Killing a baby =/= killing an adult

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]

I guess their family could decide. If your family member was living in misery wouldn't you like to decide on whether you should put an end to their misery or not?

james28893

They aren't necessarily in misery.;)

That's a slippery slope. Who is to say that the family always has the best interests?

The doctor ;).

The doctor can't get into the mind of the individual now can he? No.

[QUOTE="flowdee79"]

I guess their family could decide. If your family member was living in misery wouldn't you like to decide on whether you should put an end to their misery or not?

LJS9502_basic

They aren't necessarily in misery.;)

That's a slippery slope. Who is to say that the family always has the best interests?

I cant really see someone in a vegetative state being happy. I guess you can sit around and watch TV at stuff but is that really liviing? And sometimes the victim can decide and ask their family to euthanize them.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]

I guess their family could decide. If your family member was living in misery wouldn't you like to decide on whether you should put an end to their misery or not?

flowdee79

They aren't necessarily in misery.;)

That's a slippery slope. Who is to say that the family always has the best interests?

I cant really see someone in a vegetative state being happy. I guess you can sit around and watch TV at stuff but is that really liviing? And sometimes the victim can decide and ask their family to euthanize them.

Because you can't see it doesn't mean some affected feels the same way. Once you let people decide who lives and dies you've set a precedent. What length of time is used to determine? A year, a month, a day,an hour?

[QUOTE="james28893"]

Those inconvenient to society should be helped, or attempt to help themselves so that they are no longer inconvenient to society, if nothing can be done for them, or if they themselves can't do anything, then yes perhaps they ought to die.

LJS9502_basic

So life is valueless to you? And society as a whole does not have the best interests of the individual in mind...rather their own.

Of course life holds value. But if someone is in pain, or completely incapable of helping themselves, with no hope of recovering to a state when they can, then surely they themselves would want to leave the world. It is not always the case that society does not hold the interests of the individual in mind, though that is often the case In that situation the family ought to do its best to help.

[QUOTE="flowdee79"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]

I guess their family could decide. If your family member was living in misery wouldn't you like to decide on whether you should put an end to their misery or not?

LJS9502_basic

They aren't necessarily in misery.;)

That's a slippery slope. Who is to say that the family always has the best interests?

I cant really see someone in a vegetative state being happy. I guess you can sit around and watch TV at stuff but is that really liviing? And sometimes the victim can decide and ask their family to euthanize them.

Because you can't see it doesn't mean some affected feels the same way. Once you let people decide who lives and dies you've set a precedent. What length of time is used to determine? A year, a month, a day,an hour?

What if the victim decides?

[QUOTE="james28893"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]

I guess their family could decide. If your family member was living in misery wouldn't you like to decide on whether you should put an end to their misery or not?

LJS9502_basic

They aren't necessarily in misery.;)

That's a slippery slope. Who is to say that the family always has the best interests?

The doctor ;).

The doctor can't get into the mind of the individual now can he? No.

You're point was that the family may not be holding the patient's best interests at heart, one of the duties of a doctor is to do just that, though of course presently it is impossible for a doctor to see into the mind of a completely vegetative patient, many who have been able to move certain muscles (eyelids for example) have actually managed to build a code that others can recognise, several of them have demanded euthanasia.

Of course life holds value. But if someone is in pain, or completely incapable of helping themselves, with no hope of recovering to a state when they can, then surely they themselves would want to leave the world. It is not always the case that society does not hold the interests of the individual in mind, though that is often the case In that situation the family ought to do its best to help.

james28893

And thus, you leave it open to interpretation......and therefore, selfish needs outweigh the rights of the individual. No one can get into the mind of another and determine pain/needs. Period.

You're point was that the family may not be holding the patient's best interests at heart, one of the duties of a doctor is to do just that, though of course presently it is impossible for a doctor to see into the mind of a completely vegetative patient, many who have been able to move certain muscles (eyelids for example) have actually managed to build a code that others can recognise, several of them have demanded euthanasia.

james28893

Unless the individual is braindead the doctor is not going to make the decision.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Those inconvenient to society should be helped, or attempt to help themselves so that they are no longer inconvenient to society, if nothing can be done for them, or if they themselves can't do anything, then yes perhaps they ought to die.

james28893

So life is valueless to you? And society as a whole does not have the best interests of the individual in mind...rather their own.

Of course life holds value. But if someone is in pain, or completely incapable of helping themselves, with no hope of recovering to a state when they can, then surely they themselves would want to leave the world. It is not always the case that society does not hold the interests of the individual in mind, though that is often the case In that situation the family ought to do its best to help.

You might want to, but how can you impose that on everyone who would be in that situation? People generally like living, and if they can't let us know what they want, then nobody has the right to kill them. A family member can have malicious intentions (life insurance, etc.), and even doctors.

If we don't know whether or not someone wants to die, they should remain alive.

[QUOTE="james28893"]

Of course life holds value. But if someone is in pain, or completely incapable of helping themselves, with no hope of recovering to a state when they can, then surely they themselves would want to leave the world. It is not always the case that society does not hold the interests of the individual in mind, though that is often the case In that situation the family ought to do its best to help.

LJS9502_basic

And thus, you leave it open to interpretation......and therefore, selfish needs outweigh the rights of the individual. No one can get into the mind of another and determine pain/needs. Period.

True. Though who knows what time holds.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Fetus does not equate to the baby.. The United States government sees it as that for the first trimester, that it is not a human life yet.LJS9502_basic

Legal =/= moral.

Thats debatable, sense its still a huge controversy.. I happen to think a womans right to her body to be more moral then a fetus in its first 3 months.. Top that morality isn't high in the United States, our very economic system that of capitalism is immoral to begin with.. But that being said, the most maddening thing about these supposed "pro-lifers" is the fact I have never heard a single thing rose about dieasters happening places like Darfur..

You're point was that the family may not be holding the patient's best interests at heart, one of the duties of a doctor is to do just that, though of course presently it is impossible for a doctor to see into the mind of a completely vegetative patient, many who have been able to move certain muscles (eyelids for example) have actually managed to build a code that others can recognise, several of them have demanded euthanasia.

james28893

And many more have said they want to live (Terri Schiavo anyone?).

[QUOTE="james28893"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="james28893"]

Those inconvenient to society should be helped, or attempt to help themselves so that they are no longer inconvenient to society, if nothing can be done for them, or if they themselves can't do anything, then yes perhaps they ought to die.

Dracargen

So life is valueless to you? And society as a whole does not have the best interests of the individual in mind...rather their own.

Of course life holds value. But if someone is in pain, or completely incapable of helping themselves, with no hope of recovering to a state when they can, then surely they themselves would want to leave the world. It is not always the case that society does not hold the interests of the individual in mind, though that is often the case In that situation the family ought to do its best to help.

You might want to, but how can you impose that on everyone who would be in that situation? People generally like living, and if they can't let us know what they want, then nobody has the right to kill them. A family member can have malicious intentions (life insurance, etc.), and even doctors.

If we don't know whether or not someone wants to die, they should remain alive.

Would you want to remain a vegetable for the rest of your life, no doubt some would prefer it over the prospect of death, but again wouldn't the majority choose to leave the world? I suppose we won't know until such a time when we can look into the minds of others.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Fetus does not equate to the baby.. The United States government sees it as that for the first trimester, that it is not a human life yet.sSubZerOo

Legal =/= moral.

Thats debatable, sense its still a huge controversy.. I happen to think a womans right to her body to be more moral then a fetus in its first 3 months.. Top that morality isn't high in the United States, our very economic system that of capitalism is immoral to begin with.. But that being said, the most maddening thing about these supposed "pro-lifers" is the fact I have never heard a single thing rose about dieasters happening places like Darfur..

Because pro-lifers are supposed to be able to do something about issues going on on the other side of the world.:|

I think "pro-life" needs to be changed to "anti-infanticide" just so we never have to hear this argument again. . .

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Fetus does not equate to the baby.. The United States government sees it as that for the first trimester, that it is not a human life yet.sSubZerOo

Legal =/= moral.

Thats debatable, sense its still a huge controversy.. I happen to think a womans right to her body to be more moral then a fetus in its first 3 months.. Top that morality isn't high in the United States, our very economic system that of capitalism is immoral to begin with.. But that being said, the most maddening thing about these supposed "pro-lifers" is the fact I have never heard a single thing rose about dieasters happening places like Darfur..

You can't legislate morality....

Would you want to remain a vegetable for the rest of your life, no doubt some would prefer it over the prospect of death, but again wouldn't the majority choose to leave the world? I suppose we won't know until such a time when we can look into the minds of others.

james28893

Yes I would, and I would be horrified if people who didn't know that fact would be pushing to kill me while I couldn't move or do anything about it.:|

[QUOTE="james28893"]

You're point was that the family may not be holding the patient's best interests at heart, one of the duties of a doctor is to do just that, though of course presently it is impossible for a doctor to see into the mind of a completely vegetative patient, many who have been able to move certain muscles (eyelids for example) have actually managed to build a code that others can recognise, several of them have demanded euthanasia.

Dracargen

And many more have said they want to live (Terri Schiavo anyone?).

I think the South Park episode said it best when they had Kenny in that exact same position.. For one if I was in a state like Schiavo I would not want to be shown on tv like that to hundreds of millions of people.. Secondly if it were me I certainly not want to be in a vegativative state all my life, better to kill me because I odviously can't live with out it.. As seeing such I am basically going against the wishs of nature while being entirely not that/brain dead all together.. And also I would like to add the parents "claimed" she said and saw that.. But there was no evidence or testimony from any of the doctors there.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Fetus does not equate to the baby.. The United States government sees it as that for the first trimester, that it is not a human life yet.LJS9502_basic

Legal =/= moral.

Thats debatable, sense its still a huge controversy.. I happen to think a womans right to her body to be more moral then a fetus in its first 3 months.. Top that morality isn't high in the United States, our very economic system that of capitalism is immoral to begin with.. But that being said, the most maddening thing about these supposed "pro-lifers" is the fact I have never heard a single thing rose about dieasters happening places like Darfur..

You can't legislate morality....

Isn't it more important for the ideals of this nation to give the woman the liberty to choose? If it is considered so immoral.. Let god decide..

Isn't it more important for the ideals of this nation to give the woman the liberty to choose? If it is considered so immoral.. Let god decide..

sSubZerOo

Would it be okay for a siamese twin to kill his sibling since they share a body?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Isn't it more important for the ideals of this nation to give the woman the liberty to choose? If it is considered so immoral.. Let god decide..

LJS9502_basic

Would it be okay for a siamese twin to kill his sibling since they share a body?

That is completely different.. If they are concious and capable of reasoning they are human beings.. For something like a fetus on the first trimester.. It is not the same comparison.. In the end I think giving it the womans right is more important in society.. Its also ironic for alot of advocators who are against it arn't women.. Its easy for men to say it, after all it has nothing to do with their body.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Isn't it more important for the ideals of this nation to give the woman the liberty to choose? If it is considered so immoral.. Let god decide..

sSubZerOo

Would it be okay for a siamese twin to kill his sibling since they share a body?

That is completely different.. If they are concious and capable of reasoning they are human beings.. For something like a fetus on the first trimester.. It is not the same comparison.. In the end I think giving it the womans right is more important in society.. Its also ironic for alot of advocators who are against it arn't women.. Its easy for men to say it, after all it has nothing to do with their body.

Not really..you did say one has the right to decide what to do with their own body.;)

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Isn't it more important for the ideals of this nation to give the woman the liberty to choose? If it is considered so immoral.. Let god decide..

LJS9502_basic

Would it be okay for a siamese twin to kill his sibling since they share a body?

That is completely different.. If they are concious and capable of reasoning they are human beings.. For something like a fetus on the first trimester.. It is not the same comparison.. In the end I think giving it the womans right is more important in society.. Its also ironic for alot of advocators who are against it arn't women.. Its easy for men to say it, after all it has nothing to do with their body.

Not really..you did say one has the right to decide what to do with their own body.;)

Yes but they are both human beings.. A fetus is not a fully developed human being.. And in the first trimester it has no intelligence and is still developing over all.. Human being does not equate to a fetus, and the government sees it as that in the first trimester.. Which I happen to agree with, because in the end who am I to tell some one to do with their own body.. If it is really so immoral, why don't they square it with god.. There are plenty of other people in the world dieing that could be helped that does not need to violate peoples liberities to do it.. Which in my opinion is hypocrisy at its best. There are tens of thousands of children that die every day from easilly treated sicknesses, starvation etc etc..

That is why I am for abortion. If a baby dies, it's not like many people spent years getting to know that person and getting attached to their unique personality. It's not like it was contributing to society like an adult does. NOTICE I am not saying killing a baby is okay, I just don't think someone should get more/same punishment for killing a baby than killing an adult.massiv-damage

I agree with you. Its simple that an adult is more useful for the society then a baby so I also think the the punishments should be the same or even higher for killing an adult.

Yes but they are both human beings.. A fetus is not a fully developed human being.. And in the first trimester it has no intelligence and is still developing over all.. Human being does not equate to a fetus, and the government sees it as that in the first trimester.. Which I happen to agree with, because in the end who am I to tell some one to do with their own body.. If it is really so immoral, why don't they square it with god.. There are plenty of other people in the world dieing that could be helped that does not need to violate peoples liberities to do it.. Which in my opinion is hypocrisy at its best. There are tens of thousands of children that die every day from easilly treated sicknesses, starvation etc etc..

sSubZerOo

Well that comes down to opinion then. And actually people keep developing even after birth. We don't come out as fully developed. I find that argument convenient yet inaccurate.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Yes but they are both human beings.. A fetus is not a fully developed human being.. And in the first trimester it has no intelligence and is still developing over all.. Human being does not equate to a fetus, and the government sees it as that in the first trimester.. Which I happen to agree with, because in the end who am I to tell some one to do with their own body.. If it is really so immoral, why don't they square it with god.. There are plenty of other people in the world dieing that could be helped that does not need to violate peoples liberities to do it.. Which in my opinion is hypocrisy at its best. There are tens of thousands of children that die every day from easilly treated sicknesses, starvation etc etc..

LJS9502_basic

Well that comes down to opinion then. And actually people keep developing even after birth. We don't come out as fully developed. I find that argument convenient yet inaccurate.

Not quite.. See when you are born.. You show intelligence and development through brain.. At a very young age you are capable of learning.. A fetus has shown not to do this.. Thats the point.. The point is in society in general it is more just to have the woman deal with her body.. Because in the end it seems awfully convient to say such thigns when you your self can not get pregnant.

Its a lesser of two evils imo.. Solve the other problems in the world before the problems or questions that involve infringing on peoples liberties.

Not quite.. See when you are born.. You show intelligence and development through brain.. At a very young age you are capable of learning.. A fetus has shown not to do this.. Thats the point.. The point is in society in general it is more just to have the woman deal with her body.. Because in the end it seems awfully convient to say such thigns when you your self can not get pregnant.

Its a lesser of two evils imo.. Solve the other problems in the world before the problems or questions that involve infringing on peoples liberties.

sSubZerOo

Being intelligent should not be a criteria for life. There are many people that go through life without that requirement.;)

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Fetus does not equate to the baby.. The United States government sees it as that for the first trimester, that it is not a human life yet.LJS9502_basic

Legal =/= moral.

Thats debatable, sense its still a huge controversy.. I happen to think a womans right to her body to be more moral then a fetus in its first 3 months.. Top that morality isn't high in the United States, our very economic system that of capitalism is immoral to begin with.. But that being said, the most maddening thing about these supposed "pro-lifers" is the fact I have never heard a single thing rose about dieasters happening places like Darfur..

You can't legislate morality....

actually, does god decide what is moral and what is not?

A woman has the right to an abortion whatever reason ...thats not killing its stopping the world being polulated by chavs ..lol

A woman has the right to an abortion whatever reason ...thats not killing its stopping the world being polulated by chavs ..lol

harold_steptoe

Not you again?

Wight night

Missed me honey ..lol ? lol ..lol

Wight night

Missed me honey ..lol ? lol ..lol

harold_steptoe

Sorry , No.I see you still hav'nt learned to spell the username right ... and upped your usage of the acronym "lol" to three times per sentence ...

It should get the same punishment, right?Sim_genius

Seems reasonable...

lol...lol..lol whats the matter have you seen the other post about crybabies who blub to the mods like lil pooey pants ..lolharold_steptoe

Who's that directed at?

wight night

Get a backbone an grow some balls .. lol..lol..lol

*things*

Whight_Knight

wight night

Get a backbone an grow some balls .. lol..lol..lol

harold_steptoe

Last time I checked I had a backbone ... and some balls ... which would make me a male.Ever heard of one of them?Would'nt be suprised if you had'nt though ...

[QUOTE="Whight_Knight"] *things*

LJS9502_basic

Actually yeah , thats the best option I think.

wight nite

A Male What ? rat .. perchance ...fnar fnar ..lol..lol..lol..lol

LJbasic Got his puny but spanked the other nite an sent to bed crying too mods ...dont make start again here

harold_steptoe

:lol: I didn't go crying to any mods. I handle my own battles. And I like to be spanked.;)

Eh thought you were on ignore you sad freak ..lol Failed... lolz

I whupped you like a dog ....teehhee you ran screaming to mods after I exposed your lies an BS here

harold_steptoe

No...I told the other dude to ignore. You are mistaken about every comment in the above post. Now...I ignore.;)

wight nite

A Male What ? rat .. perchance ...fnar fnar ..lol..lol..lol..lol

LJbasic Got his puny but spanked the other nite an sent to bed crying too mods ...dont make start again here

harold_steptoe

Thats unfair ..hahaha

Come back sad lad .. theres a bit of you I havent whupped yet ....lol

Bellend1

Coolies a new plaything ... lol

Bellend1

Coolies a new plaything ... lol

harold_steptoe

Thats unfair ..hahaha

Come back sad lad .. theres a bit of you I havent whupped yet ....lol

harold_steptoe

I saw the other thread. You didn't "whup" anybody.

Goodly cured

I whupped him into next week .... he left crying after he failed his history exam I set him ...then he reported me too mods , like a crybaby pooey pants ..lol

bellend 1

I bet you love preteen boys eh .. nudge ..nudge.. wink ..wink ..eh :(