Pro-life - Where is your support for this woman?

Notice that your graph has no sharp points, but only gentle curves?

 

The same could be said of the Right, by stigmatizing better prevention methods that may render the medical procedure of abortion obsolete in modern times.

 

I am also referring to advances in technologies which can be more convenient and potentially less expensive for any consumer.

Why does it seem that the Right would rather insist on the coercive use of force of our secular and temporal State, to enforce mostly subjective morals based on religion, instead of simply walking through the shadow of the valley of fornicators but fearing no evil because of their faith and their conduct.

 

In my case, it is not so much about pro-abortion as a choice, but about a lack of better choices being made conveniently available to reduce any need for pro-activity in abortion.

Why does it seem that the Right would rather complain about abortion and even try to criminalize abortion, without implementing more cost effective infrastructure that could render the "necessity" of abortion obsolete in modern times?

 

Education and technology development are very good indeed but while they have worked very good in countries like Germany, Holland and scandinav countries it's been a disaster in the USA and other countries. In those cases people need to be a bit forced.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems as though you have fallen into the all to familiar trap that nearly all pro abortion folks do. That being building strawmen and trying to tear them up.

I have seen no evidence of "the right" doing what you allege.

 

There is a big surprise...

Can you name any programs initiated by the "right" that reduce the number of pregnancies and what are the results?

 

1. so defensive war is not justified? War against Nazi Germany was not justified? Would you rather watch jews being genocided and Europe turning into Nazi superpower than try to stop it?

2. I dont see your point. Everything can be used for a fraud, but we are not speaking of fraud, but legit defense. Are you actually implying killing in self-defense or defense of others is not justified and should not be legal?

3. some US states still have it now. Google the term, seems like you are unfamiliar with it, it has nothing to do with the middle ages.

4. should organ transplantations be banned? Because thats what would happen if hospitals were forced to use biological death instead of brain death as legal end of a person.

 

I noticed it looked like an Evil Kinevil ramp immediately after Roe was passed.

Seriously Granny, is over 80% increase not a DRAMATIC increase in your opinion/

 

More meaningless babble.

 

Show me evidence that the "right" (whoever that is) has been blocking birth control availability!

 

Then I also think that you have no proble against the soldiers that died in Iraq and Afghanistan. War is a crime against humanity no matter the reason. By the way the jews do the same thing today.

My point is that anybody can say he killed in self defence but how will he prove that? It's not like someone is going to attack you in the middle of the street in daylight. Self defence MUST be legal but should make the attacker unable to attack and not kill him.

As I said before people must stop the bad guy, not kill them.

So it is ok to kill someone just because he/she is legally dead?

 

So no one should fight for liberty then?

Ah not only misogynist but anti-Semite too.

Are you joking or this naive?

The real world is not like your fantasy one.

Right, with magic if they have to...

If they are dead then they can not be killed.

 

wrong thread

 

1. dodging my question. Is defensive war, or war against oppressors (that would include Hitler, Taliban and also Israeli zionists) wrong?

2. if you are able to just make him unable to attack I agree. But what if you are not? Again, dodging the question. Should killing in self-defense, when you have no other option how to stop the attack, be not acceptable?

3. If the legal definition of death makes sense, then yes.
Should transplantation be outlawed, because it kills human life (but not human mind - braindead people are used for transplantations)?

 

There is no such thing my friend, but don't worry, continue to live in your fantasy world.

I said something about jews that you didn't like, haven't I?

What makes you think I joke, don't you live on Earth?

There are methods to stop someone from doing something without killing him.

Right, with magic if they have to...

Again legally dead.

 

War is an event where thousands of people die to protect the interests of a leader. WAR IS WRONG.

As I said to our friend before, there are methods to stop someone from doing something without killing him. Ever heard about non-lethal, they are those pistols that use rubber bullets. They don't kill but they leave some nasty marks on the victim, enough to stop him from harming others. Some self defence courses can also be helpfull. Sure some find it much easier to take their shotgun and blow the brains out of someone's head, but that's unacceptable.

Dead is when all the organs stopped working.

 

1. you really live in fantasy world, quit being a naive idealist. I ask again, is defensive warfare wrong? If your country was attacked, would you approve of the defense effort?

2. what if there is no such option? You dont know any martial arts, you dont have access to non-lethal weapons at the moment, and someone shoots at you and/or your relatives. Would killing him be acceptable?

3. Such organs are unusable for transplantation. Medical death is when brain stops working, since there is no point in empty shell.
Do you support outlawing all transplantations? If not, you support killing of a biologically living human body.

 

Defesive war is fought by average people in order to defend the chairs and high positions of the leaders. Do you really belive that Hitler actually cared about the average people that died in WW2 or that the french president cared about the average french that died to protect France? Don't fool youself.

Do you live in the wild west or something? First of all people don't shoot at you out of nowhere. Second how will you kill him if you don't know any martial arts nor do you posses any non-lethal weapon? With you bare hands?

So you consider is right to take the organs from a person that is legally considered dead although the organs work apart from the brain? Considering also that there can be compatibility problem or the body simply doesn't accept the new organ. Plus the average man has little chance because of the rich ones that have priority no matter what some say. Considering those I think it's a waste of life.

 

You have wandered far far away from discussing abortion here.

I assume you are equating an invading army to a woman becoming pregnant? That is assinine. The woman became pregnant by taking a known risk with that known possible outcome. If you are referring to pregnancy from rape, then I can see it and that is why I approve of the woman making the abortion decision in that 1% or less of cases, but otherwise it just doesn't make any sense.

An injured person with no hope of recovery is dramatically different than a human being who is simply developing normally and has not reached a certain stage yet.

 

Defensive war is fought in order to defend the country from invaders. And there are plenty of average people that do care for their country enough to go to war for its defense if needed. Are they wrong?

First, it happens, there are all kinds of people in this world. Second, isnt it obvious? You use a lethal weapon. That was my point.

[QOUTE]So you consider is right to take the organs from a person that is legally considered dead although the organs work apart from the brain?[/QUOTE]

Yes, of course.

Thats of course up to medical staff to determine and of no issue for our debate. I dont see your point..

Does not change anything for the morality of transplantations.

Are you serious? Organ transplantations that save millions are a waste of life? Am I reading you right?

 

No, I am not equating it at all. The discussion moved off-topic.

Yes, I see, from the point of view of someone who considers potential life to be important, it is so. But I dont share this view, only actuality (present) is important, not potential future, potential future persons have no right to life. You cannot kill a person which has never existed, nor is preventing their development in any way morally wrong. Killing an undeveloped embryo (which is not a person according to my brain-centric ideology) is thus not any more wrong than using a condom.

 

Yet again you ignore or deny the obvious fact that anzygote, embryo, fetus is a living human being, NOT a "potential" one.

I beleive this is why the abortion debate will never get anywhere.

Pro abortion types base their opinions of a false premise, that a fetus is "potential life" and not actual realized life.

 

You do belive what you're saying, aren't you? Poor soul, you are more indoctrinated than the indians.

I really don't know where you're living but I certainlly don't want to go there. What makes me wonder is the fact that you can carry a lethal weapon but you cannot carry a non-lethal one? You have an interesting mentality. However this went totally off-topic so we will stop.

OK, it's your right

Saving millions? Where's that?

 

All right, let me get this straight once and for all. I am using the word "being" to refer to some entity with mind. But you are obviously using different definition, if you consider a few cells to be a being. In that case, to not get involved with stupid semantics, this statement applies for your definition:

"Any human being that in actuality (meaning in present, future potential is irrelevant) does not possess a mind (encoded in neural network of higher brain) does not deserve a right to life."

This approach excludes zygotes, embryos, early foeti and braindead but biologically alive patients.

A mind is the sole source of ANY rights.