Donald Trump

1…262263265267268…541

Comments

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,989
    nickice wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Your opinion.


    1)Do you agree that its in the interests of society not to allow the taking of life?

    2)Do you agree that an unborn baby is alive (it becomes a new life at the moment of conception with its own unique DNA)?

    3) If you disagree with 2 (I won't do you the disservice of asking you if you agree with 1) then why not support full-term abortions (I'm assuming you don't)
    My opinion is as equally insignificant on this issue.
    Carry on if you wish, but your opinion counts for nowt.

    Way to avoid the questions...
    Quite adequate when the answers are irrelevant.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,120
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Once again? Old trick? You've picked one of those two reasons, not me. Not wanting to bring an unwanted child into the world child is just as valid a reason for an abortion in my book. If you don't agree that's fine, but no-one can ever ask you to bear the full consequences of that point of view.

    I picked it's the usual one that's brought up. If you think an unwanted pregnancy is valid reason for an abortion (which I find despicable) do you advocate full-term abortions?

    Depends on the circumstances, but I'm comfortable with the law in this country. What objection do you have against aborting a 2-week embryo beyond that there is a small chance that it will be carried to term?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Once again? Old trick? You've picked one of those two reasons, not me. Not wanting to bring an unwanted child into the world child is just as valid a reason for an abortion in my book. If you don't agree that's fine, but no-one can ever ask you to bear the full consequences of that point of view.

    I picked it's the usual one that's brought up. If you think an unwanted pregnancy is valid reason for an abortion (which I find despicable) do you advocate full-term abortions?

    Depends on the circumstances, but I'm comfortable with the law in this country. What objection do you have against aborting a 2-week embryo beyond that there is a small chance that it will be carried to term?


    What circumstances, for you, would justify a full-term abortion? An embryo is a life. That's my objection. It might die from a miscarriage but we shouldn't actively kill it. People die from illnesses but it doesn't justify killing other people.
  • cooldad
    cooldad Posts: 32,599
    An embryo is not viable outside the mother, a full term baby is. You are arguing based on emotion.

    And strawmen.
    I don't do smileys.

    There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

    London Calling on Facebook

    Parktools
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,120
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Once again? Old trick? You've picked one of those two reasons, not me. Not wanting to bring an unwanted child into the world child is just as valid a reason for an abortion in my book. If you don't agree that's fine, but no-one can ever ask you to bear the full consequences of that point of view.

    I picked it's the usual one that's brought up. If you think an unwanted pregnancy is valid reason for an abortion (which I find despicable) do you advocate full-term abortions?

    Depends on the circumstances, but I'm comfortable with the law in this country. What objection do you have against aborting a 2-week embryo beyond that there is a small chance that it will be carried to term?


    What circumstances, for you, would justify a full-term abortion? An embryo is a life. That's my objection. It might die from a miscarriage but we shouldn't actively kill it. People die from illnesses but it doesn't justify killing other people.

    An embryo is no more a life than a strawberry from a biological point of view. I don't have a particular scenario in mind but am open to the possibility. I'm fairly comfortable with euthanasia as well and where that can't be self-administered I think people should be have the assistance they need.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    cooldad wrote:
    An embryo is not viable outside the mother, a full term baby is. You are arguing based on emotion.

    And strawmen.


    Viability has changed over the years. Does that mean the beginning of life has?
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Once again? Old trick? You've picked one of those two reasons, not me. Not wanting to bring an unwanted child into the world child is just as valid a reason for an abortion in my book. If you don't agree that's fine, but no-one can ever ask you to bear the full consequences of that point of view.

    I picked it's the usual one that's brought up. If you think an unwanted pregnancy is valid reason for an abortion (which I find despicable) do you advocate full-term abortions?

    Depends on the circumstances, but I'm comfortable with the law in this country. What objection do you have against aborting a 2-week embryo beyond that there is a small chance that it will be carried to term?


    What circumstances, for you, would justify a full-term abortion? An embryo is a life. That's my objection. It might die from a miscarriage but we shouldn't actively kill it. People die from illnesses but it doesn't justify killing other people.

    An embryo is no more a life than a strawberry from a biological point of view. I don't have a particular scenario in mind but am open to the possibility. I'm fairly comfortable with euthanasia as well and where that can't be self-administered I think people should be have the assistance they need.


    It's human life not a fruit
  • cooldad
    cooldad Posts: 32,599
    nickice wrote:
    cooldad wrote:
    An embryo is not viable outside the mother, a full term baby is. You are arguing based on emotion.

    And strawmen.


    Viability has changed over the years. Does that mean the beginning of life has?

    At what point is it viable outside the mother? That's a starting point. Before that it is no more than a tumour, and any decision should be up to the host.
    I don't do smileys.

    There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

    London Calling on Facebook

    Parktools
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    cooldad wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    cooldad wrote:
    An embryo is not viable outside the mother, a full term baby is. You are arguing based on emotion.

    And strawmen.


    Viability has changed over the years. Does that mean the beginning of life has?

    At what point is it viable outside the mother? That's a starting point. Before that it is no more than a tumour, and any decision should be up to the host.

    Viability changes in time and geographic location. Your tumour comments are disgusting.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Ignorance is bliss. Keep happy in your ignorant views nickice.

    Can I ask if you're male? If so you'll never be in the position to make that choice (yes women make the choice even if they consult their partners is down to their decision). Without being in that position I would bet you have no idea what it feels like to be in the decision to be considering a termination of your pregnancy. I also wonder if you even have the degree of compassion to actually understand the issues but that's just the way you come across to me and I mean no offence by that. It's not universal being able to understand the situation of another, I have difficulty in that respect.

    Another point I have is about viability. Currently medical science has managed to get to the point where viability is possible just after the UK legal limit for termination. At that limit of science it's really a much chance as science. From talking to someone who has actually studied pregnancy from a more human & science studies rather than purely scientific angle the current science is that there is a huge hurdle to overcome in getting survivability to less than this limit. It is to do with the development of the lungs. Put simply they don't work when out of the mother at the max limit of legal termination. I also believe the nervous system isn't sufficiently developed too.

    I personally think that while it's inside the mother it's not a separate life. It's viable after a certain length of time so I believe it should not be allowed to terminate it after the potential viable date. However it is only alive and individual once outside of the mother. I certainly think up to the viability deadline it should only be the opinion of the woman carrying the foetus as to whether to terminate or not. Termination on demand everywhere and affordable for all. As easy as we can make it but with the counselling the woman really needs. That means none of those fake counselling services that are really religious campaign group funded with the sole purpose of furthering their oppressive views.

    I guess I'm polar opposite to you nickice. However I've listened to both sidea fairly and without prejudice in coming to my decision and views on termination.

    I'm also coming around to euthanasia too but that's a more difficult journey for a few reasons IMHO.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    nickice wrote:
    cooldad wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    cooldad wrote:
    An embryo is not viable outside the mother, a full term baby is. You are arguing based on emotion.

    And strawmen.


    Viability has changed over the years. Does that mean the beginning of life has?

    At what point is it viable outside the mother? That's a starting point. Before that it is no more than a tumour, and any decision should be up to the host.

    Viability changes in time and geographic location. Your tumour comments are disgusting.
    Viability isn't actually changing much for some time. Plus at the lower viability limit the development is so low that the baby is more likely to die than live. Even if it lives its long term health is likely not to be that good. So much so that medics really try to keep the baby in the mother as long as possible. Each extra day makes a huge difference.

    I've had to wait in the room with premature babies while waiting for treatment on my newborn. It's distressing to watch what the parents and baby are going through. That's at an age a significant amount further on from the limit of viability.

    Put simply it'll be a very long time before viability time drops. If / when it does I would say reduce the termination deadline to always keep it below the viability timescale. However until that happens keep the ability to get a legal termination to this date below current viability.
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    They might be relieved that if they one day need an abortion they can get one but why celebrate? They're celebrating the right that at some time in the future they can kill their babies? Horrible.

    And I have spoken to women who've had unwanted pregnancies and I disagree with their decision to have an abortion.
    Rather than making up stories about ‘speaking to women’ who have had unwanted pregnancies, tell us about the last time your life was about to be changed by an unwanted pregnancy, then you’ll be in a position to judge
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    WTF has any of this got to do with Trump being great? Can I bring biscuits into this thread? Jeez!
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,120
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Once again? Old trick? You've picked one of those two reasons, not me. Not wanting to bring an unwanted child into the world child is just as valid a reason for an abortion in my book. If you don't agree that's fine, but no-one can ever ask you to bear the full consequences of that point of view.

    I picked it's the usual one that's brought up. If you think an unwanted pregnancy is valid reason for an abortion (which I find despicable) do you advocate full-term abortions?

    Depends on the circumstances, but I'm comfortable with the law in this country. What objection do you have against aborting a 2-week embryo beyond that there is a small chance that it will be carried to term?


    What circumstances, for you, would justify a full-term abortion? An embryo is a life. That's my objection. It might die from a miscarriage but we shouldn't actively kill it. People die from illnesses but it doesn't justify killing other people.

    An embryo is no more a life than a strawberry from a biological point of view. I don't have a particular scenario in mind but am open to the possibility. I'm fairly comfortable with euthanasia as well and where that can't be self-administered I think people should be have the assistance they need.


    It's human life not a fruit
    Well, sure. So it's about more than the existence of life.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    bianchimoon wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    They might be relieved that if they one day need an abortion they can get one but why celebrate? They're celebrating the right that at some time in the future they can kill their babies? Horrible.

    And I have spoken to women who've had unwanted pregnancies and I disagree with their decision to have an abortion.
    Rather than making up stories about ‘speaking to women’ who have had unwanted pregnancies, tell us about the last time your life was about to be changed by an unwanted pregnancy, then you’ll be in a position to judge

    I don't make things up. I've known several women who've had abortions and in each case, despite having sympathy for their reasons, those reasons were less important than the life of their unborn child. Now the media talks about how 'brave' they are. The brave thing to do would be to have the child.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Ignorance is bliss. Keep happy in your ignorant views nickice.

    Can I ask if you're male? If so you'll never be in the position to make that choice (yes women make the choice even if they consult their partners is down to their decision). Without being in that position I would bet you have no idea what it feels like to be in the decision to be considering a termination of your pregnancy. I also wonder if you even have the degree of compassion to actually understand the issues but that's just the way you come across to me and I mean no offence by that. It's not universal being able to understand the situation of another, I have difficulty in that respect.

    Another point I have is about viability. Currently medical science has managed to get to the point where viability is possible just after the UK legal limit for termination. At that limit of science it's really a much chance as science. From talking to someone who has actually studied pregnancy from a more human & science studies rather than purely scientific angle the current science is that there is a huge hurdle to overcome in getting survivability to less than this limit. It is to do with the development of the lungs. Put simply they don't work when out of the mother at the max limit of legal termination. I also believe the nervous system isn't sufficiently developed too.

    I personally think that while it's inside the mother it's not a separate life. It's viable after a certain length of time so I believe it should not be allowed to terminate it after the potential viable date. However it is only alive and individual once outside of the mother. I certainly think up to the viability deadline it should only be the opinion of the woman carrying the foetus as to whether to terminate or not. Termination on demand everywhere and affordable for all. As easy as we can make it but with the counselling the woman really needs. That means none of those fake counselling services that are really religious campaign group funded with the sole purpose of furthering their oppressive views.

    I guess I'm polar opposite to you nickice. However I've listened to both sidea fairly and without prejudice in coming to my decision and views on termination.

    I'm also coming around to euthanasia too but that's a more difficult journey for a few reasons IMHO.

    I used to be massively pro-choice.

    I have empathy for the women but not so much that I support abortion. In cases of rape, it would be a grey area for me and an area I'd be willing to let the law offer a compromise. Though, I'd still rather the baby was born. Yes, I'm a man but there are plenty of pro-life women.

    I don't understand your comments regarding viability. You say it isn't a life until it's born but no abortions should be allowed after a baby is viable. If it's not a life, why not allow abortions after this point. Viability is also a massive red herring as a non-viable baby is days or weeks away from being viable.

    Ultimately, this is why women (and men) should wait until they're in a long-term relationship or married before having sex. That would cut the number of abortions performed.



    Think I'm done on this.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,989
    A collective sigh of relief.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,211
    FocusZing wrote:
    WTF has any of this got to do with Trump being great? Can I bring biscuits into this thread? Jeez!
    Because it sheds some light on the phenomenon of the Trumpanzees?
    Perhaps our tame one will start to share its views on race issues next?
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    orraloon wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    WTF has any of this got to do with Trump being great? Can I bring biscuits into this thread? Jeez!
    Because it sheds some light on the phenomenon of the Trumpanzees?
    Perhaps our tame one will start to share its views on race issues next?

    idiot.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,211
    Mwah, mwah.

    LGBT? Transgender in the military? How the while middle aged population of the US is being dicriminated against?
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    orraloon wrote:
    Mwah, mwah.

    LGBT? Transgender in the military? How the while middle aged population of the US is being dicriminated against?


    See above.
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    orraloon wrote:
    Mwah, mwah.

    LGBT? Transgender in the military? How the while middle aged population of the US is being dicriminated against?

    Age is a barrier though. If you have been around a while technology is baffling and young kids just tap tappy happy away like older people don't exist. An iphone isn't going to look after me!
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    I once read a book that made the case that a foetus is comparable to a blueprint for a building. Until it is constructed there is nothing to destroy. The UK's abortion limit is comparable to this analogy that prior to a certain time the foetus is just a blueprint of the child to follow and at some point it becomes a being able to feel and engage with the world around it.

    I am a big fan of the women's rights as if men were bearing children you can be sure that we would be more bullish about protecting our rights to freedom of choice and would not be letting others tell us what to do with our bodies. The viability that people talk about is a red herring as we could if we so chose create a machine that makes a baby viable from an inseminated egg.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    And back to reality!

    Current medical technology could not create a machine that makes a foetus that's less developed than UK maximum termination length survive. That's science fiction.

    At the moment current science knows about the development stages of the foetus and there's big stage that happens after the time that termination is no longer legal in the UK. Until that time the foetus cannot survive with current medical technologies. It is simply not a viable, living entity in its own right. If you don't like the word viable pick another bit simply put a foetus has to undergo a minimum level of development before it can survive outside of the mother. Termination happens before that time or it doesn't happen.

    Why is this a red herring? It's simple facts based on current science.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Babies can quite reasonably survive if born before 24 weeks, and their outcomes are improving drastically.

    14y ago my cousin was born at 23w and while he has some development issues, none are particularly severe. Worst thing is that his sight is bad he won't be able to drive, but I know plenty of full term adults who are in the same boat.

    22 weeks seems to be the earliest a baby can expect to survive, but what used to be survival now actually delivers remarkable outcomes.

    Some 10 year out of date research for you:

    According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.

    As for abortion, I don't care what you do, what does concern me is the mental impact on the mother in the long term especially with the self righteous brigade out to get you.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,783
    So we're agreed that Kavanaugh's views on abortion might already have been enough for two Republicans to vote no? Due to there being some disagreement in society.

    Reminder - there's been no vote, and there won't be unless McConnell has the votes, or he can't get the votes but Trump insists on finding out.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,120
    nickice wrote:
    I used to be massively pro-choice.

    I have empathy for the women but not so much that I support abortion. In cases of rape, it would be a grey area for me and an area I'd be willing to let the law offer a compromise. Though, I'd still rather the baby was born. Yes, I'm a man but there are plenty of pro-life women.

    I don't understand your comments regarding viability. You say it isn't a life until it's born but no abortions should be allowed after a baby is viable. If it's not a life, why not allow abortions after this point. Viability is also a massive red herring as a non-viable baby is days or weeks away from being viable.

    Ultimately, this is why women (and men) should wait until they're in a long-term relationship or married before having sex. That would cut the number of abortions performed.

    Can I ask what changed your mind, as you certainly seem to have the zeal of the converted?

    I'm baffled that you think access to abortion for rape victims is remotely a grey area.

    Trying to pick a single threshold at which something that is merely alive becomes A Life strikes me as a fool's errand, but that is not to say that there are points where the former would be a more accurate description than the latter.

    As for the last paragraph, hell will freeze over first.

    For all the concern about the life of the unborn child, the bit that seems to have been overlooked is what kind of life that unwanted child will have after they have been born.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Babies can quite reasonably survive if born before 24 weeks, and their outcomes are improving drastically.
    Personally I'm only aware of one person who was born significantly premature - at 20 something weeks - afaik they have nothing wrong with them - now an adult and doing well for themselves.

    Enough folk have trouble "making babies" that I'm all for medical science to assist in every way possible. The main dilemma I can see they face is if they can preserve the life of a premature baby who will have severe disabilities and potentially no quality of life - but that should be considered on a case by case basis between the doctors and the parents.
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    As for abortion, I don't care what you do, what does concern me is the mental impact on the mother in the long term especially with the self righteous brigade out to get you.
    Absolutely. If a pregnant woman requests an abortion then we should do everything we can to help her and, if appropriate, the father too.
    There are many reasons to request an abortion - from simple accidental pregnancy through to there being significant developmental problems. It's never an easy decision and there will be grief surrounding any termination.

    I can understand the Pro-Lifers, but I don't agree with them - it isn't "life come what may" - it may have significant adverse impact on the family that can be safely avoided.
    For me, personally - when we had the health checks done for Little Slowbike, one of those is for Downs Syndrome - at the time, because he was going to be our first - we didn't care - we'd deal with whatever happened. However, now - should the situation arise, we'd have to carefully consider the results - potentially getting more accurate tests done and considering the impact on the family as a whole. I'm thankful we live in the UK where we could have that choice.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Babies can quite reasonably survive if born before 24 weeks, and their outcomes are improving drastically.
    I've been talking out of my heinnie. For some reason I had it in my head 20 was the limit not 24 weeks. If I had been right about it being 20 weeks then what I typed would have been right apart from the outliers that survive on 20 weeks.

    Wonder why I thought it was 20 weeks? Perhaps it should be reduced to 20 weeks?
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    And back to reality!

    Current medical technology could not create a machine that makes a foetus that's less developed than UK maximum termination length survive. That's science fiction.

    At the moment current science knows about the development stages of the foetus and there's big stage that happens after the time that termination is no longer legal in the UK. Until that time the foetus cannot survive with current medical technologies. It is simply not a viable, living entity in its own right. If you don't like the word viable pick another bit simply put a foetus has to undergo a minimum level of development before it can survive outside of the mother. Termination happens before that time or it doesn't happen.

    Why is this a red herring? It's simple facts based on current science.

    It is only science fiction as it is unethical and there is probably not a country in the world that would allow scientists to develop or create the machine. If you look at what we can currently do through artificial insemination and what we can do for premature babies this step in the middle would not be impossible if all ethical barriers were removed. For the avoidance of doubt this does not mean it is a good idea hence why it is not currently pursued. So yes you are right there is currently no machine that does this designed and sold in the world but that does not make it impossible as that shows a complete lack of imagination as to what humans have done of similar complexity in the past.

Categories