Home - List All Discussions

What IF you awoke to find someone glued to you

with a glue that couldn't be disolved for 9 months, would you have the right to kill them?

by: yoda

OR would they have the right to KILL you???
This one's for you, Sigma.......
Undisolvable glue, unbreakable bond for 9 months, the only way to get rid of them would be to have them scraped off, which would kill them in the process.
But since it was "against your will" that they were attached to you, then you'd have every right to have them scraped off in little pieces, right?
Hey, you've already agreed to this once...... right?

reply from: ThunderKitten

That would be pretty creepy...
Attached on the outside, right? WHO would be attached to me? Total suckage. Having to get dressed and undressed in front of whoever, going number two in front of him/her. There would definately not be a sex life for either of us until the glue broke. Then there'd be fighting over which way to go, when to get up, where to live, where to work, all kinds of stuff.
I'm sure glad I'M not a siamese twin!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Although Cheng and Eng, the world's most famous conjoined kids were each happily married with several kids -- I guess if you're used to it it's different.

reply from: Sigma

If someone did this to me, I would feel I were justified in removing the bond even if it killed the other. I may or may not actually remove them, but I would feel I had every right to.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Say you had a child (and I don't know, you might) and somebody glued him or her to another. Would you try to dissuade that person not to remove your kid and kill them and to instead wait 9 mo?

reply from: Sigma

Would I encourage them to? Yes. Would I require them by law? No.
Of course I would try to persuade another to allow my child to live attached to them. I would try to persuade another to allow me to live attached to them if I needed it. I would try to persuade another to allow you to live attached to them.
I would be the first to jump through the flames to save an injured person. I would never force or require another to jump through or be punished by law. That is morally corrupt.

reply from: Shiprahagain

So you'd let somebody kill your child in that situation? You wouldn't seek legal recourse to delay your child's death for 9 mos.? Don't ever tell your kids this.

reply from: Sigma

Shiprahagain
I probably would try to break the rules for my kids or for myself, even though I do not strictly feel I have the right to do so. I would kill to save my kids, even though I do not strictly feel I have the right to do so.
That said, I would not and should not have the right to require someone to allow me to live attached to them.
concernedparent,
This of course is false, concernedparent, and you know it. You can kill to protect your property in some States, as well as kill to prevent bodily harm. You may kill to protect yourself in most States, which abortion does provide.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Yes, because babies just destroy the body...those malicious little devils...

reply from: yoda

And that's all you need to know to declare it "moral" to kill to protect "property"?
Just that "some states" allow it? That makes it moral for you?
How very convenient is your "morality"!!

reply from: yoda

It doesn't take much to justify killing to you, does it?
Got a hangover? Kill someone. Have an argument? Kill someone. Don't want your baby? Kill it!

reply from: Shiprahagain

I probably would try to break the rules for my kids or for myself, even though I do not strictly feel I have the right to do so. I would kill to save my kids, even though I do not strictly feel I have the right to do so.
This is hypocritical. If you'd kill, its because you feel you have the right too. Otherwise you're saying its okay for you to kill but nobody else. So what do you say to fathers in this very same position, those who are about to have their kids killed b/c they are attached to their mom's body?

reply from: Sigma

I would feel that way, but I would not be right. I do not have the right to kill strangers to save my kids, but I may indeed do it anyway. Personal involvment does not a logical position make.
I should have no legal way to require you to allow my kids to live attached to you against your will, but I may try to find one anyway given that situation.

reply from: AshMarie88

I have a sick feeling Sigma would kill a baby to escape "attachment" (if the baby was crawling to him and kept hanging on to him)...
And yes sigma, you would have the right to kill a stranger to save your kids. It's called defense of others, and if it was killing someone else to save yourself, it's self defense.

reply from: Sigma

I meant even if the stranger was not threatening in any way.

reply from: yoda

REALLY? So when you said:

"I do not have the right to kill strangers to save my kids, but I may indeed do it anyway."
You meant you "may kill the stranger even if he is not threatening in any way"?
Why? Do you just go around killing people?

reply from: Allizdog2000

I wonder if they person attached to you would feel and do the same?

reply from: Sigma

Were the situation reversed, they perhaps would.

reply from: MaleNurse

As I have said before: this whole concept of getting abortions because " something is attached to me against my will" ...does not hold water. Yoda proves it in this case. There is a general lack of supportive evidence that shows reasons for abortion: "someone was attached to me against my will".
http://www.angelfire.com/co/hellfiredb/abort.reasons.html

Where's the part about "being attached" ? I don't see it !
If you notice. Not ONE of these relate to any physical inconveinance or discomfort of the pregnancy itself. Most of these point to the post-delivery period.
Kangaroo's have an option with this attachment business...and yet ...can it be? they still allow the joey to live attached...hoppin' around with all that extra weight !
Jeepers ! How terrible ! [this is obvious sarcasm]. Why they don't have any right to remain attached, how selfish of joey, making Mrs. Roo uncomfortable all day. If it wasn't for the long counter-balance in the tail, she'd develop back problems. Errrr aaaa... maybe it's a natural thing.?

reply from: Sigma

You misunderstand. I have not said that is the motivation, I have said that is the situation. She may have an abortion for any reason or no reason because none have the right to live attached to her if she does not want it there.
Whether it is done out of fear, boredom, love, shame, hate or because one feels peckish that day the fact remains that none have the right to live attached to the woman against her will.

reply from: MaleNurse

So then the "situation" violation of rights (being attached) bestows the right to violate another's rights? (baby's right to life)?
I know you don't like logic rules, but come on!

reply from: Sigma

Two things. One, the fetus has no right to life. Two, some situations do indeed allow one's 'right to life' to be infringed upon. When you violate the rights of someone else, they can correct that situation.
Depending on the State, I may be able to kill you if you attack me.
???

reply from: AshMarie88

One, the fetus has no right to life.
If it doesn't, it doesn't have the right to die either.
So, now that I know you don't believe a fetus has a right to grow inside the woman, I am assuming you also don't believe the woman should have the right to kill. After all
Two, some situations do indeed allow one's 'right to life' to be infringed upon.
What right of a woman is being violated or infringed upon? What right calls for the extermination of an innocent human being in "some situations"?
If someone saw you looking at them and they thought you were going to hurt them, and they killed you, would that be justified (as a situation that allows your life to be infringed upon)? Why or why not?
And why SOME SITUATIONS? Why not ALL SITUATIONS if you feel abortion is such an automatic right?
Last but not least, what does a fetus do to deserve death? Why should denying their life to them be justified, why infringed?

reply from: Sigma

???
If you wish to call it that. She can remove another attached to her.
Her bodily integrity, her freedom. If the State disallows abortion, they infringe upon her right to privacy.
For a look? Most likely not but it would depend on the specific situation. In some States, if someone were in your house uninvited you could kill them.
Because it is attached to another against their will. None have a right to do that to another.

reply from: AshMarie88

You know what? A mother carrying a child is a NATURAL PROCESS. A fetus isn't some kind of parasite and whatnot, that you make it sound like.
NATURE and PREGNANCY give that fetus the right to be and grow inside their moms. The government doesn't.
And if a fetus has no right to be inside their moms/the uterus, why is the uterus in her? Why is the uterus specifically made for CARRYING CHILDREN?
Maybe she should have that uterus (A unborn child's home) taken out of her if she doesn't want to carry children, and if she can't respect her children growing in there...
If her children have no right to be inside her, neither does her uterus. Wouldn't you agree?

reply from: AshMarie88

And I don't know where you get this "attached to her against her will" stuff... It's very inaccurate.

reply from: yoda

And you can throw someone out of your plane at 10,000 feet over the ocean if you don't want them in your plane, can't you? And you'd probably never get caught! Would you like to do that?
You're really obsessed with this killing stuff, aren't you?

reply from: MaleNurse

Why not?
This seems to be the basis for your entire pro-abort stance.
[That the baby is infringing on the rights of the mother, and therefore she is "correcting the situation" by aborting.]
It certainly begs the question "which came first the chicken or the egg."
I'm here to tell ya that it was the "egg" that eventually came first.
In order for someone to infringe on your rights they must be "alive"
A rock can't infringe on your rights.
If you accept that only living creatures infringe on others rights, then it follows that the "act of infringement" is the extention of the will of the living creature. (the baby)
SO now it is alive, and has a will.
If it is commiting some sort of crime by infringing on the mother by being attached, then it should afforded due process before any penalty or action is undertaken.
There is no immediate threat or danger, so certainly a court hearing is reasonable. And of course in the court room, the judge would find that since the defendant (the baby) was created by the plaintive, she would have no reasonable basis to argue that the defendant (the baby) was in her uterus against her will.
You see how ridiculous that all sounds? I'm not trying to belittle you, but trying to get you to see from a reasonable perspective by illustrating the obsurd.
Happy Easter
Dave-O

reply from: AshMarie88

The baby will be born whether it's dead or alive... It might as well be when it's alive!

reply from: yoda

Yes, the plaintiff herself is responsible for the effects of the baby she helped to create, isn't she?
One correction though, the proaborts would prefer that you call it the "execution chamber" instead of "uterus"...........

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88
This affects my argument how?
Maybe she should, but she shouldn't have to either take it out or allow it to be used against her will. It is her uterus, it belongs to none other.
No, unless you wish to make the argument that the fetus is one of her body parts or is a part of her body.
MaleNurse,
You know the answer to this
I don't accept that. One needs personal rights to have your rights infringed upon, but one does not need personal rights to infringe upon others. One need not be alive or animate to infringe upon other's individual rights.
Even were I to accept what you have said to be true, this part isn't necessarily true. A burglar who is shot is given no due process, yet can be killed in some States. The State is required to give its citizens due process, we are not required to give due process to each other.

reply from: yoda

Really? A dead person can infringe upon YOUR "rights"? How so? And how can a totally passive person be guilty of location, when he/she is not responsible for being in that location?
It seems to me that you are bending over backwards and standing on your head to try to place some sort of blame, some evil intent upon a perfectly innocent human being who cannot even be aware of your hostility and predelection for blood. Perhaps it's best that they can't know of your desire to see them killed, it might cause them great depression.
Again with the quick trigger-finger. It's always "my right to kill" when you discuss the unborn, isn't it? What would you do if your couldn't kill, or encourage others to kill?
Perhaps you ought to consider a military career, where you can get your fill of killing and bloodshed. I'm sure they could use someone with your talents (or at least your predelictions) in Iraq right now, in fact. Why don't you give them a call?

reply from: MaleNurse

AH HA ! I've got you! The burglar is assumed to pose an immediate threat of harm. In this instance no court room hearing would be feasable or practical. But in the instance of the baby, there is no immediate threat. In fact, they usually go for about 9 months before any pain starts setting in.
I'd like to carry my still valid scenario one step further.
Recognizing that almost all sexually active people realize the risk of the outcome of intercourse --> (pregnancy) it is again absurd to assert this "against my will" stuff.
Given the odds of even 90:10 (not pregnant : pregant) outcome of intercourse, she still is accepting the 10% risk of pregnancy. She commits to accepting those odds with the commencment of festivities. Accepting those odds NOT against her will. If she accepts ANY odds even 99:1 I'm here to tell ya 1% is not against her will. ie. no rights violation.
Please don't try to skim past the logic.
How does a rock infringe on another's rights? It can't, unless rocks begin acting on their own. This inference is a "given."
Inanimate objects can NOT by definition infringe on someone's right. Not even the weather, not even a tornado can infringe on your rights. Only living creatures can do so, because it is their will that precedes the move against your rights.
The will of the unborn, although primative in nature, only wishes to 1. survive and live and 2. to be born. Proof of this : when the will of the fetus goes uninterupted for 9 months...the result? a bouncing baby sigma! the will of the fetus is heard.
I'm betting you're thinking about natural law. oops ! You can't use that one now can you?
Should I start typing up your membership card?
PROLIFE AMERICAN:
Sigma Sigmeistersky
Official Member
__male __female XXunknown
Alright.....just kidding !

reply from: yoda

Really? How can a dead person can infringe upon YOUR "rights"? And how can a totally passive person be guilty of location, when he/she is not responsible for being in that location? How can you blame a baby for being where it is? And how can you condemn a baby to death for what is not it's fault?
It seems to me that you are bending over backwards and standing on your head to try to place some sort of blame, some evil intent upon a perfectly innocent human being who cannot even be aware of your hostility and predelection for blood. Perhaps it's best that they can't know of your desire to see them killed, it might cause them great depression.
Again with your quick trigger-finger! It's always "my right to kill" when you discuss the unborn, isn't it? What would you do if your couldn't kill, or encourage others to kill?
Perhaps you ought to consider a military career, where you can get your fill of killing and bloodshed. I'm sure they could use someone with your talents (or at least your predelictions) in Iraq right now, in fact. Why don't you give them a call?

reply from: Sigma

Do you now
I see. You seem to be saying that the fetus has a will and is infringing upon the womans rights, but since it is not an "immediate threat" there should be a court case to determine the outcome. Since the infringment is continuous until stopped, I don't see your basis that a court case would be a requirment. No due process is required in such a situation.
By crossing the street you consent to being hit by a bus, and you consent to any injuries you sustain, even death? If you consented to being hit, why do we punish the bus driver?
I'm sorry, MaleNurse, but there are risks with virtually anything you do, even breathing. You do not consent to any and all consequences, and there certainly is no law stating that we must accept any and all consequences if we can change them. Unless the woman signs a legal document allowing the fetus to use her body, you have no basis to claim the fetus has a legal right to be there.
I don't recall saying it could. The gov't, which is neither living nor animate, can infringe upon her rights, and does so if it disallows abortion. The fetus, if you accept it as something other than part of the woman, infringes upon her bodily integrity. Having an individual will or desire to do so is not required since the same infringment would occur were someone to hook an unconscious person to the woman or even a body without a brain. A sleepwalking person who is unaware that they are violating another's rights is still violating another's rights.
I have no need to invoke natural law.

reply from: yoda

Really? How can a dead person can infringe upon YOUR "rights"? And how can a totally passive person be guilty of location, when he/she is not responsible for being in that location? How can you blame a baby for being where it is? And how can you condemn a baby to death for what is not it's fault?
It seems to me that you are bending over backwards and standing on your head to try to place some sort of blame, some evil intent upon a perfectly innocent human being who cannot even be aware of your hostility and predelection for blood. Perhaps it's best that they can't know of your desire to see them killed, it might cause them great depression.
Again with your quick trigger-finger! It's always "my right to kill" when you discuss the unborn, isn't it? What would you do if your couldn't kill, or encourage others to kill?
Perhaps you ought to consider a military career, where you can get your fill of killing and bloodshed. I'm sure they could use someone with your talents (or at least your predelictions) in Iraq right now, in fact. Why don't you give them a call?

reply from: MaleNurse

Flawed logic. The bus doesn't have a will. The driver of the bus does. ...as the thrower of a rock does. The bus itself has no will. It is not alive.
Applying this example against my argument is inappropriate.
You said an inanimate object could infringe on your rights.
I say it cannot
If you are making the assertion that the woman's rights are being violated, I am just saying lets just see IF they in fact really are being violated. Prove it in court. I don't think that it would stick in court.
You'd have to agree that the fetus was alive.. then you'd have to ignore that fact to avoid the murder rap.
Do you have a preference for "last name"?
is Sigmeistersky okay?

reply from: yoda

Siggy would say the moon is made of swiss cheese if he/she thought that would help him/her in his/her killing campaign against babies.
I've never seen any poster try so hard and for so long to justify the gratuitous killing of human beings. How can a person be so fond of killing that they seek any flimsy excuse to justify it?

reply from: AshMarie88

How? He has no conscience.

reply from: Sigma

It is appropriate. You said: If she accepts ANY odds even 99:1 I'm here to tell ya 1% is not against her will. ie. no rights violation..
Extending this, if there is any risk of negative consequences to an action you perform you consent to each and every one of them and there cannot be any rights violation. This is an absurd assertion and has no relevance in the legal world. The woman would have to sign a legal wavier for there to be any basis for a claim that the fetus has a legal right to be there.
The bus has no will, but that is irrelevant to my example here.
I said no such thing. I said: One need not be alive or animate to infringe upon other's individual rights.
The gov't is neither alive nor animate, yet it can infringe upon individual rights.
The fetus does not violate the woman's rights because of its will to do so. It can do nothing else. It cannot choose to do so, and it cannot choose not to do so. This does not negate that the woman's body is being used by something she does not necessarily want to be using her body.
Were a machine to be built for a certain purpose but, completely unexpectedly, latched onto the woman and began doing what the fetus does then the machine would be violating her bodily integrity. The question then would be: Why would you believe something that has no will, desire or thought should have greater protection than the woman or the benefit of a court case.
I think it would. She would be allowed to disconnect any other person connected to her against her will, I daresay.
I do agree the fetus is alive. Killing does not equal murder.
I have no preference.

reply from: MaleNurse

First, typically in the REAL legal world, you'll have a really hard time convincing anyone your rights were violated by something you yourself caused. Signature on a waiver wouldn't be required for actions that you initiated which caused the result. There's a latin legal word for it that I don't know.
The government is alive from the perspective of the "will of the people"
The people ARE alive not inanimate.
Again, this is someone's/ person's/alien's creation. the builder's. Not the will of the machine. The will of the alien. Only living creatures can extend their will to violate the rights of another.
Killing the fetus without a fair trial? It wouldn't be hard to prove it's innocence.
This goes back to once conception occurs, all bets are off. You've maxed out on your rights.(decision to have sex, contraception, ect)
Don't get me wrong. This would never happen in real life...I know.
I'm just playing it through...the court-room and all.
I hope I've articulated at least an equal rationale contrary to the unwanted attachment rights argument.
I think Yoda's hypothetical title for this thread gave me the right to play on the fringes of reality in the court room.

reply from: Alexandra

Somewhat off, but probably worth mentioning:
Some places, and I think France is one of them, have a Good Samaritan law. If you see someone in an accident and you start lifesaving techniques, you HAVE to continue with it...if you stop and the person dies you're guilty of murder or something.
I thought it was something interesting to add to this discussion.

reply from: Sigma

I doubt this is so. There are unintended consequences to actions that can violate our rights.
The gov't, as an entity, has a "will" but is neither alive nor animate.
The machine has no will and is not alive but if it, by some freak of programming, attached itself to the woman it would indeed be violating her bodily integrity. The builder may be guilty of negligence or some such, but only because his creation, and not the builder, violated the woman's bodily integrity.
Innocence? You would have to prove that the concept of innocence of guilt can apply to a creature that has no will, desire or thought. A machine attached to a woman is not legally innocent or guilty even if it violates the woman's bodily integrity. Your point seems to hinge on the fact that the fetus has no will and thus cannot violate the woman's rights. Were this true, were the fetus to have no will, desire or thought, you would be hard-pressed to prove it should be protected against the woman's desire.
It would not be difficult to prove that it's continued use of her body constitutes a violation of the woman's bodily integrity and disallowing an abortion violates her right to privacy and freedom.
I don't consider it a compelling argument. I absolutely do not accept that any risk of unwanted consequences creates legal consent for all of those consequences.

reply from: Sigma

This is true of professionals, who must continue life-saving techniques before turning care over to an equally competent professional (such as an ambulance worker).
A lay-person is not culpable as long as it was a volunteer act, the person receiving help must not object and the act must be a good faith effort to help. Each State has different laws, but the general principle is the same:
Any person who, in good faith, renders emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person at the scene of an accident or other emergency without the expectation of receiving or intending to receive compensation from such injured person fro such service, shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission, not constituting gross negligence, in the course of such care or assistance
A person is not obligated by law to help; assisting is optional and voluntary.

reply from: yoda

That sounds like a good law, and one that we need in this country. Compelling people to do the decent thing is a good use for legal authority, IMO. Of course, the probabykilling lobby would have a hissy fit, they want people to be free to behave indecently in all situations.

reply from: Tam

Hello? Are you really from another planet? Because our government is OF THE PEOPLE. In other words, our government is definitely living and animate, because it is comprised of the people. Now, if you want to argue that government officials are sometimes mentally equivalent to rocks, I might find some merit in that argument. LOL

reply from: Tam

This is ludicrous. You are proposing that A GROUP OF PEOPLE has a will but is not animate or alive, despite the FACT that each and every member of that group IS alive (as soon as a senator dies, s/he ceases to be a senator and becomes a FORMER senator--because only LIVE PEOPLE can be part of the government).
I think this example blows. If you have another example of something that has a will and infringes on our rights, but is TRULY inanimate and NOT ALIVE that is NOT simply a group of live, animate people, please BRING IT ON. I won't be holding my breath.

reply from: Tam

I meant even if the stranger was not threatening in any way.
Not threatening? I thought this stranger was "scraping" your kids off him, killing them in the process! I think that's pretty threatening.

reply from: yoda

Not threatening? I thought this stranger was "scraping" your kids off him, killing them in the process! I think that's pretty threatening.
It seems that killing is the important thing to Sigma, not saving anyone's life, just killing.

reply from: Sigma

Gov't, as an entity in and of itself, is neither alive nor animate. A corporation, as an entity in and of itself, is neither alive nor animate.
If a senator dies, the gov't is not suddenly different.
Since my discussion is not with you, I hardly care.
If you read the discussion, you should discover you are talking about two different hypotheticals.

reply from: yoda

There is no such "entity". All governments consist of living, antimate human beings. I defy you to show otherwise.

reply from: MaleNurse

You'd say this also applied to a dictatorship as well?
Gov't is still an extension of the will of the living
Huh? "innocence of guilt" The will of the unborn as I said earlier was to live/survive/and be born.
The fetus is guilty of nothing. The woman (+man) put the fetus in the situation she (the aborter) is objecting to. (being attached)
That is a fact.
What is done can't be undone. Now there is a human life. That is a fact.
Abortion kills the fetus without a fair trial. (fact)
All executions even military are entitled to a fair trial. (fact)
Typically they are granted a long delay (years) to undergo the appeals process (fact).
They don't necissarily (rarely) represent themself at the trial. (fact)
But the interests of the client are at heart, during the trial(fact)
So in short, the fetus as a living violator of woman's bodily integrity who does so willingly, should be granted a fair trial prior to execution.
If you argue that it's NOT the baby's will, that fetuses have no will, you'd have to concede that the violation occurred resultant of the woman's will.
BAMMM ! SMoken !
And since it was the woman's will --she'd have NO legal justification to order an execution.
Here is the heart of the issue.
"continued use"???
You and I both know, the use of the uterus is only temporary. You are denying the true rationale for the temination/execution. ...the birth.
I've never understood where privacy fits into this?
She exercised her freedom to or not to have sex, accepting the risk in doing so.

reply from: Sigma

Unless every aspect is by the direct order of the dictator, yes.

Perhaps, but it is not itself alive or animate.
Then a chair would be innocent? We do not commonly assign moral or legal expressions of guilt or innocence to something that has no will to do or not do.
Since it does this at the detriment of the woman, the "will of the fetus" is being exercised in violation of her rights. It would be found guilty.
You missed a step. Killing between citizens does not necessarily require a fair trial, nor does a medical procedure require a fair trial to kill something living inside the woman. No type of killing of a living growth inside the woman would require a fair trial, I daresay.
I would not have to concede that anymore than I would concede that cancer results from a person's will, even if their life-style increased the risk of it occuring.
Even accepting what you say, since the fetus has no will, desire or thought it is not an execution. It is an elective medical procedure to remove a growth within her.
You cannot have it both ways, even were I to accept your incorrect premise that something with that has no will cannot violate another's rights. If the fetus has a will, it is exercising it in violation of the woman's rights. If the fetus has no will, then there is nothing to protect since the fetus has no desire or interests to represent.
None may use the woman's body against her will, even temporarily. She would have the right to remove anyone attached to her, even were that attachment "only" for 9 months.

Were abortion disallowed by the gov't, the gov't would be violating the woman's right to privacy.
By crossing the street you consent to being hit by a bus, and you consent to any injuries you sustain, even death, then.

reply from: yoda

Perhaps, but it is not itself alive or animate.
How perfectly stupid. Of WHAT does a government consist if NOT of living people?
What an idiotic lie. "The innocence of childhood" is a common expression.
A "GROWTH"??? I daresay human fetuses are a sight more human than YOU are!!

reply from: MaleNurse

Sigma, please gimme some "facts" to back your argument.
All you're telling me is opinions.
I've given you a few, now you gotta gimme something
Throw me a bone, anything.?
We already went through this. There is no immediate threat to the woman or her life. Remember?
Come on now. Cancer doesn't get a fair trial because it is not a living being. It's what you like call "a mass/blob of cells" Okay, not you specifically.
Not without a fair trial. Remember you originally countered to" innocence and fair trial with this assertion." You've re-worded and made a complete circle.
And in this you negate the fact that she put it there. Now I've also made a circle
This is why I think it would be good to throw us some facts out here.
Even in the hypothetical "glued to you setting" The "gluee" still gets a fair trial. That would be a fact prior to execution.(or legal removal which ends Gluey's life)

reply from: Sigma

Generally, unless I specify otherwise, what I post are facts.
There is a continual and immediate infringement upon her rights. This is a fact, by the way. Abortion, it can be argued, is necessary to avert the infringment and impact to her body and rights. Abortion, it can be argued, protects her body from being used against her will.
In both of these cases a fair trial is not required.
Cancer does not get a fair trial because it is a nonsensical concept to give a fair trial to something that has no will, thought or desire. It has no interests or desires to represent, even though it is alive.
Why? Can you show this to be so? Where, among the legal landscape, can someone continue to violate one's personal rights and can only be stopped if a court case determines it to be invalid?
My research indicates the opposite. The usual procedure would be a temporary injunction to prevent the rights of the woman from being violated while the dispute is pending. In addition, since there is no actual party on the part of the fetus to represent, there is no case or controversy and thus no federal court could hear the case.
As a rapist would, if the woman did not kill him to defend her body first.

reply from: AshMarie88

Sigma, focus all your attention on the affects abortion has on the unborn, instead of the woman.
Just for a minute.

reply from: Sigma

No. The woman, not the fetus, is of paramount importance in the pregnancy relationship. She should be given consideration first.

reply from: yoda

Of course!
How else can one give the stamp of approval to the bloody killing of the innocent baby unless one "gives consideration first" to the mother who wishes to kill it?
How else can one justify killing at all, unless one pretends that the victim of the killing does not matter, or does not exist?
IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF THE INNOCENT, YOU MUST FIRST PRETEND THAT THEY EITHER DO NOT EXIST, OR ARE NOT "ORDINARY" HUMAN BEINGS!
Otherwise you end up looking like the bloodthirsty killerS you really are! And who wants to look like that?

reply from: MaleNurse

Why? Now you have an opportunity to back this statement up with some kind of logical flow of facts. This, by itself is an opinion.
Does morality tell you that the woman is of paramount importance?
The facts I see clearly are that there is 2 humans involved in the pregnancy. Do you agree?

reply from: Sigma

It is both fact and opinion. It is fact that the woman is given more consideration and it is my opinion that it should be this way.
Yes. Do you agree that one is using the bodily resources of the other to live, perhaps against the desire of the other?

reply from: AshMarie88

That is sad Sigma, just sad... Your stance scares me.

reply from: Sigma

As yours horrifies me, AshMarie88. We both know this, so it is redundant to point it out.

reply from: MaleNurse

I agree the fetus uses the bodily resources of the mother as [ Fact ]
You couldn't formulate a fact from a conditional "perhaps"
How is it a fact that the woman is given more consideration? "consideration" is an action that may or may not happen with varying degrees(It can't be a fact). Do you base your opinion on a moral premise?

reply from: Sigma

Then you agree that the woman contributes more physical benefit to the fetus and the fetus contributes more physical detriment to the woman, at least during the pregnancy? Would you then agree that it is reasonable to say that one way to judge their relative importance to the pregnancy relationship is based on the amount of benefit they contribute to the relationship?
It is a fact that some women desire their body to be used in this way or, at least, desire the outcome. It is a fact that some women do not desire their body to be used in this way and/or the outcome. Thus it is valid to say it is a fact that perhaps the use of her body is against her desire.
The fetus is not considered to have Constitutional protection. The woman does have such protection. Thus I can say more consideration is given to the woman than the fetus in the eyes of society.
My opinion would have to be, would it not?

reply from: yoda

My opinion would have to be, would it not?
No, not at all. There is "amoral" and "immoral", one of which would be more accurate in your case.

reply from: MaleNurse

Before we continue; (and I know Yoda will love this) Lets get the "Facts" straight:
I only bring this in to keep guidence on what we are looking for regarding the "facts"

reply from: MaleNurse

I am curious what physical detriment the fetus has on the woman?

reply from: Sigma

It was a yes or no question.
By this I assume that, in your medical opinion as a nurse, you disagree that a normal pregnancy is inherently and generally detrimental to the woman's physical body. Lets break down the steps then. Would you agree that, in addition to the normal risks of various conditions that a normal pregnancy has, a normal pregnancy places some amount of stress on the woman's body?

reply from: MaleNurse

Correct, I disagree. In fact, nullparity is more detrimental...or pregnancy is more benificial.
Funny, I'm reading about it at this exact moment. You enter shaky ground with your assertion following this path. You would have to prove her physiologic response (the bad responses[the stress]) is under her conscious control, (which it is not)
Okay, then yes, it places stress on a woman's body. But I would like to know which stressor you're referring to.
The weight, the hormones, the risks,ect.

reply from: Sigma

Being nulliparous is no detriment. It simply provides no benefit. The completion of pregnancy provides benefit, yes, but we are not talking about that. What physical benefit are you referring to that occurs during the pregnancy?
Do you deny that there is any physical detriment to the woman during the pregnancy?
I do not believe this to be so. I simply have to show that the relationship is unequal in that the woman provides only benefit (providing everything for the developing fetus), while the fetus itself provides only or almost entirely detriment (its presence may initiate beneficial changes in the woman's body, but it does not contribute anything itself besides waste products)
Would you then agree that this stress is greater than the woman alone would place on her body, given normal activity?

reply from: MaleNurse

Go to family practice notebook .com do search for
Ovarian cancer
Endometrial Cancer
Breast Cancer
Look under "risk factors"
To answer this accurately I need specifics. Certainly their are changes that occur as adaptive responses to pregnancy. For example, the placenta releases estrogen causing GI muscles to relax --> constipation. Howver, slowed motility through the GI allows for greater absorbtion of nutrients. (now needed for baby and mother) Is that the sort of detriment you are refeerring to? In fact all the responses will be for the benefit of baby and mother. (except the back pain, oh yea, and the delivery pain). It's a great system someone created, incredibly complex balance.
Not really. Consider this.
An marathon runner jogs 5 miles. Doesn't even feel winded.
vs
Male Nurse runs 5 miles. After I cough up a lung to catch my breath.
Both endured the same stress(5 miles) but the marathon runner had adapted to running such distances. The same is true of pregnancy. And it happens automatically. To answer your question:
If a woman got pregnant and had no adaptive response then it would be a great stress. But the [fact] is, this always happens.

reply from: Sigma

I have no need to, I have researched the issue before. A woman's base risk would be when she is not pregnant. Bearing children lowers the risk, high doses of drugs that contain estrogen increases the risk, becoming obese increases the risk, etc.
Of course these changes have a purpose, but they lower the woman's overall health as compared to when she is not pregnant. Come now, you are not obtuse. You know there are changes to the woman's body that sap her energy, interfere with normal blood flow, discharge various fluids, enlarge certain organs and place stress on the various systems of the woman's body. Of course these changes have an adaptive purpose, but that does not negate that this causes pain and discomfort and lowers the woman's overall health as compared to the same woman not being pregnant. A healthy pregnancy still has these negative effects, to say nothing of a high-risk pregnancy.
In addition to the changes to the woman's body, the fetus draws upon her nutrients and its wastes are deposited into her bloodstream. Not only is the pregnancy itself a detriment to her health and body, the fetus itself places stress upon the woman.
Your example makes no sense. I am not comparing two different people. I am also not dismissing that the changes happening are of adaptive necessity, I am stating that these changes are a detriment to the woman's overall health.
Your example would make more sense if the marathon were normal non-pregnant stress on the body and fitness were general health. An illness laid you low and you went from not even winded to coughing up a lung during a marathon race. Losing fitness was an adaptive necessity to fighting the illness, but you were less prepared for the marathon. As a result of the illness, your overall fitness was diminished.

reply from: AshMarie88

But guess what? All that is normal. Abortion is not.
A woman's body was made for bearing children, not having them ripped out of her.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, that is a normal pregnancy. In every pregnancy there is a detriment to the woman's body, sometimes a severe detriment and sometimes less of a detriment, depending on the woman. No, induced abortion is not natural. Induced abortion removes or stops the detriment to her body.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, that is a normal pregnancy. In every pregnancy there is a detriment to the woman's body, sometimes a severe detriment and sometimes less of a detriment, depending on the woman. No, induced abortion is not natural. Induced abortion removes or stops the detriment to her body.
Abortion also removes a newly conceived human being, without its consent.
Why can't a woman wait and have the child, and then when the child is 5 or so, ask if they want to be killed?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Yes, that is a normal pregnancy. In every pregnancy there is a detriment to the woman's body, sometimes a severe detriment and sometimes less of a detriment, depending on the woman. No, induced abortion is not natural. Induced abortion removes or stops the detriment to her body.
Abortion also removes a newly conceived human being, without its consent.
Why can't a woman wait and have the child, and then when the child is 5 or so, ask if they want to be killed?
Ooh ooh I know I know!*Ahem* Because we should not require her to give birth to her precious baby

reply from: Sigma

Consent is an empty concept to such a creature, and it is attached to another without that other's consent.
Why? You would have to ask the woman in question.

reply from: yoda

DEATH is not an empty concept to "such a creature" as an unborn baby, Sigma. And yet you support death being forced upon that totally innocent creatrure at the whim of it's mother. You give the mother the right to take innocent life on a whim, as if it was nothing more than a new hair style. That goes way, way beyond cold, and into a dark realm I don't even want to imagine. If there's a scale for coldness, yours would be at absolute zero.

reply from: MaleNurse

Just to stay on target. Your statement was:
If ovarian/breast/endometrial cancer is detrimental
And higher incidence of these cancers among nalliparous women
Conclude: Nullparity is detrimental.
That makes your statement false.
So you are saying adaptive response means lower health status. I completely disagree. Try this.
The man living in Scarborough ME., moves to Denver.(1 mile high) Oxygen pressure is lower. His body adapts by making more red blood cells. -->greater O2 carrying capacity to the now limited oxygen. Did this adaption lower his health status as compared to when he lived in the lobster state?
The same is true of pregnancy adaptions. If NO adaptions occured, then you'd be correct. But when these adaptions don't occur, the stresses on the body correct the situation itself. There would be no need to perform an elective abortion. A miscarriage would occur.
You misunderstand: I am responding here to your statement:
The marathon runner example illustrates response to a stressor. Marathon runner with adaption. Male Nurse no adaption. It shows what is considered "stress" is variable based on the presence or absense of adaptive responses. You asked "is this stress greater" I said no. The high altitude example also fits this.(and its the same person)
The [fact] is that the fetus only uses the excess nutrients. So the woman is never deprived of her fair share. I'll give you that the nutrient intake definitely increases, so there's more to go around overall. But the pecking order is woman first baby second. Consider folate deficiency leading to nueral tube defects. Baby suffers woman does not.
It's easy to use the grotesque appeal of "wastes being deposited in the bloodstream" Be aware that I recognize this tactic (said politely)
You have to show that the waste creates some stress without adaption = detriment. Other than more trips to the bathroom, I don't think you could level with yourself and say you got an abortion because you hated peeing so much.
I totally don't understand your response to marathon runner. A smokey gray at best. And I read it slowly !

reply from: Sigma

No, it doesn't. If every woman is given the same number of tickets and when a woman gives birth she is given more tickets, this does not mean that your number of tickets is diminished.
A woman's has a base risk, and gains a benefit when she has children.
Sometimes, yes. Adaptations solve problems, and sometimes this is to the detriment of the creature involved if the problem is a necessary one to solve.
I see. So, if changing elevation didn't lower that person's overall health then pregnancy would not. Your stance is, then, that pregnancy is as hard on the womans body as acclimating to changing elevation would be. Your stance also seems to be that if a body adapts a certain way there cannot be a detriment to the creatures health as a result of this adaptation.
Your example had nothing to do with my question. There were two stressors in my question. The fetus and the activity. Would you agree that the stress is greater on the woman who is pregnant than same woman who is not pregnant, given the same normal activity?
lol. I see. How should it be phrased?
MaleNurse. Stay with me. The adaptations are a result of the increased stress upon her body. The woman's body can, generally, handle the detriment to her body. This does not negate that there is a detriment to her body. I am not assigning a moral value to this detriment, I am stating that a detriment exists. Coughing is an adaptation, but coughing can damage the throat. It serves a purpose, but there is a detriment. Fevers are an adaptation to deal with infections, but fevers can be deadly. Anaerobic reactions are an adaptation, but anaerobic reactions produce toxins that make our muscles burn. It is ignorant in the extreme to ignore that there are downsides to adaptations even if they solve a problem. Pregnancy is an essential adaptation to enable us to reproduce. This does not mean that pregnancy is not also damn hard on the woman's body.

reply from: MaleNurse

Lets give Logic one more try:
Cancer = Detriment
Nullparity = Cancer
Nullparity = Detriment
A=B, B=C,.:A=C
The [fact] is that detriment occurs when adaption doesn't happen. Adaption is NOT detrimental to the mother. I submit, that the perfect balance exists in human reproduction. Adaption totally negates the stress. Even pain itself is an adaption

Correct !
Library is closing now, sorry !

reply from: Sigma

I know something of logic, MaleNurse. By what you posted a logical conclusion can also be: life=cancer and life=detriment.
Being nulliparous is the base risk.
Far from perfect, but yes. The deleterious effects on the woman are part of that balance in exchange for reproduction.
No adaptation negates stress. Removing the stress negates the stress.
I see. Earlier I saw that a woman's uterus is for nothing more than incubating a fetus, and now pregnancy is no harder on the woman's body than changing elevation. Wow. I should write a book.
You do realize, of course, that some adaptations end up killing the creature who has adapted that way, yes? For a certain purpose, surely, but an adaptation that does not allow the creature to eat would be detrimental to the creature's health would it not?

reply from: MaleNurse

Does that pass the test of common sense? Really? Honestly? I shouldn't have to invoke Webster for this.
We're going circular again. Gotta do this.
Function = baseline health status
Stress = cause of compromised function
Compromised function = causes of adaption
Adaption = restored function
Restored function = No stress
No stress = baseline health status
To understand, stop thinking of the pregnancy as a disease. It is not "pathological", but rather it is "physiological."
What is this stuff? I don't know what to say.
A uterus does function to incubate the fetus. I'm not sure what else it does, not to say other functons might occur.
Adaption occurring with a change in elevation is the same as adaption occurring in pregnancy. Obviously not the same adaption or number of adaptive processes. But, yes, the result is the same.
BTW have you ever seen a pregnant woman jogging? (I only mention it now but it might come up again later)
What are you talking? a tape worm?

reply from: Sigma

No, but it passes your logic test.
Adaptations occur to deal with stress. The stress is not negated, the bodies ability to cope with that stress is strengthened, often at the expense of some other aspect of the body. The woman's body has many adaptations to deal with the stress of pregnancy and subsequent childbirth. That does not mean that pregnancy and childbirth do not take a toll on the woman's body. I'm starting to doubt you are a nurse at all.
I'm not thinking of pregnancy as a disease, I'm thinking about it as an essential adaptation with an associated cost to the woman's general health.
No, it really isn't. Change in elevation would result in acclimation. We are already adapted for that sort of environment.
The ability to adjust to a change in elevation is an adaptation, it is true. That adjustment is not as hard on a person's body as adjusting the the presence of the fetus within the woman, however. To suggest it is seriously trivializes what women go through with pregnancy and childbirth.
The result is not the same. A minor change in elevation produces a minor adjustment. A major change in elevation produces a greater adjustment. There comes a point where the adjustment is just enough to allow us to survive with great difficulty and our health would be lessened. The result in pregnancy is a situation where the woman's general health would be better were she not pregnant.
Yes, of course
No. The creature's own adaptation eventually results in the creature being unable to eat and dying of starvation, if nothing else kills it first.

reply from: MaleNurse

My logic:
Your Logic:
There isn't even an inference for "life" in my logic statement
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Stay within the parameters of this discussion. Since we started on the "attached against will" topic - we're talking "during the pregnancy" right? So are you saying the pregnancy takes a "toll" on woman body during or after pregnancy?
If "during" what is the toll it takes.
Again, what is the cost on the woman's general health?
Why? Because there is more adaptions with pregnancy? I'm not trying to trivialize pregnancy, I admit there are a greater number of adaptions vs increased altitude.
Okay, I give up - what is it?

reply from: yoda

You know, pregnancy is stressful for all creatures, both great and small, but it's the only way any species can survive more than one generation.
However, the stress of parenting doesn't necessarily go down after birth, does it? Raising a family, especially a large one, under trying conditions, can be extremely stressful, right?
So, according to Siggy's "moral model", parents ought to be able to kill their kids after birth if they make their parent's life stressful, right? And who would want to adopt a child that makes it's parent's life so stressful that they want to kill them? No, by Siggy's standards Andrea Yates was well within her moral rights to have drowned her five kids in that bathtub.

reply from: MaleNurse

Does the stress imposed by the pregnancy, particularly by the blastocyst form a moral connection to the later stress imposed by the 1 day old, 1 year old, 10 year old munch-kin.
The mere fact that sigma acknowledges a stress caused by the pregnancy indicates that she acknowleges that a blastocyst at 7 days DO WHATEVER it is that blastocysts DO to cause stress. (As she hasn't yet educated me)
And at 1 year of age, 1 year olds, causing stress on the new mother, do whatever it is that 1 year olds do to cause stress.
And at 40 years of age (me) do whatever it is I do to cause stress on my mother.
My mother (and wife) have to "put up with me"

reply from: yoda

Welcome back, cp! That's precisely the conclusion I've come to.
There is no of balance or porportion in all of Sigma's arguments, he seemingly equates the life of a baby with a piece of ordinary property of it's parents. One must wonder how anyone could hold life so cheaply.

reply from: yoda

Precisely. Once again, the inconvenience of "attachment" is raised to a mortal threat level, so there is no porportion to the things being valued equally.
And the chilling thing is that all this garbage is produced as if one were simply writing computer code, line by line, like a machine.

reply from: Sigma

Your logic suggested that having no children equals cancer, apparently because one has a larger risk. If one is alive, one has a higher risk as compared to being dead. Therefore, according to your logic, life=cancer.
Then the talk of cancer is meaningless since the protection is afforded after the birth.
Yes, during pregnancy there is detriment to the woman's health. As I mentioned before: You know there are changes to the woman's body that sap her energy, interfere with normal blood flow, discharge various fluids, enlarge certain organs and place stress on the various systems of the woman's body.
MaleNurse, as a nurse, would you tell a pregnant woman that she may not be able to be as active while she is pregnant as she was beforehand?
The number of adaptations is meaningless in this discussion. You trivialize pregnancy when you deny it has an impact upon her health.
This isn't a quiz; I don't expect you to guess. I asked if that would be an adaptation that is detrimental to the health of the creature.
I shouldn't have to. You should know the negative effects of pregnancy upon the woman's body. The mere fact you are asking tells me you are just being stubborn.
No, they don't. They could have put you up for adoption, they could stop contact with you now if they truly wished to.

reply from: Sigma

Jiminy willikers! You're wrong. You can kill an intruder who is destroying your property in some States.
Golly gee! I have not tried to justify abortion under those statutes, though you continually act as though I am. You're a one trick pony, and even that one trick isn't very good.
Aw shucks! At least you admit the fetus does not have the right to do so. Someone stealing a candy bar does not interfere with one's physical body. Your comparison here is absurd; you might as well have said "Well, you can't kill someone for stealing a candy bar so you can't kill someone for trying to kill you". They are simply too different to compare.
Holy rusted metal Batman! Amazingly enough, I haven't tried to justify abortion in that way. *gasp*
Well grab my banjo and call me akimbo! Since it was not the intent to get pregnant your analogy does not exactly apply.
Great jumping crickets! No, you can't. You can justify adoption and giving the child away to relatives or family, however.
Since we are arguing a different point that seems to be over your head, I will leave this be.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

What if they tried to grab it from your hand? Do you have the right to shoot them?

reply from: Sigma

I am not trying to apply them as you seem to think I am applying them
And yet, I certainly laugh at these little attempts of yours.
You said: We went through the statutes you found, and there was never any justification for killing an intruder except when you are in danger.
And I point out: You're wrong
In a sense it does. If the woman does not desire or consent to having something attached to her in that way, then it is against her will. The fetus cannot consent, of course. Implantation is non-consensual, in that sense.
No, I'm not I really am not. You keep saying I am, but I never do.

reply from: yoda

I am not trying to apply them as you seem to think I am applying them
That is simply a lie. By bringing up these arguments (even when you label them "others say"), you give credence to them. Since we know you as a committed probabykilling advocate, anything you repeat as a justification for abortion, even if you don't claim to support that justification, is done under your forum name and therefore YOUR claim. Those stupid claims might never even appear here if not for you, therefore YOU are responsible for them.
Yet another blatent lie from YOU. You CLAIM that a fetus "does" posess the ability to invade a woman, and yet you make no effort to show that such an ability exists. You merely point out that women don't consciously "consent" to the pregnancy. Just another day of lying so that more babies will be killed, right?

reply from: MaleNurse

As I started with: Check out "Family Practice Notebook. com" (you didn't want to)
Search for Ovarian, Cervical, Endometrial, Breast - Cancer.
This I promise is a neutral medical website. If nothing else It's a great resource for common illness. (better than buying that Mayo-Clinic book)
Through this I qualified that nullparity produced increased risk for such cancers.
And the logic ensued...
Are you just goofing with me or being serious?
I began with:
Cancer = Detriment
Nullparity = Cancer
Nullparity = Detriment
I guess you could say:
Death = Detriment
Cancer = Detriment
Nullparity = Cancer
Cancer = Death
Nullparity = Detriment
Nullparity = Death
But how will you conclude that:
Death = Life
Give me your argument in this type of linear fashion so I can understand it please.
So long as we are talking about a "normal preganacy" ....NO In fact, staying active makes for a healthier baby. Those Cheeta's in Africa still hunt while pregnant, they gotta still eat.
Okay fair enough, but lets be specific and say I "trizialize the physiologic strain on the woman imposed by an attached fetus against the woman's will."
That's what this discussion is about isn't it?
We're talking a "normal pregnancy" correct? If you are talking about gestational diabetes, or eclampsia or something, that's totally different. That's not normal pregnancy.
So you do agree that every blastocyst acts as a blastocyst should. And that every 1 year old acts as a 1 year should.
And that every blastocyst has the potential to become a 1 year old?
Do you agree?

reply from: Sigma

I already know that carrying pregnancy to term and bearing a child reduce the chance of these cancers, but thank you.
This really is a strange and illogical way to think about it. Women do not perform some action to become nulliparous as other factors that affect risk require.
You seem to equate higher risk with what the risk is. Since having no children does not equal a 100% chance of cancer (as far as I know, anyway), your symbolic use does not seem valid. However, using this one can say that being alive=cancer since any person alive has some risk of cancer versus someone dead.
So:
Cancer=detriment, Life=cancer, Life=detriment
One can also conclude that: Life=death since being alive carries a 100% risk of death.
Your logic is not useful the way you have constructed it.
I am not suggesting a pregnant woman should do nothing. Let me put it another way: What cautions would you give a pregnant women when you suggest staying active.
If you wish. You trivialize the impact pregnancy makes upon the woman's body.
Certainly, though some life-threatening conditions such as peripartum cardiomyopathy and anemia are more severe versions of what normally happens to the woman's body during pregnancy.
Should? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Certainly a blastocyst cannot act any other way.
I would not say that. Not all, even with no intervention, will develop. Some develop into hydatidiform moles and some are aborted spontaneously.

reply from: MaleNurse

I didn't think of it. It is directly from the textbook
No insult intented, but I don't feel you have a grasp of formal logic. (In the school taught setting.) I don't know where to start with the phrases you've introduced.
But for a start, you don't disprove a logic statement by adding new inferences. You have to stick with what is presented and demonstrate rule violations.
(My old roomy Dan-O used to do this all the time)
Drink water, take vitamins, eat healthy. ect.
However in this argument, do we do this for the sake of the woman's health or the babies health?

Is that a Certainly "Yes" or Certainly "No"
Cardiomegaly in "normal" pregnancy?

reply from: Sigma

That's fine, it continues to be an illogical way of thinking about it.
I am not trying to disprove your logical statements. I am showing your premise and process leads to useless conclusions.
Let me clarify again, then. What cautions about staying active would you advise the woman to take? Obviously a pregnant woman would avoid certain activities.
Certainly yes we are talking of normal pregnancies.
No, I did not say peripartum cardiomyopathy occurred in normal pregnancies, I said that is a more severe version of what normally happens, as is anemia.
During pregnancy the woman's heart works a great deal harder as the fetus grows, both at rest and when active. Heart murmurs and irregularities are normal. A woman whose heart activity does not return to normal may develop that.

reply from: Sigma

lol, I see! So you were using a very broad meaning of 'danger' to mean danger to your property or suffering a loss of your property as well. Your twisting about is amusing to watch
So, not all danger is physical and killing another can be justified for both physical and non-physical harm as well. I agree

reply from: yoda

Seems to me you'd justify killing over a hangnail, so that's no surprise. You just like the idea of killing people, period.
But especially those that are tiny, weak, and defenseless.

reply from: Sigma

Disregarded it? It wasn't involved in our discussion. I was agreeing with what you said.
I did not attempt to. Intent is an empty concept to apply to a fetus.
lol. It was both reasonable and logical for me to assume you meant physical danger, given the context. It would have been unreasonable for me to assume you had a broader meaning in mind. You should have qualified it

reply from: Sigma

lol, no, I admit current law does not address abortion. Since I do not try to justify abortion under current law, this holds no problem.
In some situations it does

reply from: Sigma

This site exists because pro-life people wish the law to disallow abortion. Currently the law is not strictly involved.
lol. I do not require you to accept my reasoning Nor would I expect it, as you have a hard time with logical discussion.
Oh, it is a fact that the fetus does not have that right. It is a fact that none have that right. Whether this justifies killing would depend on State law, as it is opinion. To disallow abortion would be to give the fetus that right.
My citations of other situations have already served their purpose with you, as it has shown your repeated assertion that killing is only justified to defend life is flat wrong. By all means, continue frothing at the mouth saying "OMG OMG you can't justify abortion with that law!!11". I haven't been trying to

reply from: Sigma

Um, duh, I didn't assert this to be the case.
My argument is not what you say it is, nor was yours what you pretend it to be.
Other statutes were brought up to show that killing is justified in other situations besides to defend life. Does this justify abortion by itself? No, nor did I ever say it did. You keep bringing up dead issues, and I keep beating them back into the ground.
I never expected anything different from you, no worries.
We generally speak of the time-frame that the vast majority of abortions are performed, which is the time-frame that States cannot restrict abortion, which is the time-frame that is generally the point of contention between pro-choice and pro-life people. The law is not strictly involved in the woman's decision.

reply from: yoda

Since this debate, and this entire forum, is centered on and mainly concerns the subject of abortion, it is reasonable to take everything you say here as an attempt to justify abortion. We have no reason to think that you are posting your thoughts here for any other reason than to support abortion on demand.
We all know you to be a probabykilling advocate, there is no need for you to pretend otherwise. Your coy attempts to post "what others say" does not in the least relieve you of the responsibility for those words appearing in YOUR posts.

reply from: Sigma

Your attacks lack anything resembling substance I was correcting your misunderstanding.


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