Should we legalise abortion?

MrPudding

Originally posted by bonkey
And this is why I still believe that despite what you may think, you still do not understand the perspective of the pro-lifer.

This comment is analagous to someone supporting euthenasia saying that wanting euthenasia made legal doesn't in any way impact on what does and does not constitute murder because they are only talking about euthenasia. The Jihad-bound Muslim sees nothing wrong in killing people in a Holy war, and equating that with any other form is killing is also incorrect, because they are only talking about killing people as part of Jihad.

The problem is not what you are talking about. The problem is that by "only" talking about abortion, you are completely ignoring the stance of the pro-lifer which is that there is no "only" abortion, no more than there is "only" Jihad-based murder, "only" euthenasia-driven murder, or "only" any other form of murder. Abortion, to a pro-lifer is murder, and as you claim to understand their point of view, I'm simply asking you to look at your solution from their point of view.

I do understand this. I have to admit I kind of lost the topic of the thread. I am not trying to argue that pro-lifers should vote for something that they see as murder. They should not. I am merely trying to point out that not all people see it as murder. Further, even in Ireland, under some circumstances it is not seen as murder.

Why can we not separate it here in Ireland? The examples you give above are not expectable in most countries that allow abortion. What makes them so relevant here?

Originally posted by bonkey

No, because we can clearly all agree that animals are not humans. If you can get agreement from all parties that the foetus is most definitely not the same as a post-natal human, then you can dissociate the killing of a foetus from the killing of such a post-natal human. However, the reason we're having this discussion is because you already agree that we cannot clearly make that distinction because it is the root of the disagreement.

But again, the fact that you are making this distinction shows that you are either not willing to or not capable of looking at the problem from the perspective of the other person's point of view.

Why do we have to constantly look from the pro-lifer point of view. Is it not equally valid that they should have to look at things from ours?

Originally posted by bonkey

The question we are debating is what should the law in Ireland be, so arguing that some countries laws don't see it as murder is no more or less relevant than arguing that some countries' laws do see it as murder.

I can point you at nations who's laws are based around Sharia Law. Does this mean that stoning your wife to death for adultery should also be acceptable in Ireland??? No? Then why is it relevant that other nations permit abortion, other than the fact that because they happen to agree with you, you see their implementation as the correct one.

So one could summarise this line of reasoning as "other nations agree with my stance, so I'm clearly right". Unfortunately, both sides in the abortion argument can say that, so it gets us nowhere.

What is acceptable should be based on what society feels is acceptable. However much we feel it is wrong I don’t think we can necessarily say that another societies norms and values are wrong if they have also been reached through consensus. Therefore, calling abortion in the UK murder is wrong, it is not murder. It is also not necessarily the case that an abortion carried out in Ireland is murder. Some people may feel it is murder but unless the law says it is it isn’t.

Originally posted by bonkey


Correct. Now, again, given that you understand the pro-lifer's position, explain the following to me :

Abortion is illegal in Ireland. Therefore, by your reasoning, that must mean that society as a whole does see it as murder. So why should it be legalised?

And when you point out that the wishes of the majority do not necessarily reflect the reality of the current laws, please remember that this also undermines your own assertion that where its legal it is so because thats what society as a whole wants.....which is the basis of that particular argument in the first place.

Well, I believe it is allowed in some cases. Presumably in these cases the law does not see it a murder.

Originally posted by bonkey


No, the best thing you can do is everything legal in your power that you feel moved to do to ensure that abortion is illegal in your nation.

Just as you say that the opinion of the pro-lifer is respected in nations where abortion is legal, so too will the opinion of hte pro-choicer be equally respected where abortion is not legal.

It is not legal in Ireland, and were I a pro-lifer, I would respect your opinion to think that our laws are wrong. That doesn't mean that I would support - nor that I should support - the changing of said law.

But you're saying that the pro-lifer should do just that. Support your want to change the law to something they find unacceptable, because you won't support what see as acceptable.

I do not think that the pro-lifer should vote for a change. But I do think they should at least appreciate that their view is not the only view.

Originally posted by bonkey


So allowing others to commit murder is morally correct in your view? Because thats what you're saying is how the pro-lifer should behave - and remember that you keep saying you understand their point of view, so you must understand that this is how they see it.


Its not whether or not you should stop. Its whether or not you should accept that the law be changed in order to make it illegal to continue.

If the law is changed, I would stop eating meat. However, as a meat-eater, I do not, will not and should not support the changing of the law as a sop to those who hold beliefs that I do not wish to be subject to. And were their motion successful, and meat-eating were made illegal, I would immediately join the campaign to re-legalise it.

You fight for your belief - so stop suggesting that the simple solution is that others not do the same for theirs. Thats not simple, merely convenient for you.

jc

I am not suggesting that they should stop. I will expand that comment slightly. If they are against abortion then they should not have one, vote against it at every opportunity, and explain their point of view in a rational way to those with a different opinion. They should take on board that other may have a different view. Pro choice people should do the same, from the other point of view.

This is a very emotive subject and it is always hard to discuss. As I have said several times we will not get consensus. This really is a subject where the 2 sides will have to agree to differ.

MrP

bonkey

Originally posted by MrPudding
I was talking about countries where abortion is allowed.

It was clear you were.

I was simply pointing out that the logic of simply choosing nations who happen to agree with your stance is pointless, as both sides can do it.

It therefore proves nothing, and demonstrates nothing meaningful, and yet you were using it to try and address a point.

jc

Zulu

Originally posted by MrPudding
What is acceptable should be based on what society feels is acceptable. However much we feel it is wrong I don’t think we can necessarily say that another societies norms and values are wrong if they have also been reached through consensus.

Nazi Germany felt it was acceptable to treat jews in the fashion they did.
The Taliban felt it acceptable to treat women the way they did. Are you now saying that that is accaptable because their society felt it was ok?

Originally posted by MrPudding
Therefore, calling abortion in the UK murder is wrong, it is not murder. It is also not necessarily the case that an abortion carried out in Ireland is murder. Some people may feel it is murder but unless the law says it is it isn’t

Are you saying that an honour killing isn't murder in the countries were it is permitted, because they don't call it murder?
Are you saying the extermination of Jews in Nazi germany wasn't a human rights offence, because they didn't believe it was?

Originally posted by MrPudding
I do not think that the pro-lifer should vote for a change. But I do think they should at least appreciate that their view is not the only view.

Of course por-lifers appricate that their view isn't the ONLY view. They/we just don't agree with it.

Originally posted by MrPudding
This is a very emotive subject and it is always hard to discuss. As I have said several times we will not get consensus. This really is a subject where the 2 sides will have to agree to differ.

...or try and convince the other side that they are wrong.

bonkey

Originally posted by MrPudding
II am merely trying to point out that not all people see it as murder. Further, even in Ireland, under some circumstances it is not seen as murder.

Okies. No problem with this.

Why can we not separate it here in Ireland?

We can - as soon as the majority of the population get a chance to say in a referendum that they think an elective abortion is not murder.

The examples you give above are not expectable in most countries that allow abortion. What makes them so relevant here?

It all boils down to your sentence : "Its as simple as that". Its not that simple, because I've asked you to apply the same simple logic to other, identical situations...and you're refusing to do so because - at a guess - the sheer thought of allowing someone to commit an act of murder because they happen to think its other than murder is abhorrent to you.

Why do we have to constantly look from the pro-lifer point of view. Is it not equally valid that they should have to look at things from ours?

Well, I spent more than half of my involvement on this thread so far knocking the pro-life arguments, so I hardly think its fair to accuse me of "constantly" looking at it from either point of view.

Look back through the thread. I've been insluted by the pro-life posters left right and center who apparently mistook me questioning their logic as meaning that I am somehow lacking in a respect for life, and have some dark, nasty little existence.

Now because I've changed sides, I'm being unreasonable for "constantly" supporting the side I was arguing against only a few pages back?

However much we feel it is wrong I don’t think we can necessarily say that another societies norms and values are wrong if they have also been reached through consensus.

But societies have reached both consensus'. Some say its ok, and some say its not. So we can't say that those who have said abortion is murder are not wrong either. Its a moot point - it serves no-ones argument, but only one of us is constantly trying to make it sound as if it does.

Therefore, calling abortion in the UK murder is wrong,

And by that logic, calling it anything but murder in the Republic of Ireland is equally wrong when discussing elective abortions.

It is also not necessarily the case that an abortion carried out in Ireland is murder.

Correct. Pregnancies terminated for serious health-risks do not count as murder, no more than a patient having open-heart surgery to save his life is murdered if he dies on the table.

Elective abortions in Ireland, however, are classified as murder, as far as I am aware.

jc

Kelter

Someone explain this to me please in a simple straightforward QED kind of manner.


Shouldn’t a person who comes out and says they are suicidal be given psychiatric help? If this unwanted pregnancy makes them feel suicidal surely the fallout of an abortion will also have psychiatric fallout, which will leave the person in a vulnerable position, which may result in them harming themselves.

Whether you are for or against abortion do you not think that it is societies responsibility to stop someone who is suicidal from doing anything which is so final that they are in no fit position to make a decision on, and get them very serious professional help to insure that they recover from their illness for once and for all.

Zulu

Originally posted by Kelter
Someone explain this to me please in a simple straightforward QED kind of manner.

Shouldn’t a person who comes out and says they are suicidal be given psychiatric help? If this unwanted pregnancy makes them feel suicidal surely the fallout of an abortion will also have psychiatric fallout, which will leave the person in a vulnerable position, which may result in them harming themselves.

Whether you are for or against abortion do you not think that it is societies responsibility to stop someone who is suicidal from doing anything which is so final that they are in no fit position to make a decision on, and get them very serious professional help to insure that they recover from their illness for once and for all.

Not sure what your point is tbh - but yes they should get help, and no they shouldn't be encouraged to have an abortion.

IMHO - mentally unstable people shouldn't be given the option to end anothers life. (neither should stable people) but the pro-choice lobby will argue that it's not life - so what the problem!

Moriarty

Here's a question: what is so intrinsically special or precious about human life?

40crush41

Originally posted by Moriarty
I'm open to correction, but as far as I know that isn't the case over here. I don't think it's even the case in every american state if memory serves me right. Are there stipulations on how far the pregnancy has to have gone before these laws are applicable (4 weeks? 12? 20?)? In any case when you get down to it, the law is just a set of rules that has been made binding in society. Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't neccessarly mean it's 'right' or 'wrong'.

<edit: American law isn't always the best thing to base your arguments on anyway. It's open to corruption and distortion like anywhere else - in some states it's illegal to even teach evolutionary theory.>

yup agreed about the law not always being right or wrong. my point was more to ask why u would think a law could say at one point that the child is a human and so then should not be killed, and then later on say, well its not really human, so you can kill it.

guess its all over my head~beth

Trebor

Originally posted by Moriarty
Here's a question: what is so intrinsically special or precious about human life?

exactly the point i was trying to get across

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
Here's a question: what is so intrinsically special or precious about human life?

You've no objection if I kill you then?

jc

Moriarty

Heh.

Many (most, probably) people are 'precious' in some form to me. That's not precious in a way that I've met them and like them but precious in that they're generally decent people. I certainly wouldn't automatically categorise everyone on the planet as precious though. There are people that have little or no regard for others, who in my view don't deserve to be treated any differently than they act. I'm not getting my point across very well am I?

There are many people on this planet that I'd be sad or regret to hear had died. There are also many people on this planet that I'd frankly prefer dead to alive. They'd be no great loss. I have no universal love for humanity because I know there are some really rather unpleasent people out there. Maybe that's a bleak or even dangerous outlook to have - I really can't decide - but that's the one that I've seemingly developed.

So to answer your question in a roundabout way.. if you valued my life and recognised my rights, I would equally value yours. On the other hand, if you held little or no value for my life or rights, I'd have similar feelings towards you. I acknowledge that's a rather chaotic and 'anti-societal' (heh, what a word ) position to take, but heyho..

<edit: Perhaps an easy way to explain it is that I attach very little value to human life specifically. People hold value for me because of who they are, not what they're made of.>

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
You've no objection if I kill you then?

He questioned the primacy of the right to life - extrapolating homicidal anarchy from that is a bit of a jump in reasoning, don’t you think?

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
He questioned the primacy of the right to life - extrapolating homicidal anarchy from that is a bit of a jump in reasoning, don’t you think?

Not at all. At least - I don't think so.

I'm drunk (I feel the need to say this in everything I'm posting this evening) so forgive me if I labour some points more than to my usual level of pedantry.

The right to life is - from what I can see - derived from a basic principle : that if I think its wrong for you to kill me, and you think its wrong for me to kill you, then the most amicable and mutually amicable solution is that we agree it is in both of our best interests not to kill each other.

The same underlying reasoning - as a parallel - underlies the position of most government's to be opposed (at least officially) to assassination. The only way you can argue that its wrong for you to be assassinated is if you agree that it is equally wrong for you to assassinate others.

Abstracting from two individuals to a planet-full is no great step, and it is fundamentally our own sense of self-preservation which has brought this about. Consensus-based forms of government revolve around the acceptance of such concepts - things become sacred or "primal" when everyone recognises the importance of that factor to themselves, and that (most) everyone else has the same perspective as them.

Moriarty says that he will respect anyone's right to existence who respects his. But from that perspective, the argument has already left the field of relevance, because the unborn can neither repsect nor disrespect that right of his - so what does that say about his perception of the right of the unborn to existence? It already falls into the nether-regions of whether an unknown is treated positively or negatively, and thus resolves nothing.

However, one must consider that when we abstract from the two-person scenario to the world-based one, there is a fundamental shift, because in the world, there are those who are incapable of threatening me, those who are on a par with me, and those to whom I can offer no resistance, and everything in between.

Moriarty will - I'm sure - agree to respect those who could crush him like a bug as long as they respect his right to life. He has no leverage, but I'm sure hopes that this won't stop them crushing him like said bug.

Abstract Moriarty's point of view to those whom Moriarty could crush like a bug, and who could pose no threat to him.

Like the unborn.

jc

elvis2002

Personally, If there was a referendum tomorrow to make Abortion legal, I would votre yes. The reason it isn't legal now is because "we" dont want to hurt religious beliefs etc.

I think the vote would be 50 50, young people would obviosly vote yes on a massive scale while the older generation would cancel that out.

In 20 years, I think Ireland will have legal abortion. Maybe less, Young people won't change their minds when they grow older!

I am 20, If my girlfriend got pregnant, she would 100% have an obortion. If she choose to have the child, college is over (and please dont tell me it isnt), job prospects over.

I dont think conseilling and support is going to help in the long run either for this kind of thing, if people believe they cant cope with having a child they should have one.

I think its about time we got all our "dana" attributes out of the constitution. We're so behind the rest of the world. I can't wait to leave Ireland in the future. Cause its just too much hassle now!

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
The right to life is - from what I can see - derived from a basic principle : that if I think its wrong for you to kill me, and you think its wrong for me to kill you, then the most amicable and mutually amicable solution is that we agree it is in both of our best interests not to kill each other.

That's not exactly how I see it. It goes further than simple self-preservation. If I know that you don't intend on killing or inflicting some sort of harm on me, it would be wrong of me to harm you. There is a recognition that you have subscribed to a societal structure of some sort and because of that you qualify for good and fair treatment, not simple lack of harm.

Originally posted by bonkey
The same underlying reasoning - as a parallel - underlies the position of most government's to be opposed (at least officially) to assassination. The only way you can argue that its wrong for you to be assassinated is if you agree that it is equally wrong for you to assassinate others.

That's true, but I would consider it an equally valid position for you to carry out assinations if you acknowledged that this made you a valid target in the progress.

Originally posted by bonkey
Moriarty says that he will respect anyone's right to existence who respects his. But from that perspective, the argument has already left the field of relevance, because the unborn can neither repsect nor disrespect that right of his - so what does that say about his perception of the right of the unborn to existence? It already falls into the nether-regions of whether an unknown is treated positively or negatively, and thus resolves nothing.

I wouldn't agree that it's left the field of relevance. People unable to understand the situation they are in who can reasonably be asumed to not have carried out wilfull acts against others are afforded the presumption of innocence. Without that society could very well implode. The argument of it being a distinct "human life" and therefore sacrosanct is irrelevant. So it comes back to the sole relevant question of when is the embryo/foetus/baby a person in their own right and ergo when is it wrong to take away that life.

Originally posted by bonkey
However, one must consider that when we abstract from the two-person scenario to the world-based one, there is a fundamental shift, because in the world, there are those who are incapable of threatening me, those who are on a par with me, and those to whom I can offer no resistance, and everything in between.

Moriarty will - I'm sure - agree to respect those who could crush him like a bug as long as they respect his right to life. He has no leverage, but I'm sure hopes that this won't stop them crushing him like said bug.

A society goes further than that. It works under the premise that the large majority of people want to live in a society rather than complete anarchy. Individually the members of a society may very easily be overpowered by those that wish them harm, but society will always be stronger as a whole than those that live outside of it due to shear man-power. This furthers the protection of the citizens in society from those outside of it - 'all for one and one for all'.

Originally posted by bonkey
Abstract Moriarty's point of view to those whom Moriarty could crush like a bug, and who could pose no threat to him.

Like the unborn.

jc

I disagree strongly with that. Membership of a society at its most basic is based entirely around the above premise. As I explained earlier, just because you can crush somone like a bug does not give you the right to do that. If I was to go through with killing somone soley because I could, I would be forfetting the very thing that keeps me as a member of society. Forfetting my membership of society means that I created the very situation that I tried to avoid by joining society in the first place - namely common respect for each others life and rights. I would be an outsider and open game for society to deal with as they please.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by elvis2002
its just too much hassle now!

I think past all the fanciful talk of right to choose, the non-human status of the unborn etc, this is the real reason most would vote for abortion, unplanned pregnancy is just too much hassle, I know I took you out of context there elvis, but I like the quote,

Zulu

Originally posted by elvis2002
Personally, If there was a referendum tomorrow to make Abortion legal, I would votre yes. The reason it isn't legal now is because "we" dont want to hurt religious beliefs etc.

I think the vote would be 50 50, young people would obviosly vote yes on a massive scale while the older generation would cancel that out.

Thats crazy talk! How exactly are you splitting the population between young and old? Is old 50+? I'm in my twenties - I'd vote no. The reason it isn't legal has nothing to do with "hurting" religious beliefs - people use contraception; people don't go to mass.
The reason it isn't legal, is because most people see it as wrong to kill the unborn. Most people feel obliged to protect their children.

Originally posted by elvis2002
In 20 years, I think Ireland will have legal abortion. Maybe less, Young people won't change their minds when they grow older!.

You have a time machine? Maybe in 20 years it will be acceptable, maybe in 20 years the legal age for concenting sex will be 12. It dosen't make it right.

Originally posted by elvis2002
I am 20, If my girlfriend got pregnant, she would 100% have an obortion. If she choose to have the child, college is over (and please dont tell me it isnt), job prospects over!.

Make a off-the-cuff comment and ask me not to shoot it down :rolleyes:
I happen to have 4 friends who got pregnant in college or shortly afterwards, and they have great jobs. Do they boot you out of college now?
While I agree it is more challanging - there is a support structure is place for single mothers. There is adoption. ....and more to the point - if you got your girlfriend pregnant, wouldn't you share the load? She wouldn't have any problem in college if you helped out.

Originally posted by elvis2002
I dont think conseilling and support is going to help in the long run either for this kind of thing, if people believe they cant cope with having a child they should have one.

I'm sure you mean "shouldn't" have one. Sutdies out the wimdow - so long as they don't believe in themselves. You should consider physicology.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by elvis2002
I think its about time we got all our "dana" attributes out of the constitution. We're so behind the rest of the world. I can't wait to leave Ireland in the future. Cause its just too much hassle now!

:rolleyes:
I was waiting for the insult.
Moral highground is keeping Ireland behind "the rest of the world", like we already are behind the rest of the world?
We are a gobal leader, we should act as such.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
The right to life is - from what I can see - derived from a basic principle : that if I think its wrong for you to kill me, and you think its wrong for me to kill you, then the most amicable and mutually amicable solution is that we agree it is in both of our best interests not to kill each other.

Yet throughout various societies we see examples where this right is legally, and sometimes morally, curtailed - such as capital punishment, war, euthanasia and abortion.

Abstracting from two individuals to a planet-full is no great step, and it is fundamentally our own sense of self-preservation which has brought this about. Consensus-based forms of government revolve around the acceptance of such concepts - things become sacred or "primal" when everyone recognises the importance of that factor to themselves, and that (most) everyone else has the same perspective as them.

But I’ve already pointed out how the right to life is curtailed in many societies - not to mention the less common accepted societal norms such as honour killings - and the World has hardly degenerated into homicidal anarchy (melodramatic parallels aside).

Originally posted by elvis2002
In 20 years, I think Ireland will have legal abortion. Maybe less, Young people won't change their minds when they grow older!

That statement was so naive as to be almost sweet - if it wasn’t so idiotic

I don’t know of anyone who has not changed their minds to some degree or other on this and most other issues in the last ten or twenty years. People change - you will too.

Gurgle

Originally posted by The Corinthian:
the World has hardly degenerated into homicidal anarchy

Has it ever risen above homicidal anarchy ?

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Gurgle
Has it ever risen above homicidal anarchy ?

No

Moriarty

So you have nothing to add then, GospelGroupie?

Fair enough..

isolde

Apologies for taking so long to respond. Thesis causing much headache.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Thus, unless we ascribe a higher level of rights to the mother regardless of the status of the foetus as human, we cannot terminate..

As I said, I consider the rights of the woman to supercede the foetus regardless.

Originally posted by Zulu
I am looking at it from every angle, just because I don't come to the same conclusions as you dosen't mean I'm not cosidering the options.

Are you honestly?

Originally posted by MrPudding
Why do we have to constantly look from the pro-lifer point of view. Is it not equally valid that they should have to look at things from ours?

I agree with this point. It seems that it's a case of pro-lifers stating their point of view, pro-choicers stating theirs, and then the pro-lifers questioning this until the end of time. It's not a two-sided argument, it's a case of attack and defence. Personally I don't agree with the pro-life point of view but I accept it nevertheless.

Originally posted by Zulu
Moral highground is keeping Ireland behind "the rest of the world"

Yes, I think it is.

keu

re: morals in Irish society

I think society needs morals, don't be so quick to dismiss Ireland for being morally backward (I think the states should claim that award)
Morals aren't bad, they are structures which keep society on an even keel, (not to be confused with religion)... although many people consider them as religious values, I consider them a product of society, born out of consience.
(take for example the brehon law of ancient Ireland)

If the laws were re-written (or removed) tomorrow and people were free to make their own decisions, I am pretty sure that it wouldn't take too many generations to figure out why they were there in the first place, (removing parametres tends to give way to chaos and anarchy) and some form of moral restoration would be initiated.

(edit: providing there were any humans left)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by isolde
As I said, I consider the rights of the woman to supercede the foetus regardless.

Then you accept the principle that not all people are equal or should have equal rights?

TomF

An entirely unforeseen consequence of unrestricted abortion in the U.S. may be that George W. Bush was elected because so many likely (and missing) Democratic Party voters were aborted. There is a fascinating article about this in the Wall Street Journal complete with tables and numbers illustrating the effect. Here's a smidgin from the article:

"Let's look at the 2000 election to see what those 6,033,097 Missing Voters meant to its outcome. What would these Missing Voters have meant to the election in Florida?"

"In the actual popular vote for president in the 2000 general election in Florida, George W. Bush was declared the winner by 537 votes. But if the 260,962 Missing Voters of Florida had been present to vote, Al Gore would have won by 45,366 votes. Missing Voters--through decisions made in the 1970s and early 1980s, encouraged and emboldened by the feminist movement at the height of its power--altered the outcome of the U.S. presidency a generation later, in a way proponents of legal abortion could not have imagined.
Examining these results through a partisan political lens, the Democrats have given the Republicans a decided advantage in electoral politics, one that grows with each election. Moreover, it is an advantage that they can never regain. Even if abortion were declared illegal today, and every single person complied with the decision, the advantage would continue to grow until the 2020 election, and would stay at that level throughout the voting lifetime of most Americans living today."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

Sparks

Originally posted by TomF
In the actual popular vote for president in the 2000 general election in Florida, George W. Bush was declared the winner by 537 votes. But if the 260,962 Missing Voters of Florida had been present to vote, Al Gore would have won by 45,366 votes.

I take it that the 1.9 million votes which were discarded in the Florida election had nothing to do with it then? Or the hundred thousand or so who were struck off the voting register improperly by Jeb Bush?
Gosh no.

Honestly Tom, you've put forward some assinine arguments against abortion, but this one takes the cake...

TomF

I can only suggest that people interested in the logic read the article and "do the numbers."

MrPudding

Originally posted by TomF
I can only suggest that people interested in the logic read the article and "do the numbers."

Thats fair enough Tom, but like Sparks says, I think people should be concerned about the votes of living people that went missing.

MrP

The Corinthian

Originally posted by TomF
I can only suggest that people interested in the logic read the article and "do the numbers."

While we’re on the topic of logic, you are assuming that these aborted voters would have voted Democrat. The only hypothesis that is suggested for this is that all the parents were Democrats and that their children would have similarly grown up to be democrats, both of which are exceedingly dubious assumptions, parachuted into the discussion with very little logic.

Of course, should we accept these exceedingly dubious assumptions, the Democratic Aborted vote might simply be cancelled out by the Republican Fatal Gun Incident vote that would have been all those future Republican voters who were killed as children due do Republican-backed liberal gun laws.

So it’s all good in the end :rolleyes:

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by flogen
JoePC, I can appreciate if you think its wrong, but you have no right (or should have no right) to dictate the lives of others.

I am pro-choice, that doesnt mean I'd definitly go for an abortion were my partner to become pregnant, it all depends on circumstance tbh, although I'd avoid it as best I could. However, I have no right to tell anyone else what to do in such a huge decision. The fact is, if they chose to abort or not, the effect on their lives will be widespread, and they must make the decision that is best for them, and I should have no part in that.
I dont appreciate this anti-abortion rhetoric that people are heartless murderers, do you really think that someone has an abortion on a whim? It isnt the kind of thing you just go and do, from what I know of it, its an extremely traumatic event.

For you to make such a sweeping statement, give no reason other than call pro-choicers murderers and refuse to discuss it says to me that you're just flaming.

Flogen

Couldn't JOEPC also reverse your arguement and say a woman has no right to decide for her child if she wants to murder it.