Abortion Doctor Gunned Down at Church

[MrFun]

Ah, okay.

And no, I won't.


X-POST

[Patroklos]

Patty, C'mon dude, you can troll better than that.

At least I hope it's a troll, because otherwise you are one great weapon to prove that 20 week old fetii can compete in the real world.

If I were trolling I wouldn't actually honsetly be asking you to justify your position coherently. I also wouldn't sincerely want you to try.

I want both, so please put on your big boy shoes and step up to the plate.

[Ben Kenobi]

and this has to do with what, exactly?

If you want to reduce premie births, it's best to advise women to carry to term.

[Krill]

Sounds like quite a few severe car accident victims, to the glue factory with them!

You were the first person to compare aborted fetii to car accident victims.

More seriously, are there any physical damages besides brain damage that allows a doctor to declare a patient forfiet?

Doctors can call time of death. No one else can (except in war?). They can call time of death due to whatever reason, such as a heart attack that leads to death.

A different point would be organ transplants; only a doctor can declare whether a patiant is a viable transplant recipient, and in many cases refusal of a transplant = death in weeks, so yes, there are other cases.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not inconsistant at all... you are trying to apply the same standards to a living person and a non viable fetus... You are the one that's not being consistant.

Unborn children are living. You don't get living people from dead things. Abiogenesis was disproven a long time ago.

Secondly, they are human, because you don't get human beings from some other species. Dogs have dog embryos which become dogs. Same for people.

Viability is simply a measurement of technology, not of some intrinsic ability inherent in the unborn child. You wouldnt' gage other people by the degree of their dependency, so why the unborn children?

[DinoDoc]

I tend to go along with the argument of "when it has the ability to sustain itself outside the mothers womb"...

This is a different arguement than the one you were putting foward earlier which was: but early on, the "creature" is less aware than the average animal that we kill and eat daily In your opinion, what does the ability to biologically sustain one's self have to do with being more self aware than a cow?

If it can't survive on it's own, it's not yet a human life.

Babies can't survive on thier own even after being born. Is it permissable to kill them in this ethical view?
@ Guy: No mea culpas were needed. I'm actually trying to get a feel on how common legitimate claims of medical necessity are be it for the mother or a crippling disease/etc. for the fetus. Just trying to get a feel for the possibility of Tiller playing fast and loose with the definition of the term. I'm leaning heavily toward him being scum. Otherwise, you seem to be in the wrong area of medicine given the income he was pulling down.

[MrFun]

I have just noticed and read Pattycake's sig line.

Hilarious dude - KEEP IT.

[Ming]

That makes no sense, what I am doing is applying standards to an organism to determineif they are human, whether it is then okay to kill them is actually an entirely different question.

If it is not human, I don't care what you do with it.

Again, the error in logic here should be readily apparent. If the fetus is viable enough to apply rights then it is human. Please explain why one human has a greater right to live than another as a matter of course.

Just for clarification Ming, when does a fetus become human? What is your parameter?

Wow, since when were you one to just waive your hand? Do you really have no justification for your position other than "just because?" You are entering creationist territory here...

Big talk... but you aren't being very consistant either.

I've stated when I think a fetus becomes human... try reading for a change.
When it has grown enough to survive outside the mother, I think than it can be considered human. I don't think it has to wait to be born. But I don't think it can be consided human before it has gotten to the point when in can function in the real world. We can agree to disagree on this point, since most people can't come to agreement on this subject.

And wow... since when is your opinion worth any more than anybodies else?
I was not justifying my position on a mothers life vs her unborn baby. And what is that creationist crap you throw around like a straw man?

My point of view is simple. And I'm not trying to justify it, just stating an opinion. If a mother's life is threatened by the birth of child, she should be the one that makes the decision. I pray that you are never in the position that your wife has to make that decision. It is probably one of the toughest decision that anybody can make. All I know is that I would want my wife to be the one making that decision, not some lawyer, not some religion, not some government, and certainly not you. No justification, just a simple fact.

[Ming]

Unborn children are living. You don't get living people from dead things. Abiogenesis was disproven a long time ago.

Secondly, they are human, because you don't get human beings from some other species. Dogs have dog embryos which become dogs. Same for people.

Viability is simply a measurement of technology, not of some intrinsic ability inherent in the unborn child. You wouldnt' gage other people by the degree of their dependency, so why the unborn children?

Viablility is not a measure of technology... it's a matter of fact and reality.

It all comes down to when you want to claim that a fetus is a human. There will always be a disagreement on this topic, and never will eveybody agree on the same thing. If you want to consider a fertilized egg a person... fine. I don't.

[Ming]

This is a different arguement than the one you were putting foward earlier which was: but early on, the "creature" is less aware than the average animal that we kill and eat daily

That is just your interpretation of the what I posted. I stand by my comments and have not changed my position one bit.

In your opinion, what does the ability to biologically sustain one's self have to do with being more self aware than a cow?Babies can't survive on thier own even after being born.

Again... you are taking what I posted more literally than it was intended. Yes, a mother takes care of her child. That's the way it works. I have children, been there, done that. My point is, that if the fetus is too underdeveloped that it can't survive even with the best efforts of mom and medical science, it isn't a person yet. And yes, that's just my opinion.

So yes... in my opinion, a fetus that is too underdeveloped to survive on it's own outside the womb is probably less aware than an animal or creature that has survived and actually lived in this world. Again... just an opinion.

[Ben Kenobi]

It all comes down to when you want to claim that a fetus is a human. There will always be a disagreement on this topic, and never will eveybody agree on the same thing. If you want to consider a fertilized egg a person... fine. I don't.

Some religions think it's perfectly ok to kill infidels. Just because people disagree on something doesn't mean that there is no right and no wrong.

[Patroklos]

You were the first person to compare aborted fetii to car accident victims.

No, that was comparing NON aborted premature children to car accident victims. Given the similarity of physical features in some cases the comparison is quite appropriate. The point is that just becasue people who survive such horrific accidents in that physical state have a low quality of life doesn't mean we write their lives off as forfiet.

Doctors can call time of death. No one else can (except in war?). They can call time of death due to whatever reason, such as a heart attack that leads to death.

That doesn't answer the question. The question was what parameters do they use to determine someone is no longer a person and can be terminated intentionally.

A different point would be organ transplants; only a doctor can declare whether a patiant is a viable transplant recipient, and in many cases refusal of a transplant = death in weeks, so yes, there are other cases.

Not analogous, the reason doctors deny transplant requests is because they deam that it won't work.

[Patroklos]

Big talk... but you aren't being very consistant either.

Logically consistant talk that has yet to be refuted by anyone here.

I've stated when I think a fetus becomes human... try reading for a change.

No, you said thats when you think the fetus is viable. It is a very important distiction because viable or not fetus has no rights, a human being has a whole lot of them.

When it has grown enough to survive outside the mother, I think than it can be considered human. I don't think it has to wait to be born.

Fair enough, but then you have to apply the standard consistantly across the board.

And now we have to broach the issue of why you give one human being rights over another.

But I don't think it can be consided human before it has gotten to the point when in can function in the real world. We can agree to disagree on this point, since most people can't come to agreement on this subject.

The easy nitpick is that babies can't survive in the real world, but I know what you mean so I won't belabor the point. However you have again broached a problem because 1.) your standard for being human at the beginning of life is not consistant to the one you apply during or at the end and 2.) again once human they have the same rights as the mother.

And wow... since when is your opinion worth any more than anybodies else?

Its not an opinion, the parameters I am using (and attemtping to get verified by Guy) are the same ones we use to verify who is a person with rights at every other stage of life. Certain pro-choice people have to deliberately use a double standard to justify their position which in itself speaks to alterior motives.

I was not justifying my position on a mothers life vs her unborn baby. And what is that creationist crap you throw around like a straw man?

Exactly you were not, you simple said "because" and got indignant. Thats how creationists deal with invasive questions.

My point of view is simple. And I'm not trying to justify it, just stating an opinion.

If you can't back up your point with a coherent rational or substance than it is an opinion. And to be honest and opinion you can't base on anything whatsoever is really not worth a thing.

What I am doing is not stating opionion.

If a mother's life is threatened by the birth of child, she should be the one that makes the decision.

Is that how we approach other life and death situations when two fully recognized humans are involved?

I pray that you are never in the position that your wife has to make that decision.

So do I, then again I would never marry a woman with such a selfish view of life. Then again such a selfish survival instinct is a natural reaction, which is why the decision should be medical.

Just so you know, just because there is a case where the choice is mother or child does not mean the mother has the best prognosis for survival.

It is probably one of the toughest decision that anybody can make.

That doesn't mean there isn't a right decision to make. That is subjective morally, but not legally. Well, at least it won't be when we apply that law consistantly.

All I know is that I would want my wife to be the one making that decision, not some lawyer, not some religion, not some government, and certainly not you. No justification, just a simple fact.

At least your honest. It makes your opinion useless as far as fleshing out what official policy is, but I find you at least academically honest in admitting that convienence and self interest are the prime motivators of your decision making process. Most pro-choice people don't have the balls to flat out state that.

In any case, I would inform you wife that she might not have the same dictatoral power of the lives over fellow human beings when deciding who gets to use the lifeboat or parachute or whatever in other survival situations. That double standard only applys to unborn human children apparently.

[DinoDoc]

That is just your interpretation of the what I posted. I stand by my comments and have not changed my position one bit.

That actually is what you posted. Verbatim. Your arguement does seem to be coalescing around a new point after initially suffering from Jello like qualities though it still seems to have a moving target aspect to it. Let's say that there is an advancement in medical science that increases the survivability of fetus at an earlier stage of development. Would that make the fetus you are describing as akin to food animals suddenly more aware than they were an hour before you heard about it?

Again... you are taking what I posted more literally than it was intended.

The problem here seems to be that I'm going to the trouble of reading your posts

it isn't a person yet.

What is it?

And yes, that's just my opinion.

Is this a wall you like retreating to?

So yes... in my opinion, a fetus that is too underdeveloped to survive on it's own outside the womb is probably less aware than an animal or creature that has survived and actually lived in this world. Again... just an opinion.

How do you define "awareness"?

[Guynemer]

Truly a tough job

True enough. But nothing like it in the world for giving serious perspective.