They never lose their right to life. You can’t just kill them for any reason you can come up with.Yes they do lose their rights as they lose their facilities.
They never lose their right to life. You can’t just kill them for any reason you can come up with.Yes they do lose their rights as they lose their facilities.
Okay, I should have phrased that more precisely. I'm only talking about inalienable human rights, most particularly in this case, the right to life.Yes they do lose their rights as they lose their facilities.
There is a point a person can lose that right as well. People are taken off of life support and allowed to die all the time.They never lose their right to life. You can’t just kill them for any reason you can come up with.
That is not the same as losing the right to life. Get back to me when it is allowed to stab/poison/dismember someone who is being taken off life support.There is a point a person can lose that right as well. People are taken off of life support and allowed to die all the time.
Allowing a life to end on its own is a far, far different thing than purposefully and forcibly ending it. Removing life support isn't necessarily killing a person.There is a point a person can lose that right as well. People are taken off of life support and allowed to die all the time.
As I just replied to GFGT, there is a point where a person can lose that right as well, generally due to injury.But when it comes to inalienable rights, like the right to life, we don't diminish that right based on a person's age or mental abilities. Except, it seems, for when they are in the womb.
I will also add this. If someone knows with near-certainty that someone on life support will recover within 9 months and return to perfect health, but chooses to take them off life support anyways, then you may have a point. If not outright murder, that scenario would certainly be very close to murder.There is a point a person can lose that right as well. People are taken off of life support and allowed to die all the time.
I'd say it is closer than you make it out to be.That is not the same as losing the right to life. Get back to me when it is allowed to stab/poison/dismember someone who is being taken off life support.
Making a decision about whether or not to continue extraordinary medical intervention in order to prolong someone's life is certainly a moral question, but it is in no way equivalent to outright killing someone.
People being able to rationalize why or when another ought to live or be killed is the first crime recorded in the Bible. Because they can justify it does not mean it’s justifiable.I'd say it is closer than you make it out to be.
This is another area where the two sides will never agree.
Is it really that close?I'd say it is closer than you make it out to be.
This is another area where the two sides will never agree.
Yes actually. I think it is more humane to do that. Letting someone die of suffocation, starvation, or organ failure is no better. I wouldn't let an animal suffer like that.Would you ever be comfortable with someone who is on life support being given a lethal injection instead of merely having life support removed? If no, then I think you understand the vast difference between discontinuing care vs. outright murder.
My personal feelings have little to do with what I am discussing. Thankfully I have not had to make a decision about anyone's life to date. Making it for an animal was heartbreaking enough.You can try to brush it off with platitudes like "the two sides will never agree" but the fact is, I'm sorry to say, you're just being plain illogical here. To somehow suggest that because we don't necessarily continue extraordinary care up to the last possible second for someone who is guaranteed to die anyways, that means they've lost their right to life, how does that make any sense? It's like saying that if I don't donate every spare penny I have to feed starving people in Africa, that's morally equivalent to me taking a plane over to Africa and going on a shooting rampage to kill as many starving people as possible.
Or to flip it around, I'll ask again, would you be okay with removing life support from someone who is virtually guaranteed to make a full recovery within months, if care is continued? That's at least closer to being a correct analogy for abortion, but even then it's still not quite the same as outright killing someone.
Allowing a life to end on its own is a far, far different thing than purposefully and forcibly ending it. Removing life support isn't necessarily killing a person.
Why compare the old coot to the yuppie?This is the part of your worldview that I'm trying to understand: Do you or do you not believe in equal rights for every human person? Because it seems to me that the point you keep driving at is that, without the concept of a soul, human rights have to exist on a spectrum, and human slowly gain rights as they develop more of their human traits.
What I don't understand is why you only apply this concept to babies in the womb? Do human persons also start to lose some of their rights as they lose their mental faculties? Or their ability to perceive pain? Like, what if I replace your two pictures and say:
How would you answer that?
I will also add this. If someone knows with near-certainty that someone on life support will recover within 9 months and return to perfect health, but chooses to take them off life support anyways, then you may have a point. If not outright murder, that scenario would certainly be very close to murder.
People rationalize all kinds of stuff.People being able to rationalize why or when another ought to live or be killed is the first crime recorded in the Bible. Because they can justify it does not mean it’s justifiable.
I'm gonna say that you've never been involved with Hospice with an elder family member then. Nothing more than poisoning / overdosing with morphine, oxycodone and or fentanyl.That is not the same as losing the right to life. Get back to me when it is allowed to stab/poison/dismember someone who is being taken off life support.
Making a decision about whether or not to continue extraordinary medical intervention in order to prolong someone's life is certainly a moral question, but it is in no way equivalent to outright killing someone.
I don't expect you to alter your beliefs. What I'm hoping to accomplish with this line of conversation, is to establish what an outlier you are, and how foolish the GOP was to ever get so involved with people like you. Because this was intended to be a political thread, and you don't even really believe in exceptions for the life of the mother. You want the State to forcibly strap that life-endangered woman to a table, and cut that life out of them, for the possible future benefit of some other couple. In your suggested solution, the 10 year-old girl was raped once, and now she's going to be surgically raped again, in a figurative sense, for the imputed future benefit of a fetus and a hypothetical adoptive family. She is not going to just "snap back," physically or mentally, from that act adjudicated upon her by the State.I don't have any illusions. I don't believe for a moment that my position has any widespread political support.
What's your point, though? I'm not going to back down from these beliefs for political reasons. It's not happening.
If you want to say that I need to recognize that "Life at Conception no matter what" is politically non-viable right now, and that I may need to be willing to vote for candidates who are the best possible option right now, even when they don't 100% align with my beliefs, then, yes, I readily admit that.
But if you ask me about my true beliefs regarding this unfortunate situation, I'm not going to lie about it.
Let me ask you this: Why is it that if someone wants to cut the baby out of a 10-year-old's body, but they're sure to dismember or poison the baby first to make sure its dead, that's the compassionate and merciful thing to do; but if I suggest that maybe we cut the baby out in such a way that lets both the baby and the mother live, suddenly it's the most horrible, evil thing ever?
You mean like the 23 states within which abortion was in some form legal at the time Roe v Wade was decided and the penumbra of the shadow was discovered?Was just thinking about the divide and how there's really no common ground to be had. You pretty much either think abortion is literally murder or you don't. The nation can't really come together at all on this, but we do have a mechanism to handle this, but I'm not sure either side can agree to it completely. It's nothing new. We all know about it. Federalism.
I don't have any illusions. I don't believe for a moment that my position has any widespread political support.
What's your point, though? I'm not going to back down from these beliefs for political reasons. It's not happening.
If you want to say that I need to recognize that "Life at Conception no matter what" is politically non-viable right now, and that I may need to be willing to vote for candidates who are the best possible option right now, even when they don't 100% align with my beliefs, then, yes, I readily admit that.
But if you ask me about my true beliefs regarding this unfortunate situation, I'm not going to lie about it.
Let me ask you this: Why is it that if someone wants to cut the baby out of a 10-year-old's body, but they're sure to dismember or poison the baby first to make sure its dead, that's the compassionate and merciful thing to do; but if I suggest that maybe we cut the baby out in such a way that lets both the baby and the mother live, suddenly it's the most horrible, evil thing ever?