Donald Trump
Comments
-
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?0 -
And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?1 -
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.0 -
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?0 -
-
For clarity though, I don't find the other extreme of the argument any more persuasive. You would not be willing to allow the killing of a newborn baby irrespective of any of the conditions you have listed. Doubtlessly you wouldn't be willing to allow it at 30 weeks either, so in the end, everyone just has a different interpretation of when the foetus is considered to be alive. Nearly everyone is pro life, nearly everyone is pro choice, they just don't agree whether something is alive.First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?0 -
Or personal freedom, tbh.rick_chasey said:Curious how this marries up with the attitude towards the old re corona.
0 -
I life begins at conception. A sperm is not a new life. A zygote is.TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?0 -
I didn't say let's euthanise the old but I did say that, at some point, people will start asking questions and a demagogue may appear.kingstongraham said:
Or personal freedom, tbh.rick_chasey said:Curious how this marries up with the attitude towards the old re corona.
If someone said parents should be able to kill their children because of personal freedom I'd find that insane. I feel the same way about unborn children.1 -
How interesting. Not. A bunch of males arguing over womens' rights.1
-
And in comes the other extreme which is no less ridiculous than nickice's view.orraloon said:How interesting. Not. A bunch of males arguing over womens' rights.
It is a pointless debate though you are right about that.0 -
😉 I'm a male. So my job as is case for all males is to deliver the sperm in a manner where one makes it all the way. Then that's it, job done, xxxx off you are now unnecessary, and stop that bleating as well. Life innit.0
-
First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
0 -
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?0 -
Think of a feotus as a set of blueprints for a building on day 1 of conception and then it being a completed building at the moment of delivery. Any sensible abortion law seeks to balance the clear right of the mother over the blueprint on day one and the clear rights of the baby at the moment of delivery. I think the 24 week rule is pretty pragmatic. It gives the mother plenty of time to have a think about the path they are on and whether this is the right path. If there was no emotion involved or stigma associated with abandoning babies in hospital i wonder how many babies and the poor outcomes they will suffer through the care system it takes for the anti abortion proponents to see the flaw in their argument as it gets further away from delivery.nickice said:
Yes I'm so anti-women that I'd prefer that they weren't killed before birth.darkhairedlord said:
ACB is an enabler for men to hold dominion over women. NickIce thinks this is how it should be...rick_chasey said:I guess we should know the context of Nick's own views; he is opposed to abortion and thinks it's within the gov'ts rights to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
0 -
The Trump Show was a decent watch tonight.
Happy memories of The Mooch. Gone too soon...0 -
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.0 -
0
-
kingstongraham said:
Mental acuity candidate:
That's the sort of response you'd give when weighing up which of your lies is going to be worst.0 -
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.0 -
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
0 -
the evangelical right also are mostly pro-death penaltydarkhairedlord said:
And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
it betrays their true nature, those holding that position are not pro-life, they are pro-vengeance, they simply want the power to control and punish others, morally they are on the same level as isis
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny1 -
Catholics (like Amy Coney Barrett) are usually anti-death penalty and pro-life. I disagree with the right to bear arms but it hardly means you're pro killing.sungod said:
the evangelical right also are mostly pro-death penaltydarkhairedlord said:
And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
it betrays their true nature, those holding that position are not pro-life, they are pro-vengeance, they simply want the power to control and punish others, morally they are on the same level as isis0 -
What about this lot??nickice said:
Catholics (like Amy Coney Barrett) are usually anti-death penalty.sungod said:
the evangelical right also are mostly pro-death penaltydarkhairedlord said:
And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
it betrays their true nature, those holding that position are not pro-life, they are pro-vengeance, they simply want the power to control and punish others, morally they are on the same level as isis
0 -
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/project_blog/amy-coney-barrett-and-the-death-penalty/
she does appear to be against the death penalty "Judge Barrett clarified that she would not be willing to enter an order of execution if she were a trial judge, but she would be willing to affirm a death sentence at the appellate level. "
Doesn't this confirm though that her faith does colour her judgment rather than just following the law as written?0 -
I don't think so. If judges are given the discretion as to whether to impose the death penalty then she would be following the law in not imposing it. In other words, the law gives her the right to use her own discretion.elbowloh said:https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/project_blog/amy-coney-barrett-and-the-death-penalty/
she does appear to be against the death penalty "Judge Barrett clarified that she would not be willing to enter an order of execution if she were a trial judge, but she would be willing to affirm a death sentence at the appellate level. "
Doesn't this confirm though that her faith does colour her judgment rather than just following the law as written?0 -
I've met a lot of Catholics that are not very Christian in their views on a lot of things, it's a badge they wear then it suits them and nothing more.nickice said:
Catholics (like Amy Coney Barrett) are usually anti-death penalty and pro-life. I disagree with the right to bear arms but it hardly means you're pro killing.sungod said:
the evangelical right also are mostly pro-death penaltydarkhairedlord said:
And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
it betrays their true nature, those holding that position are not pro-life, they are pro-vengeance, they simply want the power to control and punish others, morally they are on the same level as isis0 -
I wouldn't disagree with that ( and aren't all religious people a bit like that). It is however, the current teaching of the Catholic church to be pro-life and anti-death penalty. If a catholic is the opposite of either of them, it's probably not on the basis of their faith (though you can often find justification for anything in religion)veronese68 said:
I've met a lot of Catholics that are not very Christian in their views on a lot of things, it's a badge they wear then it suits them and nothing more.nickice said:
Catholics (like Amy Coney Barrett) are usually anti-death penalty and pro-life. I disagree with the right to bear arms but it hardly means you're pro killing.sungod said:
the evangelical right also are mostly pro-death penaltydarkhairedlord said:
And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
it betrays their true nature, those holding that position are not pro-life, they are pro-vengeance, they simply want the power to control and punish others, morally they are on the same level as isis0 -
Completely agree, hardly unique to Catholics. Having been brought up as such and been schooled as one I've just seen more of it.0
-
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.0
