gcthomas
New member
Thought you couldn't provide it. And your lie was exactly what I expected from you.
:loser:
Pro-life or Pro-choice
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
Thought you couldn't provide it. And your lie was exactly what I expected from you.
:loser:
glassjester
Well-known member
Exactly!
And that's exactly the pro-life stance. Pro-abortion folks want to build a straw man - claiming that pro-lifers would outlaw any and all treatment of an ill pregnant woman. That's not my stance. That's clearly not yours. It's not the stance of the Church (see the quote from Pope Pius XII, above).
It's nobody's stance. It's just a straw man.
Pro-life or Pro-choice
The "Pro-Life" supporters claim to advocate for the sanctity of human life and then vote for Republican politicians who recently allowed the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to expire - a program that provided access to healthcare for 9 million of America's most vulnerable children!
Actions speaks louder than words - a woman's decision to abort a foetus doesn't occur in a vacuum!
If "Pro-Life" advocates aren't willing to support the most basic initiatives as CHIP, that sends a powerful message to pregnant women as to the lack of government commitment to their future child's health!
Last edited:
Of course it does.
They use a suction device to literally tear the unborn baby limb-from-limb.
You can't be against poaching unless you adopt these:
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
glassjester
Well-known member
Abandoning the Ireland example?
It's disgusting ... and is an extremely anti-child position. I AM anti-abortion because I am pro-child which means actually caring about the child (and mother) during pregnancy and AFTER delivery. What the current administration in our country is doing insofar as denying healthcare makes a mockery of their supposed pro-life/pro-family platform.
First of all, as explained here, pain is not physical. You don't need a nervous system to experience emotional pain.
Second, I'd like for you to tell me what the object in the following video is.
https://youtu.be/wykXVQsiHno
Without going to the video link, can you tell me how old it is?
I see a head, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet, toes, and umbilical cord. That doesn't look like a blob of tissue. It looks like a tiny baby.
Did you guess 10 weeks old? Because that's a 10 week old baby that has been removed from his or her mother's womb prematurely, to be harvested for his or her organs. And yes, that baby, for that's what it is, a child, is moving around on his own.
I can't imagine what's going through his or her mind at this point, being moved around like that, and even crushed at one point.
If that had been a fetal pig, what do you suppose PETA and animal rights advocates would say?
Incorrect.
If your goal is to save both the life of the baby and the life of the mother, and leaving the baby in the womb would kill the mother, but simply removing the baby wouldn't kill the baby, even if the baby will die from exposure later, then removing the baby in and of itself is not murder.
If your intent is to kill the baby, but save the mother, and leaving the baby in the womb would kill the mother, and then you remove the baby to kill it, that is murder.
Intentionally taking the baby's life is murder
When your goal is to prolong the life of both patients, you do everything in your power to prolong their life, even if one dies.
It comes down to what your intent is.
If your intent is to kill the person, then you should be convicted of murder and executed.
If your intent is to prolong their life, for instance, in your situation lets say it was you shooting them and then someone else was about to shoot them if you didn't, and you shot them with the intent of not killing them, but to make it look like you did, then your intent was not murder, but to save their life.
Nope. Intent plays a huge role in conviction.
So ceasing life support for someone in a coma who isn't dying isn't murder? If the person who is in a coma on life support isn't dying, then why remove their life support? That's murder, according to you, so you shouldn't support such acts. Yet most of those who support killing the baby in the womb also support euthanasia of the elderly and mentally handicapped.
However, let's say someone is dying of cancer, and there is nothing else that can be done, and every other option has been exhausted, but it's growing too fast to keep up with, and the treatment is showing diminishing returns. Is it wrong for the doctors to cease treatment and tell the patient that it's not worth continuing the treatments,
Pro-life or Pro-choice
This is about a socialist program, and not necessarily about the abortion issue, but I'll respond to it anyways.
"Pro-life" no longer has the meaning it once did. It now means "pro-life, with exceptions."
Or rather, it means "pro-choice, with exceptions."
Many conservative Christians (and even a few non-Christians) have realized that nothing short of the abolition of abortion and all forms of euthenasia is the only thing that will end the millions of deaths that occur every day in this country.
Now that that's out of the way...
There aren't very many republican politicians who can actually claim to be pro-life. People have gotten used to choosing between the lesser of two evils, and there's no bottom to that abyss.
Socialism, and that includes public/government run healthcare programs, does not work.
Venezuela is a completely socialist country, yet their entire economy, and their standard of living has collapsed. Here is a rundown of everything that's going on there.
The program that expired is based on socialism.
Abortion is taking the life of an innocent baby, and it's always wrong to kill a baby.
The government has three roles, and taking care of patients is not one of them. The government also does not have the right to kill innocent children.
A Christian is a person who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and savior.
How is it not Christian to end state-enforced spending?
What is a GOP?
All he had was his assertions.
:yawn:
:blabla:
Pfft.
The US government is not "pro-life."
gcthomas
New member
Now you've gone right off the deep end. How can I discuss technical issues with someone who believes this? Perhaps you are brain dead yourself?
No nervous system, no mind. So nothing would be going through the non-existant mind.
Coma patients have lots of brain function, so of course I wouldn't support cutting off life support. They are just unconscious. Are you stupid?
If someone had been determined to be brain dead, ie dead, then of course life support should be able to be switched off. No point pumping oxygen through a dead person.
How can I discuss said issues with you when you don't read the support for my argument?
:think:
Perhaps you are brain dead yourself?
If I were brain dead, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it doesn't mean that we would never have this conversation. More on that below.
GC, would it be possible for you to go back and read through that TOL thread I linked above on pain? It would put us on even footing, so that we could discuss this topic better.
I'm glad you wouldn't.
Brain dead patients have made full recoveries, ie, they're not dead. Dead people don't make full recoveries.
Here is a list of "brain dead" patients who have recovered.
So you would kill someone who is brain dead (ie, not dead)?
Murderer.
gcthomas
New member
I read them. You are claiming that DNA itself can sustain emotions. Can you give evidence for that? The thread was just assertions, as far as I recall.
See above.
Lets see:
1. Sam Hemming: "A student left in a coma following a horrific car crash …" (Daily Mail). So a coma, not brain dead.
2. Taylor Hale: "Hand of God' wakes brain-injured girl from coma". (Daily Mail) A coma again. Not brain dead.
3. George Pickering: "'During that three hours, George squeezed my hand three or four times on command,' he said. His son later came out of his coma and is now fully recovered. " (Daily Mail). Oh, another coma.
4. Colleen S. Burns: "Doctors believed she had suffered irreversible brain damage and was on the point of death, but it later came to light that she was in fact in a deep drug-induced coma." (Lifesite News) Do you see the pettern here? Another coma.
5. Carina Melchior: "Last October, Carina was admitted to hospital with severe injuries and slipped into a coma. Doctors advised her parents that there was little chance for her survival, that brain death would probably occur within days," (Lifesire News). Sheesh. ANOTHER coma victim you are climing came back from being brain dead?
6. "Steven Thorpe awoke from 2-week coma after car crash that killed a man" (Daily Mail). Coma. Not brain dead then.
OK, I've got bored fact checking this stupid web page you linked to. EVERY ONE of the first six allegedly brain dead patients were stated as being in comas, and were not brain dead at all.
I can't be bothered checking all the others. Is there ONE you think is a dead cert 'recovery from being brain dead' case that I can look at? Kgov seems to be rather making this all up right now.
Based on what you said below, I don't believe you.
Incorrect.
...
You didn't bother to read the article. At least 4 times, the article states that Sam was either "brain dead," that half of her brain was dead, or that there was no brain activity.
Again, you didn't read the article, just skimmed the article title. At least 4 times it states she was brain dead.
At least 4 times (including in the title of the article) the article states he was brain dead.
So far, you're 0 for 3.
At least five times the article states that she was declared brain dead, and it even gives a bit of history about the term, "brain dead.":
| The term “brain death” was invented in 1968 to accommodate the need to acquire vital organs in their “freshest” state from a donor who some argue is still very much alive. While death had previously been defined as lack of respiration and heart activity, “brain death” was judged as compatible with an otherwise living patient. “Brain death” has never been rigorously defined, and there are no standardized tests to determine if the condition exists. |
0 for 4.
Ok, fair enough, she wasn't actually declared brain dead, but the doctors said that brain death "would probably occur within days," all because they wanted organs (which is one of the points of the list being made, that doctors are so eager to harvest organs that they'll kill people just to do it).
I'll give you this one, and I'll make a recommendation to Bob that he move it from "brain dead patients who have recovered" to "patients nearly killed because doctors said brain death was imminent."
1 for 5.
Twice it says he was brain dead.
1 for 6.
You apparently didn't read the articles, or your "fact checking" would have shown you to be in error..
It also leads me to believe that you did not actually read the above links. Skimmed to gather enough info to make it look like you did, but not thoroughly. I ask you again, to read the above links, and thoroughly, so that you can understand the arguments being made.
The only one making things up here is you, asserting that none of the patients in any of the articles were brain dead.
gcthomas
New member
[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION], I spent quite a bit of time following multiple links from a site that had been thoroughly debunked on ToL a few years ago.
Yes, on each page the phrase 'brain dead' was used by the journalist, but also the word 'coma'. It seems that the journalist was rather confused, so you can't really take it as strong evidence that people have recovered from brain death rather than coma.
Finally, did you notice the single source for virtually all the stories? The Daily Mail! You should look into the reputation that rag has for poor and sloppy journalism and for making up whole stories for clicks and paper sales. It doesn't employ any science or medical journalists, only reporting dramatic social stories, and is the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer.
Yes, on each page the phrase 'brain dead' was used by the journalist, but also the word 'coma'. It seems that the journalist was rather confused, so you can't really take it as strong evidence that people have recovered from brain death rather than coma.
Finally, did you notice the single source for virtually all the stories? The Daily Mail! You should look into the reputation that rag has for poor and sloppy journalism and for making up whole stories for clicks and paper sales. It doesn't employ any science or medical journalists, only reporting dramatic social stories, and is the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer.
Last edited: