Senate Abortion: Why not?

I burn mine so none of my enemies can gather them and put the evil on me.

 

Not true at all. Brain dead people can live for weeks, or even months. It's rare, but it happens. There are also different degrees of brain death, with both cerebral and brainstem dysfunction present together being the most severe variation.

Word of friendly advice (and I mean this sincerely, not snarkily): stop posting what you consider to be medical and/or scientific facts. You lack the education and training necessary to put such into context, and your superficial analysis of information read online or fashioned by Dr. Google is leading to the wrong conclusions. Nothing you have said, nor has any of the evidence you have posted, been an accurate factual foundation for the points you are trying to make.

In other words, you are taking information out of its proper context and using it in a distorted fashion to try and dress up your opinion as fact. It isn't working. Please stop. If you can't, please at least be willing to acknowledge that those who know more about this subject than you are not going to be swayed by continued arguments based upon false premises.

 

Another one indoctrinated by the left with their "education"

 

Speaking of out of context...

Lemme ask this: Would the brain dead person be considered human life?

(We kind of know this answer)

EDIT: And while he certainly could be legally taken off of life support, doesn't he have the right to live insofar as you couldn't give him a lethal injection?

 

Yes it would be considered human life but I personally am open to the idea of euthanasia and personally would welcome the option being made legal for me for when I get to that age where my quality of life has diminished to being nothing but a meaty shell that once held a brain that worked.

 

"Get to", Burt?

 

I blame the rum

 

Isn't that exactly what abortion is in some forms - "taking the foetus out of the living life support device that is the mother's womb"?

 

Goodnight, Sweet Prince

 

I understand DNR's and living wills. But no one asked the fetus if he gave up his right to life.

An abortion would be more like a lethal injection than pulling the plug.

The death of the mother would be like pulling the plug on the life support.

 

why?

No - the death of the mother would be like smashing the machine completely, making it unable to be used again.


A life support machine switched off, can be switched on again for somebody else.

As argued here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

a fetus does not necessarily have a right to "life support".

 

Sucking a fetus out of the womb with a serrated vacuum tube isn't the same thing as unplugging a machine.

The loss to the roll of the dice doesn't trump the new life's right to live. And in the example, she didn't create the violinist. It's not her responsibility to care for him.

 

I'm so totally getting a malt with a bendy straw tonight after reading that.

 

LOL! A strawberry one!

 

And in the case of a rape victim who has not been able to get an abortion till late in the third trimester:

"She didn't choose to create the foetus, it's not her responsibility to keep it alive"

also applies.

The "people seeds" example is a better fit for consensual intercourse with contraception that happens to fail.

 

Welcome, AFS!

 

Like I said, I understand an exception for cases of rape.

 

Then why not an exception for cases of "rotten luck with contraception"?

If it's "not murder" if the foetus was created by rape - then it can be "not murder" under other circumstances as well.

For that matter, what if it takes a long time for the rapist to go to trial?

If a woman who has been raped cannot get permission to get an abortion until the rapist is convicted, this is horribly unfair to her.

 

Who cares if it's unfair to her? What's important is defending the nonexistent honor of the Republican Party.

 

You just think they should carry a baby to term and raise it, because that gets you more Jesus Bucks. Nice. Convenient.

Could be a nice little revenue stream if conservatives were charged stamp duty every time they passed responsibility for their beliefs to others.

 

How did that response correspond to anything she actually said?

 

Who is carrying a baby to term and raising it in this scenario? This is about adoption. And I've said natal care for women should be provided by the government.

Honestly, your supposed arguments are paper thin, not based in reality, and are lazy. And I'm also not a conservative, nor do I believe in earning your way to anything religiously. So I'm not sure what strawman you are talking to, but you're embarassing people with reasonable stances.

 

How. . .what happens? Women are unable to bear children?

 

Unable to carry pregnancies to term due to health and financial and other life circumstances, yes.