Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 06:06:25 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 7402 times)
payb.tc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:30:01 AM
 #21

And if I bump into you in the street because I am talking on my cell phone and not paying attention?  Can you sue me for aggression?  Is it the intent that matters, the action or the result of the action?

I can sue you for damages. If I have brittle bones and your bumping into me causes me a six week hospital stay then the damages would be steep.

Bitcoin2cash throws common sense out the window again. No surprise though.

You would have no case here as it's obvious you're the one who is aware of both your condition and the general conditions of what sidewalks are like. The world does not work the way you think it does. Sorry.

apply the analogy to cars then.

you are driving and some other driver is talking on his cellphone and not paying attention... he bumps into your car and puts a scratch in it... it's completely an accident and you should be aware of the fragile state of your paint job and the general conditions of what roads are like.

you most certainly can sue the other driver for damages.
1481047585
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047585

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047585
Reply with quote  #2

1481047585
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481047585
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047585

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047585
Reply with quote  #2

1481047585
Report to moderator
1481047585
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481047585

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481047585
Reply with quote  #2

1481047585
Report to moderator
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:44:04 AM
 #22

apply the analogy to cars then.

No. There is no reason to apply the analogy to cars. Cars are not people. Standing and walking bodies on sidewalks are not cars. Go suggest another analogy or accept the fact that people on sidewalks are not cars in motion.
payb.tc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:59:39 AM
 #23

apply the analogy to cars then.

No. There is no reason to apply the analogy to cars. Cars are not people. Standing and walking bodies on sidewalks are not cars. Go suggest another analogy or accept the fact that people on sidewalks are not cars in motion.

well, in australia at least, people can be sued for damages even if accidentally harming another person.

pay attention, and don't run into anyone on the footpath, because they might just sue you.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 06:13:49 AM
 #24

well, in australia at least, people can be sued for damages even if accidentally harming another person.

And?
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 12:14:10 PM
 #25

She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body.

what?

surely you can not be serious.

Hard to believe someone actually typed that, let alone believes that.

You may not infringe on anyone elses rights while exercising your own.

I do not have the right to shoot my gun when you are in its sights.

I do not have a right to drive my car when people are standing at my front and back bumpers, unles they are attacking me or my car.

I do not have the right to burn my land when your land is right beside it, unless I can stop stop the fire before it reaches your land.

Life begins at conception. It isnt religion-based. It's simple common sense. People that say life does not begin at conception are just setting you up to justify themselves and the bad deeds they wish to engage in. Why are pregnant women protected and cared for during pregnancy? To protect the LIFE inside them.

"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 03:33:26 PM
 #26

You may not infringe on anyone elses rights while exercising your own.

I agree. You have the right not to be shot. You have the right not to be ran over. You have the right not to have your property destroyed. You don't have the right to live inside someone else's body.

Life begins at conception.

I agree. That changes nothing though.
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 04:11:18 PM
 #27

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

A fetus has not developed, has no rational though processes, and can not choose for itself, therefore it is not possible for it to make an informed decision on where to live and can not exercise any rights it has.

This makes the parents the responsible parties until that child can make those decisions for itself or the parents decide to give that right to someone else through adoption.

It is my hope that some day a technology will be invented that can safely remove a fetus from a woman who does not want the baby so that it may develop through the gestation period, for the life of the child to give it a chance at being adopted while giving the woman the right to get rid of it if she so chooses.

"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 04:13:17 PM
 #28

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 01, 2011, 04:26:24 PM
 #29

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:01:42 PM
 #30

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

No, the mother has to give up the baby publicly i.e. it can't be done in a way where nobody knows about it.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:06:13 PM
 #31

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

No, the mother has to give up the baby publicly i.e. it can't be done in a way where nobody knows about it.

Where does that rule come from? 

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:07:48 PM
 #32

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

No, the mother has to give up the baby publicly i.e. it can't be done in a way where nobody knows about it.

Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:30:31 PM
 #33


Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:34:41 PM
 #34


That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

Troll detected

I didn't know that the person you are stabbing is inside your body  Roll Eyes
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:37:01 PM
 #35


Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:37:06 PM
 #36


That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

Troll detected

I didn't know that the person you are stabbing is inside your body  Roll Eyes

Um, thats how abortion works.  You stick something into the body of the unborn person, inject saline solution to kill her and then suck it out with a kind of a vacuum device.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:37:57 PM
 #37


Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.

But once they are born you have to make sure they are looked after?  That seems arbitrary.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:38:54 PM
 #38


Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.

But once they are born you have to make sure they are looked after?  That seems arbitrary.

No, you don't have to make sure they are looked after if you give them up, much like you are giving up the fetus.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:42:57 PM
 #39


Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.

But once they are born you have to make sure they are looked after?  That seems arbitrary.

No, you don't have to make sure they are looked after if you give them up, much like you are giving up the fetus.

The difference is that you can actively kill the unborn child.  That's how abortion works; kill it and suck it out.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 01, 2011, 05:47:40 PM
 #40

The difference is that you can actively kill the unborn child.  That's how abortion works; kill it and suck it out.

If I want to remove someone from my house then the first resort must be to remove them without harming them. Only as a last resort can I kill them. Is there a way to remove the fetus without first killing it? If so, that must be tried first and all other methods left as a last resort. If not, only then are other methods justified as a first resort.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!