Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I don't believe "muh religion" is reasonable grounds to let your child die. It looks like clear negligence that lead to this infant's death, really no different then the parents who fail to feed their baby and it dies.

edit; Remember that story I posted 8-9 years ago about the ultra-vegan parents that didn't believe in breastfeeding and their child died of malnutrition from a diet of something like almond milk and wheat grass juice? Criminal negligence

There have been cases in the past where parents denied medical care for their children due to religious beliefs and it didn't end well for the parents with the loss of their child, their families and jail time.

I doubt any 1A argument would hold up. Freedom of religion isn't absolute. You can't create a religion that says it is okay to sacrifice humans and have it so it's not illegal for you to do so.

This isn't like letting a religion use a certain illegal drug. This was where there was no possible outcome other than death for this baby without medical care.

But these people believe in God. I'd ask them why they feel God created a universe in which things like medicine are possible.

6 years seems low. I've heard of people getting longer sentences for embezzlement lol.

Coming from someone who did not read the link at all and is just going by my own kneejerk reaction based on your brief summary, sounds like neglect to me.

It's pure child neglect and they should be punished for it.

Okay, so everyone is in agreement. It's neglect and even a religion that abstains from modern medicine is not a good enough reason to get them out of trouble with the law.

So you all agree abortion is wrong, now. Anyone who aborts or causes a developing baby to die due to neglect is guilty of manslaughter, just like this couple.

Looks like all of you fell for my trap and every single one of you has to suck my balls.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, so everyone is in agreement. It's neglect and even a religion that abstains from modern medicine is not a good enough reason to get them out of trouble with the law.

So you all agree abortion is wrong, now. Anyone who aborts or causes a developing baby to die due to neglect is guilty of manslaughter, just like this couple.

Looks like all of you fell for my trap and every single one of you has to suck my balls. You only had to ask my friend.

Post-birth abortion is wrong, yes. Unless it's me doing it, then it's fun.

A horrendous way to learn what not to do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, so everyone is in agreement. It's neglect and even a religion that abstains from modern medicine is not a good enough reason to get them out of trouble with the law.

So you all agree abortion is wrong, now. Anyone who aborts or causes a developing baby to die due to neglect is guilty of manslaughter, just like this couple.

Looks like all of you fell for my trap and every single one of you has to suck my balls.

🤤

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, so everyone is in agreement. It's neglect and even a religion that abstains from modern medicine is not a good enough reason to get them out of trouble with the law.

So you all agree abortion is wrong, now. Anyone who aborts or causes a developing baby to die due to neglect is guilty of manslaughter, just like this couple.

Looks like all of you fell for my trap and every single one of you has to suck my balls.
I mean... this isn't the same thing.

I will suck your balls, tho.

Saddam was a real progressive. Supported abortion like nobodies business.

Even 25-70 years post birth.

Originally posted by snowdragon
There have been cases in the past where parents denied medical care for their children due to religious beliefs and it didn't end well for the parents with the loss of their child, their families and jail time. Yeah, Mormons don't do blood transfusions etc.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, so everyone is in agreement. It's neglect and even a religion that abstains from modern medicine is not a good enough reason to get them out of trouble with the law.

So you all agree abortion is wrong, now. Anyone who aborts or causes a developing baby to die due to neglect is guilty of manslaughter, just like this couple.

Looks like all of you fell for my trap and every single one of you has to suck my balls.

Lol oh shit you would have had some on board if you didn't include the word "abort". Lefties cannot abide by an inability to kill babies in the womb.

It's why they are mad children are being separated from their parents. If they had been kept WITH their parents those children might have grown up to become doctors who perform abortions.

Originally posted by MythLord
I mean... this isn't the same thing.

I will suck your balls, tho.

Pretty much that.

But look on the bright-side, DDM, you're still getting your balls sucked.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty much that.

But look on the bright-side, DDM, you're still getting your balls sucked.

They are somewhat not the same thing. It's just a nigh arbitrary line people are drawing on a timeline somewhere between the zygote and after birth. It's a, "How dare you let your newborn die due to infant-complications because you do not believe in modern medicine" vs. "You should be able to murder your baby if you don't want it."


I know, so many offers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They are somewhat not the same thing. It's just a nigh arbitrary line people are drawing on a timeline somewhere between the zygote and after birth. It's a, "How dare you let your newborn die due to infant-complications because you do not believe in modern medicine" vs. "You should be able to murder your baby if you don't want it."


I know, so many offers.

I've noticed some on the left are going from being pro choice to being pro abortion. They are really adamant about their right to kill these babies.

To be fair, babies are evil and racist.

6 Shockingly Evil Things Babies Are Capable Of

Originally posted by dadudemon
They are somewhat not the same thing. It's just a nigh arbitrary line people are drawing on a timeline somewhere between the zygote and after birth. It's a, "How dare you let your newborn die due to infant-complications because you do not believe in modern medicine" vs. "You should be able to murder your baby if you don't want it."


I know, so many offers.

Not so sure it's arbitrary. iirc, the period where an abortion transitions from legal to illegal is based on human development. I also think you'd argue there's a clear different between a minuscule clump of cells at say week 1 and a baby who has been born, as is the case of your story.

For me it is the heartbeat that does it. Once it has a heartbeat(which takes about 60 days) to me...it is alive.

If we placed a fully grown human inside her body, would she have the ability to kill it?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Placing a fully grown human inside a person's body would kill her, so that would be difficult.

Anyway this reminds me of Adam_Poe's analogy: Obviously the person's right to bodily autonomy takes priority.

This is an error in framing. For one, the situation automatically assumes that the child bearer was in no way responsible for the babies conception. The mother did have sex and by proxy is the party accountable. Of course, there are specific situations in which this logic doesn't apply. But let me create a more accurate thought experiment. You run over a person with a car. Are you responsible for paying their medical bills? The answer would be a yes. You chose to drive the car, and you decided to drive recklessly.

Poe's example was the same as yours and yet all of the sudden there is something wrong with it, figures.

But no, a right isn't conditional. You can't exempt a person of their bodily autonomy because "they had sex" anymore than you can deny a criminal humane treatment because they committed a crime. Whether or not they are "responsible" for their situation doesn't matter.

And paying someone's medical bills doesn't involve an infringement on any kind of comparable right, pretty irrelevant. On the other hand would the victim be entitled to blood payment, or medieval style punishment? Nah.

It pertains to what's going on inside her body, yeah, and the foetus doesn't have the right to live of another person any more than the violinist in Adam's example.

nice gotcha attempt tho.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Poe's example was the same as yours and yet all of the sudden there is something wrong with it, figures.

But no, a right isn't conditional. You can't exempt a person of their bodily autonomy because "they had sex" anymore than you can deny a criminal humane treatment because they committed a crime. Whether or not they are "responsible" for their situation doesn't matter.

And paying someone's medical bills doesn't involve an infringement on any kind of comparable right, pretty irrelevant.

Beni actually take a second to think before you type. In Adam's example, the person giving the blood type isn't responsible for the kidney failure. In my case, the person driving the car is responsible for hitting the pedestrian. I am not sure this is an error in reading comprehension or worse an inability to read. By admitting that they should pay the medical bills you concede that rights are conditional. Since the mother, is responsible for Baby's creation, she, therefore, must take care of it. Thereby the right to the baby's life supersedes the right to personal autonomy. Let me give you a more specific example, to illustrate my point. You accidentally stab someone with a knife. They are slowly dying due to blood loss. You are the only person whose blood type aligns with the victim. Should be you be forced to give him your blood?

What if the pedestrian is at fault for the incident? I find pedestrians are often assholes.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Beni actually take a second to think before you type. In Adam's example, the person giving the blood type isn't responsible for the kidney failure. In my case, the person driving the car is responsible for hitting the pedestrian. I am not sure this is an error in reading comprehension or worse an inability to read.I was referring to your original example you numbskull.

You'll have to explain why that's the case rather than just stating it.

Being responsible for the baby's creation doesn't mean she concedes her bodily autonomy no. Like I said, a right is not conditional.

No.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I was referring to your original example you numbskull.


As was I.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
You'll have to explain why that's the case rather than just stating it.


That person's right to compensation supersedes the right for personal autonomy, i.e., to drive a car.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Being responsible for the baby's creation doesn't mean she concedes her bodily autonomy no. Like I said, a right is not conditional.

Contradictory.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No.


So, does that person have no obligation to do anything to compensate?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
As was I.No, that was your second. This was your first.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
If we placed a fully grown human inside her body, would she have the ability to kill it? Stop being wilfully obtuse.

They don't have a right to drive their car into other people. You're right to drive a car or personal autonomy extends to doing so without infringing on the rights of others.

Not by giving them blood. That's literally illegal, christ. Should tell you something about the state of your argument if this is the best example you can come up with.

Beni, my first example was the car and the pedestrian...



*willfully, and its called a thought experiment



Yes, that is called a condition.



You love dodging the question, don't you?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Beni, my first example was the car and the pedestrian...

*willfully, and its called a thought experimentOriginally posted by Beniboybling
Stop being wilfully obtuse.
If rights come in to conflict with each other one has to give yes. As I said already a foetus doesn't have the right to live off another person so that isn't the case here.

I answered you're question, the answer was no. Now you're trying to change your question so it doesn't appear so idiotic.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
If rights come in to conflict with each other one has to give yes. As I said already a foetus doesn't have the right to live off another person so that isn't the case here.

That is called a condition.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I answered you're question, the answer was no. Now you're trying to change your question so it doesn't appear so idiotic.

You are obfuscating the initial purpose of the question, I would like an answer...

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
That is called a condition.I'll just assume you have nothing more meaningful to say.

Nah, we've already done the "is x entitled to compensation if injured by y" and I addressed it. You are boring me and I'm about done.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'll just assume you have nothing more meaningful to say.

Nah, we've already done the "is x entitled to compensation if injured by y" and I addressed it. You are boring me and I'm about done.

Honestly, I don't know who's winning this back and forth between you two because it ended up being a banal word game.



One of you, probably DS0, re-frame the original arguments and pick up from the beginning.


Here's my original argument:



Premise 1: Couple, who is religious and does not believe in modern medicine, has a newborn infant die due to medical complications.
Premise 2: An adult is criminally liable for the medical neglect of their infant which can result in a Murder 2-manslaughter conviction.
Premise 3: You can abort a baby and kill it knowingly and directly.
Conclusion: There is a logical consistency issue between premises 1+2 and 3.


Going back from newborn infant, leftists thinking indirectly killing a baby due to religious belief is wrong but directly killing a baby through abortion is not wrong and not worthy of a murder 2 conviction.


They justify this with a timeline of development stating that at some very much arbitrary point, it is now a murder 2 charge instead of an okay thing to do.



It's like this in their mind:

1 day gestation: kill it if you want

1 month gestation: kill it if you want

3 month gestation: kill it if you want

Late term abortion: kill it if you want

Partial birth abortion: kill it if you want

Born but your religion is opposed to modern medicine and your babies: HOLY F*CKING SHIT! YOU MURDERER!


Note: that is NOT Robtard's position. He has the same opinion as I do: 5 months, no more. If science allows us to mature babies outside the womb even earlier, then I'll keep adjusting that date. It's based on science, not feelings or God. I think as soon as the zygote is formed, it's unique enough to have minimal pershonhood rights to not be aborted but the life or desires of the mother supersedes the pershonhood rights.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Going back from newborn infant, leftists thinking indirectly killing a baby due to religious belief is wrong but directly killing a baby through abortion is not wrong and not worthy of a murder 2 conviction.

Not sure that's a fair assessment, those same "lefttist" would probably also have a problem if a couple wanted to abort their perfectly healthy/normal pregnancy unborn baby at say 8 months due to religious reasons, but couldn't care less if it was at 20 weeks or less.

So the real point of contention seems to go back to what all abortion talks goes back to: "when does 'it' become a baby/person". A newborn (as in your story) is clearly a person.