What would universal healthcare do to the Octa-mom?

[barfo]

No it isn't. Its the pre-meditated termination of life. You are actively ensuring that life does not continue.

To me, it doesn't matter if a fetus cannot live on its own. If you let science take its course, the fetus continues to develop and live into an independent life. By killing the fetus, you are killing that person.

but go ahead and just yell "you love jesus, bible thumper!", it probably helps you justify your position.

So how is using a condom different from abortion in your view?
If you let science, rather than latex, take it's course, a fetus would develop, etc.

barfo

 

[barfo]

When it is one's intent to terminate the life. Its really quite simple. To me, I treat the fetus or even the fertilized mass of cells as a human life, because it is one.

So again, I ask, if one accidentally terminates life, that's ok with you?

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

So how is using a condom different from abortion in your view?
If you let science, rather than latex, take it's course, a fetus would develop, etc.

barfo

Life begins when sperm meets egg. If there's a physical barrier, then the sperm doesn't meet the egg and life does not begin.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

So again, I ask, if one accidentally terminates life, that's ok with you?

barfo

like what, if a pregant woman falls down the stairs? Uhhhh...that's an accident. I don't see anything wrong with that.



accidents happen all the time.

 

[barfo]

like what, if a pregant woman falls down the stairs? Uhhhh...that's an accident. I don't see anything wrong with that.



accidents happen all the time.

Let's say she drank a quart of whiskey. She certainly intended no harm to the fetus, she was just having fun. Murder, or nature?

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Let's say she drank a quart of whiskey. She certainly intended no harm to the fetus, she was just having fun. Murder, or nature?

barfo

It really depends. You could see it both ways. If a woman didn't know she was pregnant and drank a bunch....I guess that would be nature. But if she did know she was pregnant and was aware of the ramifications of drinking whisky....it'd be murder or I guess manslaughter. In either case, if the baby dies, she killed it.

 

[barfo]

Life begins when sperm meets egg. If there's a physical barrier, then the sperm doesn't meet the egg and life does not begin.

I see. Good. So if a sperm reaches an egg, anything that destroys it after that is either murder or an act of god?

Does the woman bear no responsibility for creating an ideal environment for the fertilized egg to grow? Or is the egg on it's own at that point?

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I see. Good. So if a sperm reaches an egg, anything that destroys it after that is either murder or an act of god?

Does the woman bear no responsibility for creating an ideal environment for the fertilized egg to grow? Or is the egg on it's own at that point?

barfo

god? where did god come into this discussion. that's a separate argument. i'm looking at this from a scientific point of view.


The woman does bear a responsibility to not kill the baby. whatever that entails.

 

[barfo]

It really depends. You could see it both ways. If a woman didn't know she was pregnant and drank a bunch....I guess that would be nature.

Uhm no, that wouldn't be nature. Unless you want to argue that when the kid is 3 years old, and the mom backs over it with the car, that was just nature.

But if she did know she was pregnant and was aware of the ramifications of drinking whisky....it'd be murder or I guess manslaughter.

Ok, now what if she didn't realize the ramifications of drinking whiskey?

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Uhm no, that wouldn't be nature. Unless you want to argue that when the kid is 3 years old, and the mom backs over it with the car, that was just nature.
Ok, now what if she didn't realize the ramifications of drinking whiskey?

barfo

Then she still killed the baby. but it was negligent.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

see, to me, the woman-fetus relationship is no differnt from a woman-child relationship. there has to be a certain expectation of taking care of one's child, whether its in the woman's body or outside the woman's body.

 

[barfo]

god? where did god come into this discussion. that's a separate argument. i'm looking at this from a scientific point of view.


The woman does bear a responsibility to not kill the baby. whatever that entails.

God came in around post #12 of this thread.

So, if the choice is the baby lives or the woman lives, you believe the woman has a responsibility to die so that the baby can live?

barfo

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

Its the pre-meditated termination of life. You are actively ensuring that life does not continue. I would personally define that as murder or killing of a life.

Define life. I mean, can you terminate a head of lettuce? Can you intentionally kill a bug? A fetus isn't a human, it is not by any accepted definition 'alive'

To me, it doesn't matter if a fetus cannot live on its own. If you let science take its course, the fetus continues to develop and live into an independent life.

I don't think Science means what you think it means. Anyway, up to 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage so if you let the life cycle take its course, and you're lucky a healthy baby may be born. That number was much higher before modern medicine. So would you claim denying a mother modern medicine is murder since it's likely to end in miscarriage?

By killing the fetus, you are killing that person.

A fetus is not a person.

but go ahead and just yell "you love jesus, bible thumper!", it probably helps you justify your position.

That's exactly what I said. You either aren't listening to me or are purposely distorting my words so you can hide behind them.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

God came in around post #12 of this thread.

So, if the choice is the baby lives or the woman lives, you believe the woman has a responsibility to die so that the baby can live?

barfo

no. there is no hierarchy here what so ever. If the baby dies, so be it. If the woman dies, so be it. I would still say that the purposeful killing of life is a form of murder.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Define life. I mean, can you terminate a head of lettuce? Can you intentionally kill a bug? A fetus isn't a human, it is not by any accepted definition 'alive'

I don't think Science means what you think it means. Anyway, up to 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage so if you let the life cycle take its course, and you're lucky a healthy baby may be born. That number was much higher before modern medicine. So would you claim denying a mother modern medicine is murder since it's likely to end in miscarriage?

A fetus is not a person.

That's exactly what I said. You either aren't listening to me or are purposely distorting my words so you can hide behind them.

I've defined life as beginning at conception.

I don't understand your point regarding "denying a mother modern medicine" being murder. Again, its pretty cut and dried. If you are purposefully terminating a pregnancy, I see that as killing a life. You are extrapolating past my boundries.

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

see, to me, the woman-fetus relationship is no differnt from a woman-child relationship.

It's completely different. It's not even remotely similar.

There has to be a certain expectation of taking care of one's child, whether its in the woman's body or outside the woman's body.

So a 12 year old girl that has been raped by her step-father and impregnated owes religious people something? She owes it to you to be a mother? She owes it to her pedophile step-dad to mother that child. Do you even comprehend that almost every woman in the USA will be raped in their lifetime.

Do you think they put on a condom for protection?!?!

 

[barfo]

no. there is no hierarchy here what so ever. If the baby dies, so be it. If the woman dies, so be it. I would still say that the purposeful killing of life is a form of murder.

So you are against hunting elk and picking mushrooms? Or do you limit this to purposeful killing of human fetuses (feti?)

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

It's completely different. It's not even remotely similar.
So a 12 year old girl that has been raped by her step-father and impregnated owes religious people something? She owes it to you to be a mother? She owes it to her pedophile step-dad to mother that child. Do you even comprehend that almost every woman in the USA will be raped in their lifetime.

Do you think they put on a condom for protection?!?!

huh? seriously dude, what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

So you are against hunting elk and picking mushrooms? Or do you limit this to purposeful killing of human fetuses (feti?)

barfo

see above post.

 

[barfo]

see above post.

Doesn't answer the question. If you are against purposeful killing of life, then you should be against picking mushrooms. If not, explain.

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Doesn't answer the question. If you are against purposeful killing of life, then you should be against picking mushrooms. If not, explain.

barfo

yeah, i'm talking about humans.

sorry I didn't preface that in everyone of my posts.

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

I've defined life as beginning at conception.

Then you would scientifically have to say that harvesting a plant is murder and ending any life is murder. God made ants too.

I don't understand your point regarding "denying a mother modern medicine" being murder.

I think it's quite simple.

1) We have modern medical care.
2) An intentional choice can be made to provide a fetus with modern care or not.
3) If an intentional choice is made to not provide care to the fetus and the fetus dies, under YOUR definition it is murder.

Under your definition of murder, an insurance company is guilty of murder because they intentionally chose to end a human life by not providing treatment available. Why don't you take up that cause, since you know, those people ARE ACTUALLY ALIVE AND SUFFERING!!!!????!

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

yeah, i'm talking about humans.

sorry I didn't preface that in everyone of my posts.

You've spent two pages talking about "life" and now you're changing your tune. So life isn't important unless it's human? Yeah, I'm sure your God that created all that life would agree with you there.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Then you would scientifically have to say that harvesting a plant is murder and ending any life is murder. God made ants too.

I think it's quite simple.

1) We have modern medical care.
2) An intentional choice can be made to provide a fetus with modern care or not.
3) If an intentional choice is made to not provide care to the fetus and the fetus dies, under YOUR definition it is murder.

Under your definition of murder, an insurance company is guilty of murder because they intentionally chose to end a human life by not providing treatment available. Why don't you take up that cause, since you know, those people ARE ACTUALLY ALIVE AND SUFFERING!!!!????!

I'm not having this plants are people too bullshit because its retarded.

OK. for your second point. I stated that I defined murder as the pre-meditated and intentional cessation of life. By merely denying a standard of care afforded by the select few, I don't believe that this falls under the category of the intentional killing of human life. Far from it. You can have a child in a barn on a stack of hay.

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

huh? seriously dude, what the fuck are you talking about?

You said a 12 year old girl that was raped and impregnated bares a responsibility*. EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!!


* You actually said any pregnant woman bares responsibility. This is just a common example of your black and white thinking.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

You've spent two pages talking about "life" and now you're changing your tune. So life isn't important unless it's human? Yeah, I'm sure your God that created all that life would agree with you there.

how am I changing my tune. I thought it was implicitly understood I was talking about humans here.

 

[barfo]

yeah, i'm talking about humans.

sorry I didn't preface that in everyone of my posts.

Ok, so you have a different rule for humans. Fine.

Now explain where the boundary is between negligence (I didn't eat any ____ during pregnancy) and criminality (I tossed the baby off the ++++ Bridge).

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

You said a 12 year old girl that was raped and impregnated bares a responsibility. EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!!

What about it. If she kills the fetus, its murder. simple as that.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Ok, so you have a different rule for humans. Fine.

Now explain where the boundary is between negligence (I didn't eat any ____ during pregnancy) and criminality (I tossed the baby off the ++++ Bridge).

barfo

boundary is just as it is with a mother-child relationship. whatever that is.

 

[Karl Malone's Elbows]

I'm not having this plants are people too bullshit because its retarded.

Nobody but you said that plants are people. You said intentionally terminating life is murder. Under your definition harvesting a plant is murder. I can't help it, THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID!

OK. for your second point. I stated that I defined murder as the pre-meditated and intentional cessation of life. By merely denying a standard of care afforded by the select few, I don't believe that this falls under the category of the intentional killing of human life. Far from it. You can have a child in a barn on a stack of hay.

You don't seem to comprehend the numbers here. Denying modern medical care to pregnant woman would directly lead to MILLIONS of dead fetus's that would be alive if they were given medical care. It's an intentional choice whether or not to give pregnant woman modern medical care. Your logic dictates that a choice not to provide care is murder.