TreeBeard Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: not saving a child is not murder killing them is murder derp So a parent can let their child die of a disease rather than bringing them to a hospital? Cuz…. Not saving them is not murder according to you But I am near 100% certain that this would be illegal. Do you want to revise your answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: So a parent can let their child die of a disease rather than bringing them to a hospital? Cuz…. Not saving them is not murder according to you But I am near 100% certain that this would be illegal. Do you want to revise your answer? the disease would be killing them the parents would not be murdering them, objectively speaking unless they gave them the disease intentionally none of your stupid analogies change the calculus for the morality of abortion Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: the disease would be killing them none of your stupid analogies change the calculus for the morality of abortion So you think a parent is allowed to just not bother seeking medical treatment for a sick child? Can a parent allow their child to starve to death? “Your Honour…. Starvation killed that child, not me”. That argument didn’t work: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/meningitis-trial-verdict-1.3552941 Edited September 23, 2021 by TreeBeard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: So you think a parent is allowed to just not bother seeking medical treatment for a sick child? Can a parent allow their child to starve to death? “Your Honour…. Starvation killed that child, not me”. That argument didn’t work: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/meningitis-trial-verdict-1.3552941 you were referring to parents refusing to give blood transfusions to their child you are now moving the goalposts flailing to try and front like abortion isn't murder and justify it morally while trying to play the right to life card to justify your support for abortion listen to yourself, this is looney tunes pretzel logic I can make an infinitely better case against these abortion laws than you can it's not even hard step your game up there is no need to make yourself into a fool to make the case Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: you were referring to parents refusing to give blood transfusions to their child you are now moving the goalposts flailing to try and front like abortion isn't murder and justify it morally while trying to play the right to life card to justify your support for abortion listen to yourself, this is looney tunes pretzel logic I’ll recap: You said the difference is actively killing a child vs not saving a child. So I asked if not actively saving a child with a disease would be illegal. And you said that the disease killed the child I pointed out that this is illegal A parent MUST save a child if they can. They can’t just let a disease kill a child. And here we are…. I still don’t know if you think it is legal to let your child starve to death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: I’ll recap: You said the difference is actively killing a child vs not saving a child. So I asked if not actively saving a child with a disease would be illegal. And you said that the disease killed the child I pointed out that this is illegal A parent MUST save a child if they can. They can’t just let a disease kill a child. And here we are…. I still don’t know if you think it is legal to let your child starve to death? you have lost the plot we are talking about abortion your stupid analogies are neither here nor there make a better argument for your position Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: you have lost the plot we are talking about abortion your stupid analogies are neither here nor there Well, I am conversing with someone who doesn’t seem to know whether a parent has to actually help child get to a hospital, or even feed them. Here is the point: We force parents to keep their child healthy and even clean. A parent cannot even leave a child at home alone without facing repercussions. To not do so is illegal. However, we won’t even make the parent give blood if their child is dying. The difference is bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is sacrosanct above even the life of a child. We won’t even make a parent give up some fluid that their body will replace quickly to save a child’s life. Do you think a fetus’ life is more valuable than a 10 year olds’ life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Well, I am conversing with someone who doesn’t seem to know whether a parent has to actually help child get to a hospital, or even feed them. Do you think a fetus’ life is more valuable than a 10 year olds’ life? you are dealing with someone who sees no need to answer such a stupid question that has no bearing on the discussion obviously the child in the womb's life isn't more important than the 10 year old child's I am not arguing that anyone's life is more important than another's you are the one making that argument to justify killing an unborn child by dehumanizing it Edited September 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted September 23, 2021 Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: obviously the child in the womb's life isn't more important than the 10 year old child's I am not arguing that anyone's life is more important than another's So why would a fetus have more rights to use a parent’s body than a 10 year old? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted September 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2021 The Taliban’s got nothing on these clowns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 25, 2021 Report Share Posted September 25, 2021 On 9/23/2021 at 5:38 PM, TreeBeard said: I I pointed out that this is illegal A parent MUST save a child if they can. They can’t just let a disease kill a child. And here we are…. I still don’t know if you think it is legal to let your child starve to death? Staving a child is child abuse and subject to the court of law, but you should examine your statement again...A parent MUST save a child if they can, Why does it apply to killing a child through starvation and not killing it in the womb when it is considered a infant... , ...at what period of time is the fetus consider a child, or human being, or a life ? Once that is determined it will solve this entire question for both sides.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.