Siamese Twins and Abortion

[*jason*]

I don't even think "Siamese twins" is an acceptable term anymore.  They would rather be called "two headed monsters" or "conjoined".

[Vas Deferens]

(04-12-2016, 02:47 PM)Benton Wrote: How does baby A kill baby B? They both have tiny little baby hands. Given that abortion in most states is only legal for the first six months or so, they probably haven't had a lot of bench time, so I don't think there's even good forearm strength there.

I guess he could kill him with kindness, but I always thought that was a metaphor.

If Baby A does kill baby B, do we file that under the republicans stand my ground law?  Or do we utilize the republican (and very christian) stance on the death penelty? 

[Donnyho]

(04-12-2016, 06:41 PM)Benton Wrote: These are Siamese twins, not tomax and xamot.

[GMDino]

[Benton]

(04-12-2016, 07:39 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: If Baby A does kill baby B, do we file that under the republicans stand my ground law?  Or do we utilize the republican (and very christian) stance on the death penelty? 

Ohhhh, or imminent domain . It's not just for building casinos anymore!

[*bfine32*]

(04-12-2016, 02:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Question for Democrats, since they seem to be the ones ok with abortion because it's a woman's choice.

Say that there's Siamese twins, and they share an organ, but twin A has a majority of it and twin B can't live without A being alive.

Would it be ok for twin A to kill twin B because B can't live without A, just as a baby can't live without the mother?  Isn't it the choice of A to live freely without the burden of B?

Extreme example, but please tell me how that logic is flawed.

I applaud your attempt to try to approach the abortion question from a different slant, but it is pretty far fetched. I will say just as in abortions; I could see the merit in choosing a less viable life over another, if the more viable life's health was in jeopardy. 

WTS, I'm out; been down this road too many times. I'll leave it to the liberals, they appear to be enjoying themselves.

[*Nately120*]

Siam no longer exists, ergo any twins from Siam (and therefore Siamese twins) are far past the age where they can be aborted.

I reject your premise!

[Rotobeast]

(04-12-2016, 03:17 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: It wasn't a goat....and I'm still a bit sore.  

Maybe he was calling you the Greatest Of All Time, but forgot to make it an acronym ?

[BFritz21]

(04-12-2016, 03:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your logic is flawed because once these twins are born they are both entitled to individual rights that another person can not take away.

In the case of abortion an unborn fetus is not an individual entitled to individual rights.  It is still a part of the mother.

A fetus is alive inside the other, and therefore entitled to rights.

It is growing and developing, can feel pain, and do many other things.

The one siamese twin can't live without the other, just as the baby can't live without it's mother.

The twins are just further along in their growth.

[Griever]

(04-12-2016, 08:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I applaud your attempt to try to approach the abortion question from a different slant, but it is pretty far fetched. I will say just as in abortions; I could see the merit in choosing a less viable life over another, if the more viable life's health was in jeopardy. 

WTS, I'm out; been down this road too many times. I'll leave it to the liberals, they appear to be enjoying themselves.

dont take your ball and go home

[Griever]

(04-13-2016, 03:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A fetus is alive inside the other, and therefore entitled to rights.

It is growing and developing, can feel pain, and do many other things.

The one siamese twin can't live without the other, just as the baby can't live without it's mother.

The twins are just further along in their growth.

the fetus is nothing more than a parasite living off of a host

[Benton]

(04-13-2016, 03:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A fetus is alive inside the other, and therefore entitled to rights.

It is growing and developing, can feel pain, and do many other things.

The one siamese twin can't live without the other, just as the baby can't live without it's mother.

The twins are just further along in their growth.

You can mechanically keep a body functioning. We're mostly autonomous responses. That doesn't make someone alive just because their kidneys and liver still work.

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-13-2016, 03:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A fetus is alive inside the other, and therefore entitled to rights.

It is growing and developing, can feel pain, and do many other things.

The one siamese twin can't live without the other, just as the baby can't live without it's mother.

The twins are just further along in their growth.

No they don't.  We don't abort, other than for extreme circumstances, after 24 weeks.  The ability for a fetus to feel pain doesn't happen until after 28 weeks.

[Griever]

[fredtoast]

(04-13-2016, 01:08 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Maybe he was calling you the Greatest Of All Time, but forgot to make it an acronym ?

"Gayest Of All Time"

[fredtoast]

(04-13-2016, 03:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A fetus is alive inside the other, and therefore entitled to rights.

No it is not.

This is the basis for the entire argument.  The fetus is not an individual and therefore not entitled to individual rights that are superior to those of the mother.

I fully understand why you might have a different opinion, but you can't just say that something is correct because it is your opinion. 

[Benton]

Besides, you can't kill Siamese twins. Whenever you cut one head off, two more grow back.

[Griever]

(04-13-2016, 12:31 PM)Benton Wrote: Besides, you can't kill Siamese twins. Whenever you cut one head off, two more grow back.

dude

thats' a Hydra

#checkyofacts

[BFritz21]

(04-13-2016, 10:10 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: No they don't.  We don't abort, other than for extreme circumstances, after 24 weeks.  The ability for a fetus to feel pain doesn't happen until after 28 weeks.

(04-13-2016, 11:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No it is not.

This is the basis for the entire argument.  The fetus is not an individual and therefore not entitled to individual rights that are superior to those of the mother.

I fully understand why you might have a different opinion, but you can't just say that something is correct because it is your opinion. 

If it is growing and evolving, then how can you say that it's just a glob of cells?

The second that an egg is fertilized, it begins growing and evolving, so how can you say that it's not living?

[Belsnickel]

(04-13-2016, 02:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If it is growing and evolving, then how can you say that it's just a glob of cells?

The second that an egg is fertilized, it begins growing and evolving, so how can you say that it's not living?

Neither one of them said it isn't living.