Being connected to and dependent on a dialysis machine does not make a person part of the machine.
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Pro-choice distortion
Collapse
X
-
1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
-
-
"otherwise viable" wasn't part of the original question - and a person on life support would not be "otherwise viable." There is some likelihood that the person might become self sufficient at some time in the future, but even that could be unlikely. The person might be unable to even breathe for himself - which is far less than a new-born can achieve.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostA person on a dialysis machine is an otherwise viable person, unlike a fetus prior to 22 months.
A person in a deep coma kept on life support isn't viable at that point and often has less brainwave activity than an unborn baby.
And as Tab noted you are moving the goalposts by adding "viable" now.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by QuantaFille View PostI have heard some from the pro-abortion crowd make this argument. You didn't say it specifically, but that argument is out there.
On the other hand, I've also seen them argue:
...that a fetus is an invader with hostile intent
...that a fetus is not going to leave the woman's body eventually and must be forcibly removed,
...that a fetus is a part of a woman's body and functions like one of her organs
... and all kind of other truly bizarre misinformation. I honestly don't know how people come up with this stuff.
*Cough*
Tassman, literally no doctor or medical professional has thought that since the 1800s (IIRC). We're talking about an era when doctors thought that bloodletting cured disease. Try to find one modern medical professional who agrees with you.
Hint: what happens when a patient receives donated blood that's the wrong blood type? The mother's and child's bloodstreams can't even mix. They are separate and distinct organisms.Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostA person on a dialysis machine is an otherwise viable person, unlike a fetus prior to 22 months.Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by QuantaFille View PostThey really are not viable without the machine. Do you understand what a dialysis machine is?1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostA person on a dialysis machine is an otherwise viable person, unlike a fetus prior to 22 months.
A) A dialysis machine did not create the person and give him his very own unique DNA.
2) A person can be removed from and returned to the dialysis machine with no harm to the person.
C) The purpose of a dialysis machine is to improve life, not kill it, as abortion does.
You're getting desperate.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostI think he covered that with "otherwise". But ... yes: life support does have a wide range of application.Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by QuantaFille View PostIn that case, a fetus who is dependant on his/her mother is otherwise viable. A person who is dependant on a dialysis machine is otherwise viable. The point still stands, someone who is dependant on something outside of his/her body is not a part of the thing they are dependant on.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSparko - this conversation is showing every sign of going down the usual rathole. I'm going to bow out and concentrate my attention in the other thread. You are welcome to join us if you wish. It is, after all, your site!
It's just more passive aggressiveness from you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo thanks, you can keep your little safe place all to yourself. You don't seem to have any solution, but you want to beat conservative Christian pro-lifers over the head with a bat so you can feel superior by claiming you want a "civil solution"
It's just more passive aggressiveness from you.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHis "middle ground" is to tell pro-lifers to consider the war lost and to do what little we can without stepping on the pro-abortionists' toes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHis "middle ground" is to tell pro-lifers to consider the war lost and to do what little we can without stepping on the pro-abortionists' toes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHis "middle ground" is to tell pro-lifers to consider the war lost and to do what little we can without stepping on the pro-abortionists' toes.
ETA: In fact, in that analogy, the guy could have already called the police to set up barricades, and his buddies at the Road & Bridge Department, but he's still "waging the war" and should be silent.
(I love the cartoon where the guy is climbing out of the river, all bruised and bloody, and approaches the guy holding a sign that says "THE END IS NEAR". He asks, quite angrily, "Shouldn't your sign have said THE BRIDGE IS OUT"?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:40 AM
|
2 responses
32 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 03:28 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:30 AM
|
15 responses
80 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:20 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-03-2024, 11:24 AM
|
25 responses
145 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 04:13 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 06-03-2024, 09:13 AM
|
49 responses
259 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 01:19 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-02-2024, 09:15 AM
|
31 responses
150 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:12 PM
|
Comment