh?

[Joe Miner]

By that definition, a two year old child most likely isn't viable.

Nursing homes and assisted living communities come into play as well.

 

 

Certain welfare and disability recipients may be in question...

Edited July 29, 2015 by Joe Miner

[Rob's House]

 

You were setting up a strawman, equating supportive care with questions of "viability."

 

And "right to die" ties in to viability when, for specific example, Jahi McMath is clinically brain-dead and incapable of breathing without mechanical ventilation (unviable), but her parents insist supportive care be maintained because she's alive (viable.)

 

 

It's truly not. There's no reliable empirical definition of "when life begins" that I've ever seen (and I have looked), which makes it a moral and ethical decision. Unless you want to pretend that "alive" in this case is a strictly biological definition, in which case pricking my finger is murder (since my red blood cells are unviable outside my body.)

 

 

 

 

It does when the moral debate is when life begins.

If you're talking day after pill, sure. First trimester, maybe. At some point it's pretty hard to deny it's a baby and that point comes long before birth. I can't give you a great scientific point where it becomes murder, but the more important point is they can't tell you when it isn't. And they're erring on the side of killing a baby.

 

If you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between erring on the side of killing or not killing a baby when you're really not 100% sure whether to classify the living being that is growing into a person as a baby, then we're just going to have to disagree on that one.

[Dorkington]

Serious question for the pro-life crowd: Should a woman be charged with manslaughter for miscarrying?

[Magox]

Serious question for the pro-life crowd: Should a woman be charged with manslaughter for miscarrying?

 

Serious question, are you a moron?

[DC Tom]

Serious question for the pro-life crowd: Should a woman be charged with manslaughter for miscarrying?

 

I know a woman who's had 13 miscarriages. Should she be treated for Munchausen by Proxy?

[IDBillzFan]

Serious question for the pro-life crowd: Should a woman be charged with manslaughter for miscarrying?

 

Someday we're going to get the answers to important questions that seem to always be out there. Until then, one nagging question I have for you is "How the phuck are you able to make your way to a computer and post comments in an internet forum when all the evidence suggests you are barely intelligent enough to feed yourself?"

[Dorkington]

 

Serious question, are you a moron?

Possibly. But that doesn't answer my question. If life starts at conception, and the mother is wholly responsible for said life, and the mother unintentionally kills said life, shouldn't the mother be charged with manslaughter?