I have a question for pro-lifers.

Dumpy Dooby · 04-27-2007, 08:13 PM

I got this from

.

We were discussing the abortion issue. I compared abortion to taking someone off life support. But Jimeigh raised a seemingly better challenge for the pro-lifers. He asked what they think of fetus en fetu. It's a rare condition that occurs with twins. One twin will basically absorb the other twin while in the womb. The single baby will come out and have his twin inside of him (feminazis, feel free to replace "him" with "shim" "her" "one" "it" or whatever). Now technically, the fetus is still alive. It is just as alive as any other fetus, and it is just as much of a person as any other fetus. The fetus grows inside its twin, and it eventually becomes necessary to remove it. Is it considered "murder" to remove that twin?

Ardentfrost · 04-27-2007, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I got this from .

We were discussing the abortion issue. I compared abortion to taking someone off life support. But Jimeigh raised a seemingly better challenge for the pro-lifers. He asked what they think of fetus en fetu. It's a rare condition that occurs with twins. One twin will basically absorb the other twin while in the womb. The single baby will come out and have his twin inside of him (feminazis, feel free to replace "him" with "shim" "her" "one" "it" or whatever). Now technically, the fetus is still alive. It is just as alive as any other fetus, and it is just as much of a person as any other fetus. The fetus grows inside its twin, and it eventually becomes necessary to remove it. Is it considered "murder" to remove that twin?

are pro-lifers against abortion even when the mother's life is in danger? I mean, I am personally pro-life (politically pro-choice), and I have no problem aborting a child that would kill the mother. This seems very much like that.

Roonie · 04-27-2007, 09:19 PM

I am pro-life as well and have no problem aborting child when mother's life is in danger. I think this is similar.

Dumpy Dooby · 04-27-2007, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

are pro-lifers against abortion even when the mother's life is in danger? I mean, I am personally pro-life (politically pro-choice), and I have no problem aborting a child that would kill the mother. This seems very much like that.

This generally won't kill the person. It's a drain on their body (so is being pregnant

), but they can live with it. In

, someone posted a video of a 32 year old man that had his twin inside of him.

So does your position stand as such that it should not be removed as long as it isn't life threatening to the patient?

6SpeedTA95 · 04-28-2007, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

This generally won't kill the person. It's a drain on their body (so is being pregnant ), but they can live with it. In , someone posted a video of a 32 year old man that had his twin inside of him.

So does your position stand as such that it should not be removed as long as it isn't life threatening to the patient?

his twin was still alive after 32 years?

lew · 04-28-2007, 01:19 AM

The fetus wasn't still alive after 32 years was it?

Dumpy Dooby · 04-28-2007, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by lew

The fetus wasn't still alive after 32 years was it?

Way to avoid the question: So does your position stand as such that it should not be removed as long as it isn't life threatening to the patient?

lew · 04-28-2007, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Way to avoid the question: So does your position stand as such that it should not be removed as long as it isn't life threatening to the patient?

It can't live within someone else, so it can be removed.

6SpeedTA95 · 04-28-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Way to avoid the question: So does your position stand as such that it should not be removed as long as it isn't life threatening to the patient?

No thats not my position. I used it to prove a point.

The point is that it was no longer alive they could have removed it. Next point is the "fetus" will eventually die, after talking about this with a doctor and a head nurse for a hospital I learned its usually dead at the time of birth and therefore needs to be removed before you cause injury to the other person. This is MUCH different than a normal pregnancy.

As for me I'm against abortion in all but a few circumstances HOWEVER, I am ok with RoeVWade.

RMNIXON · 04-28-2007, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

I am pro-life as well and have no problem aborting child when mother's life is in danger. I think this is similar.

What we have here is an old legal trick. Use extreme cases to define law and igor what happens daily for no good reason other than I don't want a child even for adoption. Sorry, but it is a very poor excuse for not caring about the many millions aborted in the first place.

JaJae · 04-28-2007, 05:09 PM

Are mothers not allowed to do surgery on conjoined twins knowing one child will likely die? Most pro-lifers would probably say yes. I don't think this is any different, if anything it would be easier for them to agree with.

grembert · 04-28-2007, 05:54 PM

I want to be the devil's advocate on this abortion issue.

If Roe vs. Wade was OVERTURNED, it would not meant that abortions would be illegal. It would mean that states could pass laws making abortions illegal.
( depending on how the decision would be made ).

Many states would not change its law at all.

This might be off topic, but I wanted to bring it up because some might misunderstand what Roe v Wade actually did.

Dumpy Dooby · 04-28-2007, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

No thats not my position. I used it to prove a point.

The point is that it was no longer alive they could have removed it. Next point is the "fetus" will eventually die, after talking about this with a doctor and a head nurse for a hospital I learned its usually dead at the time of birth and therefore needs to be removed before you cause injury to the other person. This is MUCH different than a normal pregnancy.

As for me I'm against abortion in all but a few circumstances HOWEVER, I am ok with RoeVWade.

Surprisingly, I don't agree with Roe v. Wade. I agree with the intentions that the judiciaries had, but I think their connection was a bit of a stretch. It was just another act of legislation by the judicial branch. It should be overturned and legislated properly through Congress.

Am I derailing my own thread now?

6SpeedTA95 · 04-28-2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Surprisingly, I don't agree with Roe v. Wade. I agree with the intentions that the judiciaries had, but I think their connection was a bit of a stretch. It was just another act of legislation by the judicial branch. It should be overturned and legislated properly through Congress.

Am I derailing my own thread now?

Well I should have been more specific. I agree with the premis of RoeVWade but I do agree it was a stretch and in general is pretty flimsy the way the decision was ruled. But I do agree with the premise. As lew said earlier, I'm pro life and politically pro choice.

Diesel66 · 04-28-2007, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It is just as alive as any other fetus, and it is just as much of a person as any other fetus. The fetus grows inside its twin, and it eventually becomes necessary to remove it. Is it considered "murder" to remove that twin?

Yes, but it is justifiable homicide because the other child would be killed without the medical procedure.

Scrum · 04-29-2007, 01:57 PM

Nobody here is really pro-life unless they are against the death penalty as well as abortion.

7960 · 04-30-2007, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

What we have here is an old legal trick. Use extreme cases to define law ......

Because the law shouldn't have exceptions. The law should be the law. If the speed limit is 65mph then that's the speed limit, no exceptions. If abortion is "killing a baby" then it should be illegal, no exceptions. IMO the question should revolve less around the fetus / "unborn baby" and more around "should someone else's religious beliefs define what's legal?" Abortion is only a debate because of specific religious beliefs. Why should one group's religious views define what other groups can do?

Originally Posted by Scrum

Nobody here is really pro-life unless they are against the death penalty as well as abortion, NO MATTER WHAT.

:fixed:

If you're "pro-life" then abortion is murder, no exceptions. Health of the mother, rape, incest......none of that is the baby's fault so why does it deserve to die?

:bigfuckin:

Diesel66 · 04-30-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Because the law shouldn't have exceptions. The law should be the law. If the speed limit is 65mph then that's the speed limit, no exceptions. If abortion is "killing a baby" then it should be illegal, no exceptions.]

hope you never kill someone by accident or self defence then, because according to your statement you should be thrown in prison.

7960 · 04-30-2007, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

hope you never kill someone by accident or self defence then, because according to your statement you should be thrown in prison.

This is completely false.... murder is different than manslaughter is different than killing in self-defense.

If two people plan and execute a murder they should get the same sentence. There should not be extenuating circumstances that make one's murder "less bad" or deserving of less punishment than another.

Diesel66 · 04-30-2007, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

This is completely false.... murder is different than manslaughter is different than killing in self-defense.

If two people plan and execute a murder they should get the same sentence. There should not be extenuating circumstances that make one's murder "less bad" or deserving of less punishment than another.

that has NOTHING to do with my statement.

your statement

Because the law shouldn't have exceptions. The law should be the law. If the speed limit is 65mph then that's the speed limit, no exceptions. If abortion is "killing a baby" then it should be illegal, no exceptions.

my statement

hope you never kill someone by accident or self defence then, because according to your statement you should be thrown in prison.

Now when did I mention murder ? Or the difference between murder and manslaughter ?

Under your system, self defence is manslaughter or worse.