• 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!

Wrongful Birth Laswsuits

Removable Mind said:
Thanks. Perhaps if your posts wete more clear and concise it would save a lot of time for all concerned. I asked you for clarification, which you failed to do.
Click to expand...

It was, in fact, clear and concise, and it was specific. It's you who have been wanting to add all kinds of things to it which aren't there.

It wasn't about just making "decisions" for kids or the infirm. It was about KILLING. It wasn't about abortion doctors or people who were unable to obtain abortions. It was about someone taking upon himmself to decide how much suffering warrants killing someone else.

This was all QUITE clear, but for some reason, you couldn't deal with it on its own terms. Why that is, I do not know.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
It was, in fact, clear and concise. It's you who have been wanting to add all kinds of things to it which aren't there.
Click to expand...

Your still insisting on playing. No, your posts haven't been clear and concise.

Should I copy and paste your original post and we start over?
 
Removable Mind said:
Your still insisting on playing. No, your posts haven't been clear and concise.

Should I copy and paste your original post and we start over?
Click to expand...

I'll do it for you:

Harshaw said:
"Monstrous" is a word I might use to describe someone taking it upon themselves to decide what level of "suffering" warrants someone ELSE being killed without consulting them.
Click to expand...

To repeat:

It wasn't about just making "decisions" for kids or the infirm. It was about KILLING. It wasn't about abortion doctors or people who were unable to obtain abortions. It was about someone taking upon himself to decide how much suffering warrants killing someone else.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Harshaw said:
I'll do it for you:



To repeat:



:roll:
Click to expand...

Uh huh. And define who the "someone" is who takes it upon themselves to decide what level of suffering warrants someone else being killed.
 
Removable Mind said:
Uh huh. And define who the "someone" is who takes it upon themselves to decide what level of suffering warrants someone else being killed.
Click to expand...

In this case, the OP. :roll:

Sweet Jeebus, dude. I can't imagine anyone else, including the OP, had any problem figuring that out.
 
Harshaw said:
In this case, the OP. :roll:

Sweet Jeebus, dude. I can't imagine anyone else, including the OP, had any problem figuring that out.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Naming the OP instead of saying, "someone" keeps the response directed at the person making a claim or voicing an opinion. That makes it clear and concise.
 
Removable Mind said:
Gotcha. Naming the OP instead of saying, "someone" keeps the response directed at the person making a claim or voicing an opinion. That makes it clear and concise.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate you were confused.
 
Harshaw said:
"Monstrous" is a word I might use to describe someone taking it upon themselves to decide what level of "suffering" warrants someone ELSE being killed without consulting them.
Click to expand...

Would that include people who decide their pets are suffering too much and decide to have them put down?
 
Scrabaholic said:
Would that include people who decide their pets are suffering too much and decide to have them put down?
Click to expand...

That's a disturbingly false equivalency.
 
FutureIncoming said:
YOU APPARENTLY IGNORED PART OF THE OVERALL POINT. What sort of evidence can you offer, to support the assumption you have made, that an unborn human qualifies as a person? Because if it is not a person, killing it is absolutely not the same thing as killing a person (and killing lots of them is not the same thing as killing "people").
Click to expand...

If it's compassionate to kill those who suffer, why do you limit that compassion to the unborn? Also, what, exactly, about a baby exiting its mother makes it a person?
 
ludin said:
actually it is because we have to establish what women have when they procreate.
Click to expand...
HUMANS HAVE HUMAN OFFSPRING. Duuuhhh! I've never claimed anything different.

ludin said:
Women have humans this is a biological fact.
Click to expand...
YUP. I've never claimed anything different. In fact, I've pointed out that human offspring included hydatidiform moles, 100% biologically human entities that not even abortion opponents will claim qualify as "persons".

ludin said:
actually it is always true.
Click to expand...
PROVE IT. You make the Positive Claim; you prove the Positive Claim.

ludin said:
unless you can show me where a human produces something other than a person.
Click to expand...
SEE YOUR NEAREST HYDATIDIFORM MOLE. Its origin is an ovum-fertilization event that yields a human zygote. The zygote divides normally, producing a morula. The morula eventually escapes the "zona pellucida" that originally enclosed the ovum, nd becomes a blastocyst. If the blastocyst implants into a womb (many don't), then it will start doing things that its DNA programming tell it to do. This is when a hydatidiform mole starts to form, instead of a normal embryo, because the DNA is defective, even though it is still 100% human DNA. And like I wrote above, not even abortion opponents will call a hydatidiform mole a person!

ludin said:
that doesn't make them not a person.
Click to expand...
DO NOT CONFUSE THE LAW WITH THE SCIENCE. According to the Law, any human that gets born will be Arbitrarily Declared to be a person. But versions of that Law existed long before any scientific data began to get gathered, regarding Objectively Verifiable Facts about Measurable Differences between persons and ordinary animals. MEASURABLY, it takes quite a few months after birth before any human begins to exhibit any of the Objective traits of personhood (like self-awareness).

YOU ACTUALLY DO KNOW WHAT A PERSON TRULY IS. Just Answer this simple Question: "If you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical laboratory, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, but rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save YOU-the-person?" Note that we DO have the relevant technology to save you, else no one would be contemplating doing human head transplants.

ludin said:
a person living in the wild to speak will develop better survival skills for sure.
Click to expand...
THE DEFAULT NATURAL MENTAL STATE FOR HUMANS is a "clever animal" state. Humans (and pre-humans) in that state survived for millions of years. The typical modern mental state for humans, however, did not exist until roughly 50,000-70,000 years ago.

ludin said:
sorry they are not an animal
Click to expand...
A STUPID LIE; every human is an animal. Humans that are persons, however, are more than only animals.

ludin said:
and can be taught.
Click to expand...
MOST ANIMALS CAN BE TAUGHT. Your statement proves nothing. Ordinary adult pigs are smarter than human toddlers, so does that mean we should declare pigs to be person? It should be obvious that what actually matters is HOW MUCH can be taught. And it turns out that for truly feral human children, they are as limited in learning ability as many ordinary animals. The way the human brain develops, there is a limited window of opportunity for maximal learning, and if that learning doesn't happen, the window closes and cannot be opened again.

ludin said:
so you are wrong a women will always have a person.
Click to expand...
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! See above about hydatidiform moles.

ludin said:
they are still people.
Click to expand...
ANSWER MY QUESTION IN RED TEXT ABOVE. Or, if you really want your nose rubbed in the idiocy you are blathering, read this.
 
spud_meister said:
If it's compassionate to kill those who suffer,
Click to expand...
NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. It is compassionate to prevent suffering. An unborn human in the womb is not necessarily suffering anything --although some almost certainly do suffer something, since at least 1/6 of all confirmed pregnancies Naturally miscarry. The main relevant Fact here is that the womb-environment is very different from the outside-the-womb environment. No mammal needs vision or hearing inside the womb, but outside, in the wild, any blind and deaf animal will probably die within hours or days, unable to detect a predator approaching.

ALSO, you appear to be trying to confuse unborn humans with persons. DON'T. When actual persons suffer greatly, they can usually let you know if they would rather be dead (and "mercy killings" have happened for thousands of years as a result). Unborn humans lack **all** the characteristics that can distinguish persons from ordinary animals; they merely (usually) have potential to acquire personhood at some point in the future. LOGICALLY, if a defective unborn human body is aborted, its potential to acquire personhood will not be fulfilled, and therefore no person will be able to suffer the defects of that body. PREVENTION is the operative word, as stated above.

spud_meister said:
why do you limit that compassion to the unborn?
Click to expand...
SEE ABOVE. Actual persons can ask for an end to suffering. And some do.

spud_meister said:
Also, what, exactly, about a baby exiting its mother makes it a person?
Click to expand...
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I EVER CLAIMED HAPPENS. Per all the relevant scientific data, a just-born human is still exactly as much a mere-animal entity as an about-to-be-born human. It is the LAW that Arbitrarily Assigns "legal personhood" at birth, with associated rights. Do note that that Law (and earlier versions of it) existed long before any scientific data was gathered about the topic of personhood. Above, when I specified "actual persons", I was talking about entities having Objectively Measurable Characteristics, such as can be used to generally distinguish persons from ordinary animals.
 
FutureIncoming said:
NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. It is compassionate to prevent suffering. An unborn human in the womb is not necessarily suffering anything --although some almost certainly do suffer something, since at least 1/6 of all confirmed pregnancies Naturally miscarry. The main relevant Fact here is that the womb-environment is very different from the outside-the-womb environment. No mammal needs vision or hearing inside the womb, but outside, in the wild, any blind and deaf animal will probably die within hours or days, unable to detect a predator approaching.

ALSO, you appear to be trying to confuse unborn humans with persons. DON'T. When actual persons suffer greatly, they can usually let you know if they would rather be dead (and "mercy killings" have happened for thousands of years as a result). Unborn humans lack **all** the characteristics that can distinguish persons from ordinary animals; they merely (usually) have potential to acquire personhood at some point in the future. LOGICALLY, if a defective unborn human body is aborted, its potential to acquire personhood will not be fulfilled, and therefore no person will be able to suffer the defects of that body. PREVENTION is the operative word, as stated above.


SEE ABOVE. Actual persons can ask for an end to suffering. And some do.


THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I EVER CLAIMED HAPPENS. Per all the relevant scientific data, a just-born human is still exactly as much a mere-animal entity as an about-to-be-born human. It is the LAW that Arbitrarily Assigns "legal personhood" at birth, with associated rights. Do note that that Law (and earlier versions of it) existed long before any scientific data was gathered about the topic of personhood. Above, when I specified "actual persons", I was talking about entities having Objectively Measurable Characteristics, such as can be used to generally distinguish persons from ordinary animals.
Click to expand...

So you believe it's perfectly moral to kill an individual that doesn't meet your Objectively Measurable Characteristics if it's for the purpose of forestalling suffering? Just want to clarify that.
 
spud_meister said:
So you believe it's perfectly moral
Click to expand...
NO SUCH THING. Everything called "moral" (and "immoral") Is Subjective, Arbitrary, and Relative. (Tribes of cannibals were quite sure that what they did was moral, remember?) Totally imperfect! And therefore worthless. I prefer Ethics instead. Ethics **can** be Objective, Non-Arbitrary, and Universally Applicable.

spud_meister said:
to kill an individual
Click to expand...
DON'T PUT YOUR STUPID LIES INTO MY MOUTH. The word "individual" usually refers to a person. I'm only talking about killing Objectively Verifiable non-persons, mere-animal entities, insignificantly different from rats. The mere CALLING some entity "a person" --no matter what word you use to do that call-- does not make that entity a person!

spud_meister said:
that doesn't meet your Objectively Measurable Characteristics
Click to expand...
I'M NOT THE ONE WHO DISCOVERED THE LIST. You might ask dolphin researchers where they got the list of characteristics they test for, which allows them to conclude that dolphins could qualify as persons.

WHAT **YOU** SHOULD CONSIDER is the Fact that unborn humans cannot pass even one of the many tests that dolphins can pass. (We know this because we can actually test more-developed infant humans, and they always fail all the tests.)

spud_meister said:
if it's for the purpose of forestalling suffering?
Click to expand...
EVER HEARD THE PHRASE "Kill it before it spreads!"? An unborn human is what it is; it is not more than what it is, and it is not less than what it is. It often has potential to become more than what it is --but it is not-right-now equal to any thing it has potential to become. **IF** it is severely defective, on what basis must its potential be fulfilled, to become a body occupied by a mind that will be suffering the defects of that body?

spud_meister said:
Just want to clarify that.
Click to expand...
DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THAT TO ME. It looked like you were asking a Loaded Question, full of idiocy you wanted me to accept without question. Tsk, tsk!
 
FutureIncoming said:
NO SUCH THING. Everything called "moral" (and "immoral") Is Subjective, Arbitrary, and Relative. (Tribes of cannibals were quite sure that what they did was moral, remember?) Totally imperfect! And therefore worthless. I prefer Ethics instead. Ethics **can** be Objective, Non-Arbitrary, and Universally Applicable.


DON'T PUT YOUR STUPID LIES INTO MY MOUTH. The word "individual" usually refers to a person. I'm only talking about killing Objectively Verifiable non-persons, mere-animal entities, insignificantly different from rats. The mere CALLING some entity "a person" --no matter what word you use to do that call-- does not make that entity a person!


I'M NOT THE ONE WHO DISCOVERED THE LIST. You might ask dolphin researchers where they got the list of characteristics they test for, which allows them to conclude that dolphins could qualify as persons.

WHAT **YOU** SHOULD CONSIDER is the Fact that unborn humans cannot pass even one of the many tests that dolphins can pass. (We know this because we can actually test more-developed infant humans, and they always fail all the tests.)


EVER HEARD THE PHRASE "Kill it before it spreads!"? An unborn human is what it is; it is not more than what it is, and it is not less than what it is. It often has potential to become more than what it is --but it is not-right-now equal to any thing it has potential to become. **IF** it is severely defective, on what basis must its potential be fulfilled, to become a body occupied by a mind that will be suffering the defects of that body?


DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THAT TO ME. It looked like you were asking a Loaded Question, full of idiocy you wanted me to accept without question. Tsk, tsk!
Click to expand...

Ok, so you think it's ethical to kill babies and those with developmental disabilities and acquired brain injuries to prevent them from suffering. Kudos to you.
 
spud_meister said:
If it's compassionate to kill those who suffer, why do you limit that compassion to the unborn? Also, what, exactly, about a baby exiting its mother makes it a person?
Click to expand...

As I said , in cases where the unborn has major disabilities that would cause suffering if the pregnancy continued to birth, it is up to the expective parents if they wish to abort or continue the pregnancy. It's a hard decision for the expective parents are faced with but within the parameters of Roe v Wade it is their decision to make.

As Removable Mind said medical decisions are made every day by legal guardians whether or not to use life support and prolong a loved ones suffering.

And abortion is removing the unborns life support.

Once born the infant takes its first breath...the " breath of life " and becomes a person. The life support of the umbilical cord is cut and the infant begins his/her personhood.
 
minnie616 said:
And abortion is removing the unborns life support.
Click to expand...

No, it's removing the unborn.

Once born the infant takes its first breath...the " breath of life " and becomes a person. The life support of the umbilical cord is cut and the infant begins his/her personhood.
Click to expand...

So personhood is defined by the act of breathing? Do I lose personhood if I hold my breath?
 
spud_meister said:
No, it's removing the unborn...
Click to expand...

Before viability, the unborn cannot survive when disconnected from the umbilical cord.

An abortion diconnects the unborn from its life support.
 
spud_meister said:
So personhood is defined by the act of breathing? Do I lose personhood if I hold my breath?
Click to expand...

Gee, I thought I said the infant was born once it took its first breath.
I never said personhood was defended by breathing.

What a way to twist my words.


Never said personhood was connected to breathing.

Edited to add:

Personhood is connected to birth.
 
Last edited:
FutureIncoming said:
While a recently-closed Thread was about handicapped offspring who filed lawsuits because they think their bodies should have been aborted, there is another aspect of that, lawsuits filed by parents who were not allowed to obtain abortions. Here is an example of that. The basic concept is that when an unborn human body is seriously defective, there is no reason why it must get born, to maybe eventually develop a mind that will then suffer in that body for a lifetime. What sort of compassionless monster wants people to suffer? Oh, that's right, every "abortion opponent" apparently is that sort of compassionless monster. Perhaps I should recommend that whenever an automobile is identified as a "lemon", it must be sold to an abortion opponent, who is never allowed to dispose of it. Such a rule might be the only way abortion opponents can get a taste of the suffering they insist others must experience.

In this Thread feel free to talk about both sorts of lawsuits described above, plus the statement in red text.
Click to expand...

This is all about lawyers finding new ways to make money.

In a trial, witnesses are required to tell the truth, yet the lawyers are exempt from having to alway tell the truth. If a lawyer knew his client was guilty he can lie and say he is innocent, with no fear of penalty. Should;t lawyers also be under the same laws of perjury? This loophole was created by lawyers for lawyers.

The thing I don't understand is why do lawyers get to police themselves, seeing they are not the most trustworthy profession? Doctors can't self police and they are far more trustworthy. Why not have doctors decide if this scam is a scam?

How come there is not more legal malpractice law suits. If a lawyer harms a witness, why can't the lawyer be sued? A doctor can be sued for something analogous. Maybe we need to make lawyers by expensive malpractice insurance and then start suing them. This latest leftist lawyer scam should be subject to malpractice suits if harm is done to either party; parent or child.

The swamp in Washington is because there are too many lawyers confusing the truth with legal scams that lawyers are allowed to self police.
 
spud_meister said:
Ok, so you think it's ethical to kill babies and those with developmental disabilities and acquired brain injuries to prevent them from suffering. Kudos to you.
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE. I said nothing about disrespecting existing Law, that Arbitrarily Declares babies and those with developmental disabilities and acquired brain injuries to be persons with rights. Existing Law might not be currently aligned with the Objective scientific data about personhood, but at least it is more aligned with the data than the idiocy that abortion opponents want to make into Law.
 
wellwisher said:
This is all about lawyers finding new ways to make money.
Click to expand...
NOT ENTIRELY. There are actual people involved who are suffering (the Israelis in the earlier Thread, for example). And when a parent raises a genetically badly-damaged child that was not allowed to be aborted, what of parental suffering? How would you like to be on-the-hook for paying for all the surgeries mentioned in the second link of the OP?

wellwisher said:
In a trial, witnesses are required to tell the truth, yet the lawyers are exempt from having to always tell the truth.
Click to expand...
THAT IS AN PROBLEM, so long as actual suffering exists.

{snip}

wellwisher said:
This latest leftist lawyer scam should be subject to malpractice suits if harm is done to either party; parent or child.
Click to expand...
SINCE IT IS ABORTION OPPONENTS DOING THE HARM, causing suffering by forcing unnecessary births to happen, It Logically Follows that not only are the lawyers Doing The Right Thing, the proper targets of their suits should be abortion opponents.
 
spud_meister said:
Animals don't have a right to live. We kill them for any damn reason we like.
Click to expand...

Humans, at any stage, don't have a right to life. Human are killed for every reason imaginable...with one exception. The State can't unjustly kill someone. I'm not so sure that the State always adheres to the law. Well we know the State screws up from time to time. But in any case that's the Provisions in the 5th and 14th Amendment.

The only difference with animals is that the State isn't Constitutionally bound to due process, which means that the state can kill animals at there discretion, but supposedly humanely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom