• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyers to ask Wisconsin court to rule in prayer death

wolfman24 said:
Evasion. Abortion is legal Child neglect is not. Again how do you know abortion is "hardly ever necessary" just sitting back inyour rocking chair and blurting out stupidities/
Click to expand...

I have seen no statistic that indicates that the majority of abortions are medically necessary. Perhaps you could provide me a source for that from your castle in the sky that proves my statement is "stupidity". Parents make life and DEATH decisions for their children all the time---they elect not to pursue cancer treatment even when the treatment will prolong their child's life. They elect to take people off fluids and let them die a natural death. They elect not to have high risk surgeries that might remove brain tumors but could leave the child impaired. The only difference here is that these are religious people. If you can justify a parent taking one child's life (abortion) how can you justify not letting them let nature play itself out? It is not an evasion unless you find principles to be an evasion. You just do not like the result--neither do I--but it was their decision to make and now they are being punished for homicide because of a biological process not of their own doing as if losing their child is not punishment enough.
 
Aderleth said:
I like Berlin. Lots of artsy German Girls in Goth attire. Also good sausage.
Click to expand...

have you ever been to the Rhineland Pfalz (southwest Germany)? Thats my neck of the woods/
 
wolfman24 said:
have you ever been to the Rhineland Pfalz (southwest Germany)? Thats my neck of the woods/
Click to expand...

Nope. I've been to Berlin and Munich for a couple of days each, and had a six hour layover at the Frankfurt airport once. That's pretty much it for Germany.
 
Fisher said:
I have seen no statistic that indicates that the majority of abortions are medically necessary. Perhaps you could provide me a source for that from your castle in the sky that proves my statement is "stupidity". Parents make life and DEATH decisions for their children all the time---they elect not to pursue cancer treatment even when the treatment will prolong their child's life. They elect to take people off fluids and let them die a natural death. They elect not to have high risk surgeries that might remove brain tumors but could leave the child impaired. The only difference here is that these are religious people. If you can justify a parent taking one child's life (abortion) how can you justify not letting them let nature play itself out? It is not an evasion unless you find principles to be an evasion. You just do not like the result--neither do I--but it was their decision to make and now they are being punished for homicide because of a biological process not of their own doing as if losing their child is not punishment enough.
Click to expand...

Unlike cancer or other highly terminal illnesses, diabetes is almost never terminal unless you leave it untreated.
Unlike cancer or other highly terminal illnesses, treatment for diabetes almost never significantly decreases the quality of life of the afflicted.

The parallels, then, are nonexistent.

As to abortion....you're trying to compare the termination of a non-sentient life to allowing a child to suffer severe pain, delirium, hallucinations, extreme thirst, extreme hunger, illness, and (I reiterate, because it's significant) severe pain for days, weeks, or even MONTHS until their failed kidneys finally cause them to die from (what is essentially) poisoning. An abortion takes less than 5 minutes and most are performed before the point in development when pain receptors and nerve endings are able to communicate duress to the brain. Death by untreated diabetes is not nearly so quick and without awareness.

That's what you're missing. By all definitions, it is nearly impossible for abortion to be inhumane, and equally as impossible as death from untreated diabetes to be the opposite.
 
tessaesque said:
Unlike cancer or other highly terminal illnesses, diabetes is almost never terminal unless you leave it untreated.
Unlike cancer or other highly terminal illnesses, treatment for diabetes almost never significantly decreases the quality of life of the afflicted.

The parallels, then, are nonexistent.

As to abortion....you're trying to compare the termination of a non-sentient life to allowing a child to suffer severe pain, delirium, hallucinations, extreme thirst, extreme hunger, illness, and (I reiterate, because it's significant) severe pain for days, weeks, or even MONTHS until their failed kidneys finally cause them to die from (what is essentially) poisoning. An abortion takes less than 5 minutes and most are performed before the point in development when pain receptors and nerve endings are able to communicate duress to the brain. Death by untreated diabetes is not nearly so quick and without awareness.

That's what you're missing. By all definitions, it is nearly impossible for abortion to be inhumane, and equally as impossible as death from untreated diabetes to be the opposite.
Click to expand...

Also, a fetus quite simply does not have the same legal rights as does a child.
 
tessaesque said:
Unlike cancer or other highly terminal illnesses, diabetes is almost never terminal unless you leave it untreated.
Unlike cancer or other highly terminal illnesses, treatment for diabetes almost never significantly decreases the quality of life of the afflicted.

The parallels, then, are nonexistent.

As to abortion....you're trying to compare the termination of a non-sentient life to allowing a child to suffer severe pain, delirium, hallucinations, extreme thirst, extreme hunger, illness, and (I reiterate, because it's significant) severe pain for days, weeks, or even MONTHS until their failed kidneys finally cause them to die from (what is essentially) poisoning. An abortion takes less than 5 minutes and most are performed before the point in development when pain receptors and nerve endings are able to communicate duress to the brain. Death by untreated diabetes is not nearly so quick and without awareness.

That's what you're missing. By all definitions, it is nearly impossible for abortion to be inhumane, and equally as impossible as death from untreated diabetes to be the opposite.
Click to expand...

Not withstanding your assumptions about abortion with which a great many people disagree with you on, I have yet to meet someone with juvenile diabetes reach a full life. I have known far too many people who died slowly and miserably with diabetes though--most of them without at least 1 leg, often both, or functioning kidneys, or a life beyond being hooked up to a dialysis machine. Diabetes and cancer can both be terminal. All of that, nonetheless, is beside the point. They were passive and did not kill their child--diabetes did so they should not be convicted of homicide. Even larger than that is this was their decision to make, not yours, mine, or anybody else's. The decision they decided to make was based upon their faith, and as messed up as that is, it is their right.
 
Fisher said:
Not withstanding your assumptions about abortion with which a great many people disagree with you on, I have yet to meet someone with juvenile diabetes reach a full life. I have known far too many people who died slowly and miserably with diabetes though--most of them without at least 1 leg, often both, or functioning kidneys, or a life beyond being hooked up to a dialysis machine. Diabetes and cancer can both be terminal. All of that, nonetheless, is beside the point. They were passive and did not kill their child--diabetes did so they should not be convicted of homicide. Even larger than that is this was their decision to make, not yours, mine, or anybody else's. The decision they decided to make was based upon their faith, and as messed up as that is, it is their right.
Click to expand...

If a parent decided to withhold food and water and the child died of malnutrition and dehydration, would you defend those parents as you are defending the parents of the child with diabetes?
 
Fisher said:
Only the first one is arguably a comparable situation because it was a passive act. The other two would be affirmative acts and therefore a different analysis. As for the first one, I am unaware of that being a part of religious practice.
Click to expand...

None of those are passive acts because they all deliberate on the parent's part.
 
Fisher said:
Another victim of diabetes.
Click to expand...

The diabetes wouldn't killed the child had the parents taken the child to medical professionals. So it is the fault of the parents for choosing to deny necessary medical care for their child.
 
Last edited:
Fisher said:
When it comes to the issue of rights, it is exactly a comparable situation. If society believes a parent has a duty to their child, then how could one have the complete opposite duty to them when they are unborn? It is a matter of rights, specific constitutional rights regarding the freedom of religion to be exact. I don't agree with the practice, but they certainly have the right to practice their faith. If their faith prevents them from seeking medical intervention for a third party, then that is their right IMHO.
Click to expand...

This isn't about freedom of religion.Parents don't have the right to deny life saving medical care for their children,parents don't have the right to deny education for their children, and parents don't have the right to beat their children within an inch of their life or kill their children because of religious beliefs.
 
Fisher said:
When the Godless side of the aisle rails against Darwinism, and the pro-abortion side of the aisle suddenly rails against parental rights, I LOL at their silly hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It is YOU that is being hypocritical. It's not okay for a woman to kill an unwanted embryo but it's okay for parents to kill their born child by not seeking medical attention when needed?????? SMH.
 
Parents don't OWN their children. Their child is not old enough to choose their parents religion. Parents can believe in faith healing for themselves, but when a child who doesn't know any better (about religion) is deprived medical treatment that can manage a particular disease and ensure she can have a long and productive life, then that is at least manslaughter.

Frankly, in this day and age, anyone who believes in faith healing and that the "lord" will provide a miracle cure, should not be allowed to make any decisions for other people. Fine for themselves - go ahead and die, but not for anyone else, especially children who may or may not accept the religious beliefs of their parents, when they are mature enough to make their own decision.

Hell even the amish have that one figured out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom