Tragic statement of the day:

[red77]

You're a retard. No mother who loves her child would want to "remove" or "abort" him. Responsible medical procedure in the tragic situations where the mother's life is going to be the cost of continuing the pregnancy is to try and save both. The mother would never agree to a procedure where the child was ignored as a person.

Way to dance around the question Stipe, noone denies that in every case all effort should go along to saving both mother and child, my point to you was that in some cases this isn't always possible, and why are you suddenly so hostile to 'removals'? :liberals: these don't kill the baby Stipe and also why I asked you whether you had proof that everywhere in the world had such medical knowledge and technology!

And again, if a woman who is in lethal danger from preganancy/labour who is forced into conceiving the child then is this not just as much murder as abortion?

 

[Stripe]

Way to dance around the question Stipe, noone denies that in every case all effort should go along to saving both mother and child

Actually you would not condemn a woman who murdered her child in some situations.

my point to you was that in some cases this isn't always possible

Then the attitude should be to act responsibly as a medical professional and try. However I am under the impression that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. If a facility has the means to murder a child then they surely have the ability to deliver one.

You're good at making up situations where you might feel justified in murdering a baby. Give us a situation where a facility with limited means had only the option to murder the child, but not to deliver him.

and why are you suddenly so hostile to 'removals'?

Because it means the baby will likely die, you retard.

these don't kill the baby Stipe and also why I asked you whether you had proof that everywhere in the world had such medical knowledge and technology!

Retard! If the 'removal' doesn't kill the child then there is no need to murder the child. You've just defeated whatever you were talking about.

And again, if a woman who is in lethal danger from preganancy/labour who is forced into conceiving the child then is this not just as much murder as abortion?

Yes. The doctor who does nothing when he knows how to save the mother is a murderer just the same as a doctor who cuts a baby out of mother is a murderer. In every case the attitide should be to try and save both.

Why do you continually try to look for situations where murder might be acceptable.

 

[red77]

Actually you would not condemn a woman who murdered her child in some situations.

Yes, I won't condemn a rape victim who takes the plan B drug, you may judge and condemn but having seen the effects of rape it is ridiculous to think that any victim is in a state to have the same black and white worldview you evidently do

Then the attitude should be to act responsibly as a medical professional and try. However I am under the impression that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. If a facility has the means to murder a child then they surely have the ability to deliver one.

Well thats just speculation on your part, there's no reason why such facilities would have such technology all over the world and you're yet to provide proof that they do....

You're good at making up situations where you might feel justified in murdering a baby. Give us a situation where a facility with limited means had only the option to murder the child, but not to deliver him.

You're good at avoiding the fact that if a mother is forced into a life threatening labour that this would be just as much murder....

Because it means the baby will likely die, you retard.

But you accept that removals are sometimes neceassary though?

Retard! If the 'removal' doesn't kill the child then there is no need to murder the child. You've just defeated whatever you were talking about.

How is that supposed to make sense? Are removals only there for where the baby is 100% going to die?

Yes. The doctor who does nothing when he knows how to save the mother is a murderer just the same as a doctor who cuts a baby out of mother is a murderer. In every case the attitide should be to try and save both.

Why do you continually try to look for situations where murder might be acceptable.

Why do you dance around the question? It was straightforward enough, the doctor may just not be able to do both so if the woman is forced to undertake a life threatening labour because of what you believe then is it not murder? don't try using the doctor as some sort of scapegoat for not answering the question Stipe, it's a simple yes or no......

 

[Stripe]

Yes, I won't condemn a rape victim who takes the plan B drug, you may judge and condemn but having seen the effects of rape it is ridiculous to think that any victim is in a state to have the same black and white worldview you evidently do

Then you allow and condone murder. You think it is OK for one to relieve suffering by making others suffer.

Well thats just speculation on your part, there's no reason why such facilities would have such technology all over the world and you're yet to provide proof that they do....

I don't claim they do, idiot.

You're good at avoiding the fact that if a mother is forced into a life threatening labour that this would be just as much murder....

Not allowing a mother to murder her child is not forcing anything. It's stopping a murder. People have medical complications, Red. Just because you allow them to live and they have medical complications does not make one a murderer.

Why do you dance around the question? It was straightforward enough, the doctor may just not be able to do both so if the woman is forced to undertake a life threatening labour because of what you believe then is it not murder? don't try using the doctor as some sort of scapegoat for not answering the question Stipe, it's a simple yes or no......

Yes you are an idiot.

 

[red77]

Then you allow and condone murder. You think it is OK for one to relieve suffering by making others suffer.

So the only way i cannot condone a person's actions is to condemn and jusge them without taking anything eslse into account, do you know anyone who's been raped?

I don't claim they do, idiot.

I don't know what you try to claim half the time....

Not allowing a mother to murder her child is not forcing anything. It's stopping a murder. People have medical complications, Red. Just because you allow them to live and they have medical complications does not make one a murderer.

If the mother's life is at risk then you are forcing her into a life endangering situation by restricting her choice in the matter

Yes you are an idiot.

And still no answer, what a shock......

 

[Stripe]

Red. You're stupid. Here is what I hold to.

1. Murdering your baby for any reason is murder.
2. Saving a mother by removing a baby that will certainly cause her to die is the only responsible action in such a tragic situation.

I believe those two standards cover any possible scenario and the only basis you have for inventing more categories that require different outcomes is because you are desperate to feel justified in advocating murder.

 

[red77]

Red. You're stupid. Here is what I hold to.

1. Murdering your baby for any reason is murder.
2. Saving a mother by removing a baby that will certainly cause her to die is the only responsible action in such a tragic situation.

I believe those two standards cover any possible scenario and the only basis you have for inventing more categories that require different outcomes is because you are desperate to feel justified in advocating murder.

I don't need to 'invent' any category Stipe, if you think that every 'possible' scenario would never include the mother being at life threatening risk where 'removal' isn't an option then you'd have been able to supply proof for that, you've admitted that you can't........
and besides which this was a hypothetical question which you have dodged around long enough, hypothetically speaking - if the mother's life was at extreme risk if she continued the pregnancy - and she was not allowed the choice to abort...would that not be as much murder if she was to die? It's just a yes or a no Stipe........although something tells me that you just won't even attempt to address this because of how bad it suddenly makes your own position if you were to admit that she should be forced..............

 

[PKevman]

Red why don't you stop straddling the fence and just say "I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-abortion." Instead you dance around and try to play both sides. That you would actually say it is ok for a person to eat their own child under ANY circumstances is the clearest indicator that your heart is black and in need of redemption.

 

[Stripe]

I don't need to 'invent' any category Stipe, if you think that every 'possible' scenario would never include the mother being at life threatening risk where 'removal' isn't an option then you'd have been able to supply proof for that, you've admitted that you can't........
and besides which this was a hypothetical question which you have dodged around long enough, hypothetically speaking - if the mother's life was at extreme risk if she continued the pregnancy - and she was not allowed the choice to abort...would that not be as much murder if she was to die? It's just a yes or a no Stipe........although something tells me that you just won't even attempt to address this because of how bad it suddenly makes your own position if you were to admit that she should be forced..............

Red, you spastic piece of garbage, if you don't have the equipment to deliver a baby it is my opinion that you will not have the equipment to murder a baby either. I don't have proof of that, but it makes a lot of sense to me. I might be wrong and if I am then I suggest that the doctor go ahead with the procedure that will see the baby delivered, but forget the part where they tear it to pieces and show some compassion and respect toward human life in tragic situations.

Please feel free to make up more situations where you hope murder might be necessary.

 

[elected4ever]

If the child is alive and had to be killed for the mother to eat it then it is murder. The mother would be guilty of shedding innocent blood.

If the child died first and the mother eat it to stay alive then it is called survival.

 

[Stripe]

But no mother who had even an inkling of morality would eat her child in any situation.

 

[red77]

But no mother who had even an inkling of morality would eat her child in any situation.

Even if she had other children who depended on her survival?

 

[elected4ever]

But no mother who had even an inkling of morality would eat her child in any situation.

That is not true. It has happened from time to time. I know it assaults you sensibilities but lets not stick our head in the sand. it sounds gross to me too.

 

[red77]

Red why don't you stop straddling the fence and just say "I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-abortion." Instead you dance around and try to play both sides. That you would actually say it is ok for a person to eat their own child under ANY circumstances is the clearest indicator that your heart is black and in need of redemption.

Because I'm pro life, I'm just honest enough to recognise that not every single situation is singularly black and white, and the woman/child scenario was a hypothetical situation, I'll ask you the same question I'm yet to get an answer for, if the mother had other children who were reliant on their mother to survive for their own safety would it be wrong for the mother to eat to survive?

 

[Stripe]

OK. Now are you prepared to respond to Turbo's point in the one-on-one?

 

[red77]

OK. Now are you prepared to respond to Turbo's point in the one-on-one?

What are you on about? I already have replied and am waiting for a response.....! what did your "ok" mean exactly? That the woman would be justified to survive if she had other children dependant on her? Please clarify....

 

[Stripe]

I was just noticing how far away from Turbo's question you've had to drag everyone to retain the notion that you might have a leg to stand on in defending murder.

 

[red77]

I was just noticing how far away from Turbo's question you've had to drag everyone to retain the notion that you might have a leg to stand on in defending murder.

If that was the case you should have had an answer by now, funny how you haven't even attempted one.....

 

[Stripe]

Actually I have answered your retarded questions.

 

[red77]

Actually I have answered your retarded questions.

No you havent.....