Second coming of the Pope to coincide with General Election issue of 8th amendment?

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

I think some people say it's pro-life or anti-life.

And that is all.

Of course, maybe you're both wrong.

No, because nobody is anti-life.

volchitsa

Kev W wrote: »

No, because nobody is anti-life.

You have to laugh at Absolam's pretence at fence sitting, when he's so completely transparent - "some people say", indeed!

As for his chosen terms, not only is "anti-life" a clumsy attempt at denigrating the pro-choice point of view, the "pro-life" label is obviously a leftover from the days when opposition to contraception and abortion were seen as one and the same thing. They were "pro life" back then in the sense that they wanted to force people to have all the children that "God sent" them.

Now they claim to agree with contraception, MAP, the right to travel for abortion but also that women must be left infertile if necessary by complications due to FFA or other pregnancy complications. How is that "pro-life" when babies that could have been born, and lived, never will because of their belief that the dying fetus must take priority over the mother's health?

And they don't feel the need to involve themselves in preserving or the child's life once it's born. So again - how are they pro-life? They're pro-forced birth, nothing more.

Pherekydes

Kev W wrote: »

No, because nobody is anti-life.

Even the Nazis were anti-abortion for their beloved Aryan race. But also anti-choice.

seamus

Pherekydes wrote: »

Even the Nazis were anti-abortion for their beloved Aryan race. But also anti-choice.

Indeed, one can be pro-life, anti-abortion, but also pro-choice. That is, a person can be completely opposed to the use of abortion while at the same time recognising that they do not have the right to impose that opposition on others.

If you oppose abortion being available, then you are anti-choice. There is no other label that fits.

PopePalpatine

Kev W wrote: »

No, because nobody is anti-life.

I expect Absolam to lead this thread down another semantic rabbit hole over this post. :rolleyes:

Kev W

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I expect Absolam to lead this thread down another semantic rabbit hole over this post. :rolleyes:

"What about murderers, eh? What about them? What about Darkseid?* ANSWER ME THAT!"


*Comics reference, don't worry if you don't get it.

ucseae1

pauldla wrote: »

Ah shuren that proabortion crowed are hanimules, I'm tellin' ye.

Not sure how many 'pro-abortion' there are here, to be honest. I'd class myself as 'pro letting people decide for themselves without reference to the religious beliefs of complete strangers, unless that's their thing' kinda guy.

Any pro-aborts here? Come out now or be silent forever!

Reading back I see there was a pro-life atheist making some arguments. I would pretty much side with that poster.

You don't have to believe in a God to say that killing a child is wrong.

Kev W

ucseae1 wrote: »

Reading back I see there was a pro-life atheist making some arguments. I would pretty much side with that poster.

You don't have to believe in a God to say that killing a child is wrong.

A fetus is not a child.

lazygal

ucseae1 wrote: »

Reading back I see there was a pro-life atheist making some arguments. I would pretty much side with that poster.

You don't have to believe in a God to say that killing a child is wrong.

Would you side with that poster because you are one and the same? Similar arguments, the other poster has disappeared and you're both peddling the same US-based nonsense as each other.

pauldla

ucseae1 wrote: »

Reading back I see there was a pro-life atheist making some arguments. I would pretty much side with that poster.

You don't have to believe in a God to say that killing a child is wrong.

Well that's good, because I don't believe in God and I am very much in the 'anti' camp when it comes to infanticide, except on long flights.

May I qualify my earlier statement?

I'd class myself as 'pro letting people decide for themselves without reference to the beliefs, religious or otherwise, of complete strangers, unless that's their thing' kinda guy.

I think that's more to the mark.

ucseae1

lazygal wrote: »

Would you side with that poster because you are one and the same? Similar arguments, the other poster has disappeared and you're both peddling the same US-based nonsense as each other.

Same US based nonsense? Your are peddling the same US based nonsense in my opinion. Wedge your argument with the extreme cases to get on demand abortion.

lazygal

ucseae1 wrote: »

Same US based nonsense? Your are peddling the same US based nonsense in my opinion. Wedge your argument with the extreme cases to get on demand abortion.

Did I hit a sore spot? Are you Martin whatever his name is?

I support all medical treatment on demand, be it a c section for a woman who wants one or an abortion for a woman who wants it. Does that kind of trash talk make me proabortion, even though I've prolifely given birth to two children and may have more?

While I'm here maybe you, or Martin, could tell us why the unborn has constitutional protection, but not if taken abroad to be killed, and why the morning after pill and abortion in case of a risk to death is ok, if the unborn has a right to life from the moment of conception?

Kev W

ucseae1 wrote: »

Same US based nonsense? Your are peddling the same US based nonsense in my opinion. Wedge your argument with the extreme cases to get on demand abortion.

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defence.

Shrewd.

ucseae1

lazygal wrote: »

Did I hit a sore spot? Are you Martin whatever his name is?

I support all medical treatment on demand, be it a c section for a woman who wants one or an abortion for a woman who wants it. Does that kind of trash talk make me proabortion, even though I've prolifely given birth to two children and may have more?

While I'm here maybe you, or Martin, could tell us why the unborn has constitutional protection, but not if taken abroad to be killed, and why the morning after pill and abortion in case of a risk to death is ok, if the unborn has a right to life from the moment of conception?

Lazgal.. You know very well that Catholics and Pro-life people don't oppose necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

Nobody is calling for a Mother to die because she is pregnant. Nobody.

Our constitution does not call for a pregnant mother to die.. Does it?

lazygal

ucseae1 wrote: »

Lazgal.. You know very well that Catholics and Pro-life people don't oppose necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

Nobody is calling for a Mother to die because she is pregnant. Nobody.

Our constitution does not call for a pregnant mother to die.. Does it?

This post tells me you're martin whateverhescalled. Same.. same tone.

Why is it always the woman and not the baby who's the priority when a life threatening issue arises?

And any chance you can clarify why the morning pill and travelling to kill the unborn is ok? You've been asked this many times, under many guises, at this stage.

And don't make me laugh that treatment doesn't 'directly target' the foetus. Was Ms Y's baby not directly targeted when she was granted a termination of pregnancy because her life was at risk? Or did he experience nothing at all when the pregnancy was terminated? What about ectopic pregnancies, where an embryo is removed? Does that not directly target the unborn child which is supposed to have an equal right to life?

Why did you refer to Catholics and prolife people? Is that because despite claims of myriad prolife atheists you're not actually atheist, but catholic?

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

No, because nobody is anti-life.

That doesn't mean nobody says it though.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

You have to laugh at Absolam's pretence at fence sitting, when he's so completely transparent - "some people say", indeed!

I think I'll let my own posts on the subject stand for my own opinion... but nice to see you're still trying to tell people what they think

volchitsa wrote: »

As for his chosen terms, not only is "anti-life" a clumsy attempt at denigrating the pro-choice point of view, the "pro-life" label is obviously a leftover from the days when opposition to contraception and abortion were seen as one and the same thing. They were "pro life" back then in the sense that they wanted to force people to have all the children that "God sent" them.

Not my chosen terms, in fairness, simply an alternate perspective on Pherekydes terms.
I could have of course said "not only is "anti-choice" a clumsy attempt at denigrating the pro-life point of view, the "pro-choice" label was an obvious attempt to ape the opposite pro-choice indentifier which preceded it by over a decade, originally identifying members of the countercuture in the early 60s who were critical of aspects of mainstream culture that they considered cruel. Mistakenly identifed by opponents as a leftover from the days when opposition to contraception and abortion were seen as one and the same thing, they were in fact "pro life" back then in the sense that they wanted to oppose a strict penal code, hangings, punishment of homosexuals, and attitudes toward bastardy, later specifically adding opposition to abortion and the Vietnam war."
I just though that what I said was a little more concise. Since we're all obviously aware of the rest.

volchitsa wrote: »

Now they claim to agree with contraception, MAP, the right to travel for abortion but also that women must be left infertile if necessary by complications due to FFA or other pregnancy complications. How is that "pro-life" when babies that could have been born, and lived, never will because of their belief that the dying fetus must take priority over the mother's health?

I have a feeling that's a rather nebulous 'they' thrown in there, but I'd suggest, as a self-identified 'pro-choice' proponent, you may not be in a great position to speak on behalf of those who identify as 'pro-life'. You could ask the 'pro-life' posters on A&A if your characterisation accurately reflects their position, but I think you might prefer telling people what they think to asking them; it makes your rebuttal so much easier, doesn't it?

volchitsa wrote: »

And they don't feel the need to involve themselves in preserving or the child's life once it's born. So again - how are they pro-life? They're pro-forced birth, nothing more.

Again... have any 'pro-life' posters actually told you that they don't feel the need to involve themselves in preserving a child's life once it's born? Or are you literally making that up so you can say they don't conform to what you say their definition of 'pro-life' ought to be? I have a feeling it's the latter......

Absolam

seamus wrote: »

If you oppose abortion being available, then you are anti-choice. There is no other label that fits.

If you propose abortion being available, then you are anti-life. There is no other label that fits.
Anyone can throw out a nonsensical statement, just like both the above, but it doesn't make it true.
Pro-life is a label that certainly fits the position; one is in favour of preserving life in a specific instance, which in the modern discussion is readily identifiable as life in utero. No one hearing the term is likely to mistake it for an anti-war, or anti-death penalty stance which it once could have been; it's sufficiently common parlance to be readily identifiable.

It's odd that the pro-choicers seem to so regularly attack the label chosen by pro-lifers, yet I haven't seen much in the way of pro-life posters attacking the pro-choice label, despite the fact that the same silly arguments can be made about both labels. Even if both were abandoned, the rationales behind both remain.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I expect Absolam to lead this thread down another semantic rabbit hole over this post. :rolleyes:

Gosh no, we wouldn't want a semantic rebuttal to a semantic argument would we? Sorry, I should say you obviously don't like semantic rebuttals to semantic arguments you agree with. More to the point?

stinkle

Absolam wrote: »

If you propose abortion being available, then you are anti-life. There is no other label that fits.
Anyone can throw out a nonsensical statement, just like both the above, but it doesn't make it true.

Is it anti-life if the life of the mother is prioritised?

volchitsa

stinkle wrote: »

Is it anti-life if the life of the mother is prioritised?

If it's anti-life to want abortion to be available, it must be even more anti-life to allow couples use contraception. I wonder if Absolam belongs to the "go forth and multiply whether you bleedin' want to or not" school of catholicism sorry, atheism.


And was Savita Halappannavar "anti-life" when she asked for a termination, or did she, on the contrary, want to terminate a pregnancy that was already doomed so they could get a new pregnancy underway as soon as possible? In fact I'd call that pro-life. Wouldn't you?

Cabaal

I guess Helen Linehan (married to creator of Fr Ted) and her husband were anti life when they decided to have an abortion instead of carrying a fetus to term that will die as soon as it left the womb. They made this decision even though they wanted to have a child.
Luckily they had this choice as they were in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYpRBR93TdU

.

Absolam

stinkle wrote: »

Is it anti-life if the life of the mother is prioritised?

I don't think so. but if you read all of my post you'll realise I'm not proposing the notion that 'anti-life' is a useful description, I'm actually saying it's a nonsensical statement.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

If it's anti-life to want abortion to be available, it must be even more anti-life to allow couples use contraception. I wonder if Absolam belongs to the "go forth and multiply whether you bleedin' want to or not" school of catholicism sorry, atheism.
And was Savita Halappannavar "anti-life" when she asked for a termination, or did she, on the contrary, want to terminate a pregnancy that was already doomed so they could get a new pregnancy underway as soon as possible? In fact I'd call that pro-life. Wouldn't you?

Though of course, the facts are a hurdle easily leapt when one is hurtling to jump aboard the next bandwagon

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

I guess Helen Linehan (married to creator of Fr Ted) and her husband were anti life when they decided to have an abortion instead of carrying a fetus to term that will die as soon as it left the womb. They made this decision even though they wanted to have a child. Luckily they had this choice as they were in the UK.

Careful now. Too many jumping on board at the same time may cause the wheels to come off.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Careful now. Too many jumping on board at the same time may cause the wheels to come off.

Oh, sweetie.

You actually think that's a clever response.

"Careful, too many people seeing sense might cause some indefinable bad thing to happen! Don't question it, just get on my side, quick!"

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think so. but if you read all of my post you'll realise I'm not proposing the notion that 'anti-life' is a useful description, I'm actually saying it's a nonsensical statement.

You're assuming in your linked post that because you can change the words in a statement to something nonsensical, that means the original statement is nonsensical.

That's just not true.

"Anti-life" is indeed a nonsensical descriptor.

"Anti-choice" is not.

Cabaal

Jyst something I spotted earlier,

For somebody that says they care about life I find the signature comment of Absolam unusual to say the least

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition "
The basis of this line is from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise_the_Lord_and_Pass_the_Ammunition

Seems unusual for somebody that claims life is important...I guess some life is less important...once its out of the womb.

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

Oh, sweetie. You actually think that's a clever response. "Careful, too many people seeing sense might cause some indefinable bad thing to happen! Don't question it, just get on my side, quick!"

I didn't think we were that close. And yet I still don't feel the love.....

Shrap

Cabaal wrote: »

Jyst something I spotted earlier,

For somebody that says they care about life I find the signature comment of Absolam unusual to say the least

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition "
The basis of this line is from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise_the_Lord_and_Pass_the_Ammunition

Seems unusual for somebody that claims life is important...I guess some life is less important...once its out of the womb.

Also a line out of a Dixie Chicks song called Sin Wagon. They seem to regularly get in trouble with God-botherers and have a lead singer who both regrets her abortion and is firmly pro-choice, so I'm guessing it's not this song that Absolam's signature references....

Pity. It's a kick ass song

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

You're assuming in your linked post that because you can change the words in a statement to something nonsensical, that means the original statement is nonsensical.
That's just not true.
"Anti-life" is indeed a nonsensical descriptor.
"Anti-choice" is not.

No I didn't assume that at all; I pointed out that "If you propose abortion being available, then you are anti-life. There is no other label that fits." is as nonsensical as "If you oppose abortion being available, then you are anti-choice. There is no other label that fits."
And they are, there are plenty of other labels that fit. Trying to define the debate in terms of labels you feel others must use to describe themselves adds nothing to it.