Pierre the Great Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 You mean when her husband had her killed? I like how you phrased that, very clever. She was in a vegetative state, you would do the same to stop the suffering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Plus what are the republicans going to do with all those unwanted kids? People are going out of the country to adopt children. If there were more children given up for adoption in the states, people wouldn't have to go overseas to adopt. And it would save a lot of trouble getting a foreign baby, leaving more money to raise the child. I like how you phrased that, very clever. She was in a vegetative state, you would do the same to stop the suffering. I'm totally fine with allowing someone to die a natural death, but forced starvation is not natural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 Now I don't like late term abortions but sometimes they are needed. For example if your girlfriend or wife has twins and one gets a disease that would kill the other kid in order to save the healthy baby the other one has to be removed or both will die. And the far right loves to show pictures of late term abortions when in truth not very many people have late term abortions. Most abortions take place within the first few weeks. Rights of the fetus what about rights of the person living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Now I don't like late term abortions but sometimes they are needed. For example if your girlfriend or wife has twins and one gets a disease that would kill the other kid in order to save the healthy baby the other one has to be removed or both will die. And the far right loves to show pictures of late term abortions when in truth not very many people have late term abortions. Most abortions take place within the first few weeks. Rights of the fetus what about rights of the person living. Of course there is no such thing as a blanket law. Killing someone is generally murder, but for example, in cases of self-defense it is not murder. Same can be said for the type of cases you bring up. Of course, sometimes decisions have to be made. But in general, if a woman decides at the last minute not to have a kid, that should be out and out illegal. Ohio's newest senator supports such partial birth abortions. Also, as for the case of one baby possibly killing the other, I would choose to deliver that baby via c-section and try to help it survive outside the womb, while the other is left to grow safely to full term. I wouldn't simply decide to kill the sick baby. Amazing things happen, so you never know if that sick pre-mature baby might find a way to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 People are going out of the country to adopt children. If there were more children given up for adoption in the states, people wouldn't have to go overseas to adopt. And it would save a lot of trouble getting a foreign baby, leaving more money to raise the child. I'm totally fine with allowing someone to die a natural death, but forced starvation is not natural. Canadians like to adopt american kids (just liked to throw that in) I love adoption when I get older thats what I plan to do. Would you allow gays to adopt? I know a (she's got to be a lesbian) at church and she adopted a girl from india my age when I was little (a friend of mine growing up) and a girl from Peru my sisters age and now has adopted another little girl. The kids are perfectly 'normal' by all means. If you don't want the person to starve to death then you've got to support euthanasia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 If you don't want the person to starve to death then you've got to support euthanasia. Nope. Living wasn't hurting her. Living was hurting the husband. Her parents were willing to cover all the costs, the husband had already moved on and either got engaged or marries while the whole thing was going on. Doctors are paid to save lives, and if that is impossible, to make people comfortable until they die. They aren't supposed to take an active role in death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 I'd support partial birth abortions too because the bans always brought up by Congress are always blanket laws and not putting things into context. I have yet seen a partial birth abortion ban that brings up cases of diseases like I mentioned above. The whole abortion thing is very complicated and I take the issue very personally because I have close people in my life who have had abortions and who have not. I support both of there decisions. When I brought up bumper stickers yesterday or the day before its because I hate truly hate people who put stickers that say PRO-DEATH and other crazy stuff on there cars. They just do not get it nor seem to understand. Once they do they'll realize the real issues and problems in society. Nope. Living wasn't hurting her. Living was hurting the husband. Her parents were willing to cover all the costs, the husband had already moved on and either got engaged or marries while the whole thing was going on. Doctors are paid to save lives, and if that is impossible, to make people comfortable until they die. They aren't supposed to take an active role in death. The parents told him to move on back in the mid 90's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 ve noted that the us political landscape goes through radical changes roughly every third presidency since kennedy. you get two terms of democrats followed by two terms of republicans, followed by two terms of .,. h w bush was an abberation there... he went in based upon reagan's popularity. i remember, when he was running for his second term and was expected to win, i told those around me, in related discussions that he was doomed to lose... there was NO WAY the republicans would take the presidency for four consecutive terms... the popular mood wouldn't allow that. I wouldnt be so quick to reach that conclusion based on simple patterns...The republicans would've won 1992 quite easily if Ross Perot didn't take 19% of the popular vote. Likewise in 1996 Perot again siphoned off 8.5% of the republican vote, handing Clinton an easy re-election in what would've otherwise come down to the wire. So more than anything else the democrats owe the Clinton years to vote splitting more than anything else, and I think this statement is backed up by the fact that capitol hill was republican during this time, showing that the country's mood was still majority conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.