And how does our vested interest differ than that of a weed or baby? We both essentially have the same animalistic desires to feed, sleep, grow, etc. The only plausable difference is our that our brain developement is far superior and we can speak the words "please don't kill me". The murderer knew the risks of killing but he ignored them, a baby didn't know the risks of being created or born.

give me some reason why a murderer (known without a doubt) should not recieve death but an unborn baby should?

 

This is why I wrote that second paragraph you did not respond to. I wanted to make it very clear that I DO NOT think an unborn child "should recieve death".

Also I do not think that a murderer should recieve death as I previously stated numerous times and very clearly.

What I was arguing is that while killing a consious person is murder pulling the plug on someone with only "eat and sleep capabilities through a tube" (coma patient/infant) is not.

Make sense?

 

I realize you don't agree with abortion and I realize you don't agree with capital punishment. That is not up for debate.

What I am debating is why you think capitol punishment is murder and abortion is not, simply.

Pulling the plug on a comatose patient who’s brain cannot dictate the body to live anymore is not murder and if it wasn't for our medicine they would have died naturally. A baby in the womb would only died naturally if: a. the mother dies or b. their is natural miscarriage. there is a difference between pulling the plug and abortion.

 

There are differences between mammals but they are still mammals. No matter how many "differences" you can think of the fundamental similarity remains the same. The coma patient and the baby don't know that they exist so you are not taking thier existence away from them where as you and I do know we exist as does the murderer.

 

When was the last time someone bombed a clinic? How many clinics have been bombed since Roe? Some nut case does something stupid and just as wrong as the "doctors" in those clinics and that stigmatizes everyone on that side of the argument?

The pro-life movement has worked very hard over the years educating people to other options. The problem isn't with the pro-lifers, it's with the lawmakers. They're bending over backwards to make laws easier for abortions and harder for alternatives like adoptions. I'm pro-life but not part of the pro-life movement. I've never picked or handed out pamphlets or bombed a clinic, I just follow the issues.

A local girl recently had a baby, stabbed it to death and threw it away. She was arrested and charged with murder. A doctor delivers a baby halfway, holds it in place, stabs it to death, delivers it the rest of the way, then throws it away and my tax dollars pay for it?

It's an interesting commentary on society when someone will fight tooth & nail for a the life of a murderer and fight just as hard for a mother's "right" to kill a child who's only crime was being conceived.

 

So killing a comatose patient is not murder?

 

There's my answer, it all comes back to your ideology human existence; which explains how you can rationalize one and be against another.

I'm done

 

Is there a difference to you if the patient has a living will that clearly states to not keep them alive with machines? or if the patient wakes slightly enough to communicate that they'd like to be taken off of life support?

 

True.

I think it's funny that Christians believe in the life of the unborn baby and discredit opposing views because their views don't come from God. And secularists/atheists discredit Christians because of their belief in God.

 

Wow... your opinion was based in a lot of false pretenses. Lawmakers are bending over backward to make abortion easier!? Not even a month ago they made a certain abortion procedure illegal.
You would take the life of a murderer against his will in order to obtain a possible better life for others? What makes you different than the mother who wants to take the life of a fetus (not against it's will as it has no will) to obtain a possible better life for herself?

 

Well, that's not what I was getting at here. He keeps comparing babies and comatose patients to weeds. It seems like he is saying, if you can pull a weed because they are not self-aware then you can kill an unborn baby or a comatose person because they are also not self-aware.

To answer your question, I agree with someone earlier who said that a comatose patient who is lifesupport is only alive because of the lifesupport. If you "pull the plug", you are letting nature take its course.

 

What!? So should we not help people having heart attacks because it is "letting nature take its course". Your logic is deeply flawed to support your christian views.

 

A better life???? HA, if she didn't have sex she wouldn't have to worry about have a better life. She chose it, abortion is in probably the greatest lack of responsibility there is. The murderer chose to kill, he knows the outcome and it is law's* responsibility to punish.

As for rape victims is there a statistic that shows the amount of women who have gotten pregnant through rape and or it lasting through the pregnancy?

 

This is going in circles so here is a logical viewpoint on it and then I'm out.

killing a person is wrong

Person A kills person b = wrong
person c kills person a = wrong

period.

This example is involving all healthy people with a full cosciousness. No gray zone. There is already an abortion debate somewhere around here or you can pm me to talk about abortion.

 

Ok, to all you pro-lifers out there...are you the one carrying around a baby that you know you don't want from the moment it is cenceived?

No, that's why they allow abortions before the fetus has any brain activity, at that point it is still just cells dividing and is NO DIFFERENT than retarded vegans eating only plants because they have no brain function.

Get over it, it's not your unborn fetus.

 

We had a couple laws passed recently that restricts abortion in some states. What I'm talking about is this false assumption that the federal government is supposed to make laws and mandate federally legalized abortion based on the supreme court decisions like Roe v. Wade. This is something that should be left up to the state. And that's how laws like the one in (was it) North Dakota(?) were passed. Also, let's look at the partial birth abortion law, parental notification or the waiting period. How many of those laws are in effect. There was some law a couple years ago, I don't remember if it was passed that would restrict the doctor's office stock pamphlets on alternatives to abortion. Yet has it gotten any easier to adopt?

I say, if a murder has taken a life, then he forfeits the right to his life. Yes, that would mean taking his life against his will. But wait a second, punishment is almost always against the will of someone being punished. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do it. A criminal knows what he's getting into when he commits a crime...they must be held accountable for their actions.

You don't like executing a murder because he can say "please don't"? Then how do you punish a criminal? Lock him up? What he says "please don't"?

 

No, I think your twisting my words to your own end. If comatose patient who has no chance of recovery and is only alive because of machines then keeping them on the machines is a little pointless. I think at that point it should be up to family to decide.

 

Let's not forget the baby that could go to a loving home if the mother choses to look beyond herself. Abortion is also one of the most selfish acts ever committed. And is evidenced by another one of those "possible better life for herself" perks of post abortion depression that hits many many women.

 

but there is a grey zone and although you may not like it Person A (the mother) kills Person B (the baby) = wrong by your logic.

your right there is an aborton thread but both topics have a pretty damn similar idea and you can't seperate the two.

 

i think abortion is acceptable if the woman gets herself sterlized right after. for any reason.

i think that seems to be the best compromise between pro-life/choicers