If Euthanasia is morally wrong than what would Abortion be? (Page 2)

LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Well, legally, that is the stance.
11 years ago Report
0
Air_
Air_: A fetus is in a particular stage of human development but its is still a human being. Women who abort babies that are struggling to survive are committing murder. If a woman's body was her property she could kill herself and no one would do anything. But there is such a law as being a danger to yourself and that warrants people to be looked after 24/7, yet children who are in the womb are not given that chance. A variety of ways have come up to abort children because they are just mistakes. But no one sees that not only are these children are defenseless inside the womb, they are alive.

You say its not human, because you don't want it so you kill it. But you forget, its a live. And you think because you can't take care of it, and its inside of you, that gives you the right to kill it. It's murder in the first degree. That child is still alive.

I can't believe how some of you say the most important person is the mother. That is the most arrogant selfish comment I have ever seen. I know plenty of mother's who would give up their lives for their children. I'm one of them. I'm responsible with my body. Its unfortunate however that a child is chosen to be terminated due to a lack of responsibility.

And no I'm not including rape (because you'd argue, even though I'm well aware there are rape kits available in hospitals). I'm going after those who are protected by the law for not having self control and not protecting themselves. I'm going after those of you who protect the irresponsible saying, we'll we cant control it. This isn't about control, this is about life.

People aren't being taught the value of human life enough to say listen, protect yourself or use self control because you will get pregnant and add to that, listen children are a blessing. When the right time comes it will be amazing! But wait awhile before getting pregnant. None of you give me the benefit of the doubt to say, you know? she just cares about people and children. You just call me narrow-minded, when the only thing I can be accused of is having a heart. And frankly, I don't give a rats ass what you think. I stand my ground and I'm not budging.

You are murderers who would rather not have to deal with an added burden. I don't view children as a burden. They are a gift, and they need to be protected. I do everything that I can to ensure that they are. You are a disgust to the future of humanity and I hope your BS dies with you.

Euthanasia is against the law, but you choose to put their suffering ahead of their life in this case. Why? Did you all of a sudden develop a conscience? These are inconsistencies that need to be pointed out. I don't agree with Euthanasia, lets just get that out there right now. (and this topic could be expanded, but I'll let that one go) But your logic would suggest that a person who is still alive should be convinced to stay alive, yet a child that is growing in the womb through a process natural of selection...is not alive? And because you haven't selected it, you should kill it?
(Edited by Air_)
11 years ago Report
1
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>You say its not human, because you don't want it so you kill it

No, it's because it doesn't resemble a human. It cannot breath, cannot circulate its own blood, cannot eat, cannot think, is not conscious- it's consisted of human cells, yes, but so are nails on my fingers- cutting off my nails is not "murder" because my nails are not human- the same is for a fetus.

>>> That child is still alive.

As are my skin cells, and my blood cells- but if you cut me, that is not murdering a human.

>>>I can't believe how some of you say the most important person is the mother.

Did I say that?

I said it was up to the mother. Whats more important should be up to individual choice.

>>>I know plenty of mother's who would give up their lives for their children.

And that is their choice. It should not be required by law.

>>>And no I'm not including rape

You aren't? But you clearly said that, in a life and death situation, the mother should be prepared to die;

"Women who abort babies that are struggling to survive are committing murder. "

So women who were raped are permitted to have an abortion, but women who would be killed by being pregnant or giving birth cannot?

>>> I'm going after those of you who protect the irresponsible saying, we'll we cant control it.

So you agree- your intent here is to control people.You don't want to convince people to value life- you want to deny them the freedom to make decisions for themselves.

>>>You just call me narrow-minded, when the only thing I can be accused of is having a heart.

Get off your pedestal. You clearly said earlier that you would be okay to force a woman to die if she was pregnant, since YOU, and not they, find abortion repugnant.You have such a strong heart that you're okay with condemning people to death who disagree with you, rather than tolerating dissenting opinions.

>>>And frankly, I don't give a rats ass what you think.

Exactly. You have no interest in anyones opinion but your own. And you feel your opinion absolutely must be FORCED on others.

>>>You are murderers who would rather not have to deal with an added burden.

Says the person who would rather condemn a person to death than allow them to form their own opinions. Your stance has nothing to do with what YOU think you should do, and everything to do with what you think OTHERS should do.

11 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: "I agree that it's arguable- and for that reason alone, abortions should stay legal."

That's absurd. People will argue over anything. Civilian law is made to create order, providing for the safety of citizens; it presents as a deterrent to crime , which never works because it's punishment-based, not reward-based. Thus, the law facilitates locking away the disorderly and heavily taxing citizens to fund this very expensive method of control.

So, Civilian law isn't very often intelligent, kind or just. It most certainly isn't fair because most people can't afford to pay for justice; those who can, will buy a decision in their favour anyway.

(Edited by Zanjan)
11 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: I remember when suicide was a crime in Canada. The law was there to create shame; legislators and the people believed it would cause the weak to pull up their socks. Eventually, folks realized that it never acted as a preventative and punishing survivors didn't help them, especially the survivors of those who died.

Thus, the people lobbied the government for change and, that was effective.

There was a law that made homosexual acts a crime as well. Gays used to stay in the closet to do their thing. To be executable, the law required a witness to the sex act.....it's not as if they were out arresting every flaming queen for lisping and fluttering down the street. Again, this law was struck to create shame, as a preventative.

Well, the next generation didn't see the shame - the law had worked against the people. Gays were coming out in defiance. The pressure was on and families had begun to accept them, churches and employers were accepting them; thus, the law became antiquated and the people lobbied the government for change.

Thus, civilian government nobly stated it had no business in consenting people's bedrooms.

Abortion shares the same features as the above - it will happen with or without the law, as it always has. If one cant come up with the money to pay for abortion, they'll still do the home remedy. Across Canada, there's the lottery foundation - proceeds go to charities, one of which is to fund abortions. You don't get a say where that money goes if you buy a ticket.

Folks wont look at science - they look at what's most convenient to their own comfort and ease and that's what they demand. Shame or no shame.

Euthanasia is in a class by itself......it should not precipitate death, it should shorten its duration and suffering. Modern medicine is hell bent to stretch out that suffering and agony, grabbing at every last possible hour they can keep you alive. After all, it's good money. The treatment is worse than the disease because they're denying nature, fighting against it.

I wouldn't let a dog die the way medicine does to people today. There is no crime in saying 'let nature take its course, just reduce the suffering'


(Edited by Zanjan)
11 years ago Report
0
SandCrew
SandCrew: wait i need to catch up my breath *gasp*
11 years ago Report
0
Evelyn99
Evelyn99: I think people should have the right to assisted death. But I can see that is a problematic thing because perhaps other family members motivate you and people who suffer from various mental illness and don’t have the ability to take good decisions. In Switzerland this is a practice.
5 years ago Report
0
thor1112010
thor1112010: Both are murder. Both are a choice. Both are insane.
4 years ago Report
0
Fog Swept Glade
Fog Swept Glade: Both are definitely open to interference.
4 years ago Report
0