Abortion Discussion

Frito

Alderwould wrote: »

Mental state of the mother at the time of the crime for one.

Distress?
Depression?
Psychosis?

Sarky

Looking for specifics from an anti-choicer? Good luck.

Brian Shanahan

Alderwould wrote: »

So you await a time when the UN/EU 'force' us to kill unborn babies?

Don't hold your breath

No. But I wouldn't mind them allowing us to relax the law saying that we can't box idiots who think abortion is murder around the ears.

Alderwould

Sarky wrote: »

Looking for specifics from an anti-choicer? Good luck.

By choice you mean the 'choice' to kill one's unborn baby?

Then I'm anti-choice and proud.

Frito

I posted too quickly, Alderwould are you referring to application of McNaughton rules re mitigating circumstances?

Alderwould

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No. But I wouldn't mind them allowing us to relax the law saying that we can't box idiots who think abortion is murder around the ears.

Nice bit of intolerance there. Suite you sir.

Alderwould

Frito wrote: »

I posted too quickly, Alderwood are you referring to application of McNaughton rules?

Never heard of those.

Frito

Alderwould wrote: »

Never heard of those.

Insanity plea.

Alderwould

Frito wrote: »

Insanity plea.

That could be a possible scenario.

Obliq

Alderwould wrote: »

Nice bit of intolerance there. Suite you sir.

It burrrnnzz!!

Sarky

Alderwould wrote: »

By choice you mean the 'choice' to kill one's unborn baby?

Then I'm anti-choice and proud.

We know you are, petal.

We also know you have buggerall in the way of arguments that aren't full of holes so big you could sail a zeppelin through. And that you have not even the faintest idea of how biology works. And that to make up for this, you'll attempt all manner of emotional blackmail, and worthless soundbytes from 'prominent' bigots, because that's all you have.

See, we've witnessed a dozen or more identical 'personalities' like you sail through here, spray emotional, irrational bullsh*t all over the discussion and then get banned for stupid behaviour. I don't think most of us remember their names. When it happens you, I doubt most of us will remember you either. You could change all that by arguing like a grown up, providing sources, using logic, that sort of thing. But I don't think you're brave enough to do that, or you'd have done it already.

Again, I'm very glad views like yours are such a paltry minority.

Sarky

Goodness, no idea what came over me there. Maybe it was just having watched The Boat That Rocked, it was pretty heavy on the "It's important to stand against conservative ignorance in the establishment" theme. Do pardon my French, folks.

Back to my stir-fried embryos and tea.

Alderwould

Sarky wrote: »

We know you are, petal.

We also know you have buggerall in the way of arguments that aren't full of holes so big you could sail a zeppelin through. And that you have not even the faintest idea of how biology works. And that to make up for this, you'll attempt all manner of emotional blackmail, and worthless soundbytes from 'prominent' bigots, because that's all you have.

See, we've witnessed a dozen or more identical 'personalities' like you sail through here, spray emotional, irrational bullsh*t all over the discussion and then get banned for stupid behaviour. I don't think most of us remember their names. When it happens you, I doubt most of us will remember you either. You could change all that by arguing like a grown up, providing sources, using logic, that sort of thing. But I don't think you're brave enough to do that, or you'd have done it already.

Again, I'm very glad views like yours are such a paltry minority.

Nice.

Who said atheists weren't well rounded, welcoming folk, without chips on their shoulders and comfortable with their lot?

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] relax the law saying that we can't box idiots who think abortion is murder around the ears.

Uncalled-for. Please tone down the rhetoric.

Mardy Bum

Alderwould wrote: »

I would be open to incarceration, depending on the circumstances on mitigation. That's the best you're going to get out of me.

Alderwould wrote: »

Nice.

Who said atheists weren't well rounded, welcoming folk, without chips on their shoulders and comfortable with their lot?

I see what you did there.

Sarky

Oh well.

Can't complain later that you never saw it coming, I suppose.

Obliq

<SNIP> I think I stopped responding to circular emotional blackmail <SNIP>

Sarky

<SNIP>

Morag

Well what if the woman already has children but has suffered such post natal depression and she has been told that she should not have more children and the contraception fails.

Should she be incarcerated for using the abortion pill at 6 weeks to safe guard her mental health and ensure a quality of life for her existing children and her self?

Obliq

I think they're more about lying by omission of the truth. I could sit here all night and just say "You suck", but it's less than honest not to tell you why I think that.

Turtwig

Hi folks,

Just because someone may appear to be expressing a viewpoint similar to unsavoury posters doesn't mean they are themselves a unsavoury poster. Please don't make any personal accusations or character assassinations in thread. It's so not cool. Please be civil. Deal with the posters arguments not their persona. If you have any doubts about a poster or post report it or PM your fiendish friendly Mod team.

Ta,

Obliq

Jernal wrote: »

Hi folks,

Just because someone may appear to be expressing a viewpoint similar to unsavoury posters doesn't mean they are themselves a unsavoury poster. Please don't make any personal accusations or character assassinations in thread. It's so not cool. Please be civil. Deal with the posters arguments not their persona. If you have any doubts about a poster or post report it or PM your fiendish friendly Mod team.

Ta,

Fair enough, but I'm fed up of any individual refusing to engage with other individual's questions. Not questioning your judgement here at all, but I'm liking Sarky's "outburst". Says it all really.

Turtwig

Obliq wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'm fed up of any individual refusing to engage with other individual's questions. Not questioning your judgement here at all, but I'm liking Sarky's "outburst". Says it all really.

Please remember also that it's possible a poster may be new to such discussions. We all were at some point oblivious to the rules and etiquettes of how to make reasoned discussions. Everyone deserves a chance before being shot down. Think of it in terms of who's not posting here but reading the threads. Insinuations, accusations and assassinations only serve to bring a discussion lower. Basically what I'm trying to say is that it'd be awesome if everyone tried to reply to every poster, even a serial re-reg trolls, as if they were oldrnwisr. (sorry dude for singling you out. )

Alderwould

Morag wrote: »

Well what if the woman already has children but has suffered such post natal depression and she has been told that she should not have more children and the contraception fails.

Should she be incarcerated for using the abortion pill at 6 weeks to safe guard her mental health and ensure a quality of life for her existing children and her self?

They're certainly mitigating circumstances that would be taken under consideration.

But the crime of killing her unborn child still exists and still may result in incarceration.

Brian Shanahan

Alderwould wrote: »

Nice bit of intolerance there. Suite you sir.

Intolerance is sending a person to jail for not keeping her unviable, already dead, foetus in the womb for nine months<SNIP>

Alderwould

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Intolerance is sending a person to jail for not keeping her unviable, already dead, foetus in the womb for nine months <SNIP>

<SNIP>

Frito

Morag wrote: »

Well what if the woman already has children but has suffered such post natal depression and she has been told that she should not have more children and the contraception fails.

Should she be incarcerated for using the abortion pill at 6 weeks to safe guard her mental health and ensure a quality of life for her existing children and her self?

My understanding of Alderwould's position is that where there is a risk to life abortion is permissible (in accordance with the law) and a mitigating circumstance refers to why a woman cannot be held criminally responsible for her actions, rather than the circumstance of the pregnancy (the latter including viability, fatal foetal abnormality, rape, distress, choice). So I think your example would be considered illegal and warranting sanctions.

Stereomaniac

Now I am unfamiliar with how things run around here, and I don't care that much for the Bible myself, but is the post by Brian worthy or reporting? Go easy there man, don't be offensive.

Obliq

Jernal wrote: »

(sorry dude for singling you out. )

You're fine Oh Wise One, no worries.

Point taken. I think I need to dust myself down a little again. It is SO wearing to be told again and again and again that if I had a crisis pregnancy (and although I don't know first hand how that feels, I am a woman and I have been in many crises) and couldn't bear to have another child, that I would deserve 14 years imprisonment for choosing to abort a non-sentient being, smaller than the hen's egg I ate for breakfast.

Whatever about etiquette of posting reasoned arguments and that this needs to be learned to some extent, I think it should be quite clear to anyone who makes that kind of comment, that they are talking to real people with real feelings and there are real effects from this apparent inability to walk a few steps in someone else's shoes.

Turtwig

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Now I am unfamiliar with how things run around here, and I don't care that much for the Bible myself, but is the post by Brian worthy or reporting? Go easy there man, don't be offensive.

This should answer your question.
Regardless of your reservations unless you spam report posts we're not going to bite you. Best to safe than sorry.