A Conception's Right To Life

[Pandora]

...........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 ..............

ahhh I feel much better now. That really did scare me. China does it, they do it even if the baby is healthy and with the mother crying please dont do it.

Personally if it were me I would keep the baby


that was a good movie, soylent green. I doubt we ever get there. Gosh I sure hope not.

But I do honestly worry that we will get to a point were some freaks in congress will decide who can have babies and who can not, and what babies will be able to live, and how long a person has before they snuff them out. More like logan's run

Of course the freaks in congress will never have those same standards be held to them selves or the ones they love. but even that I see as a long way off.


I should have known you are joking, I could not find anything in google about the UK killing disabled children

 

[Chip]

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

Translation: "I, Scotsman, was avoiding through procrastination, but rather than take responsibility for that, my behavior, I choose to unjustifiably blame others for my behavior, complete with derogatory ad hominems."

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.

A mother gives birth and the doctors soon notify the couple that their baby's brain is not formed correctly. Though their baby will live if some costly procedures are performed, their baby will never be normal, and will likely live whatever shorter life that person has left confined to a bed, incapable of communicating.

Here are the choices.

1. Have the baby killed immediately.

2. Do nothing, let the baby live and die without heroic measures.

3. Have the expensive surgery, give the baby a fighting chance at the best life possible.

Those are the choices.

Some people will choose option 2. They accept with great sadness the fate assigned to another person. They choose to live and let live, for however long life is, and not intervene.

Some people will choose option 3. They believe it is their parental duty to give their child a fighting chance and live with that and the responsibilities of parenting, no matter what the cost, so they elect to have the surgery, hoping that advancements in science will soon be able to correct the defect.

My questions to you are as follows:

1. What do you imagine would be the thinking of those who would choose option 1?

2. Since option 1 is, by definition, murder, unjustly, with premeditative intent, depriving that person of that person's right to life (the murder weapon -- "euthanizing procedure" -- being, as always irrelevant with regard to justification for murder), how can one sociologically commit murder and get away with it sociologically, what rationalization would they use as justification that they and others could live with?

3. Because the murder of a post-natal person in this scenario is clearly wrong, unjustly depriving that person of that person's right to life, why do you think that the murder of a pre-natal person isn't wrong? (And no, citing varying situations of "because the law allows it", is, of course, an emotional cop out and not an allowable answer here, especially considering that the more recent presentation by science, that the newly conceived is indeed a person, a unique individual human being at that person's earliest stage of being a person, will likely soon motivate repeal of all the ancient archaic "laws" that in some places condone this type of murder.)

4. Isn't it quite possible that the only reason one would choose option 1 for either a pre- or post- natal person is a whole lot less for the supposed benefit of the murdered and a whole lot more for the benefit of the murderers?

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

That's crazy.

 

[palerider]

Interesting, don't you think?

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

clip:

ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.
The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/051mi013.html

clip:

In a well known trial, a Dr. Arthur in U. K. had prescribed an overdose of codeine to a baby with Down syndrome with the object of hastening his death Dr. Arthur was charged with murder. Many eminent witnesses were tried. Most of them justified the procedure. Finally the court acquitted Dr. Arthur as his motive was compassion. There is an argument that if a foetus is found to be abnormal and severely handicapped it should be eliminated before birth as such children are socially valueless.

 

[The Scotsman]

Interesting, don't you think?

yeah, the Times article is. As it suggests there seems to be a need for these "bioethics" debates that some will find interesting in the UK.


The other article......hmmmm....not to sure about the provenance of that one!

 

[The Scotsman]

A mother gives birth and the doctors soon notify the couple that their baby's brain is not formed correctly..........

Chip we're talking about a new pregnancy not a mother thats gone to full term and birth - that's a different issue Sir!

 

[Dr.Who]

Interesting, don't you think?

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

clip:

ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.
The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/051mi013.html

clip:

In a well known trial, a Dr. Arthur in U. K. had prescribed an overdose of codeine to a baby with Down syndrome with the object of hastening his death Dr. Arthur was charged with murder. Many eminent witnesses were tried. Most of them justified the procedure. Finally the court acquitted Dr. Arthur as his motive was compassion. There is an argument that if a foetus is found to be abnormal and severely handicapped it should be eliminated before birth as such children are socially valueless.

So who decides which persons are socially valueless?
I think we know the answer to that.

And which ones?

Old
Infirm
disabled
unborn
those who don't support the government
Those who are subject to "religious superstition"
Jewish

I have actually seen each one of these groups targeted for "marginalization."

The first four tend not to be productive workers. The next two tend to ask uncomfortable questions. The last - who knows why they are targeted historically.

 

[The Scotsman]

So who decides which persons are socially valueless?

.............did you actually read the Times article that Pale linked?

 

[Chip]

Chip we're talking about a new pregnancy not a mother thats gone to full term and birth - that's a different issue Sir!

Translation: "I, Scotsman, recognize that the analogy Chip presented in his previous reply to me is valid, that murdering a post-natal person with euthanaisa is the same as murdering a pre-natal person with euthanasia -- both are simply murder and therefore wrong and I would thus easily lose any rational argument utilizing the bias of ageism to attempt to justify the murder of a pre-natal person. But being afraid to admit that I would be so easily defeated, I will attempt to divert disrespectfully to avoid continuing the analogy that I started, hoping nobody else notices."



Indeed Scotsman, you are implicitly correct -- age of victim, lack of a personal relationship with the victim, excuses made to sooth the murderer's feelings, all are simply invalid grounds for commiting murder of any person, whether that person is pre- or post- natal.

Despite you being apparently unable to be straightforward on your surrender of the point, you were wise not to go there, as your loss would have been rather embarrassing.

 

[palerider]

Chip we're talking about a new pregnancy not a mother thats gone to full term and birth - that's a different issue Sir!

What is the difference? One child is older and more mature than the other. The argument makes as much sense as suggesting that it is ok to kill a toddler but not a 4 year old or that it is ok to kill a 4 year old but not a teen, etc., etc., etc.

The child at conception is as much an individual human being as it will ever be. Growth and maturity, of course, but more human or more of an individual, not a chance.

 

[top gun]

palerider;85130]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.

Blah, blah, blah same fantasy land drivel you've been swearing was right around the corner for at least 3 long years now. The only thing that's happened is Conservatives are loosing their seats and we now have a Pro-Choice president of the United States.

Everyone has known about your "definition" for years & years. It's not changing. I mean I know you are emotionally invested. Much like how some in the South still think the South will rise again.

Believe whatever personal pipe dream you want... I'm sticking with reality.

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.

Your whole premise is a matter of opinion. Personhood is a legal definition. The whole matter revolves around at what stage of development (from 2 cells on) does the development started inside a woman's body take away the rights of the woman.

I don't know how many times it must be said that the High Court will never look at the "conception" stage as taking precedent over the entire woman. It flies in the face of birth control methods that are approved of by about 90% of our population.

As I've said before I think the thing to do is just pass a Women's Reproductive Rights Constitutional Amendment. That would end the politics of the abortion issue.

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.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Congress has nothing to do with it and you know it. It's the fact that it's done all the time and it is not something that brings with it murder charges. It's allowed. I didn't have to be a part of it to read the documentation. But I also know about it from 1st hand sources such as my Uncle an Army Captain who served in an Infantry Division supporting Patton's Armor Division, my father who served in Korea and my wife who's also retired Army... an Intelligence Captain & Russian linguist.

Truth as Collateral Damage
By Marc Herold
October 22, 2008

Civilian deaths from US/Nato air strikes in Afghanistan are not accidents or mistakes – they are calculated and predicted. The "precision attack" levied by James Appathurai (October 17, 2008) upon Seumas Milne's column in the Guardian bears the usual trappings of Nato-speak and actions (truth as collateral damage). From 2006 to mid-2008, US/Nato aerial attacks killed 1,488 Afghan civilians with 1,458 tonnes of bombs, whereas between October 7 and December 10, 2001 US war planes dropped 14,000 tonnes of bombs resulting in 2,569-2,949 dead Afghan civilians (or 18-21 civilians killed per 100 tonnes of US bombs)...

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.

It does not "stand to reason" that... you're "interpreting" what you want it to say. Yes it's saying that GOD gives all types of different people certain equal rights... mainly speaking to race and economic status. And at the time of the writing birth was when rights were given to people. What you are struggling to contort into your argument is some new scientific perception of a conception as a full person. We can argue over the flaws in that but it's undeniable that certainly was not the case way back in 1776.

At best, according to pro choice polls, abortion on demand folks like you are under 20% of the population now...

Sure we are... that's why we're picking up so many new Pro-Choice seats in government! Women are not going to be pushed back into the 50's no matter how much you whine.

 

[The Scotsman]

The child at conception is as much an individual human being as it will ever be.

....so what? Big deal we know that we've already discussed it! That was pointed out in post no.1!!!!?????

 

[The Scotsman]

age of victim, lack of a personal relationship with the victim, excuses made to sooth the murderer's feelings, all are simply invalid grounds for commiting murder of any person, whether that person is pre- or post- natal.

..........what the friggin hell are you blathering about, how can there be a lack of personal relationship between mother and baby???????

Despite you being apparently unable to be straightforward on your surrender of the point, you were wise not to go there, as your loss would have been rather embarrassing.

....

....sorry Chip kinnda I've lost track of which point it is I'm conceding.....remind me oh wise one


Are you sure there was no sophistry anywhere in there?

 

[Chip]

..........what the friggin hell are you blathering about, how can there be a lack of personal relationship between mother and baby??????? ....

....sorry Chip kinnda I've lost track of which point it is I'm conceding.....remind me oh wise one Are you sure there was no sophistry anywhere in there?

Fundamentally dishonest.

Obviously Scotsman bailed on this thread's topical relevancy some time ago, and is now merely here like Top Gun and Samsara: to employ inanity to derail the thread from continuing in thematic reference to the opening post's winning argument.

 

[palerider]

Blah, blah, blah same fantasy land drivel you've been swearing was right around the corner for at least 3 long years now. The only thing that's happened is Conservatives are loosing their seats and we now have a Pro-Choice president of the United States.

Blah blah blah? Are you trying to improve on your argument? It is good to see you try but blah blah blah is no more a rational argument than its legal its legal. Repeating that its legal does not represent a rational argument in support of your postion. Slavery was legal also and it took more than 35 years to overturn that institution. Your lack of any historical knowledge or context leaves you at a distinct disadvantage in this. But that is good. I will enjoy your outrage all the more because you didn't see it coming.

Everyone has known about your "definition" for years & years. It's not changing. I mean I know you are emotionally invested. Much like how some in the South still think the South will rise again.

Everyone? Tell me, do you accept the fact that an unborn at any stage of development is a living human being knowing that in the eyes of the law, all human beings are persons? More logical fallacy topgun. It is all you have.

Believe whatever personal pipe dream you want... I'm sticking with reality.

Reality is that you are in a very small and shrinking minority.

Your whole premise is a matter of opinion. Personhood is a legal definition. The whole matter revolves around at what stage of development (from 2 cells on) does the development started inside a woman's body take away the rights of the woman.

The legal definition of person is "a human being" That is not a matter of opinion. It is that definition that forced the roe majority to make their incorrect and baseless assumption. That is reality. Unborns are human beings. That is reality. Human beings have the right to live. That is reality. One individuals wants don't take precedence over another's right to live. That is reality. Neither you, nor any pro choicer can offer up a rational defense of your position. That is reality. You are in a small and shirinking minority. That is reality. I guess from your perspective, reality bites.

I don't know how many times it must be said that the High Court will never look at the "conception" stage as taking precedent over the entire woman. It flies in the face of birth control methods that are approved of by about 90% of our population.

Sorry, but it is wishful thinking. It is a logical fallacy. It is an appeal to common practice and rationally indefensible. It is an appeal to popularity and rationally indefensible. It is an appeal to fear and rationally indefensible. It is a red herring and rationally indefensible.

As I've said before I think the thing to do is just pass a Women's Reproductive Rights Constitutional Amendment. That would end the politics of the abortion issue.

You say lots of things. You prove nothing. Your uneducated opinion is not impressive. If you are in tune with reality, then you know that a minority as small as you belong to will never be able to pass such an amendment.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

The number of times I personally have had to correct you on very basic issues from biology, to the law, to the constituion itself draws a very large question mark over that statement and calls into question everything that follows.

Congress has nothing to do with it and you know it.

Refer to your constitution. Refer to article 1 section 8 and get in touch with reality.

Truth as Collateral Damage

So are you still trying to argue that two wrongs make a right?

It does not "stand to reason" that... you're "interpreting" what you want it to say. Yes it's saying that GOD gives all types of different people certain equal rights... mainly speaking to race and economic status. And at the time of the writing birth was when rights were given to people. What you are struggling to contort into your argument is some new scientific perception of a conception as a full person. We can argue over the flaws in that but it's undeniable that certainly was not the case way back in 1776.

Sorry, but I am not interpreting. Had they meant that we were born with certain rights, they would have said it. In fact, when the 14th amendment was written some years after they did say that we were born with certain rights, but fundamental rights were not among them. Face it topgun, you don't know enough about the law or constitution to argue from that point. You get smeared every time.

Sure we are... that's why we're picking up so many new Pro-Choice seats in government! Women are not going to be pushed back into the 50's no matter how much you whine.

Perhaps you should do a bit of research into those "pro choice" seats. The bulk of those favor restricting abortion as well. Not that it matters because in the end, the issue won't be decided by congress. You know as well as I that abortion on demand legislation wouldn't even get through the state house in the most liberal state in the union.