Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

NachoBusiness

hynesie08 wrote: »

Yep, Exactly, That is exactly what i said. You should quote me again and go off on another tangent to reply to a point no-one made.

I never said it was what you said. I made an analogy based on it.

Do you know the difference. Here is your idiotic comment again:

hynesie08 wrote: »

A man shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain he can't physically experience, just like women shouldn't be able to tell us getting kicked in the bollocks isn't that bad.

I like to cut to the truth so let's just be honest about what you meant with the above: You were saying that no man should ever say that the pain / problems associated with pregnancy are not so bad that they should excuse a woman choosing to have an abortion in avoidance of them, as he has never experienced that pain and so: how the fcuk would he know. Right?

Well, my analogy was taking the Michael out of that by suggesting that if some guy shot a woman in the face (the woman is the aborted child in case you hadn't worked it out) just to avoid getting kicked in the nuts, and some women jumped on the thread that was started to discuss it, saying the man overreacted, it would go down like a fcuking lead balloon if they were all told: women "shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain she can't physically experience".

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

So, any women can abort a child days before it's due, bury it in the back garden and as far as you're concerned, they should not get charged with anything.

Unbelievable, truly.

Did you graduate from the university of strawman arguments?

hynesie08

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I never said it was what you said. I made an analogy based on it.

Do you know the difference. Here is your idiotic comment again:



I like to cut to the truth so let's just be honest about what you meant with the above: You were saying that no man should ever say that the pain / problems associated with pregnancy are not so bad that they should excuse a woman choosing to have an abortion in avoidance of them, as he has never experienced that pain and so: how the fcuk would he know. Right?

Completely wrong, the post we're all responding to in this go round was a poster saying that because his wife didn't have a bad pregnancy that no pregnancy is bad, my response was to that and nothing else. Sorry that you couldn't figure that out. But going by your terrible analogy, if someone said "getting shot in the face isn't that bad, i know someone who got shot in the face and they were grand." i would think that that too was an idiotic statement they had no right to make.

Clear enough or are you gonna wanna come up with some terrible analogy and then claim i said i wanted to drown puppies?

inocybe

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Why? All she did was abort a fetus.

Who are you to say she has psychological problems and needs help?

A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

So glad we agree on your last sentence!
She hid the body of her stillborn baby, which isn't exactly the action of a rational person.

Patrick Wheelock

Virgil° wrote: »

I'm quoting this from another source but I've yet to see a decent response to it. Apologies if its been brought up before.
I actually would love to see a good well thought out response to this.

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you"

Should you be allowed unplug yourself from this person? Or should you be legally forced to provide this person with use of your body for 9 months?
Now, its a thought experiment. The main point of which is to show that a person is never obligated to relinquish bodily autonomy to another person for any reason. The pro-life position here grants MORE rights to the unborn child than any other person. Why should this be the case?

I don't wanna hear that it was the mothers choice. Because as we know this isn't always the case. I'll also not be responding to any of the "Stop murdering innocent ikkle Baybees" types.

Yes, you should be allowed unplug yourself from the violinist.

You don't gave any connection to him / her.

He is not your offspring [the foetus inside you will be].

volchitsa

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

Yes, you should be allowed unplug yourself from the violinist.

You don't gave any connection to him / her.

He is not your offspring [the foetus inside you will be].

So not about right to life but about family responsibility?

So what if the violinist was your brother? You have a very close connection there.

Or is it only one's child?

NachoBusiness

inocybe wrote: »

So glad we agree on your last sentence!
She hid the body of her stillborn baby, which isn't exactly the action of a rational person.

Of course it's a very rational thing to do.. when you don't want to get caught

She went on holidays the next day by the way.

hynesie08 wrote: »

Completely wrong, the post we're all responding to in this go round was a poster saying that because his wife didn't have a bad pregnancy that no pregnancy is bad, my response was to that and nothing else. Sorry that you couldn't figure that out. But going by your terrible analogy, if someone said "getting shot in the face isn't that bad, i know someone who got shot in the face and they were grand." i would think that that too was an idiotic statement they had no right to make.

We are not talking about mere hearsay though. We are talking about members of the man's family. I have to say I also don't recognize many of these horror stories of pregnancy and I have known dozens of women who have had many children. I mean sure, it's not always a walk in the park, women die in childbirth in this country, know a chap who lost his mother that way, but it's rare. This isn't sub saharan Africa, the UK must be one of the safest places in the world to have a child and so, the man has a point with what he said, and so saying: "A man shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain he can't physically experience" is nonsense. Absurd nonsense.

lazygal

NachoBusiness wrote: »

It's a very rational thing to do, when you don't want to get caught.

She went on holidays the next day.



We are not talking about mere hearsay though. We are talking about members of the man's family. I have to say I also don't recognize many of these horror stories of pregnancy and I have known dozens of women who have had many children. I mean sure, it's not always a walk in the park, women die in childbirth but it's rare. This isn't sub saharan Africa, the UK must be one of the safest places in the world to have a child and so, the man has a point and so saying: "A man shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain he can't physically experience" is nonsense. Absurd nonsense.

Not dying during or after birth is a pretty low bar. I had issues with my bladder after my first section that had to be operated on during my second. I know loads of women who had third degree tears, leading to on going issues with urination and sexual intercourse. Then there's mastitis, spd during pregnancy, constant vomiting leading to teeth issues and the mental health aspects such as post natal depression. The thing is, very often the attitude is "well your baby is fine so you've nothing to complain about" so I can see why women don't share the negative elements of pregnancy and birth because it sounds like once the baby is relatively ok the woman should just get on with it, going by a lot of posts here. Until I was pregnant and gave birth I was ambivalent about reproductive rights. Being pregnant in Ireland has definitely made me sit up and try to change things, as well as donate to abortion services.

Patrick Wheelock

volchitsa wrote: »

So not about right to life but about family responsibility?

So what if the violinist was your brother? You have a very close connection there.

Or is it only one's child?

Different if the violinist is one's brother. I'd feel compelled to help, not sure about you.

Does anybody have any sources for this sort of thing happening? If so, is it a regular occurrence?

Or is the purpose of the argument to muddy the waters? When it comes down to it, the vast majority of abortions are not from rape, incest, threat of suicide or FFAs. It's easy use the hard cases to make your argument but maybe they could be set aside for once - and people just admit that they want abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever.

volchitsa

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

Different if the violinist is one's brother. I'd feel compelled to help, not sure about you.

Does anybody have any sources for this sort of thing happening? If so, is it a regular occurrence?

Or is the purpose of the argument to muddy the waters? When it comes down to it, the vast majority of abortions are not from rape, incest, threat of suicide or FFAs. It's easy use the hard cases to make your argument but maybe they could be set aside for once - and people just admit that they want abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever.

it's a thought experiment, useful for clarifying one's ideas, and quite the opposite of something designed to muddy the waters.

So it's your belief that it should be legally enforceable to make someone remain hooked up to another person for 9 months in order to save the other person's life, only so long as one has direct responsibility for that person's existence - right?

So presumably you think parents should be legally (not just morally but legally) obliged to donate a kidney or bone marrow to any of their children who might need it? Is that much the same as the violinist scenario or not?

NachoBusiness

lazygal wrote: »

I had issues with my bladder after my first section that had to be operated on during my second. I know loads of women who had third degree tears, leading to on going issues with urination and sexual intercourse. Then there's mastitis, spd during pregnancy, constant vomiting leading to teeth issues and the mental health aspects such as post natal depression. The thing is, very often the attitude is "well your baby is fine so you've nothing to complain about" so I can see why women don't share the negative elements of pregnancy and birth because it sounds like once the baby is relatively ok the woman should just get on with it, going by a lot of posts here. Until I was pregnant and gave birth I was ambivalent about reproductive rights. Being pregnant in Ireland has definitely made me sit up and try to change things, as well as donate to abortion services.

I don't think anyone is denying that there is crap to be dealt with when having a kid. Where people, like myself, have a problem, is why should a baby lose their chance at life just because a woman would prefer to avoid having to deal with those issues. I would vote for first trimester abortions by the way (along also with pretty much all therapeutic abortions) and so I say this in context of being against second trimester abortions.. and beyond.

You see, most sane women (and men) I feel, would not want Sarah Catt to get away with what she did. I don't believe for one second that any sane person believes that women should be able to abort their children whenever they want, at any stage of a pregnancy and if people were honest in the discussion, they would concede that and then we could move on to discussing what really needs to be discussed (in my view) and that is: at which point of a pregnancy does each individual (both men and women) believe that a woman should be legally able to avail of a non therapeutic abortion and at which point should she not be able to.

That's why the whole 'It's a woman's body and it's up to her' is such a disingenuous argument as nobody truly believes in it. Otherwise women would have been on the streets marching for Sarah Catt. She would have been the poster child for pro choice movement, but yet, hardly anyone has really ever heard of her, and why? Well because the vast vast majority of pro choice crowd do not truly believe that a women should be able to abort her child mere days before it's due and support her being jailed. This also of course shows you that that the whole body autonomy nonsense has it's limits with them too as it's quite clear from the lack of an outcry that they have no problem with the authorities prosecuting women who abort their children, when it's as late as Sarah did at least, but no matter the rarity, as this one endorsement is enough to show that the core of what they say they believe in is.. inaccurate.

Patrick Wheelock

volchitsa wrote: »

So it's your belief that it should be legally enforceable to make someone remain hooked up to another person for 9 months in order to save the other person's life, only so long as one has direct responsibility for that person's existence - right?

I'd prefer to think of it as a moral obligation. Legal enforcement is impossible.

A certain degree of prevention (restriction of abortion in Ireland) is the best that can be achieved.

volchitsa wrote: »

So presumably you think parents should be legally (not just morally but legally) obliged to donate a kidney or bone marrow to any of their children who might need it? Is that much the same as the violinist scenario or not?

Again morally obliged - you can't force them.
It's similar to the violinist scenario if the violinist is your brother or sister.

I presume your answers to both questions are:

No.
No.

?

Patrick Wheelock

also

The foetus should have the right not be killed. Pregnancy is ordinary and maintaining it is an ordinary way of saving the life of the foetus. It's natural for a foetus to be dependant on its mother.

The violinist should not have the right not to die. Forcing somebody to donate an organ is an extraordinary measure. It's also a rare and very unlikely situation.

Cold War Kid

di11on wrote: »

I find views on and discussion of abortion a really curious societal phenomenon. For some reason, the logic employed is completely inconsistent with every other moral, legal and ethical discussion.

Aye, it's a weird one indeed - one that brings out a kind of lack of empathy in those who are usually the most compassionate, and a compassion in those who can be the most lacking in empathy.

I cannot agree with "It's my body, I can do what I like with it" - well at least after the 12-week mark - when it's not just her body, there is another life growing inside her. I hate the "It's my body" reasoning tbh. It is also someone else's child. I know it's the woman only who is carrying this life, but I still can't bring myself to discard the father completely.

That said, I am pro-choice, but within reason.

NachoBusiness

Virgil° wrote: »

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you"

Fcuk the Violinist and fcuk The Society of Music Lovers.

The ONLY way this story has any relevance to abortion is with regards to rape, and even then it's only a smidgen of relevance as the baby if born would be innocent whereas the Violinist is not, unless the kidnapping had nothing to do with him, in which case, fine but I would still leg it were I to wake and find the fcuker hooked up to me. Unless that is, they paid me to stay.

However, this stupid story has ZERO relevance to pregnancies which result from consensual intercourse. The mother has not been kidnapped by the anyone, nor has she had a child implanted into her womb. She has in fact created it, as but for her actions, the child would not exist.

How did this illogical and irrelevant story ever get so much attention in the first place I'll never know.

traprunner

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

I'd prefer to think of it as a moral obligation. Legal enforcement is impossible.

A certain degree of prevention (restriction of abortion in Ireland) is the best that can be achieved.

So all is good once we export the problem.

traprunner

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

I think it's good that people speak up for the rights of the foetus, the foetus has no voice to defend itself. it couldn't be more vulnerable.

So a different scenario. Someone who is on life support with no chance of recovery. They can't communicate. Should we keep them connected to the machine forever?

Kev W

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

If there is no chance and they are clinically braindead then I would say it's best to turn off the machine.

You're leaving yourself wide open with that one.

volchitsa

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

also

The foetus should have the right not be killed.

What - never? Under no circumstances? Or is it a fact that you agree it can sometimes be killed, but only for a reason that you agree with?

In other words, do you accord the fetus the same interests and rights in life as you do the woman carrying it?

If fewer than her, who gets to choose which reasons are sufficient for destroying the fetus? You? Why? Shouldnt the woman carrying it have more rights to decide, given that it's her body, her health and her life that's at stake?

Secondly, why only the fetus? What about the embryo? Does it have as many rights as the fetus of fewer? And why not the sperm and the egg? Since the fetus gains its rights based on the child it is going to become, why should the fetus have more rights than the sperm it came from?

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

Pregnancy is ordinary and maintaining it is an ordinary way of saving the life of the foetus. It's natural for a foetus to be dependant on its mother.

So that's an argument about "nature" then. Well, heart transplants are completely abnormal, whereas cancer is normal. Yet we don't (though many religions did, initially, before yielding in the face of public demand) hesitate to intervene against what is "normal" there.

Physiologically, pregnancy is definitely not normal: it imposes huge demands on the woman's body, metabolism etc. It can leave her disabled or even kill her.

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

The violinist should not have the right not to die. Forcing somebody to donate an organ is an extraordinary measure. It's also a rare and very unlikely situation.

Rare and unlikely is not the point, it's a thought experiment. The issue for you os to prove whether or not it's a comparable situation, not to prove it doesn't really happen. No-one imagines it does. In fact that's the point.

Why is it so unimaginable to enforce removal of an organ, or to force one person to serve as life-support to another and yet, "because that's the way it's always been" it's perfectly reasonable to force a woman to have her health destroyed for a fetus she may not even have chosen to have inside her?

And the "because it's natural" argument doesn't convince in a society where people have heart transplants or indeed plastic surgery for all sorts of reasons.

So all that's left is "because it's a fetus". Well, and? What is a fetus? Do we attribute the same interests to a fetus as to a born person? Clearly not, or the pregnant woman would die if she fell ill during pregnancy, since we can't harm one person in order to save another. Would the emergency services cut their way through one (healthy) person in order to get to another (injured) one?

traprunner

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

If there is no chance and they are clinically braindead then I would say it's best to turn off the machine.

Now I'm totally confused. They are unable to speak for themselves and totally reliant on something else to survive just like a foetus. Same scenario as a pregnancy if you think about it.

volchitsa

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

I'd prefer to think of it as a moral obligation. Legal enforcement is impossible.

A certain degree of prevention (restriction of abortion in Ireland) is the best that can be achieved.

Again morally obliged - you can't force them.
It's similar to the violinist scenario if the violinist is your brother or sister.

So why should abortion, which is a comparable scenario, involve legal, not just moral, obligation?

Not sure what you mean about the degree of prevention. Either it mattersthat we prevent fetuses being killed or it doesn't. If it does, then reserving that option for the well-off, the ones who can in reality afford to look after the resulting child, is more than odd, it's completely contradictory. in fact I'd say it makes a nonsense of the claim that the ban on abortion has anything to do with protecting the unborn.

It actually makes it look like it's about using the fetus' continued existence to punish women who are unable to access expensive abortion services - by making them become mothers against their will. Not very respectful of the fetus, surely?

James DD

Kev W wrote: »

You're leaving yourself wide open with that one.

omg you sound so immature

Kev W

James DD wrote: »

omg you sound so immature

I genuinely can't tell if you're being ironic.

James DD

Kev W wrote: »

I genuinely can't tell if you're being ironic.

can see why

PopePalpatine

Kev W wrote: »

You're leaving yourself wide open with that one.

Hmm...I wonder what else has no brain activity and is on life support...

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Hmm...I wonder what else has no brain activity and is on life support...

The pro-choice side are really clutching at straws.

Trying to compare a person who is essentially dead to a growing and developing baby it's idiotic, though it is fiting with the various ridiculous scenarios being presented to try to justify killing babies in the womb.

orubiru

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

I think it's good that people speak up for the rights of the foetus, the foetus has no voice to defend itself. it couldn't be more vulnerable.

I wonder how you would feel if it had no brain activity...

Medallion of Kunt wrote: »

If there is no chance and they are clinically braindead then I would say it's best to turn off the machine.

Oh.

So, do you know when the fetus starts showing brain activity?

Do you think abortions should be allowed when there is no brain activity?

Kev W

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

The pro-choice side are really clutching at straws.

Trying to compare a person who is essentially dead to a growing and developing baby it's idiotic, though it is fiting with the various ridiculous scenarios being presented to try to justify killing babies in the womb.

There's no such thing as a baby in a womb. You're thinking of a fetus.

traprunner

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

The pro-choice side are really clutching at straws.

Trying to compare a person who is essentially dead to a growing and developing baby it's idiotic, though it is fiting with the various ridiculous scenarios being presented to try to justify killing babies in the womb.

1. No babies are in the womb.
2. It's the same scenario as pregnancy. A life may be taken if the foetus is removed from it's life support (mother) and a life would be taken if the life support is turned off. So it's not clutching at straws at all.

orubiru

Kev W wrote: »

There's no such thing as a baby in a womb. You're thinking of a fetus.

One thing I've learned from this thread is that Barbara Purple Simulation is definitely not a MEDICAL doctor and possibly doesn't know how to use Google.

Let's be honest here. The anti-choice (calling themselves "pro life" is laughable) side's main tactic here is to use emotive language such as "killing babies" or "murder" to deceive people who are naive and impressionable.

Kev W

orubiru wrote: »

One thing I've learned from this thread is that Barbara Purple Simulation is definitely not a doctor and possibly doesn't know how to use Google.

Let's be honest here. The anti-choice (calling themselves "pro life" is laughable) side's main tactic here is to use emotive language such as "killing babies" or "murder" to deceive people who are naive and impressionable.

100%

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

One thing I've learned from this thread is that Barbara Purple Simulation is definitely not a doctor and possibly doesn't know how to use Google.

Let's be honest here. The anti-choice (calling themselves "pro life" is laughable) side's main tactic here is to use emotive language such as "killing babies" or "murder" to deceive people who are naive and impressionable.

Well I actually am a doctor, a real doctor not a medical one.

It's just using a medical term but for any sensible person it's a baby in the womb, did you ever hear a pregnant woman say "I feel the fetus Kick" etc etc. I know why it's so latched onto as its so much easier for people to talk about a fetus when it comes to killing one rather than use the term baby.

Kev W

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Well I actually am a doctor, a real doctor not a medical one.

Pardon?

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

Pardon?

Medical doctors don't have a PhD so they aren't really doctors.

I'm not saying I know what they know though just answering the poster in question.

Kev W

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Medical doctors don't have PhDs so they aren't really doctors.

Out of curiosity, what field is your PhD in?

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what field is your PhD in?

It's irrelevant to this discussion.

I clarified in an edit that I'm not saying I know anything more than anyone else about medicine I was just pointing out that the accusation was wrong and I am in fact a doctor.

Kev W

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

It's irrelevant to this discussion.

I suspected as much.

Kev W

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

It's just using a medical term but for any sensible person it's a baby in the womb, did you ever hear a pregnant woman say "I feel the fetus Kick" etc etc.

You're describing an emotive reaction, which has little to do with being "sensible".

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

I suspected as much.

What's that supposed to mean?

osarusan

Kev W wrote: »

I suspected as much.

In fairness, I don't think he ever referenced his PhD as a way to lend weight to his opinions.

Did he?

Kev W

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean?

That I suspected as much.

orubiru

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Well I actually am a doctor, a real doctor not a medical one.

You don't say?

So how come it's all fine to call me out for saying you are not a doctor when we both know that I meant medical doctor but you are happy to play fast and loose with words like "fetus", "baby" and "killing" etc?

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

That I suspected as much.

And what are you suspecting?

Kev W

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

And what are you suspecting?

That your PhD wasn't in a relevant field. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from, frankly.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

Secondly, why only the fetus? What about the embryo? Does it have as many rights as the fetus of fewer? And why not the sperm and the egg? Since the fetus gains its rights based on the child it is going to become, why should the fetus have more rights than the sperm it came from?

You were slamdunked on these arguments earlier in the thread. Why are you repeating this nonsense. Comparing a baby in the womb at between 13 weeks to 24 weeks, to sperm? Wow.

Kev W wrote: »

There's no such thing as a baby in a womb. You're thinking of a fetus.

Kev W wrote: »

You're describing an emotive reaction, which has little to do with being "sensible".

Emotive reaction?? LOL.

So folks, when a woman is having an ultrasound, the nurse should say: "There's your fetus's arms, legs and would you like to know the sex of your fetus?"

orubiru wrote: »

The anti-choice (calling themselves "pro life" is laughable) side's main tactic here is to use emotive language such as "killing babies" or "murder" to deceive people who are naive and impressionable.

And the anti-life side is to use words like fetus and termination so they don't have to deal with the fact that a life such as the following one is being taken:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kewSyjJixr0

Kev W

NachoBusiness wrote: »

the anti-life side

Idiocy. You're anti-choice. Nobody is anti-life.

NachoBusiness

Kev W wrote: »

Nobody is anti-life.

I was mirroring the following:

orubiru wrote: »

The anti-choice side's main tactic here is to use emotive language such as "killing babies" or "murder" ...

..hence why I said it after quoting it. Do keep up.

And I am hardly "Anti choice" given that I would support legalizing first trimester abortions and all therapeutic abortions.

Kev W

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I was mirroring the following:



..hence why I said it after quoting it. Do keep up.

And I am hardly "Anti choice" given that I would support legalizing first trimester abortions and all therapeutic abortions.

I'm all caught up, believe me.

You're not "pro-life" because the life of the mother is meaningless to you except in her purpose as an incubator.

You're anti-choice because you don't want women to have the right to choose what happens to their bodies.

Just because you don't like how it sounds doesn't make it less of an appropriate descriptor for your position.

And throwing around ridiculous crap like "anti-life" just makes you look petulant. It's the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defence and it's pathetic.

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You were slamdunked on these arguments earlier in the thread.

You mistake your wishes for reality. You simply ignored the questions you had no answer to, and are now trying to claim that as "victory". Well, whatever.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Comparing a baby in the womb at between 13 weeks to 24 weeks, to sperm? Wow.

I'm not "comparing" it, I'm saying that you are drawing an arbitrary line and ignoring the fact that it is arbitrary, ie that someone else could validly draw that line elsewhere.

A 13 week fetus is not a a baby. We've already established that. It's a fetus. A 13 week baby is something rather different. With your penchant for youtube links, couldnt you even look up what a 13 week old baby looks like??

NachoBusiness

Kev W wrote: »

You're not "pro-life" because the life of the mother is meaningless to you except in her purpose as an incubator.

If it was "meaningless" to me, why would I support all therapeutic abortions. You're not making very much sense.

You're anti-choice because you don't want women to have the right to choose what happens to their bodies.

I have no problem with what any woman does with her body. It's the body that is growing in her womb which I feel women should not have the automatic right to kill and in Ireland, they don't.

Just because you don't like how it sounds doesn't make it less of an appropriate descriptor for your position.

It's not the sound I have an issue with. It's the inaccuracy of it.

And throwing around ridiculous crap like "anti-life" just makes you look petulant. It's the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defence and it's pathetic.

Precisely, now you're getting it. It was meant to sound petulant as it was said in response to the childish "anti choice" remark. An "I'm rubber, you're glue" reply was entirely apt. Tell me, if you're really all about choices, who gives the baby a choice? Why should it be legal beyond a life and death choice, to snuff their little life out? Aborting a baby like the one in the video I posted above is murder as far as I am concerned and any woman, man, mother or abortionist in the UK that is party to a baby at that stage of development getting aborted (for reasons other than than to proceed with the pregnancy would mean serious risk or death or injury to the mother) deserves to be keeping Sarah Catt company at her Majesty's pleasure.