'Planned Parenthood' Advises Pimp of Underage Sex Slaves

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

A life is a life, no matter what stage. Whether that life is moments old, or a hundred years of a great life in this world.

See with my example no one has to die and you never said one or the other, all you did was put stipulations upon a life of your mother. You never know how she feels, plus what gives YOU the RITE to kill anyone, ever?

I however do not like the case you presented because someone would have to die. Real life is never that kind of situation. I will answer your situation though. I would have to choose for the newborn to live so that both children get a chance at this life. Rather than the older child suffer after they understand what happened, I would live with the choice rather than the sibling. Plus in reality the other gave life to one vs one killing the newborn. I would even lie my life down for both of the ‘hypothetical children’ if at all possible.

Now realize you are baiting the question and I tire of games like this. That ryan character was always screaming like an immature child who did not get his way. I wonder if you will be more mature. I hesitate to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Do you still believe abortion to be a rite you or all mothers deserve? Do you even understand the child would feel every moment of being torn apart?

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Wow, so what to say here? Answer mine and I will answer your, still ridiculously vague, example which also changes right at the end. Is she conscious while she is on life support or not (one of those pesky DETAILS I know).

If the chances for my mother’s survival were near zero I would most likely pull the plug. Not because I care about holding onto the money per se, but because if it would ruin my family financially I know my mother would not want that to happen over a slim chance of her survival. My mother and I have discussed these things many times- there are things worse than death. Losing your pride and being a detriment to your family are all good enough reasons not to hold on. We all have to die at some point so why delay the inevitable if it means hurting the ones you love? If my mother was conscious and suffering I would simply ask her what she wanted. If she wasn’t conscious it isn’t clear she would be suffering or “leading” a miserable life.

Now, answer mine. The life of your current born child or your unborn child? You have to choose one and give a reason.[/quote]

302

How am I ‘baiting the question’ and how is it a game? It is a simple thought experiment and one pulled in part from a recent experience in my own life. It doesn’t have to be realistic, that is the point of a though experiment. This is basic philosophy. The point of it was simply who’s right to life has more bearing in your line of thinking, the unborn or the born and why. It is a valid question and one someone with such strong feelings on the subject should be thinking about.

In your example, no one technically has to die. The choice is between the death of one and the ruination of several others. Also I DO in fact know how she feels as I mentioned. She has stated over and over she would prefer death to ruining her family. Why continue to live if you know doing so would harm the ones you love? Particularly if the odds of success were low and the odds of ruining your family were high.

Do you have the right to kill yourself in your view?

Also are you a total pacifist or do you believe in just wars and defensive killings? Because if you do then you clearly think that sometimes you DO have the right to kill someone.

I have stated numerous times I do not side one way or the other on this point, so keep the accusations of childishness to yourself. I am merely trying to push you and others on their beliefs. This is called discussion. If you want to discuss adult themes like adults you can keep your insults and ranting to yourself.

303

LOL I said you sounded like other previous posters, that is all. Thus far you are doing a better job than those posters. If you use my answer against me because of my choice, you would then be baiting the question. And you have still yet to tell me your choice and why.

I never once said your mother had to die in my thought experiment. Yet you ASSUMED that on your own. Which I find interesting.

As for killing myself. I have more courage to face this life head long vs being to scared/intimidated to deal with life and anything she brings me. FYI that is me in my AVI. I have yet to meet a single person closer to death at a given point in their lives. After my accident my eyes were awakened to the atrocities of abortion and the other similar events.

If you want to discuss war or any of that, start your own thread. katzenjammer started this thread about PPH and what they recently have done, all while being funded with American tax dollars. Abortion ties right along with the subject. War is a different side topic altogether.

304

I assumed that because you asked ‘would I pull the plug’. Note that I also said multiple times you did not put enough parameters on it and thus there were a number of possible scenarios it could take. This is why you put parameters on thought experiments to limit the question being asked. You did not do this so I took it down the path it looked like you were trying to take it.

Does ANYONE have the right to kill yourself? We are not discussing what YOU would do, but rather what EVERYONE should do.

War is not much different really. You are taking the life of another for some reason. People carrying out abortions have their reasons for doing so as do those prosecuting a war. What justifies taking a life? Wartime or peacetime it doesn’t really matter the answer will be the same. Either you think you can NEVER take a life or you think under the right circumstances it is okay to kill someone. This was brought up earlier in this thread namely because pro-war folks like to forget this fact when talking about abortion.

305

Well I can state my stance in one post so:

If a guy broke into MY house and threatened to kill my family along with myself, I would kill him or at least try to take him down with me.

You cannot justify a war. Killing one single innocent person is wrong in my mind. Can a government guarantee that will not happen? Then you cannot justify war. Take 9/11. A thousand innocent lives is never going to be made better with more death of innocent souls.

In whatever case you bring before me, murder is wrong. Few things in life are so black and white. Abortion is always murder, hence always wrong. ALWAYS!

306

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Well I can state my stance in one post so:

If a guy broke into MY house and threatened to kill my family along with myself, I would kill him or at least try to take him down with me.

You cannot justify a war. Killing one single innocent person is wrong in my mind. Can a government guarantee that will not happen? Then you cannot justify war. Take 9/11. A thousand innocent lives is never going to be made better with more death of innocent souls.

In whatever case you bring before me, murder is wrong. Few things in life are so black and white. Abortion is always murder, hence always wrong. ALWAYS![/quote]

A principled stance - one that consistent I haven’t really encountered so far in this discussion. If I get you correctly, the ban on killing is only lifted for immediate self defense (so it can be lifted under special circumstances).

For clarification, I’d like to ask a couple of questions: On a societal scale, does your view on killing cover neglect (e.g. lack of medical care) and the death penalty (including errors of the justice system) as well? Or do the special circumstances (immediate self defense) that allow killing someone focus on the target individual’s lack of ‘innocence’? If so, how is ‘innocence’ defined (legally, morally) in your view?

I gather if I were to condemn the ‘war on terror’, with all the innocent lives taken collaterally, you would agree. Or is there a qualitative difference between the ‘innocent’ (quotation marks used not to belittle the term, but to mark it’s yet unclear definition) victims of war and abortion?

And, finally: is someone who kills an abortionist, to avoid more abortions - and using the self defense (of others) argument - killing an ‘innocent’, or someone who falls under the special self defense provision?

Sorry for so many follow up questions, I’m just curious.

Makkun

307

One reply is turning into another PAGE jaa jaa but I regress and will give you my views ; ] Plus I am sure many other posters will join me on my stance, but do not take my word for it. Let them tell you. In fact I can think of five posters right of the top of my head and I have a head injury :- p

I repeat the same stance, again. ALL murder is wrong, never can you justify killing someone, EVER!! Whether that person was killed through ‘lack of care’ or the death penalty the intended purpose does not even work! the trading of souls does not equate. Even with my justified ‘self defense’, that is something where I would have a hard time killing one soul for another. I hope to never face that particular choice. If I can save even one other soul, I will lay my life on the line. Yes, even for the strangers I don’t know. Actually that would be ideal to lay my life down, to give a few people, even strangers more of a chance at this life.

I would never justify the killing of an abortionist. If I kill someone, I am fulfilling a role much higher than my own and I will face my maker someday. I have been closer to death than any other soul I have yet to meet. FYI that is me in my AVI. < Just because a guy murders say a thousand adults, children or even embryo’s, I can never justify killing him because how am I then different? An abortionist/murderer makes the choice for all those innocent people. I will never knowingly make the same type of decision.

This ties into why I know drunk driving is one of the worst things in the world. Why? Because the fucking drunk piece of shit wiped out another soul at minimum if not a whole family, while they tend to live through the event. Abortion leads the way in gruesome and horribly wrong, leading the way but not by far in the department of unjustified acts.

An innocent life would be defined as someone who would lead a ‘normal life’ and die of natural causes.

edited for more clarification

[quote]makkun wrote:
A principled stance - one that consistent I haven’t really encountered so far in this discussion. If I get you correctly, the ban on killing is only lifted for immediate self defense (so it can be lifted under special circumstances).

For clarification, I’d like to ask a couple of questions: On a societal scale, does your view on killing cover neglect (e.g. lack of medical care) and the death penalty (including errors of the justice system) as well? Or do the special circumstances (immediate self defense) that allow killing someone focus on the target individual’s lack of ‘innocence’? If so, how is ‘innocence’ defined (legally, morally) in your view?

I gather if I were to condemn the ‘war on terror’, with all the innocent lives taken collaterally, you would agree. Or is there a qualitative difference between the ‘innocent’ (quotation marks used not to belittle the term, but to mark it’s yet unclear definition) victims of war and abortion?

And, finally: is someone who kills an abortionist, to avoid more abortions - and using the self defense (of others) argument - killing an ‘innocent’, or someone who falls under the special self defense provision?

Sorry for so many follow up questions, I’m just curious.

Makkun[/quote]

308

As I said, a principled stance imho. Thanks for clarifying.

Makkun

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
One reply is turning into another PAGE jaa jaa but I regress and will give you my views ; ] Plus I am sure many other posters will join me on my stance, but do not take my word for it. Let them tell you. In fact I can think of five posters right of the top of my head and I have a head injury :- p

I repeat the same stance, again. ALL murder is wrong, never can you justify killing someone, EVER!! Whether that person was killed through ‘lack of care’ or the death penalty the intended purpose does not even work! the trading of souls does not equate. Even with my justified ‘self defense’, that is something where I would have a hard time killing one soul for another. I hope to never face that particular choice. If I can save even one other soul, I will lay my life on the line. Yes, even for the strangers I don’t know. Actually that would be ideal to lay my life down, to give a few people, even strangers more of a chance at this life.

I would never justify the killing of an abortionist. If I kill someone, I am fulfilling a role much higher than my own and I will face my maker someday. I have been closer to death than any other soul I have yet to meet. FYI that is me in my AVI. < Just because a guy murders say a thousand adults, children or even embryo’s, I can never justify killing him because how am I then different? An abortionist/murderer makes the choice for all those innocent people. I will never knowingly make the same type of decision.

This ties into why I know drunk driving is one of the worst things in the world. Why? Because the fucking drunk piece of shit wiped out another soul at minimum if not a whole family, while they tend to live through the event. Abortion leads the way in gruesome and horribly wrong, but not far in the department of unjustified acts.

An innocent life would be defined as someone who would lead a ‘normal life’ and die of natural causes.

[quote]makkun wrote:
A principled stance - one that consistent I haven’t really encountered so far in this discussion. If I get you correctly, the ban on killing is only lifted for immediate self defense (so it can be lifted under special circumstances).

For clarification, I’d like to ask a couple of questions: On a societal scale, does your view on killing cover neglect (e.g. lack of medical care) and the death penalty (including errors of the justice system) as well? Or do the special circumstances (immediate self defense) that allow killing someone focus on the target individual’s lack of ‘innocence’? If so, how is ‘innocence’ defined (legally, morally) in your view?

I gather if I were to condemn the ‘war on terror’, with all the innocent lives taken collaterally, you would agree. Or is there a qualitative difference between the ‘innocent’ (quotation marks used not to belittle the term, but to mark it’s yet unclear definition) victims of war and abortion?

And, finally: is someone who kills an abortionist, to avoid more abortions - and using the self defense (of others) argument - killing an ‘innocent’, or someone who falls under the special self defense provision?

Sorry for so many follow up questions, I’m just curious.

Makkun[/quote]
[/quote]