Home - List All Discussions

Life possibly saved tonight

by: AshMarie88

Me and 2 other pro-lifers possibly/probably saved a life today... I hope so.

And I possible helped the same girl with find out how to contact her birth parents. I hope she does...

Helping people feels great.

reply from: bradensmommy

You are awesome girlie!

reply from: tjlsmom

Hello, AshMarie, and that is wonderful!

reply from: CAS

What do you guys think about these contacts with birth parents?? I understand it, but if we are going to convince people of adoption over abortion, shouldn't promising them privacy forever be part of the plan? Many women might not want a child popping into their lives, many women have kept pregnancies a secret and chose to give life, when abortion was an option, so shouldn't we honour their desire for privacy?

Of course there are places online where both mother and child can post information seeking the other - so if it is mutual then it's a great idea!

CAS

reply from: grkg1970

Then you should check out the link below and help even more.

http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=237051

reply from: Proudtobeprolife2006

I support Open Adoption because , that's when you can see your child Grow and don't have heartache what families took him/her. You also can pick out a couple or family to take in your child.

reply from: grkg1970

Adoption is the only option.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

And parenting.

yes and abortion is an equally acceptable option

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

and as long as the fetus always takes priority over the woman then thats ok then ....

reply from: tabithamarcotte

No, the baby has equal priority alongside the woman.

reply from: AshMarie88

And parenting.

yes and abortion is an equally acceptable option

Killing a baby isn't acceptable to someone with a consious.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

yeah right, so thats why women have the right to abort a fetus but no one has the right to kill a women if they so desire is it?

reply from: Alexandra

So to you, the woman is more equal than the baby. Just like the pigs in Animal Farm.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

And parenting.

yes and abortion is an equally acceptable option

Killing a baby isn't acceptable to someone with a consious.

and forcing continued gestation isn't acceptable to someone with a conscience.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I'm not getting what you're saying...a baby and a woman that carries the baby have an equal right to live. They both should be able to live.

What you're thinking is that the woman's life style gets to trump the baby's right to live. This is not so, since the lifestyle of any person does not get to trump any other person's right to life. I don't see why pro-choicers think that their lifestyle is more important than someone else'e life.

But it's all about getting screwed and not having to deal with the responsibility of a child, isn't it? I thought so.

reply from: yoda

They have that right because it was awarded to them by a probabykilling Supreme Court.

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

and you've so obviously read my signature haven't you ...

reply from: Alexandra

Care to tell us what, or rather WHO, is being gestated?

What, pray tell, is SO BAD about pregnancy that "forcing" it is complete and total anathema? I've been pregnant twice. I miscarried my first CHILD. I gave birth to my second one after nine months.

Besides, a woman's body was DESIGNED for pregnancy! It sure wasn't designed to have a child forcibly ripped out!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I have read it, mybody.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

and do you acknowledge that not all pro choicers would abort or do you tar us all with the same brush?

reply from: yoda

Speaking of which, do you also claim ownership of any gestating baby's body? Is that you basis for claiming the right to kill your baby?

reply from: Alexandra

Motherhood made me more firmly pro-life. That's pretty sad when you say things like that--I don't know how you can advocate the killing of helpless children and still love your own. What, do you flip your conscience on and off like a light or something?

My little boy can be a handful at times but NEVER EVER do I regret having given birth to him! EVER.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

So to you, the woman is more equal than the baby. Just like the pigs in Animal Farm.

To me the woman will also take more priority to a parasitic fetus yes.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Yes, I do acknowledge. It's pretty selfish.

reply from: yoda

There is no need to tar anyone. The fact that you support the legality and convenience of killing babies places you in the category of advocate for that activity.

reply from: yoda

Ah, the old euphemistic reply that we have come to know so well!

You say "take more priority" when you mean "right to kill her baby".... yes, we understand your language.

reply from: Alexandra

It's impossible for an embryo/fetus to be a parasite when it BELONGS there in the first place. A woman's body was DESIGNED to nurture a child for nine months or so. And before you pull the "it's part of the woman's body" nonsense, a parasite isn't a part of your body. (Don'tcha love when pro-aborts try to have it both ways there?)

Yodavater, dictionary definition of parasite, please....

reply from: yoda

Gladly:

McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology Online: Dictionary Terms
parasite [BIOLOGY] An organism that lives in or on another organism of different species from which it derives nutrients and shelter.
http://www.accessscience.com/search/asearch?location=titlestext&newSearch=1&categories=encyclopediaarticle%23encyclopediaupdate%23biography%23dictionary%23news%23qa&categval=news&categval=qa&categval=encyclopediaarticle&categval=encyclopediaupdate&categval=biography&categval=dictionary&text=parasite

reply from: Alexandra

Gladly:

McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology Online: Dictionary Terms

parasite [BIOLOGY] An organism that lives in or on another organism of different species from which it derives nutrients and shelter.

http://www.accessscience.com/search/asearch?location=titlestext&newSearch=1&categories=

encyclopediaarticle%23encyclopediaupdate%23biography%23dictionary%23news%23qa&categval=

news&categval=qa&categval=encyclopediaarticle&categval=encyclopediaupdate&categval=biography

&categval=dictionary&text=parasite

Thanks. And just so what's-her-face gets the point, note that it says DIFFERENT species. An unborn child is human, doing what he/she is supposed to do--get nutrients and shelter from the MOTHER (not host), who is also human.

When you consider that the mother's body adapts to accommodate the growing child, and starts manufacturing milk for after the child's birth, how can one justifiably call that child a parasite?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

See? That was easy to comprehend!

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

There is no need to tar anyone. The fact that you support the legality and convenience of killing babies places you in the category of advocate for that activity.

yes i also advocate women making decisions that have NO BEARING on my life.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. I had to fix the link, it works now.

reply from: yoda

When innocent human beings are being killed, it has a bearing on the life of every decent human being.

Does that leave you out?

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

When innocent human beings are being killed, it has a bearing on the life of every decent human being.

Does that leave you out?

so when someone is killed who i don't know, have never met, that has a bearing on my life how?

reply from: yoda

When it is being done with the blessing of the highest court in the land, the entire society is degraded.

And if you know about it, and do nothing to stop further killings, you are as bad as the killers.

reply from: Alexandra

I agree. "No man is an island"--John Donne.

Given that since Roe the child abuse rate has gone up, Dumpster baby numbers have gone up, it says to me that people have since been taught that children are burdens, children are not valuable, children are mere property. So yes, it DOES have an effect on everyone.

reply from: teddi

Her body, Nope, sorry I'm not getting over it said:

But I guess the foster mom who locked her foster kids in cages made a perfectly acceptable choice, then, and you don't care, and neither should the law.

I believe in equality- truly- and that means just cuz I don't know someone, or because their life circumstances are harder than mine, or they are poorer, or their body doesn't work as well as mine - that means THEY are worth just as much in their humanity as I am.

Now obviously I don't know your child(ren), nor love them intimately like my own, nor have the responsiblity to care for them, but I believe so firmly YOUR children are worth just as much intrisictly as my own.

I call your view of the world cold-hearted. That's not a legal thing, that's not a religious thing, it's just me to you. And think you can rise above such a view of "me and my own" mentality and care- because truly that's what being human is all about.

I'm not asking you to save the world- I'm only asking that you DO care about people even if they don't IMPACT your life. Your child is precious while in your womb, so are mine, and so are the children of all women. And when women abort- most of them are left hurting. And I care about her hurt- and I care about WHY she would make that decision- was she forced into it? Was she frightened into it? Was she broke and felt compelled to do it for survival? Was it the 5th time she did it and it was just an inconvience to her? And how do millions of us feel after having done this? Do they feel it right away? Or in 10 years?

We're not talking about how someone does their hair. We're talking life and death. We're talking social policy. We're talking about abuse and rape and the still lingering oppression of women. We're talking responsibility and irresponsibility. So many things. You ought to care about the world in which your children live.

reply from: yoda

I call your view of the world cold-hearted. .

Extremely. By her statement, she doesn't care about anyone whose death doesn't affect her personally.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

I DO care, the difference being that i care about those who are AWARE of their suffering. Yes the "baby" might suffer during abortion, depending on the gestation, but to be blunt that suffering will be over in a matter of minutes after which they will not be aware of that suffering. Abused children (i'm talking born children) are suffering for longer than a matter of minutes and even once their suffering has "finished" they will remember it forever - it is those children who are my priority.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

At least the abused born children aren't being ripped apart, stabbed, aquiring broken necks, or burned in saline!

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

at least aborted babies aren't aware of that suffering after the fact.

reply from: yoda

THAT's your justification?

You could justify killing anybody like that! "Hey, I'm going to kill you, but you won't suffer after you're dead".

reply from: AshMarie88

So to you, the woman is more equal than the baby. Just like the pigs in Animal Farm.

To me the woman will also take more priority to a parasitic fetus yes.

Hello? The baby isn't a parasite.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/thomas_johnson_--_unborn_not_a_parasite.htm

reply from: AshMarie88

There is no need to tar anyone. The fact that you support the legality and convenience of killing babies places you in the category of advocate for that activity.

yes i also advocate women making decisions that have NO BEARING on my life.

Even child abuse? Murder? Prostitution?

reply from: AshMarie88

When innocent human beings are being killed, it has a bearing on the life of every decent human being.

Does that leave you out?

so when someone is killed who i don't know, have never met, that has a bearing on my life how?

You sound just like someone I talked to not long ago, who is not affected by any deaths of people she doesn't know.

Anyone loving would care, no matter if they know the person who died or not.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

Care to tell us what, or rather WHO, is being gestated?

What, pray tell, is SO BAD about pregnancy that "forcing" it is complete and total anathema? I've been pregnant twice. I miscarried my first CHILD. I gave birth to my second one after nine months.

Besides, a woman's body was DESIGNED for pregnancy! It sure wasn't designed to have a child forcibly ripped out!

a parasitic fetus

if the pregnancy isn't wanted then it IS THAT BAD, not everybody sees children as a blessing

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Care to tell us what, or rather WHO, is being gestated?

What, pray tell, is SO BAD about pregnancy that "forcing" it is complete and total anathema? I've been pregnant twice. I miscarried my first CHILD. I gave birth to my second one after nine months.

Besides, a woman's body was DESIGNED for pregnancy! It sure wasn't designed to have a child forcibly ripped out!

a parasitic fetusA fetus is not a parasite.
1: A woman's body was designed to hold a fetus.
2: A parasite is some living thing living off of something of a different species.

if the pregnancy isn't wanted then it IS THAT BAD, not everybody sees children as a blessingWhat if the pregnancy is wanted by the father, parents, parents-in-law, sibling, ect.? Those are WANTED pregnanies, therefore the mother cannot abort.

reply from: teddi

Bob the brilliant said:

The little 12 month old girl who's mom went crazy and cut off her arms and then died- she comes to mind. She wasn't aware of her suffering afterwards either, in fact her death was very simliar to an abortion. Got her arms cut off (just like a D & E) and then bleedout, (her BP would quickly plummet to the point where she lost consciousness) then she was dead and it was all over and she suffered no more.

In fact, I just solved your worries for you! The way to solve child abuse is simply to make it legal as long as it's ONLY legal to abuse little ones if you abuse them to DEATH. That way, after they abuse is over, they aren't suffering

Phew, got that one off your conscience. There's the answer to child abuse!

Wow, another epiphany just hit me. We we all kill ourselves today en mass, we can end all human suffering.

Anyone want to join me? ? ??

reply from: yoda

Isn't that just amazing? How very considerate of them to want to make sure they kill the baby so it won't suffer too long.......

Wow, yeah, that makes it okay to abuse or molest as many kids as you want to, as long as you kill them quickly after you're done, right?

Wow........

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion permanently rids of a baby's right to choose.

reply from: domsmom

When innocent human beings are being killed, it has a bearing on the life of every decent human being.

Does that leave you out?

so when someone is killed who i don't know, have never met, that has a bearing on my life how?

So sad that most people these days just dont give a flip about anyone but themselves.
And about your signature, I feel really sorry for you kids, you must not love them very much.
Reminds me of the movie I saw the other night, Hotel Rowanda. Joaquin Pheonix (his charecter) said something about people seeing whats going on on the news, saying "thats terrible" then go right back to eating thier dinner. Makes me sad for humanity.......

reply from: domsmom

I DO care, the difference being that i care about those who are AWARE of their suffering. Yes the "baby" might suffer during abortion, depending on the gestation, but to be blunt that suffering will be over in a matter of minutes after which they will not be aware of that suffering. Abused children (i'm talking born children) are suffering for longer than a matter of minutes and even once their suffering has "finished" they will remember it forever - it is those children who are my priority.

Am getting really tired of people saying I should've been aborted!!!!

reply from: Alexandra

I was born out of wedlock 33 years ago tomorrow, and my mother was constantly worried that someone would take me from her because I was "illegitimate."

My mother did NOT choose the "easy" way out.

Should I have been aborted to spare my mother that worry? I wasn't really wanted by my birth father...though I was wanted by my mother and my grandparents, and later on by my stepfather, who adopted me.

Had my mother aborted me, she would never have this adorable little grandson she loves to dote on!

reply from: bradensmommy

Why must y'all feed this troll? She apparently is resurrected from Skippy, Dmourning, Ike, and the infamous hmm....what the heck was his name again???

She wants a rise out of us and I'll be dammed if I give her the satisfaction. She needs to go somewhere else to get off.

reply from: Mymotherchoseme

I think you'll find that abused children suffer pretty much the same. Stabbed, broken bones, starved to death, burnt with naked flames, you name it....

reply from: yoda

And your point would be.................????

Let me guess, you're claiming that abortion is "merciful" because it "protects" unborn babies from abuse later on? Is that it?

Even if one accepts your premise that death is better than abuse, how does one know which babies are doomed for a childhood of abuse, and which ones will escape it?

Do you just propose to encourage all poor mothers to abort, and only allow middle class and rich mothers to have live babies?

Hmm..... from what I've read, child abuse cuts across all economic classes....... and many poor kids grow up to be well adjusted and successful........

Well so much for YOUR theory..... why don't you go into the poor neighborhoods and tell them to kill their born kids instead of abusing them..... and see what they tell you?

reply from: Mymotherchoseme

My point would be that whether children are in the womb or outside of it, they can still suffer. And born children can suffer just as much, if not more than unborn ones being aborted.

I dont propose anything apart from choice. You're right in as much as child abuse cuts across all types of socio-economic background so assuming that I propose to only allow white middle class families to have children is a little ridiculous, don't you think? I think if you want a child, you should have one. If you don't then you shouldn't.

Its certainly not a theory - its more of a statement. So why would I tell people to kill their children instead of abusing them? Abusing them is a slower death, it kills slowly from the inside out.......and anyway, I certainly don't advocate murder.

So I dont quite see where you're coming from?

reply from: Skippy

Sorry to disappoint you, but Skippy is alive and well, and doesn't require resurrecting.

It appears you have a funny definition of troll, too.

reply from: yoda

And what exactly is your point in saying that children can suffer a "fate worse than death"?

Why don't you tell us where you're coming from?

reply from: Mymotherchoseme

Errr........you seem to make a lot of assumptions and twist the things I say. Is there such a thing as 'a fate worse than death' - where did I say that?

I am coming purely from a pro choice perspective. I would rather spend my time, energy and money campaigning to help those already alive, rather than a potential being. Whats the point in having children to abuse them?

Whats the point in forcing women to gestate to satisfy your own morals? Whats the pojnt in outlawing abortion when it will mean more deaths?

reply from: yoda

In your previous post you said "And born children can suffer just as much, if not more than unborn ones being aborted. " Is that not a "fate worse than death"?

You may disparage unborn humans all you like with your made up terms like "potential beings", but you say nothing by doing so. There is NO SUCH THING as a "potential being". Unborn humans are exactly that, unborn human beings. Would you like to see documentation?

None at all that I can think of. If you don't want kids, don't get pregnant! The point of this debate is that when you DO become pregnant, you ALREADY have children. Want to see documentation?

NO ONE has suggested "forcing women to gestate". We are asking that women not kill the babies they already have inside them, that is quite a different thing. They get pregnant without any help from us, than you. And no, outlawing abortion will not lead to "more deaths", since abortion is the ONLY "medical procedure" that is designed specifically to KILL a human being, outlawing it will greatly reduce deaths.

reply from: Mymotherchoseme

where did I say 'suffer a fate worse than death'? I'm just trying to point out that born children can suffer!

Where I am I coming from? A pro choice perspective. Sometimes giving birth isnt the only answer. Sometimes it is more detrimental to the mother and her health.

I would much rather invest my time, energy and money in helping born children. Do something about WHAT IS, rather that WHAT MIGHT BE.

reply from: Mymotherchoseme

So why do people have children and abuse them?

And you are very naive if you think that by outlawing abortion death rates will not increase. People will be forced to go to the back street slaughter houses, to self abort, to kill themselves.

Great eh?

Asking people (or should that read coerce) not to 'kill the babies they have inside them' is asking (coercing) them to have children they may not necessarily want.

Why did some 'clever clogs' design a medical procedure to 'kill babies'? Because there is a need for it, that's why.

reply from: Gina

This story is not about abortion, but is about the chosen death of a child nonetheless.

I saw, not too long ago, a show on the Discovery channel. It had to do with Siamese twins joined at the head, who were about a year old. Tests showed that if nothing was done to separate them, the twins would die before their fifth birthday, since they shared major cranial blood vessels as well as brain matter. Yet if they underwent separation, at least one of the twins would surely die, as she was the far weaker of the two. The other twin would have about a 50% chance of living through the procedure.

Knowing that you would doom at least one (if not both) of your babies to die if you chose to go through with the separation procedure...would you go through with it?

reply from: Skippy

Ah, shades of Jodie and Mary, the conjoined twins in the UK. The doctors knew going in that Mary would not survive. The parents didn't want the surgery to happen, but the courts over-ruled them, because if they weren't separated, both of them would die.

Jodie is expected to lead a normal life.

reply from: Gina

Similar, yes. But these twins, along with their mother, were flown to Childrens' Hospital in Philadelphia from a Latin American country. I'm just curious to know what people would do when faced with a situation like this. Deliberately sacrifice one to save the other? Do nothing, whence both would die?

reply from: Skippy

The parents of the UK twins were from Malta, and strongly opposed on religious grounds to sacrificing one kid to save the other, even though if they weren't separated, both would die within months. It's my opinion that their wishes should have been respected.

In the situation you describe, I'd probably opt against separating them. I'd settle for my five or so years, rather than face a substantial risk of losing both of them.

reply from: Gina

Skippy, I think that is the choice I'd make as well...opt for no surgery. Even if the surgery was successful, there's a 50% chance the other twin would die as well, and if he lived, there's every indication he'd be severely mentally retarded anyway, so there isn't much point.

Had the joining been at the chest or somewhere else, I would probably opt for separation.

reply from: Skippy

I'm curious. Which option did the parents choose?

reply from: Gina

They said they were devout Catholics, but they went for the surgery. One twin died within the week. They went back to the family about a year later. The surviving twin is doing ok physically, but mentally he is having problems. Just how invasive the problems will be is not completely clear yet. But at age 4 he still could not speak, which isn't a good sign.

reply from: MaleNurse

Many of you are probably aware of this story that hit the news a week or so ago.
It is the story of an autistic kid. He couldn't speak until he was 5. He managed his way through school and joined the basketball team. Always sat the bench, but never missed a practice. The kid had HEART ! . and fast forward to last week. With 4 minutes left in the game the coach puts him in. He scored 20 points in 4 minutes !
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/high_school/13947311.htm
I saw the interview after the game highlights. The joy that kid had in his face. How proud his mom and dad were of him.
....I wouldn't ever want to have denied him that opportunity, to do something special. Even just for once in his life.
Abortion is never right in denying a potential life and the achievements that are possible with that life.

reply from: AgnesDay

I read the whole thread with a lot of sadness. Everyone suffers. Tell me someone who lives who doesn't suffer. Love involves suffering and sacrifice. It's just exploitation if there is no sacrifice. There is no joy where there is no love.

The idea of children as parasites gives me the chills. It's like my mom saying that I was the kid that Harry Truman didn't want her and Pop to have. Harry Truman to the contrary, I'm glad to be here, with all my faults, bad days and problems. The last thing (literally) I want is to be beyond suffering. Please don't make that choice on my behalf.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I DO care, the difference being that i care about those who are AWARE of their suffering. Yes the "baby" might suffer during abortion, depending on the gestation, but to be blunt that suffering will be over in a matter of minutes after which they will not be aware of that suffering. Abused children (i'm talking born children) are suffering for longer than a matter of minutes and even once their suffering has "finished" they will remember it forever - it is those children who are my priority.
What if someone beat a child for a minute, and then killed it? Would you be against it then?

reply from: AshMarie88

UPDATE:
She chose not to abort. She's actually looking for baby clothes...

reply from: prolifejedi

I didn't read the whole story, but that's great that this girl chose not to abort. Its really important to donate to agencies that help women.......so if you can buy some baby clothes and donate them to your local crisis pregnancy center or BirthRight location.

reply from: xnavy

to every choicer on this forum, under your reasoning i should be dead. my mother did not choose me but abortion was illegal in 1960
i am sure i have said this before. as a former fetus that was protected by the law, i am glad abortion was illegal back then and i wish
it was illegal now. i was not planned or wanted but once i was born my mother raised me with lots of love and affection. i did not
know i was unwanted til i was an adult. child abuse will always be here unfortunately, abortion will not cure it.

reply from: yoda

Interestingly, I have actually read where probabykilling advocates have said exactly that about people whose mothers tried unsuccessfull to abort them.
They've told them "You have no right to be alive!"
Sad world, isn't it?

reply from: AshMarie88

Any comments from a pro-"choicer"?
What do you think about pro-lifers saving lives? What do you think about the "you had the right to die!" comments from other choicers?

reply from: Sigma

Don't hurt others doing it and it's generally a good thing.

reply from: yoda

Don't hurt others doing it and it's generally a good thing.
Interesting qualification. How much "hurt" is justified to save an innocent life?
Is it justifiable to cause someone to lose $1 by saving an innocent life?
Is it justifiable to cause someone to lose their freedom of speech for a minute to save an innocent life?
How much IS an innocent life worth?

reply from: Sigma

It does not justify either of those things. The end does not justify the means.

reply from: yoda

It does not justify either of those things. The end does not justify the means.
I see. So if I must cost someone $1, or cause them to lose their freedom of speech for one minute to save your life, you'd rather I let you die?

reply from: Sigma

I would rather be neither. Personal interest would create a conflict of interest. I would rather a thousand criminals die in my stead, but that does not mean I think we should kill a thousand to save one.

reply from: AshMarie88

I would rather be neither. Personal interest would create a conflict of interest. I would rather a thousand die in my stead.
So, it's only about you you you then huh? You and no one else? You'd rather want one thousand to die, rather than yourself?

reply from: yoda

I would rather be neither. Personal interest would create a conflict of interest.
I find that a rather puzzling answer.
If your own "personal interests" prevent you from even answering the question, then how can you countenance the disregard of the personal interests of the thousands of babies being killed every day?
Why do you disregard their "personal interests", as if they did not exist?
If your life is worth more that $1, then why isn't a baby's life worth more than $1?

reply from: AshMarie88

I would rather be neither. Personal interest would create a conflict of interest.
I find that a rather puzzling answer.
If your own "personal interests" prevent you from even answering the question, then how can you countenance the disregard of the personal interests of the thousands of babies being killed every day?
Why do you disregard their "personal interests", as if they did not exist?
If your life is worth more that $1, then why isn't a baby's life worth more than $1?
I think Sigma's one of those people that, if it came to it, would save himself rather than to try to save his own family.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, I would rather live and see a thousand die than die myself.
They have no "personal interests".
It is not the amount of money that is important, it is the fact that the other party isn't willing to give it up. A life isn't worth having an oppressive gov't capable of taking freedom away from one to save another.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, I would rather live and see a thousand die than die myself.
Ok... what if it came to you having to KILL one thousand people in order to live yourself. Would you?
What about your ENTIRE family, in order to live, you'd have to kill them?

reply from: Sigma

Yes, if they were involved in causing my death. No, if they were not.
I would die sooner than kill my family. I would personally kill a thousand strangers to save my family. Most of my family, anyway.
Please tell me this isn't progressing to "If your mother and father were both hanging from a cliff, which would you save".

reply from: yoda

Was that a serious comment?
Why, because you say so? EVERY human being has "personal interests", especially when it comes to staying alive.
Are you insinuating that a baby would willingly volunteer to die, if it could talk?
Say what? Huh?
Taking away a serial killer's freedoms is wrong? The government ought not to take away his freedom to save future victims?
Is that what you really meant to say?

reply from: Sigma

Yes. I'd rather a thousand be wiped out than I be killed.
A creature with no conscousness has no personal interest in anything, except perhaps in the loosest sense of the word.
No, I am insinuating that the woman may not willingly give up her freedom to allow the fetus to live attached to her.
If he does not violate another's rights, yes it is wrong.
If he has commited no wrong, we would not be justified to save potential future victims, no. We need more than possibility to justify infringing upon his freedom.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes. I'd rather a thousand be wiped out than I be killed.
I'm sure other people think the exact same about you. That they'd rather watch you die.
Why would I not surprised if this turns into a death match?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

It does not justify either of those things. The end does not justify the means.
So according to you, the right to life is at the bottom of the list of rights.

reply from: AshMarie88

It does not justify either of those things. The end does not justify the means.
So according to you, the right to life is at the bottom of the list of rights.
Except HIS right to life. His right to life is way more important than everyone else's lives.

reply from: yoda

Okay. That's one of those comments best left to stand for itself.
Oh yes, let's use the very loosest sense of the word(s) "personal interest"! Let's credit unborn humans with a living existence! Let's credit them with being better off alive than dead! Is that very generous of us? Yes indeed!
"May not" as in "might not", or as in "does not have permission"?
If he does not violate another's rights, yes it is wrong.
Uh, by definition, serial killers do violate other people's rights, by killing them.
If he has commited no wrong, we would not be justified to save potential future victims, no. We need more than possibility to justify infringing upon his freedom.
Same comment as above.

reply from: Sigma

yodavater
If you wish. I would not consider a fetus to have any personal interest.
Might not. She may or may not.
Unjustified killing, infringing upon another's rights, is genearlly reason enough to infringe upon the serial killer's freedom then. This does not relate to your original point since you assumed a factor that I had not.
AshMarie88
I'm sure they do. Other people value their own lives more than they value a stranger's life, generally.

reply from: yoda

Well, I don't know how you come to that conclusion, but I think that all human beings have a personal interest in staying alive, unless they are depressed and suicidal. Seems natural to me.
You didn't think serial killers violated anyone's rights? Okaaaaayyyyy.....
Anyway, I think that abortive mothers violate the human rights of their babies, so from that standpoint I think it's okay to infringe on their "freedom" to kill their babies.

reply from: Sigma

Not if they have not killed anyone yet. My example assumed the one having their freedom removed had done nothing wrong, as the woman has done nothing to warrant removing her freedom.
Yet the fetus negatively impacts the woman's right to her bodily integrity and the gov't would be violating her right to privacy and her personal liberty to restrict abortion. Given that she would be killing something that is negatively impacting her physical body, her actions are more defensive than what you imply here.
Whatever rights she violates that the fetus possesses, she also possesses rights that the fetus infringes upon and that the gov't would be infringing upon. A moral right I believe everyone possess would be the right to not have one's body used.

reply from: yoda

Not if they have not killed anyone yet.
How can they be serial killers if they haven't killed anyone yet?
So you would again justify killing a baby on that basis? That speaks for itself.
She and whoever impregnated her (or just him if it was rape) violated that right, NOT the baby.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics