cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

(What is the difference in forcing  a person to carry a fetus just because it has the potential to become a human and forcing YOU to give up one of your kidneys to save the life of a human that is already on the earth walking and talking?

that is not deflection it is a very similar situation.

If you can force one person to carry a fetus then you should be able to force anyone else to give an organ to save another human. Even less time committed for giving the kidney.)

 

Well, 3rd time is not the charm.

Your dopey argument has been around for years, quit playing it off like it's a Canuck original.

 

The response has also been around for years, refusal to donate an organ to a sick person merely fails to save that person from death; it does not cause that person's death as does abortion to the unborn child.

A person is not responsible for causing another person to be in need of a kidney; a pregnant woman is responsible, in almost all cases, for causing an unborn child to be dependent on her body.

 

Enough deflection?

 

 

 

Veteran Advisor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

Couple of ideas, different from above --

 

If a late-term "fetus" would likely be able to survive if delivered, then wouldn't it be "killing" it to abort?

 

If a late-term "fetus" is aborted, but somehow survives the abortion relatively unharmed, then wouldn't it be "killing" it to "terminate" it post-abortion?

 

If either of the above are true, then "abortion rights" need to be limited, and it is mostly a matter of establishing at what point and/or in what types of cases those "abortion rights" are considered acceptable.  Of course, a minority will argue that life begins at conception, just as a minority will argue that life begins at full-term-delivered first natural breath -- the most likely tolerable majority answer lies between.  And, if at some stage, the death of a "fetus" could possibly be considered manslaughter or murder, then at that same stage, abortion should not be legal except perhaps in specially defined circumstances.

 

 

 

 

Senior Contributor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

What is the difference?

If your kidney is not given to the person then YOU killed that person

 

That would be a real human walking and talking not just a fetus with potential to become a human.

 

I think your argument to allow the person to die is 'dopey'.

Senior Advisor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

A child in the womb is also human. Kill that child and you kill a human. The child in the womb has civil rights and one of those rights is the right to breath. To deprive the unborn child of it's right to breath is to deny that human of it's civil right. The only way to kill the child without killing a human is to believe the child is not human.

 

Your use of the term fetus is a deflection as to try to deny that fetus is an unborn human child. You want others to believe the unborn human child is of less worth than yourself. That unborn child is totally innocent of wrong and has as much right to breath as you do.

Senior Advisor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

The person in need of a kidney was killed by whatever diseased his/her kidney. Maybe because of the lifestyle that person chooses to live. To say that is no different than slaughtering an innocent child inside of the womb is more than dopey. It is down right ignorant. A dopey ignorant deflection of the truth, facts, and science.

Senior Contributor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

WCMO  again the use of words is misleading or maybe deliberately misleading.

 

Talk to someone in medicine and late term refers to a pregnancy that is overdue.

Is it wrong to induce labour and delivery of a fetus that is over due?

 

Another thing most do not realize or acknowledge is at 8 weeks of pregnancy the potential fetus has only existed for 6 weeks since a pregnancy length is determined from the woman last period.

 

Now check up on how few abortions happen after the first trimester and the few in this time period happen because of the health of the woman mostly.

Severe malformity of the fetus is another reason.

 

Those would be special circumstances.

Senior Advisor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

If there are so few late term abortions then why do you want to keep them legal? And why openly celebrate a law that denies the child care if it is born alive? Just more deflection.

Veteran Advisor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

Could be, but talk to any average sensible person about 'late-term abortion', and they will most likely say it's a 3rd trimester abortion.  More to the point, my argument is not that all abortions should be legal, nor that all abortions should be illegal, but that some reasonably tolerable stage (week) of gestation should be identified as the "point of no return" for an abortion decision, subject to defined exceptions.  Many states are attempting to do that, according to their self-defined parameters, some or most of which are quite likely in conflict with the ruling in Roe v. Wade. 

Senior Contributor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

When did having sex start causing someone else to get kidney disease? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Senior Advisor

Re: This would make the choice a lot easier

One thing Canuck did educate on however. Most abortions are for birth control.