California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
I don't understand *why* people ban abortions. We do not have a shortage of humans.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
08-10-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(08-10-2015 11:26 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 11:24 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Got news for you hoss -- there's been cases where a woman didn't know she was pregnant until she delivered......

This is true, though it baffles me how you can carry full term and not realize something is kicking your ribs and jumping on your bladder. Blink

I always figured it's gotta be a bit like the scene from Alien.... ya gotta know something's squirming about in there... Confused

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
08-10-2015, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 01:50 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(08-10-2015 11:15 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 10:51 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Speak for yourself. I'm a registered Libertarian, and while I don't like the idea of abortion, I like even less the idea of the government taking away from a woman the most basic human right, the right to control one's own body.

Even after eight weeks, when the fetus is recognizably human, it still has no right to command its mother (by government proxy) to bring itself to birth, any more than my sister has a right to my liver should hers fail.

Long story short: you ascribing objection to abortion to conformity is simply a way for you to cling to your views without entertaining those views different from your own. You're better off simply espousing your own views, rather than speculating on the motives of people you don't know.

I agree that a woman should have control over her body. But I think that must be balanced with the rights of the human inside her. I think that balance can be achieved, by realizing that beyond a certain point in development a fetus can feel pain (some researchers claim 8 weeks, others 20, some 26 weeks), as well as survive outside the womb as early as 22 weeks. Clearly, if a fetus has reached the age that it could survive outside the womb, why terminate it? Better yet, if a fetus has reached the age that it can feel pain (possible 8-26 weeks) why cause it pain? Terminating a pregnancy at the beginning stages offers a balance of rights to the mother and unborn.

No, it doesn't. Let's look at your last point first: if the metric is feeling pain, you should be a vegetarian, because the lives of livestock are filled with pain. The pain of death is usually addressed by quick methods, but still, branding, skeletal pain caused by growth hormones, and so on mean that those animals have pain inflicted upon them.

Anticipating that you will object, "But they're not human", we have to ask, what is it then that makes us human? Clearly it isn't the capacity to feel pain. I would argue that it is the capacity for thinking. Indeed, our species name, Homo Sapiens, refers directly to that. Yet brainwaves in a fetus don't start until much later than your 8-week figure.

Moving on: the fetus inside her has no rights. No one has the right to the body of another human being. If my kidneys fail, can I come to your doorstep with a surgeon in tow? After all, my life depends on your kidneys. Do I have that right to life? Or do you have a right to do as you say with your own body? If a fetus, treated as a person, has the right to impose itself upon another person in such an invasive manner, shouldn't I have that same right? After all, we are both people.

The right to control one's own body has nothing to do with age or viability of the fetus. It has everything to do with the fact that one's own body is, at the end of it all, the limits of our control. Usurpation by the government of that right is obnoxious.

I don't think you've really thought this out all that much.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
08-10-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(08-10-2015 01:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 11:15 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I agree that a woman should have control over her body. But I think that must be balanced with the rights of the human inside her. I think that balance can be achieved, by realizing that beyond a certain point in development a fetus can feel pain (some researchers claim 8 weeks, others 20, some 26 weeks), as well as survive outside the womb as early as 22 weeks. Clearly, if a fetus has reached the age that it could survive outside the womb, why terminate it? Better yet, if a fetus has reached the age that it can feel pain (possible 8-26 weeks) why cause it pain? Terminating a pregnancy at the beginning stages offers a balance of rights to the mother and unborn.

No, it doesn't. Let's look at your last point first: if the metric is feeling pain, you should be a vegetarian, because the lives of livestock are filled with pain. The pain of death is usually address by quick methods, but still, branding, skeletal pain caused by growth hormones, and so on mean that those animals have pain inflicted upon them.

Anticipating that you will object, "But they're not human", we have to ask, what is it then that makes us human? Clearly it isn't the capacity to feel pain. I would argue that it is the capacity for thinking. Indeed, our species name, Homo Sapiens, refers directly to that. Yet brainwaves in a fetus don't start until much later than your 8-week figure.

Moving on: the fetus inside her has no rights. No one has the right to the body of another human being. If my kidneys fail, can I come to your doorstep with a surgeon in tow? After all, my life depends on your kidneys. Do I have that right to life? Or do you have a right to do as you say with your own body? If a fetus, treated as a person, has the right to impose itself upon another person in such an invasive manner, shouldn't I have that same right? After all, we are both people.

The right to control one's own body has nothing to do with age or viability of the fetus. It has everything to do with the fact that one's own body is, at the end of it all, the limits of our control. Usurpation by the government of that right is obnoxious.

I don't think you've really thought this out all that much.

I've said this for years.

The "beginning of life" can be just as a difficult question as to what is "the end of life"????

That is -- we generally accept that simply breathing or having a heartbeat doesn't indicate life. (With exceptions to certain senior Republican Senators)....

We as a society have pretty well decided that brain death is the end of life. If your brain is never going to be self aware, or able of any reasoning - we conclude that you're brain dead - and thus for all intents and purposes, we can "pull the plug".

So shouldn't the same standard be held to the beginning of life?

Simply having two brain cells doesn't mean you're alive. (again, with exception to the above mentioned senators...)

...

Sure - it's tricky to say when life begins --- but it's really safe to assume it's not at the moment of conception.

That's just a lame excuse - to not make a reasoned decision...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
08-10-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(08-10-2015 01:54 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Sure - it's tricky to say when life begins --- but it's really safe to assume it's not at the moment of conception.

That's just a lame excuse - to not make a reasoned decision...

Exactly. It's a fig-leaf for a "think of the children!" argument.

Well, think of the goddamned woman while you're at it -- isn't she a person too?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
08-10-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(08-10-2015 01:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 11:15 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I agree that a woman should have control over her body. But I think that must be balanced with the rights of the human inside her. I think that balance can be achieved, by realizing that beyond a certain point in development a fetus can feel pain (some researchers claim 8 weeks, others 20, some 26 weeks), as well as survive outside the womb as early as 22 weeks. Clearly, if a fetus has reached the age that it could survive outside the womb, why terminate it? Better yet, if a fetus has reached the age that it can feel pain (possible 8-26 weeks) why cause it pain? Terminating a pregnancy at the beginning stages offers a balance of rights to the mother and unborn.

No, it doesn't. Let's look at your last point first: if the metric is feeling pain, you should be a vegetarian, because the lives of livestock are filled with pain. The pain of death is usually addressed by quick methods, but still, branding, skeletal pain caused by growth hormones, and so on mean that those animals have pain inflicted upon them.

Anticipating that you will object, "But they're not human", we have to ask, what is it then that makes us human? Clearly it isn't the capacity to feel pain. I would argue that it is the capacity for thinking. Indeed, our species name, Homo Sapiens, refers directly to that. Yet brainwaves in a fetus don't start until much later than your 8-week figure.

Moving on: the fetus inside her has no rights. No one has the right to the body of another human being. If my kidneys fail, can I come to your doorstep with a surgeon in tow? After all, my life depends on your kidneys. Do I have that right to life? Or do you have a right to do as you say with your own body? If a fetus, treated as a person, has the right to impose itself upon another person in such an invasive manner, shouldn't I have that same right? After all, we are both people.

The right to control one's own body has nothing to do with age or viability of the fetus. It has everything to do with the fact that one's own body is, at the end of it all, the limits of our control. Usurpation by the government of that right is obnoxious.

I don't think you've really thought this out all that much.

That is arguably the worst argument I have ever heard in my life. THE WORST. You taking my kidneys is not even comparable to a child in the womb. The unborn isn't taking body parts from its host. Pulling some nutrition from the hosts blood stream, granted, but not asking for body parts. In fact, the little buddy is growing his own little kidneys. HUMAN kidneys, by the way.

A fetus is not some blood sucking parasite. It didn't attack the host after she ingested raw eggs or something.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
His point is that you set the foetus' rights above those of the mother. By what justification?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
08-10-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(08-10-2015 12:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  I don't understand *why* people ban abortions. We do not have a shortage of humans.

And there's 8 billion examples of proof that you're right.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(08-10-2015 02:03 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  A fetus is not some blood sucking parasite.

Seriously??? I know some blood sucking parasites that are still feeding off their mother when they're 30 years old......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like onlinebiker's post
08-10-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: California Governor Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law
(08-10-2015 02:07 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 02:03 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  A fetus is not some blood sucking parasite.

Seriously??? I know some blood sucking parasites that are still feeding off their mother when they're 30 years old......

ABORT THEM!!!

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: