Do you mean like when a mother signs away her dead child's organs without consent?
I consider a fetus to be an extension of my life as well as an extension of the mother's life.
I am by no means the average person.
I'm going to have to respond by saying that consent of both parents should also be required for organ donation.
Even when someone dies, both parents(If living) should be required to donate their child's organs.
A legal parent or guardian can donate their child's organs if that child should die before the age of 18. If a 26 week old fetus is aborted, and the mother chooses to donate the organs, is the mother not recognized as the legal guardian of the fetus? If the mother has the legal right to make decisions what to do with that fetus' organs after death, then the fetus is her child. Are you suggesting that a mother or parents can purposely kill their child before the age of 18 and donate their organs? Or they can only kill their child when it is inside the womb?
Planned Parenthood: Cecile Richards' Official Video Response
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Actually, I have said it many times, no abortion should be performed without consent of both parents. And no, I don't object to that at all. I believe the father has equal rights to the child/fetus. If it were my fetus, I would do whatever it takes to prevent my reproduction from being aborted. Anyone who is protecting their own fetus from abortion would go free if I was on the jury.
Yes. Absolutely.
The father has no right to end the continuation of the mother's life force.
Do you mean like when a mother signs away her dead child's organs without consent?
I consider a fetus to be an extension of my life as well as an extension of the mother's life.
I am by no means the average person.
I'm going to have to respond by saying that consent of both parents should also be required for organ donation.
Even when someone dies, both parents(If living) should be required to donate their child's organs.
I absolutely disagree with that. I believe that we all life forever as long as we keep reproducing band surviving.
My life force lives on in my children and my grandchildren and every descendant that follows.
Just as when I cut a leaf from a tree and grow a new tree, it isn't a new and unique life, it is a replication and continuation of the already living tree's life force.
So you see, my belief is that I may live forever.
And you are all free to believe that you live and die, the end.
I choose to be immortal through transmigration of my life force, my soul, my spirit.
Any law passed that interferes with my religious/spiritual beliefs are unconstitutional and therefore don't have to be followed.
I also believe that I have no right to stop others from ending their family trees through whatever method they choose.
Abortion, suicide, condoms, getting their tubes tied, whatever.
I am not a God.
I am just me, a continuation of the life force of my parents, grandparents, etc.
The cell passed on to me from my father and the cell passed on to me from my mother, contains all of the information needed to create a new complete human host for their life force, which is me.
I also believe their memories and life experiences are passed along as well.
It's called live and let live, not live and terrorize others to believe what I believe.
The Constitution is on my side.
My religious/spiritual beliefs cannot be regulated or prohibited.
I am a free man and make my own choices in life.
I follow the laws that don't conflict with my beliefs.
I see part of me in my kids and grandchildren, both in physical appearance and also in their behavior which was learned from me.
I choose to live forever through them.
But they are also welcome to end it by not reproducing, whereby my life force would return to the collective life force of the Earth.
I have respect for human life, animal life and the life force of the entire world.
I don't have respect for those who kill the innocent, or destroy our environment to obtain wealth and power.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
A legal parent or guardian can donate their child's organs if that child should die before the age of 18. If a 26 week old fetus is aborted, and the mother chooses to donate the organs, is the mother not recognized as the legal guardian of the fetus? If the mother has the legal right to make decisions what to do with that fetus' organs after death, then the fetus is her child. Are you suggesting that a mother or parents can purposely kill their child before the age of 18 and donate their organs? Or they can only kill their child when it is inside the womb?
Correct, as the law stands a mother can only kill the child in the womb.
My argument is that the fetus has two parents and should not be allowed to terminate without both parties permission.
I don't care if it's the 'law of the land' or not! this discussion shouldn't even be going on!
I mean really..... is it the mother's right to kill her unborn? is it the father's right to kill his unborn? is it both's right to kill their unborn? how and who gets to decide who gets the dead fetus?
My God people...this discussion should be very uncomfortable and horrifically disturbing to ALL humans!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I don't care if it's the 'law of the land' or not! this discussion shouldn't even be going on!
I mean really..... is it the mother's right to kill her unborn? is it the father's right to kill his unborn? is it both's right to kill their unborn? how and who gets to decide who gets the dead fetus?
My God people...this discussion should be very uncomfortable and horrifically disturbing to ALL humans!
I agree, but I also believe that it is every person's right to choose whether to reproduce, or prevent reproduction of themselves.
But one thing I know for certain, I do not want the government taking control of reproduction.
I went to the Chinese restaurant last night on Chrysler Ave and the Chinese woman behind the counter was feeding her 4 kids.
In China those kids would never have been born.
The Chinese people allow their government to be in charge of reproduction.
People must be allowed to decide their own future.
Horrible as it is, it is not your right to force your morals on another person.
We try every day to force American values on to the rest of the world.
Whether we are right or wrong, many of them hate us for it.
Requiring two party consent would cut the number of abortions dramatically.
Do you shake your head back and firth 5 times when you use 5 question marks?
Am I to assume 5 question marks mean that you don't understand/comprehend 5 times more than a normal person?
Because that sounds like the case in most of your posts.
So 1 parent then has gotten their wishes met and the other has not. How is that equitable, right or fair??????
Do you bobble your head up and down with your double spaced cry for attention??????????? Because it is obviously that way in all your posts...look at me, I deserve attention!!!!!!!!! You can ASSuME whatever your want, because you are the A$$...u...not ME!!!!!!!!!!
I asked you a serious question and you reply with your arrogant, dumbass Losertarian attitude!!!!!!!!!! Don't like my ??? and !!!!!.....than don't read them and don't reply. You won't hurt my feelings, because your opinions are useless anyway! They are based on only one way with you, your way. Typical WIFFM Losertarian!
Enjoy counting all the ????? and !!!!! and ...... Did them JUST FOR YOU!!!!!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
So 1 parent then has gotten their wishes met and the other has not. How is that equitable, right or fair??????
and the same situation exists as the laws are now... The woman has absolute control... she can terminate even if the man doesn't want her too, same thing with carrying to term and then he is required to pay child support for a baby he didn't want.
One way to take some of this away is universally available free birth control. The other is for an opt out of sorts for the man. If he doesn't want the child and doesn't want to pay child support, he gives up all rights of that child permanently. Now, of course, the state has to come in and make up difference, but how different will that be to what happens now?
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Logged
