Donald Trump

nickice

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

sungod

nickice said:

sungod said:

darkhairedlord said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.

the evangelical right also are mostly pro-death penalty

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

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.

note that i specifically mentioned the evangelical right, i wouldn't put the majority of observant catholics in that category

First.Aspect

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

nickice

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

nickice

sungod said:

nickice said:

sungod said:

darkhairedlord said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.

the evangelical right also are mostly pro-death penalty

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

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.

note that i specifically mentioned the evangelical right, i wouldn't put the majority of observant catholics in that category

We were talking about a catholic judge.

john80

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.

pblakeney

I'm curious. What thread is this?

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

I'm curious. What thread is this?

I think they are getting round to saying that Trump doesn't have any neurons, or something.

rjsterry

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

It may, rather than it will. I think there's a bit more to a life than merely existing. I think the argument that Life starts at conception is a bit shaky as clearly both ovum and sperm are alive before that occurs, and the potential for a human life also exists before that point. Why pick that point as a dividing line?

As for abortion being available on demand, it always has been, only now it is available legally and at greatly reduced risk to the mother.

pblakeney

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

I'm curious. What thread is this?

I think they are getting round to saying that Trump doesn't have any neurons, or something.

I’m thinking there is a glitch in the Matrix.
The blue pill is looking more and more preferable.

tangled_metal

Most embryos with serious problems miscarry do they? Hmmm! AIUI miscarriages are most likely to happen some time before implantation about 12 or 13 weeks. That's the high risk period of pregnancy and indeed it's possible to miscarry without realising you're even pregnant. However that implantation issue isn't necessarily related to embryonic issues. It is down to hormones and chemicals in the body as much as anything. We probably all know folic acid is good but there's a few other drugs and additives that help. It seems it's not just the faulty cells that are the soon to be miscarried foetus that causes it.

Serious issues I'd bet develop later on when key body parts develop but what is detected early on are the precursors, genetics, chemicals, hormones or something that indicates high risk issues that would possibly develop later on in pregnancy.

If miscarriages were related to faulty foetuses then there's a lot more of them than people realize. Most people probably know people who've miscarried but it's not talked about.

Anyway, at the stage most abortions happen it's not at a viable state outside of the woman carrying it. It's not sentient or alive on its own. I don't see how it is a special case when you can get other cells you don't want cut out. It's not alive at that stage as it can't survive on its own. Until it can it's just cells in my view.

Still great to hear from so many women, not! Patronising patriarchs giving their views. Who asked us to do that? Do we have a right? Probably, freedom of speech and all but it still doesn't make it right that AFAIK there's not been one female commenting on right to abortion on this thread. Next nickice is due to discuss whether periods are acceptable on another thread.

nickice

tangled_metal said:

Most embryos with serious problems miscarry do they? Hmmm! AIUI miscarriages are most likely to happen some time before implantation about 12 or 13 weeks. That's the high risk period of pregnancy and indeed it's possible to miscarry without realising you're even pregnant. However that implantation issue isn't necessarily related to embryonic issues. It is down to hormones and chemicals in the body as much as anything. We probably all know folic acid is good but there's a few other drugs and additives that help. It seems it's not just the faulty cells that are the soon to be miscarried foetus that causes it.

Serious issues I'd bet develop later on when key body parts develop but what is detected early on are the precursors, genetics, chemicals, hormones or something that indicates high risk issues that would possibly develop later on in pregnancy.

If miscarriages were related to faulty foetuses then there's a lot more of them than people realize. Most people probably know people who've miscarried but it's not talked about.

Anyway, at the stage most abortions happen it's not at a viable state outside of the woman carrying it. It's not sentient or alive on its own. I don't see how it is a special case when you can get other cells you don't want cut out. It's not alive at that stage as it can't survive on its own. Until it can it's just cells in my view.

Still great to hear from so many women, not! Patronising patriarchs giving their views. Who asked us to do that? Do we have a right? Probably, freedom of speech and all but it still doesn't make it right that AFAIK there's not been one female commenting on right to abortion on this thread. Next nickice is due to discuss whether periods are acceptable on another thread.

Stop deliberately misrepresenting me. I didn't say serious problem with an embryo was the only reason for miscarriages but most embryos with serious, life-threatening, problems do miscarry. And, of course, it depends what you deem a serious issue. I don't consider down syndrome a serious enough issue to warrant abortion, for example.


And to say life begins at viability makes no sense. Viability has changed in space and time so has the beginning of life? There are also people who can't survive without the aid of hospital equipment. Are they not alive?

Then you have that classic argument, of 'you're not a woman so you don't get an opinion'. What would you say to all the pro-life woman (it's funny how they never tell men they can't have an opinion).?

nickice

john80 said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.

I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.

nickice

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

It may, rather than it will. I think there's a bit more to a life than merely existing. I think the argument that Life starts at conception is a bit shaky as clearly both ovum and sperm are alive before that occurs, and the potential for a human life also exists before that point. Why pick that point as a dividing line?

As for abortion being available on demand, it always has been, only now it is available legally and at greatly reduced risk to the mother.

Because that's the moment when a zygote (new life with unique DNA is formed) Sperm are gametes.

briantrumpet

Could someone start a new thread on abortion, please, if you're going to discuss it any more?

briantrumpet

john80

nickice said:

john80 said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.

I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.

My guess is that if i came knocking for you to pay for all these unwanted kids with a special pro life tax you demanded were taken to full term against the wishes of the mother you would not be forthcoming. How many kids have you adopted to ease the burden on the state? Given it is not your body maybe give it a rest as you are not going to get elected on this ticket as most think this extreme view on abortion is plain dumb. Maybe the legally blonde argument of charging you for reckless abandonment for all sperm emission where the sperm was not seeking an egg is a good law for you to live by. Surely it is ok for others to determine how much and in what scenario you are allowed to ejaculate as after all it takes two to make a baby. Funny how most pro lifers dont make arguments around mens sperm secretion. I wonder why thst would be.

TheBigBean

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

It may, rather than it will. I think there's a bit more to a life than merely existing. I think the argument that Life starts at conception is a bit shaky as clearly both ovum and sperm are alive before that occurs, and the potential for a human life also exists before that point. Why pick that point as a dividing line?

As for abortion being available on demand, it always has been, only now it is available legally and at greatly reduced risk to the mother.

Because that's the moment when a zygote (new life with unique DNA is formed) Sperm are gametes.

At the risk of offending the thread police, sperm have unique DNA.

nickice

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

It may, rather than it will. I think there's a bit more to a life than merely existing. I think the argument that Life starts at conception is a bit shaky as clearly both ovum and sperm are alive before that occurs, and the potential for a human life also exists before that point. Why pick that point as a dividing line?

As for abortion being available on demand, it always has been, only now it is available legally and at greatly reduced risk to the mother.

Because that's the moment when a zygote (new life with unique DNA is formed) Sperm are gametes.

At the risk of offending the thread police, sperm have unique DNA.

Gamètes won't form into babies.

TheBigBean

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

It may, rather than it will. I think there's a bit more to a life than merely existing. I think the argument that Life starts at conception is a bit shaky as clearly both ovum and sperm are alive before that occurs, and the potential for a human life also exists before that point. Why pick that point as a dividing line?

As for abortion being available on demand, it always has been, only now it is available legally and at greatly reduced risk to the mother.

Because that's the moment when a zygote (new life with unique DNA is formed) Sperm are gametes.

At the risk of offending the thread police, sperm have unique DNA.

Gamètes won't form into babies.

That wasn't your argument. You explicitly stated "new DNA" . In any case, they will if they meet an egg.

orraloon

Wtf has this to do with Trump?

briantrumpet

orraloon said:

Wtf has this to do with Trump?

briantrumpet said:

Could someone start a new thread on abortion, please, if you're going to discuss it any more?

Nothing.

First.Aspect

orraloon said:

Wtf has this to do with Trump?

He's having a disproportionate influence over the supreme court.

Turns out there is no constitutional barrier to simply appointing more than 9 judges. If a blue wave goes through the senate, watch this space.

rick_chasey

Rumour is Murdoch is done with Trump and some expectation that fox will distance

briantrumpet

No reason to believe anything he says, but this does seem like an extra incentive:

https://twitter.com/sam_vinograd/status/1317301387131342848

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

orraloon said:

Wtf has this to do with Trump?

He's having a disproportionate influence over the supreme court.

Turns out there is no constitutional barrier to simply appointing more than 9 judges. If a blue wave goes through the senate, watch this space.

It does seem a flaw in the system that nine partisan appointees can have a disproportionate effect. The Republicans have gamed that (blocking Garland and ramming through the latest lifetime appointment against all their excuses for not allowing Garland), so I couldn't blame the Democrats for trying to counterbalance that, though I'm not sure where that ends if subsequent administrations keep on adding more...

DeVlaeminck

Re abortion (no apologies for discussing it on a trump thread that's how conversations go) there are competing arguments as to what is right and as there is no real way to weight them objectively people will come to different decisions. If only for that reason it's wrong to start banding about terms like misogynist when someone expresses their view because as Nick says plenty of women hold similar views to him. I remember 30 years ago writing essays on this as part of a philosophy degree and perfectly reasonable open minded people who care for others feelings and opinions can come to different conclusions.

People can have personal experience of these things which will mean their views are in turn more personal so a bit more care in how you discuss the issue is called for.

Fwiw I'm not in favour of changing current abortion laws in the UK.

nickice

john80 said:

nickice said:

john80 said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

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?

What about masturbation?

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

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 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.

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.

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?

Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?

Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.

Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.

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.

A) still less important than the life of the child

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

A okay.

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 wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.

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.

But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?

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.

Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.

Why? Serious question.

Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?

I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?

Patriarchal? In what way?

We're all just a bunch of cells really. The important thing is that if you don't terminate it, it will develop neurons (which actually develop very early on) etc.

Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.

I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.

My guess is that if i came knocking for you to pay for all these unwanted kids with a special pro life tax you demanded were taken to full term against the wishes of the mother you would not be forthcoming. How many kids have you adopted to ease the burden on the state? Given it is not your body maybe give it a rest as you are not going to get elected on this ticket as most think this extreme view on abortion is plain dumb. Maybe the legally blonde argument of charging you for reckless abandonment for all sperm emission where the sperm was not seeking an egg is a good law for you to live by. Surely it is ok for others to determine how much and in what scenario you are allowed to ejaculate as after all it takes two to make a baby. Funny how most pro lifers dont make arguments around mens sperm secretion. I wonder why thst would be.

So does a woman have the right to kill a child unless I pay for it? You haven't thought this through at all. And, as noted above, i am on favour of state support

The problem is John that there are two areas that matter: science and law. Most people don't know that much about either. Including you apparently. If you don't understand the difference between a gamète and a zygote or a zygote and a blueprint don't bother.

First.Aspect

Yeah, look, if your argument boils down to your qualifications and what you do for a living, that's not great Nick.

But look, at least you've thought about it, which is more than most people do about any given opinion. I maintain that most pro-lifers come at it from the conclusion and work back. I'm intrinsically suspicious if that conclusion is based on the Bible.

shortfall

Whenever I click on this thread it takes me to page 1 and I have to then click on the last available page to get to the new posts. Does this happen to anyone else and is there a workaround?