What's new
By:

Abortion Bills in the South

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
One Brow said:
So, your position is the government should force twin A to stay connected? OK.
Click to expand...

My position is that the government won’t sign off on killing Twin B.

Twin Bs rights are violated by such an action. As are As in the other direction.

Has such a case ever even come up?
 
Stoked said:
Is twin A’s life endangered? You're talking about willful manslaughter. Sure it ****ing sucks for A. But life ****ing sucks

Also, this isn’t the same as abortion on a major point.
Click to expand...


I read about this one conjoined twin that had a gay brother and they shared the same *** hole.

This debate may be appealing to him.
 
One Brow said:
Yes, that would be my position. The government should not force A to stay connected. How about you?
Click to expand...

I'm torn, to be honest. I don't like the idea of government forcing anyone to do anything. This extends beyond just what they can do with their body, but also their time, money, etc. In this case, as well as pregnant women, A and B have a symbiotic relationship. How do you define when one person's body ends and another starts?

Also, starting down the road of "the government can't force anyone to do anything with their body" is a dangerous road of logic. Can the government intervene if someone is trying to commit suicide? Require immunizations to enroll in school? Prohibit physical altercations between two willing participants? Wear a seat belt? I don't have the answer of when it's okay for the government to intervene. I think most people would say that in some instances it is appropriate.
 
One Brow said:
Yes, that would be my position. The government should not force A to stay connected. How about you?
Click to expand...

The government should not force B into death. They committed no heinous crime

But damn, what a decision. Glad it’s not me making it. Pulling the plug on my dad was hard enough.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
Which point? Whether or not party A or B has any rights?
Click to expand...

The major point is that A and B are both fully alive and recognized citizens with a voice. It’s not a grey area on is twin B even a person yet.

Fetus/unborn children don’t have a voice and the “when life begins” debate is hotly contested. This isn’t the case with Twin b
 
Stoked said:
The government should not force B into death.
Click to expand...

In this scenario, the government is not forcing anything. They are giving A the right to make a choice, presumably with their own body. The choice is on person A to make the decision, which consequently will determine if B lives or dies.

I think the point of the though exercise was about what government can or cannot force someone to do with their body, even if it impacts someone else. It's not a perfect analogy for abortion.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
I'm torn, to be honest. I don't like the idea of government forcing anyone to do anything. This extends beyond just what they can do with their body, but also their time, money, etc. In this case, as well as pregnant women, A and B have a symbiotic relationship. How do you define when one person's body ends and another starts?

Also, starting down the road of "the government can't force anyone to do anything with their body" is a dangerous road of logic. Can the government intervene if someone is trying to commit suicide? Require immunizations to enroll in school? Prohibit physical altercations between two willing participants? Wear a seat belt? I don't have the answer of when it's okay for the government to intervene. I think most people would say that in some instances it is appropriate.
Click to expand...

I think that the answer to all of your questions in this paragraph should be no.
I think suicide should be legal, I don't think I should have to wear a seatbelt, I think if 2 guys both want to duke it out then they should be allowed too, I don't think vaccinations should be required (though I think you are stupid of you don't get your kids vaccinated).

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
I think that the answer to all of your questions in this paragraph should be no.
I think suicide should be legal, I don't think I should have to wear a seatbelt, I think if 2 guys both want to duke it out then they should be allowed too, I don't think vaccinations should be required (though I think you are stupid of you don't get your kids vaccinated).
Click to expand...

I find three of those (suicide, seat belts, fighting) difficult to take an unqualified position on; so many caveats are possible. However, regarding vaccinations, there is the possibility of spreading disease on the one hand, and for those who truly oppose vaccination, the possibility of homeschooling on the other. While I would not support forced vaccinations, I strongly support it as a requirement for school attendance.
 
One Brow said:
I find three of those (suicide, seat belts, fighting) difficult to take an unqualified position on; so many caveats are possible. However, regarding vaccinations, there is the possibility of spreading disease on the one hand, and for those who truly oppose vaccination, the possibility of homeschooling on the other. While I would not support forced vaccinations, I strongly support it as a requirement for school attendance.
Click to expand...
Ya the vaccinations one is the toughest for me. I would not be upset if that was mandated or, like you said, at least mandated for public school attendance.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top