Liberals Against Abortion?
Replies
-
I would caution you to not use the "sustain" outside of the womb because in reality, my babies would have died had I not fed them since they could not go to the store and buy formula and make a bottle themselves. I'm sure you don't mean that they need to be able to sustain themselves, unless you do believe infanticide is okay too?
this "debate" has now just crossed into the absurd.
Do you really think that's what was meant? Sustain = stay alive on it's own, as opposed to needing an umbelical cord. But you already knew that. :huh:
This is what is frustrating about debating with the religious right. When you make a good point, it's necessary to inflate your idea to the point of absurdity. ie: "What, are you gonna let someone marry a horse next!?"
Right. Instead of actually debating the point and not a word that you know what was meant.0 -
I would caution you to not use the "sustain" outside of the womb because in reality, my babies would have died had I not fed them since they could not go to the store and buy formula and make a bottle themselves. I'm sure you don't mean that they need to be able to sustain themselves, unless you do believe infanticide is okay too?
this "debate" has now just crossed into the absurd.
Do you really think that's what was meant? Sustain = stay alive on it's own, as opposed to needing an umbelical cord. But you already knew that. :huh:
This is what is frustrating about debating with the religious right. When you make a good point, it's necessary to inflate your idea to the point of absurdity. ie: "What, are you gonna let someone marry a horse next!?"
Right on, everyone knows what I meant by the word "sustain".0 -
No they wouldn't. If you hadn't fed them someone else would have. Only one person can keep a fetus alive. Anyone can keep a baby alive. Or do you really think that if you died in childbirth that your kids would have died shortly thereafter?I would caution you to not use the "sustain" outside of the womb because in reality, my babies would have died had I not fed them since they could not go to the store and buy formula and make a bottle themselves. I'm sure you don't mean that they need to be able to sustain themselves, unless you do believe infanticide is okay too?0 -
That is where you are wrong, her family fought for full rightest to care for her and spend their own money caring for her.It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else).
She required an expensive nursing home to tend to her every physical need while she wasted away in a bed. They autopsied her (to prove that she was a veggie), and they found large liquified and missing portions inside what remained of her brain. Don't give me any guff about "she knew what was happening". She most certainly did not. Her husband was the only courageous one of the bunch. Her family was perfectly fine letting him continue to spend every cent he had on a nursing home for a breathing mannequin. Terry wasn't and hadn't been there for years. I hope my husband would do the same for me.0 -
That is where you are wrong, her family fought for full rightest to care for her and spend their own money caring for her.It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else).
She required an expensive nursing home to tend to her every physical need while she wasted away in a bed. They autopsied her (to prove that she was a veggie), and they found large liquified and missing portions inside what remained of her brain. Don't give me any guff about "she knew what was happening". She most certainly did not. Her husband was the only courageous one of the bunch. Her family was perfectly fine letting him continue to spend every cent he had on a nursing home for a breathing mannequin. Terry wasn't and hadn't been there for years. I hope my husband would do the same for me.
Aside from that point - where do you draw the line of her rights ending and anyone else's beginning?0 -
It was a serious statement/question simply because there are people who support infanticide in some instances and I wanted to makes sure I was understanding him correctly. I would rather make things extremely clear than assume what someone means.I would caution you to not use the "sustain" outside of the womb because in reality, my babies would have died had I not fed them since they could not go to the store and buy formula and make a bottle themselves. I'm sure you don't mean that they need to be able to sustain themselves, unless you do believe infanticide is okay too?
this "debate" has now just crossed into the absurd.
Do you really think that's what was meant? Sustain = stay alive on it's own, as opposed to needing an umbelical cord. But you already knew that. :huh:
This is what is frustrating about debating with the religious right. When you make a good point, it's necessary to inflate your idea to the point of absurdity. ie: "What, are you gonna let someone marry a horse next!?"0 -
Do you have children? I know that when my babies were born they were able to already turn their heads toward the voices they were familiar with.its an undeveloped, non feeling, non thinking human embryo. of course it is . Its not a person though
yes i have three, and ive also had an abortion.
Im not talking about born babies, im talking about embryos foetus of a low gestational age.0 -
Do I believe in extreme measures to keep someone alive? No, but by extreme I mean venilator for months and years, not feeding tubes or temporary ventilators after a serious accident (and this is something I think many forget when they say they don't want to be put on a machine, that sometimes you need to be put on a machine for a short period following an accident). Does that make sense?
That is where you are wrong, her family fought for full rightest to care for her and spend their own money caring for her.It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else).
She required an expensive nursing home to tend to her every physical need while she wasted away in a bed. They autopsied her (to prove that she was a veggie), and they found large liquified and missing portions inside what remained of her brain. Don't give me any guff about "she knew what was happening". She most certainly did not. Her husband was the only courageous one of the bunch. Her family was perfectly fine letting him continue to spend every cent he had on a nursing home for a breathing mannequin. Terry wasn't and hadn't been there for years. I hope my husband would do the same for me.
Aside from that point - where do you draw the line of her rights ending and anyone else's beginning?0 -
I am sorry for you loss and can only offer to let you know that if you have not healed that there are support groups you can turn to if/when you're ready.
Do you have children? I know that when my babies were born they were able to already turn their heads toward the voices they were familiar with.its an undeveloped, non feeling, non thinking human embryo. of course it is . Its not a person though
yes i have three, and ive also had an abortion.
Im not talking about born babies, im talking about embryos foetus of a low gestational age.
My standpoint is that human life and thus human dignity begins at the moment of conception. That that life needs to be respected. But I also agree that we need to do more to help women and men make the choice easier to have their child because there has been great suffering by mothers, fathers, and families as a result of abortion. Something that is not talked about either.0 -
its ok you dont need to patronise me. Ive never had an issue with it and all ive ever felt about it was relief0
-
That is where you are wrong, her family fought for full rightest to care for her and spend their own money caring for her.It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else).
She required an expensive nursing home to tend to her every physical need while she wasted away in a bed. They autopsied her (to prove that she was a veggie), and they found large liquified and missing portions inside what remained of her brain. Don't give me any guff about "she knew what was happening". She most certainly did not. Her husband was the only courageous one of the bunch. Her family was perfectly fine letting him continue to spend every cent he had on a nursing home for a breathing mannequin. Terry wasn't and hadn't been there for years. I hope my husband would do the same for me.
Aside from that point - where do you draw the line of her rights ending and anyone else's beginning?
when her brain liquified, right at about that point, her rights ended. IMHO.0 -
It was a serious statement/question simply because there are people who support infanticide in some instances and I wanted to makes sure I was understanding him correctly. I would rather make things extremely clear than assume what someone means.I would caution you to not use the "sustain" outside of the womb because in reality, my babies would have died had I not fed them since they could not go to the store and buy formula and make a bottle themselves. I'm sure you don't mean that they need to be able to sustain themselves, unless you do believe infanticide is okay too?
this "debate" has now just crossed into the absurd.
Do you really think that's what was meant? Sustain = stay alive on it's own, as opposed to needing an umbelical cord. But you already knew that. :huh:
This is what is frustrating about debating with the religious right. When you make a good point, it's necessary to inflate your idea to the point of absurdity. ie: "What, are you gonna let someone marry a horse next!?"
if you say so.0 -
Why did it take her 14 days without food and water before she died? That is an extremely crueld way to die, don't you think?
That is where you are wrong, her family fought for full rightest to care for her and spend their own money caring for her.It happens quite often and the most publicized time this happened was when Teri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death because her husband wanted her to be taken off the feeding tube (she did not require anything else).
She required an expensive nursing home to tend to her every physical need while she wasted away in a bed. They autopsied her (to prove that she was a veggie), and they found large liquified and missing portions inside what remained of her brain. Don't give me any guff about "she knew what was happening". She most certainly did not. Her husband was the only courageous one of the bunch. Her family was perfectly fine letting him continue to spend every cent he had on a nursing home for a breathing mannequin. Terry wasn't and hadn't been there for years. I hope my husband would do the same for me.
Aside from that point - where do you draw the line of her rights ending and anyone else's beginning?
when her brain liquified, right at about that point, her rights ended. IMHO.0 -
14 days? Apparently she was pretty well hydrated before they took out the tube. I don't think it's cruel, because she didn't experience it at all. A houseplant drying out is more aware of its fate than she was.0
-
its a shame in cases like that we cant just euthanase someone. We are kinder to animals in that respect than we are to people0
-
You do realize that it is a human being you are talking about? To dismiss life so easily is quite sad. Then again, I don't think murderers and pedophiles are monsters (though I do agree that they need to be imprisoned for life) nor would I call another a "vegetable" They are all humans with dignity that needs to be respected at the basic level (even though it can be extremely difficult to do so).14 days? Apparently she was pretty well hydrated before they took out the tube. I don't think it's cruel, because she didn't experience it at all. A houseplant drying out is more aware of its fate than she was.0 -
You do realize that it is a human being you are talking about? To dismiss life so easily is quite sad. Then again, I don't think murderers and pedophiles are monsters (though I do agree that they need to be imprisoned for life) nor would I call another a "vegetable" They are all humans with dignity that needs to be respected at the basic level (even though it can be extremely difficult to do so).14 days? Apparently she was pretty well hydrated before they took out the tube. I don't think it's cruel, because she didn't experience it at all. A houseplant drying out is more aware of its fate than she was.
She ceased to be a human being IMHO when she ceased to have any consciousness or any hope of regaining any semblance of awareness. If not for the intervention of extremely heroic medecine, she would have died years ago when she sustained the injuries that put her in that bed.
I can respect Terry, but my assertion is that the breathing corpse in the bed wasn't Terry. Hadn't been Terry for a long long time.0 -
Is there a debate thread yet for "Dying with Dignity"? Because this thread is derailed.0
-
For those of you who see other humans as parasites, seriously, you really believe that crap? Even science acknowledges that from the moment of conception it is a human. So, stop mincing words and call a spade a spade, that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.
I think if you read my post carefully, it's clear that I am describing the scientific nature of pregnancy. By definition, a parasite is "An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense." A parasite cannot survive on its' own. So yes, until the foetus can survive outwith the mother - its' host - technically speaking, that's exactly what it is. Of course an emotional reaction, including my own, will shy from this description - the point I was making is that scientifically, this is a more accurate representation of pregnancy than the symbiotic relationship that is culturally and popularly idealised.0 -
If you want to be technical, a parasite is NOT the same species as the host, so pregnancy would not be included with that definition.0
-
If you want to be technical, a parasite is NOT the same species as the host, so pregnancy would not be included with that definition.
I agree with you. I think does nothing but inflame the debate to compare the fetus to something else like a parasite, or tumor, or anything else. Sure, they might have similarities, but a fetus is a fetus. A fetus becomse a baby. The debate seems to be when that fetus becomes a conscious life form and when it's rights equal the mothers.0 -
exactly!If you want to be technical, a parasite is NOT the same species as the host, so pregnancy would not be included with that definition.
I agree with you. I think does nothing but inflame the debate to compare the fetus to something else like a parasite, or tumor, or anything else. Sure, they might have similarities, but a fetus is a fetus. A fetus becomse a baby. The debate seems to be when that fetus becomes a conscious life form and when it's rights equal the mothers.0 -
If you want to be technical, a parasite is NOT the same species as the host, so pregnancy would not be included with that definition.
I agree with you. I think does nothing but inflame the debate to compare the fetus to something else like a parasite, or tumor, or anything else. Sure, they might have similarities, but a fetus is a fetus. A fetus becomse a baby. The debate seems to be when that fetus becomes a conscious life form and when it's rights equal the mothers.
Makes sense. You also need to take out the emotionally driven terms and ideals as well. They kind of counter each other and there is a reason why people tend to go so far to the scientific and technical sides sometimes.0 -
I agree with you. I think does nothing but inflame the debate to compare the fetus to something else like a parasite, or tumor, or anything else. Sure, they might have similarities, but a fetus is a fetus. A fetus becomes a baby. The debate seems to be when that fetus becomes a conscious life form and when it's rights equal the mothers.
I considered my kiddo a parasite while I was carrying her. Her rights became equal to mine on the day she was born (my opinion, of course).0 -
For the people people who think a embryo is a full person with rights, do you think that an early miscarriage/late period is on the same level as a stillbirth or cot death?0
-
Every woman I know who had a miscarriage mourned the loss of their child and state their child in the number of children they have. My husband counts his two siblings, who passed as a result of a miscarriage, as siblings.For the people people who think a embryo is a full person with rights, do you think that an early miscarriage/late period is on the same level as a stillbirth or cot death?0 -
really wow0
-
ive never known anyone do that apart from one woman for a 2nd trimester mc, but ive never known anyone count an early miscarriage as a child, even if they did mourn the loss at the time.0
-
Yes, I thought that was common.really wow0 -
I had an early miscarriage - about 6 weeks...I don't count that as part of my family. My girls don't have another sibling. I don't have 3 children. I don't think counting miscarriages that early as children is the norm.
ETA - I do know people who mourn the loss of later term pregnancies but they still don't count them as children. My very religious brother and sister-in-law have lost 3 pregnancies so far and don't say they have 6 children. They only have 3.0
This discussion has been closed.