Roe v Wade just got overturned official thread

bluh wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Show me the flaw.

I have the only kidney in the world that will save your life. Should the State compel me to give it to you? There’s an argument to be made that says you should be compelled to give it up.

If your no response to that is predicated on the fact that I played no role in your creation so you don’t owe me that life-saving kidney, why is that an issue at all if the basis for prohibiting abortion at all stages is the protection of life? Why would it matter who led to the creation of whatever human life in determining its worthiness for protection?

I’m sorry I just don’t see any logical connection between the two scenarios. One scenario involves taking a life (reasonably assuming you agree it is a life for the context of your question). The other involves doing nothing to save a life.

Doing nothing has never been a crime unless there is a statuary obligation to act. You could watch your spouse die doing nothing and you’ll be fine in most legal systems. (You however can’t just stand and watch a minor child of yours die without expecting to be charged of homicide by negligence).

The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

bluh wrote:

I’m sorry I just don’t see any logical connection between the two scenarios. One scenario involves taking a life (reasonably assuming you agree it is a life for the context of your question). The other involves doing nothing to save a life.

Doing nothing has never been a crime unless there is a statuary obligation to act. You could watch your spouse die doing nothing and you’ll be fine in most legal systems. (You however can’t just stand and watch a minor child of yours die without expecting to be charged of homicide by negligence).

The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.

I would contend that the first case doesn’t involve killing anyone as an early stage fetus isn’t a person.

But let’s assume that a fertilized human ovum in my uterus is a fully fledged person, just as much as the adult who is in need of my kidney. Where do you draw the line given that one needs my uterus to live and the other needs my kidney to live?

I should also add that in at least three states, it is against the law to render no aid at the scene of an emergency when you are aware that someone is in danger, and you have the ability to aid without endangering yourself.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

bluh wrote:

I’m sorry I just don’t see any logical connection between the two scenarios. One scenario involves taking a life (reasonably assuming you agree it is a life for the context of your question). The other involves doing nothing to save a life.

Doing nothing has never been a crime unless there is a statuary obligation to act. You could watch your spouse die doing nothing and you’ll be fine in most legal systems. (You however can’t just stand and watch a minor child of yours die without expecting to be charged of homicide by negligence).

The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.

I would contend that the first case doesn’t involve killing anyone as an early stage fetus isn’t a person.

But let’s assume that a fertilized human ovum in my uterus is a fully fledged person, just as much as the adult who is in need of my kidney. Where do you draw the line given that one needs my uterus to live and the other needs my kidney to live?

I should also add that in at least three states, it is against the law to render no aid at the scene of an emergency when you are aware that someone is in danger, and you have the ability to aid without endangering yourself.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

bluh wrote:

I’m sorry I just don’t see any logical connection between the two scenarios. One scenario involves taking a life (reasonably assuming you agree it is a life for the context of your question). The other involves doing nothing to save a life.

Doing nothing has never been a crime unless there is a statuary obligation to act. You could watch your spouse die doing nothing and you’ll be fine in most legal systems. (You however can’t just stand and watch a minor child of yours die without expecting to be charged of homicide by negligence).

The state has a duty to protect life from being ended through active agency, but not prevent death altogether, and the state through its people defines what “life” is. I don’t know what one could possibly honestly disagree with here.

I would contend that the first case doesn’t involve killing anyone as an early stage fetus isn’t a person.

But let’s assume that a fertilized human ovum in my uterus is a fully fledged person, just as much as the adult who is in need of my kidney. Where do you draw the line given that one needs my uterus to live and the other needs my kidney to live?

I should also add that in at least three states, it is against the law to render no aid at the scene of an emergency when you are aware that someone is in danger, and you have the ability to aid without endangering yourself.

Yawn^24 wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I would contend that the first case doesn’t involve killing anyone as an early stage fetus isn’t a person.

But let’s assume that a fertilized human ovum in my uterus is a fully fledged person, just as much as the adult who is in need of my kidney. Where do you draw the line given that one needs my uterus to live and the other needs my kidney to live?

I should also add that in at least three states, it is against the law to render no aid at the scene of an emergency when you are aware that someone is in danger, and you have the ability to aid without endangering yourself.

As we said multiple times, in your silly scenario, you most likely chose to have the human depending on your uterus; you did not choose to make the guy’s kidney fail. Checkmate.

bluh wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I would contend that the first case doesn’t involve killing anyone as an early stage fetus isn’t a person.

But let’s assume that a fertilized human ovum in my uterus is a fully fledged person, just as much as the adult who is in need of my kidney. Where do you draw the line given that one needs my uterus to live and the other needs my kidney to live?

I should also add that in at least three states, it is against the law to render no aid at the scene of an emergency when you are aware that someone is in danger, and you have the ability to aid without endangering yourself.

Dude, I can’t help you if you repeat the same question after I just answered it. Sounds like another case of menses-smearitis. You seem either too slow to comprehend or unwilling to consider (or both) other viewpoints.

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I would contend that the first case doesn’t involve killing anyone as an early stage fetus isn’t a person.

But let’s assume that a fertilized human ovum in my uterus is a fully fledged person, just as much as the adult who is in need of my kidney. Where do you draw the line given that one needs my uterus to live and the other needs my kidney to live?

I should also add that in at least three states, it is against the law to render no aid at the scene of an emergency when you are aware that someone is in danger, and you have the ability to aid without endangering yourself.

Yeah, killing somebody and letting them die when it’s completely possible to save them and you just choose not to is not much different ethically speaking. Result is the same. Intentions are close to identical.

bluh wrote:

MelRnr wrote:

To everyone making this out to be a men against women thing, and that really is the prevailing theme around the country in reaction and discussion from those opposed to the SCOTUS ruling, I just want to point out that there are millions of pro-life women in the US of all races and ethnicities, and one of the 5 Justices in the majority is a woman.

Makes little sense for pro-choicers to make men out to be the villains trying to control women when men are about as affected by the issue. They share all the lifelong burdens and joys of parenting, just not the labor part.

I’ve never met a man or group of men conspiring to “control” women folk by restricting abortion rights. I also don’t of any woman who thinks of the man in her own life that way. Yet somehow men collectively as a group are responsible for the great tragedy Roe’s overturning is supposedly because their agenda is purportedly to control women.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Yawn^24 wrote:

As we said multiple times, in your silly scenario, you most likely chose to have the human depending on your uterus; you did not choose to make the guy’s kidney fail. Checkmate.

Why would that have any bearing on the worthiness of a life to be saved?

The only consistent pro-lifers are the ones who say that abortion is murder all the time. I think it’s ludicrous, but it’s consistent.

The ones who claim it’s murder but that it’s permissible when the woman didn’t choose to have sex make it clear that this isn’t a question or murder but one of punishment.

All the “except in cases of rape or incest” types wouldn’t be for killing a newborn created out of rape or incest and yet they accept “murdering” the child created by rape or incest at an early stage of development because like everyone else, they understand an early stage embryo is not yet a person.