Posted on 01/30/2008 8:01:49 AM PST by restornu
But growth and development are everything. A neonate is no more fully human than a brain-dead individual kept alive only with a respirator.
Also, you refuse to recognize the need to make hard choices. There's even a name for such a procedure - triage.
The unborn child is fully human from the moment of conception. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is simply trying to justify murder
But murder is justified all the time...by the "nicest" people, as I pointed out in my last post. And, unless you're a pacifist, you justify it too. Just not in these circumstances which conflict with your religious beliefs. Which is why I value your "morality" at exactly zero.
So you are okay with taking the life of both a neonate and someone on a respirator?
Would you say it is okay to take the life of the person on the respirator if that individual has indicated they don't WANT their life taken in that circumstance?
It depends on the circumstances but generally...yes.
Would you say it is okay to take the life of the person on the respirator if that individual has indicated they don't WANT their life taken in that circumstance?
Ditto...but in the real world this question is most often resolved by finances, not morality.
Perhaps you don't know that the term 'neonate' refers to the stage from birth to about 1 month old. Unless. . .are you saying it is okay to kill a baby after they are born?
Ditto
So you are okay with shutting off the respirator even if the person in question has indicated they don't want that to occur.
Sheesh. Disgusting.
I do know. That's why I questioned Romney's judgement. The contraceptive he banned can also be used as an emergency abortifacent on neonates...and pretty much only on neonates.
Unless. . .are you saying it is okay to kill a baby after they are born?
It's not "ok" to take life at all - any life. But it's done all the time, sometimes out of necessity, more often for less honorable reasons. Making judgements about the morality of doing so is never easy.
So you are okay with shutting off the respirator even if the person in question has indicated they don't want that to occur
Since when is it someone's "right" to command the time and resources of others? Respirators don't run themselves nor do brain-dead individuals take care of themselves in other ways.
But in your wonderful moral scheme it's a sin to not keep them alive...unless, of course, they can't pay you for your efforts. I find it a sin that you would use the word moral to describe your beliefs.
This contraceptive can be used to kill babies for up to 30 days AFTER they have been born?
You are either very mistaken or completely insane.
Since when is it someone's "right" to command the time and resources of others?
I see. So if someone continuing to live requires the time and resources of others, in your opinion, it is okay to kill them?
So you are insane.
Well, of course you are. You're Liberal Larry. LOL
Would you mind telling us, what you have done in support of your pro-life position? That is other than sit around nit-picking people that have actually vetoed a bill that promoted abortion in a liberal state. It doesn’t take any guts to sit in front of a computer and spew garbage about a person that took an honorable, and thoughtful action.
So if someone continuing to live requires the time and resources of others, in your opinion, it is okay to kill them?
Under present circumstances I don't mind you donating your time...but it would certainly not be ok for you to demand it of me. In the real world, genius, commanding the resources of others requires payment. Can't pay? You die...and that's just fine with you. Nothing immoral about that, is there?
So genius, you are telling me that ANY contraceptive is designed to kill a baby one month after it has been born?
Under present circumstances I don't mind you donating your time...but it would certainly not be ok for you to demand it of me.
So if a man decides he no longer wants to donate his time and money to caring for his kids (I'm talking about kids already born), you'd think it acceptable for him to kill them. Got it.
Good grief, you're a loon.
Your situation is worse than I thought - you're an ignoramous, a liar, a distorter, a person totally incapable of thought.
Here are the details of the dispute, Romney's actions, description of the contraceptive and its abortifacent effects. And here are Romney's explanations:
"YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception...I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward."
I wonder if you'd quibble about calling a newly fertilized embryo a neonate? Wouldn't surprise me. You're that low.
So if a man decides he no longer wants to donate his time and money to caring for his kids (I'm talking about kids already born), you'd think it acceptable for him to kill them.
If his kids are brain dead the law allows him to do just that. If not, your "argument" has no relevance.
Got it.
Stop kidding yourself. The last thing you got was your rattle when it fell to the floor.
I was - incorrectly - using neonate to refer to the first month following conception.
Sweetheart, you are the one claiming that a contraceptive can kill a baby after it has been born. You'd better go look up the definition of neonate, kiddo.
Sheesh, what a loon you are.
I made a mistake because I was focused on the first days after conception...which is the heart of the issue. Neonates was completely irrelevant except as a part of your analogy...and that analogy illustrates perfectly what I have against your position; the difference between a fertilized egg and a living baby is far, far greater than that between a neonate and a toddler. So much greater as to make the analogy ridiculous to anyone of reasonable judgement.
Furthermore, look closely at Romney's reasoning. The contractive works as an abortifacient on fertilized eggs which have not yet attached themselves firmly to the uterine wall...but not afterwords. But, in nature, fertilized eggs quite often fail to attach properly and die. Shall we intervene after every sexual act to try to save every fertilized egg? Pretty much tells you how articificial the whole pro-life argument has become.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.