Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-05-2008, 12:12 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,918,160 times
Reputation: 2618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Who determines "unwanted"? Thats a dangerous factor to be considering who lives and who dies.

And no, we do not factor "unwanted" into wartime. Where did you get that idea? Maybe you can explain a situation where we do use "unwanted" as a factor, because I can think of none.

Originally posted by Me (in reply):
Apparently, the enemy is the "unwanted" whether they're in uniform or not.

I guess I was specifically speaking about your question about "wartime" activities. We kill the enemy, but we are not particularly concerned about "collateral damage". Because those people aren't important to us either.

Who determines "unwanted"? How about the mother? Maybe she has the child, and as it's growing up, the father or mother abuses it repeatedly. Wouldn't it have been better if the child had never been born in the first place?
It is a fallacy that we are not concerned about collateral damage. They are important to us, many soldiers die in the line of duty trying to minimize and protect those who are innocents. In Vietnam, a common tactic by the enemy was to send women and children booby trapped with explosives because they knew the soldiers were concerned about innocents. Many soldiers were killed due to the hesitations and concern for those people. I wouldn't buy all that propaganda from the anti-war crowd. There is an old saying about peace and soldiers, I think it goes along the lines of "Nobody wants peace more or respects life as much as those who are required to kill to protect it".

Ask some adults who grew up with that if they would rather have never been born? I honestly don't know what each would say and I wouldn't dare presume to speak for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2008, 01:31 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,568 posts, read 16,198,959 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Greatday
Quote:
Anyone, who even vainly attempts to equate a human life to a clipped nail is, IMO, deranged and in need of immediate mental intervention.
What a nail and a foetus have in common is that they are both grown out of a (woman's) body (they both were part of). But what a (clipped) nail and a foetus do not have in common is that a nail is not alive nor does it have the potential to become sentient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2008, 02:13 PM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,673,465 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted byAmaznjohnSimple? Yes. Logical? No.
A nail is not sentient nor will it ever develop an ego simply because a nail, unlike babies, has no brain.
Neither is a clipped nail alive.
This statement is immaterial, unnecessary, and, I feel, a diversion.. You still didn't answer my question.

Quote:
But, you stated that the baby is part of the mother until "it is cut off", like your nail analogy. You stated that your government's policy is to allow abortions until the baby is no longer part of the mother's body. So, simple logic would conclude that your government's policy is that the mother can abort/kill her baby, for any reason including sex selection and/or convenience, until the umbilical cord is cut. However, it seems that you feel the mother should be able to abort/kill her baby until it is sentient, which you consider about 2 months after it is born. Are these conclusions correct? If not, please explain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2008, 02:37 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,568 posts, read 16,198,959 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Quote:
But, you stated that the baby is part of the mother until "it is cut off"
These are your words not mine. A baby that is born already is 'cut off', whether or not the cord is still attached to the baby since it has no function anymore.
A healthy baby does not need the cord to be fed, another woman can breastfeed the baby.

Quote:
This statement is immaterial, unnecessary, and, I feel, a diversion..
You are free to feel whatever you want.

Quote:
You still didn't answer my question.
Yes I did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2008, 06:55 PM
 
1,818 posts, read 3,087,565 times
Reputation: 229
This is a question I have thought about and thought maybe someone would have an answer. A woman is pregnant and does not want the baby for whatever reason, but the father does. The way our laws are set up now, the mother would have the choice because it is her body, so she can get an abortion even if he is agains it. On the other side the woman is pregnant and wants the baby, the father does not, so the mother because it is her body decides to keep the baby and have the father, who did not want the baby in the first place to have to pay child support. I feel that is a little unfair but it is JMO Sassy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2008, 07:50 PM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,673,465 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
These are your words not mine. A baby that is born already is 'cut off', whether or not the cord is still attached to the baby since it has no function anymore.
A healthy baby does not need the cord to be fed, another woman can breastfeed the baby.
But, isn't it still technically part of the woman's body since it is physically attached to her?

Quote:
Yes I did.
I must've missed it. We'll try once more. Is it your government's policy that the mother can abort/kill her baby, for any reason including sex selection and/or convenience, until the umbilical cord is cut? Do you feel the mother should be able to abort/kill her baby until it is sentient, which you consider about 2 months after it is born?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2008, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,219,543 times
Reputation: 11416
As soon as a man can carry a baby to full term in his body, then he has a right to speak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2008, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,172,642 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
As soon as a man can carry a baby to full term in his body, then he has a right to speak.
I'm sorry but, any man, who has raised a child, alone, from the moment of that childs birth, has every right to speak!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2008, 08:23 PM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,673,465 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
As soon as a man can carry a baby to full term in his body, then he has a right to speak.
As soon as you can tear down the engine from a '56 Ford Fairlane, then you have the right to complain about mechanics.
As soon as you can argue a case in front of the Supreme Court, then you have the right to complain about lawyers.

Fortunately, in the U.S. we have the right to speak about any subject, especially when it concerns saving the lives of innocent children by not allowing mothers to kill them at birth simply for convenience or sex selection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2008, 09:35 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,568 posts, read 16,198,959 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Quote:
But, isn't it still technically part of the woman's body since it is physically attached to her?
So is a (clipped) nail or hair, but they neither live now do they?

Quote:
Do you feel the mother should be able to abort/kill her baby until it is sentient, which you consider about 2 months after it is born?
Once a baby is delivered by the mother killing it is murder.
Whether the umbilical cord is cut or not is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top