Donald Trump
Comments
-
Well said.DeVlaeminck said: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.1 -
Loginshortfall said: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?
0 -
I am0
-
tough, you'll just have to live with other opinions than your ownnickice said:
We were talking about a catholic judge.sungod said:
note that i specifically mentioned the evangelical right, i wouldn't put the majority of observant catholics in that categorynickice said:
Catholics (like Amy Coney Barrett) are usually anti-death penalty and pro-life. I disagree with the right to bear arms but it hardly means you're pro killing.sungod said:
the evangelical right also are mostly pro-death penaltydarkhairedlord said:
And yet most anti-choice "pro-life" are also pro-gun too.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
it betrays their true nature, those holding that position are not pro-life, they are pro-vengeance, they simply want the power to control and punish others, morally they are on the same level as isismy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Although I have just noticed after making (I think) my first post in the thread it brought me straight to the last post read, so problem solved.0
-
It is for the best that you haven't had to read all 400 pages.shortfall said:Although I have just noticed after making (I think) my first post in the thread it brought me straight to the last post read, so problem solved.
1 -
I'm not a scientist and I don't do any legal research on abortion (though obviously I have an interest in it). I just think that if someone is going to dismiss your arguments as extreme and dumb, they ought to know a bit about what they're talking about.First.Aspect said: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.
If someone wants to disagree with me, fine but it would be better if they actually engaged with the argument rather than accusations of misogyny etc.1 -
You are a non-scientist doing illegal abortion research?😱nickice said:
I'm not a scientist and I don't do any legal research on abortion (though obviously I have an interest in it). I just think that if someone is going to dismiss your arguments as extreme and dumb, they ought to know a bit about what they're talking about.First.Aspect said: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.
If someone wants to disagree with me, fine but it would be better if they actually engaged with the argument rather than accusations of misogyny etc.4 -
He's a monster....surrey_commuter said:
You are a non-scientist doing illegal abortion research?😱nickice said:
I'm not a scientist and I don't do any legal research on abortion (though obviously I have an interest in it). I just think that if someone is going to dismiss your arguments as extreme and dumb, they ought to know a bit about what they're talking about.First.Aspect said: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.
If someone wants to disagree with me, fine but it would be better if they actually engaged with the argument rather than accusations of misogyny etc.0 -
I must say I'm intrigued by the idea that people definitively are or are not scientists. As a member of a protected profession, I know what that looks like, and to the best of my knowledge there is no such thing for scientists.surrey_commuter said:
You are a non-scientist doing illegal abortion research?😱nickice said:
I'm not a scientist and I don't do any legal research on abortion (though obviously I have an interest in it). I just think that if someone is going to dismiss your arguments as extreme and dumb, they ought to know a bit about what they're talking about.First.Aspect said: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.
If someone wants to disagree with me, fine but it would be better if they actually engaged with the argument rather than accusations of misogyny etc.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
It depends on the context but political science and public health would be outwith the dictionary définition. I think when people here someone say they're a scientist then talk about an area of science, they assume they're an expert. There are people on both sides of the Covid debate guilty of holding themselves out as experts.rjsterry said:
I must say I'm intrigued by the idea that people definitively are or are not scientists. As a member of a protected profession, I know what that looks like, and to the best of my knowledge there is no such thing for scientists.surrey_commuter said:
You are a non-scientist doing illegal abortion research?😱nickice said:
I'm not a scientist and I don't do any legal research on abortion (though obviously I have an interest in it). I just think that if someone is going to dismiss your arguments as extreme and dumb, they ought to know a bit about what they're talking about.First.Aspect said: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.
If someone wants to disagree with me, fine but it would be better if they actually engaged with the argument rather than accusations of misogyny etc.
0 -
Fair cop that.TheBigBean said:
That wasn't your argument. You explicitly stated "new DNA" . In any case, they will if they meet an egg.nickice said:
Gamètes won't form into babies.TheBigBean said:
At the risk of offending the thread police, sperm have unique DNA.nickice said:
Because that's the moment when a zygote (new life with unique DNA is formed) Sperm are gametes.rjsterry said:
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?nickice said:First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
Patriarchal? In what way?First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
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.
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.
Sperm contains 23 chromosomes, can't reproduce and all its DNA comes from the father.
A zygote contains 46 chromosomes, can reproduce and is a unique mixture of DNA from both father and mother.
I don't think that the Bill Hicks argument has ever really been used in serious debate, though it was funny.0 -
If you dont want to pay for it and bring it up then yes maybe you should shut the fuck up about what the woman does with her body and an unborn child. I notice you sidestepped the questions.nickice said:john80 said:
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.nickice said:
I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.john80 said:
Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
Patriarchal? In what way?First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
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.
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.0 -
What questions? No, I haven't adopted any children but, as you might not know, there is no lack of demand especially from those who want to adopt babies. And for the large majority of women, who aren't forced into having sex, there are quite a lot of very easy ways to avoid getting pregnant.john80 said:
If you dont want to pay for it and bring it up then yes maybe you should shut the censored up about what the woman does with her body and an unborn child. I notice you sidestepped the questions.nickice said:john80 said:
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.nickice said:
I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.john80 said:
Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
Patriarchal? In what way?First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
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.
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.
My point, which you have missed (swearing was inappropriate in this case by the way) was that if you believe an unborn child to have the same rights as one who has been born, there is no difference between the killing of an unborn child and a child. That's the key. I don't think anybody would agree that a woman has the right to commit infanticide and if her excuse was that I, or anyone else, didn't pay for the upkeep of the child, that wouldn't hold any water. But, as I said above, I have no real problems with state support. Maybe it could be more focused and localised but, in principle, it's not something I'm against.
You can disagree about when life begins (by the way I've already answered your question about sperm when I was talking to bigbean but , I have to admit, I assumed you were joking as your arguments looked like a Bill Hicks bit I saw a while ago), that's fine. But, maybe , you should actually make some points on that rather than becoming aggressive.
This is my problem, John; You come wading in telling me to shut the bleep up but you haven't really thought through your position. It's not as if I haven't heard or rebutted your arguments a hundred times before.1 -
Even if the money was there to support them...
Not sure state raised unwanted kids is a particularly desirable outcome compared to early termination.
I accept that defining early is the point of contention.0 -
Nice try to get back on topic. I think it's a losing battle though. I understand that things go off topic but when it's pages and pages then surely it's worth someone starting a new thread to discuss?rick_chasey said:Still no sign of polls tightening.
Presumably explains the rush to appoint this judge0 -
Just send them to Eton. Tried and tested solution to unwanted children.morstar said:Even if the money was there to support them...
Not sure state raised unwanted kids is a particularly desirable outcome compared to early termination.
I accept that defining early is the point of contention.0 -
SpennyFirst.Aspect said:
Just send them to Eton. Tried and tested solution to unwanted children.morstar said:Even if the money was there to support them...
Not sure state raised unwanted kids is a particularly desirable outcome compared to early termination.
I accept that defining early is the point of contention.0 -
I am going to hazard a guess that you are in the minority in the camp that believes an unborn child has the same rights as an actual child that has left the mother and been born. You are arguing that the unborn child has the rights of a child at any stage in the 9 month period from your comments. It is you that is dancing on a pin with this position. The 26 week limit is a pragmatic solution to appease a vocal minority of pro lifers and give women an essential service. I take the approach that it is the mothers views that are my interest until the baby is born. If she wants a termination then it is one less mouth on the planet to feed, educate teach to become a good person as lets face it if you want to terminate the child it is questionable how invested you are in the next 18 years of graft. For the record there is no demand for foster babies given the ad campaigns round our way begging for foster parents and adoptors and they will even pay you for the rile as a parent. This would strongly indicate that there is a surplus of babies looking for a home. Current levels of children in care would also support that relationship.nickice said:
What questions? No, I haven't adopted any children but, as you might not know, there is no lack of demand especially from those who want to adopt babies. And for the large majority of women, who aren't forced into having sex, there are quite a lot of very easy ways to avoid getting pregnant.john80 said:
If you dont want to pay for it and bring it up then yes maybe you should shut the censored up about what the woman does with her body and an unborn child. I notice you sidestepped the questions.nickice said:john80 said:
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.nickice said:
I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.john80 said:
Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
Patriarchal? In what way?First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
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.
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.
My point, which you have missed (swearing was inappropriate in this case by the way) was that if you believe an unborn child to have the same rights as one who has been born, there is no difference between the killing of an unborn child and a child. That's the key. I don't think anybody would agree that a woman has the right to commit infanticide and if her excuse was that I, or anyone else, didn't pay for the upkeep of the child, that wouldn't hold any water. But, as I said above, I have no real problems with state support. Maybe it could be more focused and localised but, in principle, it's not something I'm against.
You can disagree about when life begins (by the way I've already answered your question about sperm when I was talking to bigbean but , I have to admit, I assumed you were joking as your arguments looked like a Bill Hicks bit I saw a while ago), that's fine. But, maybe , you should actually make some points on that rather than becoming aggressive.
This is my problem, John; You come wading in telling me to shut the bleep up but you haven't really thought through your position. It's not as if I haven't heard or rebutted your arguments a hundred times before.0 -
Any reason we're not spinning this off into a separate thread? It almost makes me want to be a moderator...0
-
John, once again I don't think you've though this through. You've cooled off now though so that's a positive.john80 said:
I am going to hazard a guess that you are in the minority in the camp that believes an unborn child has the same rights as an actual child that has left the mother and been born. You are arguing that the unborn child has the rights of a child at any stage in the 9 month period from your comments. It is you that is dancing on a pin with this position. The 26 week limit is a pragmatic solution to appease a vocal minority of pro lifers and give women an essential service. I take the approach that it is the mothers views that are my interest until the baby is born. If she wants a termination then it is one less mouth on the planet to feed, educate teach to become a good person as lets face it if you want to terminate the child it is questionable how invested you are in the next 18 years of graft. For the record there is no demand for foster babies given the ad campaigns round our way begging for foster parents and adoptors and they will even pay you for the rile as a parent. This would strongly indicate that there is a surplus of babies looking for a home. Current levels of children in care would also support that relationship.nickice said:
What questions? No, I haven't adopted any children but, as you might not know, there is no lack of demand especially from those who want to adopt babies. And for the large majority of women, who aren't forced into having sex, there are quite a lot of very easy ways to avoid getting pregnant.john80 said:
If you dont want to pay for it and bring it up then yes maybe you should shut the censored up about what the woman does with her body and an unborn child. I notice you sidestepped the questions.nickice said:john80 said:
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.nickice said:
I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.john80 said:
Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
Patriarchal? In what way?First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
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.
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.
My point, which you have missed (swearing was inappropriate in this case by the way) was that if you believe an unborn child to have the same rights as one who has been born, there is no difference between the killing of an unborn child and a child. That's the key. I don't think anybody would agree that a woman has the right to commit infanticide and if her excuse was that I, or anyone else, didn't pay for the upkeep of the child, that wouldn't hold any water. But, as I said above, I have no real problems with state support. Maybe it could be more focused and localised but, in principle, it's not something I'm against.
You can disagree about when life begins (by the way I've already answered your question about sperm when I was talking to bigbean but , I have to admit, I assumed you were joking as your arguments looked like a Bill Hicks bit I saw a while ago), that's fine. But, maybe , you should actually make some points on that rather than becoming aggressive.
This is my problem, John; You come wading in telling me to shut the bleep up but you haven't really thought through your position. It's not as if I haven't heard or rebutted your arguments a hundred times before.
Have you stopped to consider some other ramifications of what you're saying? The implication being that abortion should be allowed right up until the moment of birth. Do you agree with that? It would be barbaric and, quite frankly, would not have the support of many people but, if you support it, it'd be consistent.
Come to think of it, have you ever thought about when life begins?
And if 'one less mouth to feed' is really the most important thing, where's the moral wrong in murder? In fact, maybe you could reply to my previous point as to why mothers aren't allowed to kill their children? All the arguments you make could be made for children that have been born. If a mother kills a one-month old is that really so different to killing a near-term baby?
I believe you're, even though you perhaps don't mean it, making a point like an environmentalist. There's nothing wrong with environmentalism per se (I probably am somewhat that way inclined myself) but not when it overtakes humanity.
And, like I said, there are many couples who want to adopt but there are hoops to jump through and it's much more difficult to adopt a baby than an older child.
But none of the arguments, and I mean really none of them, justify taking a life.1 -
It was only relatively recently that they got even close to cross over in time between what week abortions are allowed to and the earliest stage of pregnancy that a foetus/ baby can survive premature birth. However that early stage most don't survive. I think medical science believes the limit has just about been reached because that stage is related to when the lungs have just developed enough. So basically abortion stage is not viable as a separate living entity.nickice said:
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.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.
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).?
People surviving only with medical aid is different because I assume they were living before needing assistance or at least able to survive with that medical assistance you're thinking of. The foetus at legal abortion limit is basically extremely unlikely to survive with even the best medical assistance.
I did not make any reference to gender restrictions on who can comment so why make that pointless comment again? I only made the point that afaik there's been no input from females. Do you not think it's bad that there's been no comments from women? I can easily believe this forum is populated by mostly men but surely there's a few women on here? Why no comment? Do you suspect, as I do, that any woman poster on this forum will probably not feel "safe" commenting on this topic based on what's been said si far about this topic?0 -
Peeps. Gonnae stop this shite anytime soon. This is the Orange Khunt's thread, show some respect to Covfefe man.0
-
OK, quickfire response.tangled_metal said:
It was only relatively recently that they got even close to cross over in time between what week abortions are allowed to and the earliest stage of pregnancy that a foetus/ baby can survive premature birth. However that early stage most don't survive. I think medical science believes the limit has just about been reached because that stage is related to when the lungs have just developed enough. So basically abortion stage is not viable as a separate living entity.nickice said:
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.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.
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).?
People surviving only with medical aid is different because I assume they were living before needing assistance or at least able to survive with that medical assistance you're thinking of. The foetus at legal abortion limit is basically extremely unlikely to survive with even the best medical assistance.
I did not make any reference to gender restrictions on who can comment so why make that pointless comment again? I only made the point that afaik there's been no input from females. Do you not think it's bad that there's been no comments from women? I can easily believe this forum is populated by mostly men but surely there's a few women on here? Why no comment? Do you suspect, as I do, that any woman poster on this forum will probably not feel "safe" commenting on this topic based on what's been said si far about this topic?
1) You're equating viability with life. Whatever the limit is for abortions (and, by the way, it goes way beyond viability is some cases) is irrelevant. Previously, babies wouldn't have survived if born at say, 24 weeks, but now they have a good chance of doing so. Are you suggesting that babies born at 24 weeks 100 years ago weren't alive but now they are?
2) Since when was previously being viable one of your arguments? You've just added this in retroactively to try and make your point. Poor form. Most premature babies aren't really viable in the sense that they don't need a few days or weeks of round-the-clock medical care.
3) "Patronising patriarchs giving their views. " "Next nickice is due to discuss whether periods are acceptable on another thread"
"I did not make any reference to gender restrictions on who can comment so why make that pointless comment again?"
Do you even read your own comments before posting?1 -
It was not that long ago you were arguing in the coronavirus topic that less measures were the answer. Bit inconsistent with your extreme feelings about taking a life. Top class trolling so chapeau.nickice said:
John, once again I don't think you've though this through. You've cooled off now though so that's a positive.john80 said:
I am going to hazard a guess that you are in the minority in the camp that believes an unborn child has the same rights as an actual child that has left the mother and been born. You are arguing that the unborn child has the rights of a child at any stage in the 9 month period from your comments. It is you that is dancing on a pin with this position. The 26 week limit is a pragmatic solution to appease a vocal minority of pro lifers and give women an essential service. I take the approach that it is the mothers views that are my interest until the baby is born. If she wants a termination then it is one less mouth on the planet to feed, educate teach to become a good person as lets face it if you want to terminate the child it is questionable how invested you are in the next 18 years of graft. For the record there is no demand for foster babies given the ad campaigns round our way begging for foster parents and adoptors and they will even pay you for the rile as a parent. This would strongly indicate that there is a surplus of babies looking for a home. Current levels of children in care would also support that relationship.nickice said:
What questions? No, I haven't adopted any children but, as you might not know, there is no lack of demand especially from those who want to adopt babies. And for the large majority of women, who aren't forced into having sex, there are quite a lot of very easy ways to avoid getting pregnant.john80 said:
If you dont want to pay for it and bring it up then yes maybe you should shut the censored up about what the woman does with her body and an unborn child. I notice you sidestepped the questions.nickice said:john80 said:
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.nickice said:
I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.john80 said:
Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
Patriarchal? In what way?First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
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.
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.
My point, which you have missed (swearing was inappropriate in this case by the way) was that if you believe an unborn child to have the same rights as one who has been born, there is no difference between the killing of an unborn child and a child. That's the key. I don't think anybody would agree that a woman has the right to commit infanticide and if her excuse was that I, or anyone else, didn't pay for the upkeep of the child, that wouldn't hold any water. But, as I said above, I have no real problems with state support. Maybe it could be more focused and localised but, in principle, it's not something I'm against.
You can disagree about when life begins (by the way I've already answered your question about sperm when I was talking to bigbean but , I have to admit, I assumed you were joking as your arguments looked like a Bill Hicks bit I saw a while ago), that's fine. But, maybe , you should actually make some points on that rather than becoming aggressive.
This is my problem, John; You come wading in telling me to shut the bleep up but you haven't really thought through your position. It's not as if I haven't heard or rebutted your arguments a hundred times before.
Have you stopped to consider some other ramifications of what you're saying? The implication being that abortion should be allowed right up until the moment of birth. Do you agree with that? It would be barbaric and, quite frankly, would not have the support of many people but, if you support it, it'd be consistent.
Come to think of it, have you ever thought about when life begins?
And if 'one less mouth to feed' is really the most important thing, where's the moral wrong in murder? In fact, maybe you could reply to my previous point as to why mothers aren't allowed to kill their children? All the arguments you make could be made for children that have been born. If a mother kills a one-month old is that really so different to killing a near-term baby?
I believe you're, even though you perhaps don't mean it, making a point like an environmentalist. There's nothing wrong with environmentalism per se (I probably am somewhat that way inclined myself) but not when it overtakes humanity.
And, like I said, there are many couples who want to adopt but there are hoops to jump through and it's much more difficult to adopt a baby than an older child.
But none of the arguments, and I mean really none of them, justify taking a life.
I actually believe the current legislation is pragmatic and strikes an important balance. I would like to see you make the case that killing a child after the birth is the same as pre birth. It will be about as convincing as your view that killing a zygote is killing a child.
Maybe you can answer the conundrum as to why there are so many kids in care when there is so many people you claim wanting to adopt kids. Go on admit it there is no surplus of loving parents banging on the doors of adoption agencies and you claims are baseless.
0 -
Quite right too, it's not as though trump hasn't paid for an abortion in past so I'm not too sure why the fuss on here. He wants the judge so he will look good to his base, not because he agrees their stance.orraloon said:Peeps. Gonnae stop this shite anytime soon. This is the Orange Khunt's thread, show some respect to Covfefe man.
0 -
Patriarchs giving their views isn't saying you can't give your views just that you're male and giving your views was if you had a choice in deciding on rights to have an abortion. You do know about periods and the patriarchal society treating that natural biological process that's effectively part of the set of processes related to reproduction as unclean, women are unclean when having them. A part of control in patriarchal societies is about natural processes of the female body. Would you care to give your views on periods along with your views on abortion?
Unfortunately viability does play a part in decisions quite rightly. I believe it isn't right to affect the life of the woman carrying the foetus she doesn't want when it's not even viable. As it moves into a development stage when it is viable then I believe it's different. It's why n the the reduced to where it is AIUI. Until viable I don't see it as much more than a potential for life. Life is what happens outside the womb IMHO if it's viable outside the womb it should be protected, until then it's just cells. Cells die and are killed by medical procedures a lot. Abortion is just a medical procedure to help the woman who has a need for it. Pregnancy is not easy, labour is not easy, it's quite understandable that if you're not in a position to accept it you should not be forced to accept it if there's a legal way not to.
ou and I will never agree on that nickife, but it's not our role to change or defend that existing right to choice. It's down to others in courts such as the US SC. However loading the judiciary with bias or expected bias isn't justice it's politicising courts on behalf of pro life. Simply wrong IMHO. But of course the same sorts of bias could affect many other matters such as the acceptance of election results.
Anyway there's no point discussing this because we don't hold the same views and discussions will basically circle the drain until we all get bored with disagreeing. Is there any more news of Mr President who's been tangoed? What's he been up to or tweeting?0 -
John, if I argue for fewer measures it's not because I want to actively kill people but I accept there is a balance between civil liberties/the economy/health. I'm not advocating euthanasia. That's pretty desperate and disingenuous on your part as you have also been advocating fewer measures and would (rightly) get annoyed at people claiming you just didn't care about people.john80 said:
It was not that long ago you were arguing in the coronavirus topic that less measures were the answer. Bit inconsistent with your extreme feelings about taking a life. Top class trolling so chapeau.nickice said:
John, once again I don't think you've though this through. You've cooled off now though so that's a positive.john80 said:
I am going to hazard a guess that you are in the minority in the camp that believes an unborn child has the same rights as an actual child that has left the mother and been born. You are arguing that the unborn child has the rights of a child at any stage in the 9 month period from your comments. It is you that is dancing on a pin with this position. The 26 week limit is a pragmatic solution to appease a vocal minority of pro lifers and give women an essential service. I take the approach that it is the mothers views that are my interest until the baby is born. If she wants a termination then it is one less mouth on the planet to feed, educate teach to become a good person as lets face it if you want to terminate the child it is questionable how invested you are in the next 18 years of graft. For the record there is no demand for foster babies given the ad campaigns round our way begging for foster parents and adoptors and they will even pay you for the rile as a parent. This would strongly indicate that there is a surplus of babies looking for a home. Current levels of children in care would also support that relationship.nickice said:
What questions? No, I haven't adopted any children but, as you might not know, there is no lack of demand especially from those who want to adopt babies. And for the large majority of women, who aren't forced into having sex, there are quite a lot of very easy ways to avoid getting pregnant.john80 said:
If you dont want to pay for it and bring it up then yes maybe you should shut the censored up about what the woman does with her body and an unborn child. I notice you sidestepped the questions.nickice said:john80 said:
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.nickice said:
I'm talking about human life, John. Either it matters or it doesn't.john80 said:
Have a word with yourself. Do you not walk on grass in case the worms get crushed.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
Patriarchal? In what way?First.Aspect said:
Its just a bit patriarchal isn't it?nickice said:
Why? Serious question.First.Aspect said:
Mmm. I'm really a bit alarmed this is a view in 2020 to be honest.nickice said:
Most embryos that have serious problems miscarry. A tiny minority of embryos with serious, life-threatening issues make it to full term. Yes, it's very sad, and I wouldn't want it to happen to my family but nobody ever says they want abortion legalised for only these rare situations. I still wouldn't support it but it must be awful for the family. If you believe life begins at conception then it would be the equivalent of a parent killing a severely disabled child after birth and I can't support that. I also think this is an area where the state could do much better in terms of support for families.First.Aspect said:
But you DO have an answer to these complex situations don't you?nickice said:
I wasn't offended it was just you took a very serious tone followed by a flippant comment.First.Aspect said:
A okay.nickice said:First.Aspect said:
What about masturbation?TheBigBean said:
How do you feel about contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus? What about contraception in general which may mean than one more sperm dies?nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
A) still less important than the life of the childFirst.Aspect said:
Your answer suggests that the value of life diminishes the further one is through it.nickice said:
Yes. If we made exceptions it would hardly be pro-life.First.Aspect said:
What are your views when there is (a) conception via rape (b) likelihood of fatality due to conception (c) evidence if severe abnormalities in a foetus?nickice said:
I certainly wouldn't go around shouting 'baby murderers' as I think most people are victims of pro-abortion campaigning and non-science. And I wouldn't do that anyway.TheBigBean said:I dislike the extreme positions taken in the abortion debate because neither side seems capable of considering the other's views which results in woman haters vs murderers.
I understand all the arguments from the other side but in each case the right to life trumps all of them (as is also common in Human Rights laws). Well, I don't understand the women hater one. That has always seemed nonsensical to me.
Does the "right to life" Donald all in these cases?
The potential additional trauma of (a) could be irrevocable, through no fault of the mother. (b) mother = dead, which also seems to preclude any further "life", btw (c) rest of life of mother and family irrevocably compromised. And if you disagree, bluntly, you are wrong. I have experienced the consequences of (c) first hand, including watching my parents tell them to turn the machine off.
It is naive to imagine that a blanket and simplistic "pro-life" approach would cause anything other than colossal and unreasonable suffering to someone who is already alive, under some circumstances. So I refer back to my statement that it is a simple (and wrong) answer to a complicated question.
C- = try harder.
b) your question wasn't clear. I'd allow abortion if the mother was going to die as the baby would die anyway.
C) A life can still have value even if short. Maybe I've got some personal stuff that hardened my pro-life stance. I choose not to share it on here.
And don't expect me to take you seriously considering what you posted just after the above comment
B question was more about a mother knowing she was going to die and the early stage foetus may or may not survive. For example, someone who is both pregnant and has a cancer diagnosis.
C true, but faced with the decision at, say 8 weeks, I don't think any rational person would go through it. Trust me, unless you see it first hand you can't possibly appreciate the enormity of looking after a person who will never know who you are. It completely hollows a parent out. The risk completely put me off having kids. It is incomparably cruel hearted to deprive someone of the choice to avoid that, or be critical of anyone who does.
I don't think there's much doubt about when life occurs in this context. Or that 30 weeks is horrifyingly late. And I can understand, even though I don't agree with, the sentiment that getting pregnant by accident followed by an abortion shouldn't be allowed. But then we are at the difficult answers to difficult questions stage, whereas pro life under all circumstances at any point post conception is a simplistic answer to a difficult question.
Was it the masturbation comment or your C- thay offended you, btw Nick?
I know there are difficult situations regarding abortion and I know I don't have all the answers for them. My default position is that it's better to let a baby be born than not. Extreme cases are often used as a justification for abortion on demand (which is what we effectively have now up until the limit)
It's the same with euthanasia. My parents (both NHS workers) told me that used to happen all the time for people who were suffering at the end of their lives. Sometimes that kind of thing has to happen in the shadows as legalising it would set a precedent.
I mean, if we talking a bag of cells without a neuron in sight, what's it really about?
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.
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.
My point, which you have missed (swearing was inappropriate in this case by the way) was that if you believe an unborn child to have the same rights as one who has been born, there is no difference between the killing of an unborn child and a child. That's the key. I don't think anybody would agree that a woman has the right to commit infanticide and if her excuse was that I, or anyone else, didn't pay for the upkeep of the child, that wouldn't hold any water. But, as I said above, I have no real problems with state support. Maybe it could be more focused and localised but, in principle, it's not something I'm against.
You can disagree about when life begins (by the way I've already answered your question about sperm when I was talking to bigbean but , I have to admit, I assumed you were joking as your arguments looked like a Bill Hicks bit I saw a while ago), that's fine. But, maybe , you should actually make some points on that rather than becoming aggressive.
This is my problem, John; You come wading in telling me to shut the bleep up but you haven't really thought through your position. It's not as if I haven't heard or rebutted your arguments a hundred times before.
Have you stopped to consider some other ramifications of what you're saying? The implication being that abortion should be allowed right up until the moment of birth. Do you agree with that? It would be barbaric and, quite frankly, would not have the support of many people but, if you support it, it'd be consistent.
Come to think of it, have you ever thought about when life begins?
And if 'one less mouth to feed' is really the most important thing, where's the moral wrong in murder? In fact, maybe you could reply to my previous point as to why mothers aren't allowed to kill their children? All the arguments you make could be made for children that have been born. If a mother kills a one-month old is that really so different to killing a near-term baby?
I believe you're, even though you perhaps don't mean it, making a point like an environmentalist. There's nothing wrong with environmentalism per se (I probably am somewhat that way inclined myself) but not when it overtakes humanity.
And, like I said, there are many couples who want to adopt but there are hoops to jump through and it's much more difficult to adopt a baby than an older child.
But none of the arguments, and I mean really none of them, justify taking a life.
I actually believe the current legislation is pragmatic and strikes an important balance. I would like to see you make the case that killing a child after the birth is the same as pre birth. It will be about as convincing as your view that killing a zygote is killing a child.
Maybe you can answer the conundrum as to why there are so many kids in care when there is so many people you claim wanting to adopt kids. Go on admit it there is no surplus of loving parents banging on the doors of adoption agencies and you claims are baseless.
You haven't answered my questions (I understand as it's actually quite difficult to answer them without realising that there are two logical positions: life begins at conception or life begins at birth). but you've just asked me another one. There is no real difference between a child in the womb or after having been born. In fact, a child born 10 weeks prematurely is obviously less developed than one still in the womb at term. If you think current legislation strikes the right balance, you obviously don't think life begins at birth (otherwise there would be no problem with abortion just before birth). So, I repeat, when do you think life begins? It has important legal ramifications, you see.
And no, John, a baby isn't the same as a zygote, just as a baby isn't the same as a full adult human. All or on the pathway of life (which begins at conception). All will develop into the next stage of life (if not killed). The point is that life begins at some point. I think it's conception (as do most scientists to be honest) others ( a less popular view) think it's at birth. Nobody is really having the debate you're trying to have as to say life begins at conception is not really controversial.
Once life begins, we have no right to take it away. The European Court of Human Rights sidestepped this issue as they knew they'd have to give unborn children the right to life and thus make abortion a breach of human rights. That would have had huge repercussions and perhaps the Court didn't think it was its place to do so and it should be left up to the states (not the first time the court has done this)
And the reason there are so many kids in care is because of a multitude of reasons: first and foremost, just because a child is in care does not mean that child is up for adoption. Forced adoption is obviously a last resort. Secondly, most people want to adopt a baby (maybe they have this idea, perhaps justified, that adopting a baby will be easier than an older child). And, again, none of what you're saying justifies taking a life.
Anyway, I think I've used up enough of the Trump thread on this so if you want to debate this further then you'll have to open a new thread.1
