Journal of Medical Ethics: "Why should the baby live?" (enemy, generation)
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.
It is garbage like this that the left uses to justify their march to socialism!
The moral issue should start with the person who decides to have sex without the means to care for an 'unexpected' pregnancy!
(You see it with the welfare mothers everywhere)
DON'T even try to use the "What about the woman who is raped or dying"? argument either!
The overwhelming pregnancies in this country are 'unexpected' pregnancies from 'Willful' sexual relations and not from rapes!
And the overwhelming majority of pregnancies Do Not threaten the mothers life!
This 'clown' thinks that since others are wealthy .. They should somehow be made to pay for the one's who are not!
Healthy children and people in general are in everyone's interest. People are people, some will behave in ways they shouldn't, nobody can prevent that. Still, the fact that we don't agree with certain behaviors does not mean that we can ignore the consequences of those behaviors.
Society is more than just a bunch of individuals.
Healthy children and people in general are in everyone's interest. People are people, some will behave in ways they shouldn't, nobody can prevent that. Still, the fact that we don't agree with certain behaviors does not mean that we can ignore the consequences of those behaviors.
Society is more than just a bunch of individuals.
And again .. You ignore the obvious!
When did it become a 'Moral Right' to take from those who 'have' and award it to those who 'have not'!?
Actions have consequences and since I didn't get any 'pleasure' in the action that we are talking about .. Why is it My 'Moral Right' to take part in the consequences?
Most liberals couldn't debate their way on the abortion topic out of a wet paper bag.....Sure they can. They simply negate the fact that the developing life in the womb is human by labeling it parasitic cells. Post-birth abortion is to them just the killing of a lump of cells (ignoring the human form and unique DNA) that does not yet meet their definition of "fully human".
Because bottom line is this.... If the baby has ANY chance of surviving on it's own...IT IS ALIVE. Isn't the entire point these eugenicists are attempting to make is that being alive does not equate to being a "full human"?
Now, they will tell you murder is wrong in any other scope of their preference. Eugenicists see murder by the individual as wrong because it is an expression of individualism through choice and action. Contrast that to the state deciding the degree of humanity of the individual and holds absolute power over life and death and it becomes a statist totalitarian utopia.
They will tell you we should spend "X" amount of money to regulate our food supply....or the safety of our vehicles. But to do that you have to place an explicit value on a human life. If you don't you are NO LONGER ARGUING PRINCIPLE. The value is not being placed on human life but rather on the economic and natural resources consumed by that life and if the life in question is deemed worthy of the ability to consume by the state.
It is an argument of statist collectivism that it is not only socially acceptable but morally responsible to sacrifice the individual for the perceived benefit of the greater whole. As such, it is a complete anathema to the individual Creator granted rights recognized by this nation's founders and affirmed/codified in our US Constitution.
Quote:
...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...
Note that in the Declaration it is recognized that Governments are instituted for the purpose of securing Creator granted rights. The eugenicists statists would turn this upside down/inside out to transform government as the power which grants/controls those individual liberties and rights historically recognized as universal under natural law.
Make no mistake, the end game is to redefine humanity so that what it means to be human is determined not by our Creator, not by natural law, but by government. This country was founded on ideologies which arose during the Age of Enlightenment and is being intentionally reduced to the culture of death (state sponsored death) in a new global Dark Age.
So, either treat EVERY life as sacred OR you are playing God with people's lives.
The intent of Communists and its offshoots (Marxism, pan-Leninism, etc...) has always been to replace God with an aethist Totalitarian government where the state replaces God.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 03-02-2012 at 12:01 PM..
Reason: clarification
When did it become a 'Moral Right' to take from those who 'have' and award it to those who 'have not'!?
Actions have consequences and since I didn't get any 'pleasure' in the action that we are talking about .. Why is it My 'Moral Right' to take part in the consequences?
It's like with anything else. For instance you might not have a car and still pay for streets via the taxes you pay. Or you never use trains and still pay for Amtrak via taxes.
As I said, society is not a bunch of individuals, it's more like a huge family.
Late term abortions are a very occurance in the US, just so ya know, and as for Obama the following are his words on the subject:
"...I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."
NEXT!
State Senator Barack Obama sponsored a bill that instructed doctors that botched an abortion (the baby lived) to put the child in a broom closet until it DIED. This has nothing to do with the "health" of the mother. It is murder.
It's like with anything else. For instance you might not have a car and still pay for streets via the taxes you pay. Or you never use trains and still pay for Amtrak via taxes.
As I said, society is not a bunch of individuals, it's more like a huge family.
It's like with anything else. For instance you might not have a car and still pay for streets via the taxes you pay. Or you never use trains and still pay for Amtrak via taxes. As I said, society is not a bunch of individuals, it's more like a huge family.
It's like with anything else. For instance you might not have a car and still pay for streets via the taxes you pay. Or you never use trains and still pay for Amtrak via taxes.
As I said, society is not a bunch of individuals, it's more like a huge family.
You may laugh about it, but I think most societal problems are the result of lacking family thinking. Most people don't care about their fellow human beings anymore, instead considering them mere tools or obstacles.
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.
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.
