YASNY Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 07:48 AM) What's realistic...? That most people on respirators have lived enough so it's ok to take them off..? Is there a stat on that? And have you lived enough? Are you OK with being taken off one because you "don't have much life left to lose"? Of course that's not what I was trying to say. Take it in the context of the quote I was responding to. If you take that into consideration, you should be able to understand why I responded the way I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) Of course that's not what I was trying to say. Take it in the context of the quote I was responding to. If you take that into consideration, you should be able to understand why I responded the way I did. Perhaps you need to re-read the quote you were referring to... CW stated that the person on the respirator has their whole life to loose... where as the embryo has not had a life yet. Then you come back with... " The person on the respirator in most cases doesn't have much of a life left to lose. The embryo is at the very beginning of life and therefore has much more to lose." The embryo has more to loose..? Like what...? Friends, family, kids, memories.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 09:07 AM) Perhaps you need to re-read the quote you were referring to... CW stated that the person on the respirator has their whole life to loose... where as the embryo has not had a life yet. Then you come back with... " The person on the respirator in most cases doesn't have much of a life left to lose. The embryo is at the very beginning of life and therefore has much more to lose." The embryo has more to loose..? Like what...? Friends, family, kids, memories.... The embryo has it's entire life ahead of it, where as the other's is in most cases winding down. That was point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 09:10 AM) The embryo has it's entire life ahead of it, where as the other's is in most cases winding down. That was point. That's what I was afraid of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 08:10 AM) I have to ask those of you who are in favor of banning abortion (or pro-life or whatever we are calling it today) a question. If your stance is that the fertilized egg is life immediately, then why the rape exception? That makes no sense to me. If I believed that life started at conception (which I am still open to, I am not dead-set on this topic yet), then to me, the ONLY logical exception that would be acceptable is when the mother's life is on the line. If conception occurs via rape, that life (if it is one at that point) is still a life, regardless of what action created it. The crime itself is horrific, but if life is to be protected no matter what, than rape cannot be an exception in my view. So can you explain that, please? The rape exception just doesn't sit well with me. I can see where you're coming from. It's such a grey area, especially with the rape case. My viewpoint is pro life with the exception of rape and if the mother's life is endangered because of the pregancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 08:10 AM) I have to ask those of you who are in favor of banning abortion (or pro-life or whatever we are calling it today) a question. If your stance is that the fertilized egg is life immediately, then why the rape exception? That makes no sense to me. If I believed that life started at conception (which I am still open to, I am not dead-set on this topic yet), then to me, the ONLY logical exception that would be acceptable is when the mother's life is on the line. If conception occurs via rape, that life (if it is one at that point) is still a life, regardless of what action created it. The crime itself is horrific, but if life is to be protected no matter what, than rape cannot be an exception in my view. So can you explain that, please? The rape exception just doesn't sit well with me. I can see what you are saying. A life is a life like you said. However, the rape victim needs to be protected too. What are the impacts of such a tragedy to that person? Would such a thing effectively destroy the life of the rape victim? In which case, you would be choosing between destroying the life of the baby vs destroying the life of the mother. Rape is a case were the mother did not choose for this to happen. Whereas, in other cases, a choice was made by the mother. It is tragic. This is all JMO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Now this makes no sense. The person on the respirator in most cases doesn't have much of a life left to lose. The embryo is at the very beginning of life and therefore has much more to lose. An embryo has no mind, no thoughts, no feelings, no memories, no personality, no skills, no relationships, no possessions. If it dies, it loses nothing but potential. A person on a respirator/in a coma/whatever has those things. If they die, they lose everything they had and anyone who knew them also loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 06:08 PM) An embryo has no mind, no thoughts, no feelings, no memories, no personality, no skills, no relationships, no possessions. If it dies, it loses nothing but potential. A person on a respirator/in a coma/whatever has those things. If they die, they lose everything they had and anyone who knew them also loses. I already tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I wish we could take a common sense, understanding, empathetic approach to these issues which are so clearly emotional. But the truth is that these are issues that are primarily public health and not political. So, it bothers me that people in government who want to outlaw abortion procedures also don't seem to find it a priority to make sure that people on life support can stay on life support without the funds to pay for it, provided that its the will of the person or their family. In at least one case, the decision was made to take a woman off life support while she was still conscious and responsive. Because she was terminal and because the money ran out. Stories like that make me want to cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 06:19 PM) In at least one case, the decision was made to take a woman off life support while she was still conscious and responsive. Because she was terminal and because the money ran out. Screw her.. she didn't have much of a life left anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Here's an unpopular take on this: There are hundred of thousands of unadopted children in this country. And once they pass age 11, their chances of getting adopted are very slim. There are countless others who were unwanted by their parents, but their parents kept them due to family pressure, religious reasons, etc. These kids are miserable, and for every one that will beat the odds and become a happy, well-adjusted adult, how many others will feel unloved and worthless their whole lives? So, while I still believe that abortion is a nasty thing and should not be entered into lightly, I wonder if forcing people to have an unwanted child isn't the best plan. Even if they want the abortion just because they dont want a kid, realistically, is it a good idea to ask them to bring another unwanted child into the world? Is not living worse than living a mostly miserable life? Since nobody knows what it's like to be dead, can anyone have the answer? These thoughts only apply to very early term abortions. Just thoughts here, not a set in stone philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 06:22 PM) Screw her.. she didn't have much of a life left anyway. Excuse me for looking at it from an analytical, non-emotional viewpoint. Why is it that when someone holds an opposing viewpoint than you, you turn vicious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 04:56 AM) Excuse me for looking at it from an analytical, non-emotional viewpoint. Why is it that when someone holds an opposing viewpoint than you, you turn vicious? Vicious....? For questioning your comment about removing someone from life support because "in most cases they don't have much life left to live..." I think I was quite composed given the comments, and the reiteration of them when I asked for clarification. Not vicious at all. Stunned. Shocked. Thoughts of your father and how your analytical, non-emotional stance may someday effect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 05:02 AM) Vicious....? For questioning your comment about removing someone from life support because "in most cases they don't have much life left to live..." I think I was quite composed given the comments, and the reiteration of them when I asked for clarification. Not vicious at all. Stunned. Shocked. Thoughts of your father and how your analytical, non-emotional stance may someday effect him. I never implied that it was justifiable on it's own. You're either twisting my words or my meanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 (edited) Let me take a stab at this from a perspective you brought up, Steff. My father may someday end up on one. My son may have been put on one had he lived long enough. Would I want to pull the pull on either? No. Would I agonize over the decision to have the plugged pulled on either? Very much so. However, what I'm saying is that at that point, the odds are that neither one ever have gotten to the point of leading a full, healthy life again. Yes, as you stated, there are exceptions. But stop making me out to being a cold heartless bastard that has no regard suffering of the infirm or their families. That is certainly not the case. If you allow the statement to be made in the context of making the point, and making that point only, then you should be able to see it for it is and not the way you are currently seeing it. Edited March 1, 2006 by YASNY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Enough with the needling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) Enough with the needling. That's not what this guy thinks: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 05:14 PM) I can see where you're coming from. It's such a grey area, especially with the rape case. My viewpoint is pro life with the exception of rape and if the mother's life is endangered because of the pregancy. QUOTE(vandy125 @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 06:17 PM) I can see what you are saying. A life is a life like you said. However, the rape victim needs to be protected too. What are the impacts of such a tragedy to that person? Would such a thing effectively destroy the life of the rape victim? In which case, you would be choosing between destroying the life of the baby vs destroying the life of the mother. Rape is a case were the mother did not choose for this to happen. Whereas, in other cases, a choice was made by the mother. It is tragic. This is all JMO of course. I do agree that the rape victim needs to be cared for in every way possible. But, as awful as rape is (I can only imagine), ending a life is unquestionably worse. So, if you believe life starts at conception (which is a legitimate perspective), then I cannot see how you can make an exception for rape or anything else other than a threat to the mother's life. If on the other hand, you believe that life starts at a later time (such as medically defined independent life, at roughly 4 months), but you still feel abortion is something awful enough that it should be severly curtailed, then I can see the rape exception making sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts