A Conception's Right To Life

[palerider]

I would also welcome socialized medicine. If the US was a civilized nation, we would already have socialized medicine.

So we could euthanize babies and old people and have others dying while waiting for care that they will never get. Before you wish for socialized medicine, you really should take a good look. In the UK people are pulling their own teeth because they can't get in to see a dentist. How do you feel about pulling your own teeth? Personally, I don't like the idea.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, I would welcome having the option of euthanasia available. For myself. Many older people would like to have that option. We think the peiople who deny it to us are barbarians.

The doctors in England asked for the right to kill disabled babies:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article625477.ece

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200503300755.asp

The Church of England called for it, as well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article634486.ece

I would also welcome socialized medicine. If the US was a civilized nation, we would already have socialized medicine.

Euthanasia is generally Utilitarianism drawn to it's logical barbaric conclusion.

One of the arguments against abortion used to be that devaluing the life of the unborn would eventually lead to the devaluaion of even living babies. I guess that argument is obsolete only because one can't say that something WILL happen if it has already happened.

Socialized medicine would bring about all the restrictions of civil liberties that you just finished saying you were not in favor of over on the "fat" thread. It is also immoral to steal from one person for the benefit of another while at the same time enabling the unproductivity of the other and restricting the civil liberties of all. Yes, there are people who are in need. But we do not need to create an evil situation in order to solve the problem.

 

[samsara15]

Canada's version of socialized medicine seems to work pretty well. If we don't solve the financial mess, we'll soon all be without the health care we now consider routine. Even if we do solve it, rising costs will deny basic health care to a lot of people in the next few years.

 

[samsara15]

Euthanasia is generally Utilitarianism drawn to it's logical barbaric conclusion.

Socialized medicine would bring about all the restrictions of civil liberties that you just finishes saying you were not in favor of. It is also immoral to steal from one person for the benefit of another while at the same time enabling the unprodictivity of the other. Yes, there are people who are in need. But we do not need to create an evil situation in order to solve the problem.

A lot of Americans, myself included, wish we had the option of euthanasia instead of the grossly expensive, painful, and slow way we are murdered in hospitals.

Stealing from other people...like the corporate execs who have been stealing from the stockholders and working employees? What saituation could be more evil than that which currently exists, where the world is entering a depression because of the uncontrolled greed of a small elite?

 

[Dr.Who]

Canada's version of socialized medicine seems to work pretty well. If we don't solve the financial mess, we'll soon all be without the health care we now consider routine. Even if we do solve it, rising costs will deny basic health care to a lot of people in the next few years.

I hate to be so blunt but I just can't think of a better way to say this so clealry.

Wrong.
wrong.
and
wrong.


Canada's health system works no better than the US's except that it is immoral to boot.

The present financial crisis if not made worse by our present government will go away as recessions tend to do. The state of health care in the US has been doing nothing but getting better for two hundred years and will continue to do so if it is not socialized. Costs will be checked as long as we allow checks to work. Socialized medicine as it's first act will eliminate all the checks except those of some heartless beaurocrat. Do you want your health care decisions to be between you and your doctor or between your doctor and a nameless beaurocrat? Read this if you care to.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

 

[palerider]

It's been fully adjudicated and the decision is in my favor... that's just a fact. You on the other hand are living on a pipe dream that someday it "MIGHT" change. It's a clear case of WHAT IS v. WHAT IS NOT.

Are you really this dishonest, or is it stupidity? I doubt that you even know what the word means. The case rests on an assumption that has long since been proven faulty. No case has yet forced the court to rule on what is being terminated. But they are coming and even a liberal court will find itself able to justify a ruling that unborns are not human beings in the light of the mass of medical, scientific, and legal evidence they will recieve.

I'm simply saying you have clearly established yourself as a Clinic Creeper. As far as anyone being afraid of you... pleeeease! The women in here clearly take you to task and thump ya... let alone the men! And we're all quite sure you are neither big nor bad... just constipated

One more unsupportable claim on your part. And do feel free to point out a single point that I have ever lost. If it happens as often as you say, you should find it easy to provide plenty. We both know that you won't because you can't. You lose again.

There's no "fog of war" goofball... LOL! It's a pre-strike estimate. It's the deliberate killing of the innocent for a conflicting purpose

Again, you prove that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't suppose you have ever been to war. And do feel free to point out any authorization by congress to target "innocents". Appeals to emotion and red herrings don't help your case topgun, they only highlight the weakness of your argument.

Come on you can't be this dense. That passage is saying God created mankind equal... not when individuals have sex and get pregnant. [/COLOR]

Sorry, but that is not what it says. They said that we are endowed by our creator with certain rights. Since they didn't say that we are endowed when we are born, it stands to reason that we are endowed at the time of our creation. Of course, reason hardly holds any place in your argument does it. You have proven repeatedly that you lack any knowledge of our history, our founding documents, or the constitution. You are over your head here.

That's fine... but of course it has nothing to do with what was said in the Constitution in 1776. They didn't say conception because they didn't mean conception. There have always been cruel & controlling hypocritical Holy Roller anti-women's rights groups trying to push their religious agenda on others. That has nothing to do with what the Constitution says (or better put doesn't say) about abortion

They used a word that is synonomous with conception. That should give you a clue and perhaps if you were just a little bit brighter, you would be able to pick up on it.

No actually they would have said "at conception" if they had meant at conception. And as has been previously posted when they do speak directly to other rights they do say "all born in".

Conception and creation mean the same thing.

created - v - to cause to come into being

concieved - v - to begin, originate, or found

Further, only mentiuon the founders made to being born was that only a natural born citizen could be president and no one is arguing for the right of unborns to be president. Face it, you don't know enough about the constitution, or our fouders to support your claims. It is clear, by the number of times that you have had to be corrected that you are just making it up as you go. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be trying to associate the word born with anything the founders wrote.

You lost this war almost 4 decades ago and you certainly can't win now in 2009 and beyond... accept it or continue to piss into the wind screaming at the ladies. Makes no difference me.

Actually, a battle was lost. I have seen no truce, and I have seen no armistice. What I have seen is people like you dwindling into an ever smaller and smaller minority. At best, according to pro choice polls, abortion on demand folks like you are under 20% of the population now. You are on a sinking ship and don't even know it.

 

[palerider]

Canada's version of socialized medicine seems to work pretty well. If we don't solve the financial mess, we'll soon all be without the health care we now consider routine. Even if we do solve it, rising costs will deny basic health care to a lot of people in the next few years.

Canada's version of socialized medicine is driving them to bankruptcy and canadians are flooding across the border to get care that simply isn't avaiable there or will have to wait far too long for. Which part of that do you consider to be working out pretty well?

 

[palerider]

A lot of Americans, myself included, wish we had the option of euthanasia instead of the grossly expensive, painful, and slow way we are murdered in hospitals.

Appeal to emotion does not constitute rational argument.

Stealing from other people...like the corporate execs who have been stealing from the stockholders and working employees? What saituation could be more evil than that which currently exists, where the world is entering a depression because of the uncontrolled greed of a small elite?

Neither does the injection of red herrings.

Off the top of my head, legally allowing women to have killed 40 million plus children in the past 40 years without judicial review and with out legal consequences seems to be more evil than all the financial harm that all the corporations that have ever existed. If you want to drag evil into the discussion, what could possibly be more evil than killing 40 million children? Except maybe allowing the killing to continue unabated?

 

[samsara15]

A look at socialized meidicine in various nations:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/socialized.html

Only Iran and Cuba, according to this article, have truly socialized medicine. If you truly hate government ruin programs, they recommend that you go to Afghanistan. Switzerland's system sounds interesting.

 

[palerider]

A look at socialized meidicine in various nations:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/socialized.html

Only Iran and Cuba, according to this article, have truly socialized medicine. If you truly hate government ruin programs, they recommend that you go to Afghanistan. Switzerland's system sounds interesting.

Sorry, but if you want to see how our government would handle socialized medicine, you only need look at the VA. It is a disaster and the population that they care for is a tiny fraction of the population that a generalized socialized medicine scheme would be. Try getting care through the VA sometime and tell me you would like to see the whole country run like that.

 

[samsara15]

The present financial crisis if not made worse by our present government will go away as recessions tend to do. The state of health care in the US has been doing nothing but getting better for two hundred years and will continue to do so if it is not socialized. Costs will be checked as long as we allow checks to work. Socialized medicine as it's first act will eliminate all the checks except those of some heartless beaurocrat. Do you want your health care decisions to be between you and your doctor or between your doctor and a nameless beaurocrat? Read this if you care to.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

The US has the worst and most expensive health care of any major Western nation. I would prefer some faceless beaurocrat to my doctor or almost any other doctor I can locate.

 

[Pandora]

Yeah did'nt you know? We're lobbying the IOC to get it included into the 2012 Olympics as a guest sport! Instead of street mugging we're having baby bashing..............





just joking Crystal.......

ok i know you are joking about the olympics but do they really kill disabled kids in your country? I honestly dont know but I need to find out

 

[palerider]

Are you trying to hijack the conversation to socialized medicine because you admit that you are unable to rationally defend your postion on abortion?

 

[Chip]

You've clearly shown us what you think about women, Chip. You see them as Breeding machines. BTW, before I retired, I worked at a software engineering firm that had lots of female software engineers who held supervisory positions.

Erroneous. Irrelevant. Divertive.

Here the pro-abortion sophister simply continues to post another in his initiated chain of unprovoked erroneous topical irrelevancies, leveling unjustified erroneous fantasized unprovoked ad hominems at the pro-life messenger because he, the pro-abortion sophister, simply can't handle emotionally the reality of the murderous abortion he supports of which the pro-life messenger presents.

Because the pro-abortion sophister continues to post ludicrous irrelevancies and unprovoked ad hominems, ignoring the topical matter of this thread as set forth by the opening post, it is apparant the pro-abortion sophister is simply trying to derail the topical flow of this thread with divertive digressive ad hominem, maybe even hoping the thread will thereby get closed.

Perhaps a moderator, averse to the pro-abortion sophister's tactic of derailing threads off-topic or inciting an ad hominem war to close a thread, will reprimand the pro-abortion sophister.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[The Scotsman]

ok i know you are joking about the olympics but do they really kill disabled kids in your country? I honestly dont know but I need to find out

...........no pet lamb we don't....seriously.... we don't live in the world of Soylent Green......yet!!


It was in response to a question Pale asked, you know one of those where they try an weedle the "real truth" and turn it into "but what you really mean is..." But putting it in language that mere mortals would understand I was looking at Pale's question in a slight different light, one of choice, for example as a newly announced pregnant mother you're told that your baby is going to be severly handicapped and in all likely hood will not live and that an abortion is available IF you wish........ what would you do? Go for it you decide Yes or No. So that was the scenario I was envisaging. Anyway as it turns out changed into "Do you euthanize handicapped children in the UK?" to which the only possible answer is yes because it gets a hugh rise out of the fanboys...........

.........hook line and sinker as they say.........

okay.....so awaiting the next frightening chapter in the saga of foul baby murdering pro-abortionist Soylent Greenist slime versus the righteous Charlton Hestonists ..............